Is Plausible Truthiness From Our Prime Minister Acceptable to Canadians?

I have been thinking about doing a blog post on this approach to political messaging used by the Harper Conservatives ever since I read it. Susan Riley has done it very well in this column.


Mr. Tom Flanagan, part of the Harper Team brain trust, is quoted as says that any edict, announcement or partisan attack does not have to truthful, merely plausible to be acceptable to align with the Harper governing philosophy. This has to be very disturbing to citizens of Canada. Is this a satisfactory value set for someone to be holding the highest office in the land? I sure don't think so.


We have seen so many examples of how this governing philosophy of the Harper government has played out in the 4 years he has been in power. Just search Harper in this blog for examples. Thank goodness Mr. Harper has never had the absolute power of a majority government.


Mr. Harper used this "truthiness" trick in his now infamous November Fiscal Update when he promised a surplus budget in this fiscal year. He also denied we were in recession. He knew both statements to be untruthful but "plausible." And that was enough of a "defensible position" for him to justify his intentional misleading of the Canadian public?


He had to come clean and he finally tells us we have the largest deficit in the history of the country, but his numbers are still being disputed by the government's own Budget Office. He still asserts that he is the best guy to manage the economy. He tells us 80% of the billions of stimulus dollars are into projects around the country. Maybe, but he offers no evidence and the plausibility of this assertion is under suspicion. Can we trust him to tell us the truth on this file? Mr. Harper makes assertions but he offers no proof. Without proof are we Canadians going to continue to accept his spin as plausible and therefore give it validity?


One of his own candidate is saying the stimulus money is being directed mostly to Conservative constituencies for political purposes. Mr. Harper has been silent on that issue. Perhaps the truth is so strong in support of that representation that anything else that may be said can't even reach the level of merely plausible. Is it just too far a stretch of credulity to say the stimulus finds are being fairly distributed that the issue just gets ignored by the Prime Minister?


Isn't that a sad state of affairs as we are trying as a nation to help those who lost and are still losing jobs, lost their businesses and are still loosing them, as we all commit enormous amounts of borrowed money that we need to get through this recession. The times call for statesmanship not partisanship Mr. Prime Minister.


Tomorrow morning Mr. Harper has to deliver his second Economic Report Card, a condition imposed on him in exchange for Liberal support of the Con budget (sic). Will he tell us the truth or will we merely has to settle for a plausible yarn? Is a plausible yarn acceptable in a time where we are struggling with the worst recession since the Great depression and a fiscal crisis that is the most serious we have faced in 80 years? I urge every Canadian who cares about the stability, sustainability and future of this country to watch and read Mr. Harper as he delivers his Economic Report Card. As yourself if he is telling the truth or merely spinning a plausible political yarn!


Canadians need the truth so we can plan and adapt to the new realities. What if all we get tomorrow is a plausible yarn to push a partisan political position of Prime Minister Harper? If that happens we citizens have to conclude and say that our Prime Minister has breathed our trust, breached our faith and that his conduct is unacceptable, inconsistent with, and unbecoming anyone who is worthy to be entrusted with the highest office in the country.


Time to come clean Mr. Harper. The verifiable evidence based truth is the only acceptable response from our Prime Minister. we all need to know what is really going on in the economic, social and environmental state of our nation. Only by changing and start telling us the truth, instead of pushing a plausible untruth, will Canadian citizens continue consider it plausible and appropriate for you to be re-elected to lead our nation.

Rick Mercer on Election "Fever"

What is the world coming to when only our satirists make sense anymore? Rick Mercer proves that point in this perceptive piece in the Globe and Mail today.

The EKOS poll of Sept 24 has some interesting results. I think the increase of the Cons support and the decrease of the NDP support revolves around the fact Canadians do not want an election now. The flat Liberal support in the face of the declaration that they will no longer prop up the Harper government means that they will now be acting like a true opposition. No longer will the Liberals be saying how insufficient and ineffective the government is and then voting for their policies to avoid an election.

The Cons level of commitment to their party is based on the sense that this next election is the last great hope for Harper to get a majority. If he fails to do that, the long knives will be out amongst the party elites and the base will stay home. The push to redistribute the House of Commons seats this fall will add seats in Alberta, BC and Ontario. Harper will pander to people there this election. It will not be as much as he pandered to Quebec last election but he has to bolster his base in BC and Alberta and grow in Ontario to get a majority.

The real and seriously under reported story of this poll is the level of uncommitted, and soft commitment levels. The hype on the Cons level of commitment is part of the total of 7% of all Canadians who are strongly committed to a party at this time. The Con supporters who are committed true believers are no more committed than Liberals, NDP or Greens, there are just slightly more of them in the 7% total for the country. That is no reason to leap to calling an election result.

The facts are that 27% are not committed, and 67% are moderately or loosely committed. That means 2/3 of Canadians are swing voters. This means the voter is volatile and in a vile mood. Call an early and unnecessary election at your peril Mr. Layton. Pander to regionalism and prefer stimulus funds to your pals in Conservative ridings at your peril Mr. Harper. Be passive aggressive and vaguely defined at your peril Mr. Ignatieff. As for Ms. May, just get into the House of Commons next election and you win.

Alberta Will Develop Land for Housing in Fort McMurray - Finally!

Government of Alberta announces release of Crown lands to establish two new residential communities in Fort McMurray. This has been such a long time coming. A large part of the reason Fort McMurray is the most expensive place to live in Alberta is the slow response to expanding and servicing additional land for housing.


We at Cambridge Strategies Inc. worked with all three orders of government and industry in 2004 in a very effective collaborative model that developed an update of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Business Case published in 2005. A very long time ago.


We had the municipality and the Federal government ready to sign off and invest money in their various areas of jurisdiction. Alberta made promises at the time but failed to deliver. One key Alberta Minister seemed determined to not facilitate this development for reasons that only seemed politically motivated from the "outside."


The Radke Report marked the change in the attitude of the Alberta government about getting the growth issues in the RMWB resolved. That former Minister is no longer an obstacle. This announcement of land development for housing is tangible evidence that the social and public services infrastructure deficits in Fort McMurray are finally getting the government attention it deserves.


With the Land Use Planning initiatives being undertaken in the Lower Athabasca Region that is contiguous with the boundaries of the RMB, we can expect more enlightened momentum to address the environmental and growth pressures the oilsands are creating.


I get pretty hard on the Stelmach government from time to time. This time I only have kudos for them on this announcement.

Who Can You Trust & Believe About Power Transmission Issues?

I did an interview today for CBC radio programWildrose on Bill 50 and electrical transmission and distribution issues. WHO can you believe, WHO can you trust and what are the facts?



There seems to be more heat than light in the discussions so far. Such a serious issue that the public interest has to trump the corporate posturing that seems to be emerging.



Here the interview on this link. It starts at 7:49 on the Friday September 25 program.

Alberta Lobbyist Act Goes Live Sept 28, 2009

I will be on Edmonton AM the CBC Radio 1 show on Monday at 7:15 am talking about the Proclamation of the Lobbyist Act, the Regulations and the Registry system going live on September 28, 2009.

I am setting up some workshops and sessions to explain the impact and implications of this legislation to business and others. It catches a lot of activity, exempts a bunch and requires some knowledge about what people have to do now to obey this law.

Consultant Lobbyists have 30 days to comply, Organizational Lobbyists have 60 days.

Send me an email if you want to know more. ken@cambridgestrategies.com