Lots of smoke, very little fire

After several years of negotiations Stephen Harper and Barack Obama finally announced the North American perimeter agreement.

The agreement is not an actual treaty.  Instead it is a non-binding set of sub-agreements covering many facets of the relationship between Canada and the United States.

The question is why would both governments take this approach?

From the Canadian perspective I believe the Harper government saw what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada after it rammed the FTA down the throats of Canadians and decided not to risk a repeat.  It is a simple fact that although the majority of Canadians do not actively dislike the United States they also do not actively like or trust it.  Making binding treaties with them that could have implications for Canadian sovereignty is fraught with risks as different groups, who do not like the US, use the general distrust of Canadians to fight that treaty and hammer the government that negotiated it. 

From an American perspective the political situation in Washington is toxic and any treaty the President would put forward would be rejected on spec by the Republicans.  The result would be the real possibility of the US Congress rejecting any treaty negotiated by the President and he would not want that to happen during an election year.  Negotiating a binding treaty at this point would just set him up for failure.

Will this agreement significantly change anything in the Canada/US relationship?  Probably not.

Without the force of law to compel the two governments to implement this agreement in full there is no incentive to do so.  The really significant changes in the agreement will require legislative action in both countries to be implemented and that is just not going to happen.  Even the minor changes that can be brought about by simple changes to existing regulations could be stymied by bureaucratic inertia and the lack of political will to push these changes forward.

Again in the United States, the poisoned and rancid political situation would stand in the way of any legislation to implement the major provisions of the agreement.  Even if the President were to make the attempt of introducing the necessary legislation he has shown on many occasions that he lacks the spine to fight for them.  Whenever he has experienced push-back from the Republicans he has caved, including for his signature initiatives.  I could only imagine his reaction to Republican objections to legislation about issues that he really does not care that much about.

In Canada our government has demonstrated many times that it will only use its precious political capital on legislation that it believes will make its base happy or on legislation it believes will buy it votes.  Nothing in this agreement will meet those two criteria so this government will not be pushing too hard to implement all of the provisions of it.

This agreement was more about show than substance.  It was good for a photo-op but in the end it will not change much.

Crossing a line

I have written several times in this space that I believe that it is silly for anybody to make a big deal about a cabinet minister using military aircraft to travel, even if that travel may be for personal reasons.  Ours is the only G8 country that expects members of the cabinet to travel commercial.

That being said I have to say that Peter MacKay had no business using the Cormerant helicopter to get out a fishing camp in Labrador. 

The military has a whole fleet of aircraft available whose sole purpose is to move people, in luxury and otherwise.  If he wants to use any one of these aircraft as his personal air taxi I have no problem with that.  That is what they are there for.

The Cormerants on the other hand are there for Search and Rescue.  The only people they move are SAR Techs and the victims of accidents.  They are not meant to be used as taxies.  Canada does not have many of these aircraft so we really cannot spare one for the personal transportation of a cabinet minister, even if it was not the "on-call" aircraft.

What would have happened if while this helicopter was off flying the minister around a major air or sea accident would have taken place requiring the services of all the SAR aircraft in the area?  Thankfully, we did not have to find out but the potential was there, particulary at this time of year in that part of the world. 

Mr. MacKay's utter lack of good judgement in this case is breathtaking so here is a piece of advice for him.  Stay off the yellow birds.

Economic Storm Clouds Brewing

It is only a matter of time before Greece defaults on its debts.  Italy is on the brink of its own debt crisis.  The United States has not recovered from the Great Recession of 2008 and appears to be heading for a second one.  The projected economic growth rate for China is expected to decrease by as much as 2.5 percentage points next year, which would still give it very positive economic growth but which could be the pin that finally pops the extremely inflated real estate bubble in that country.

Any one of these events on their own could dump the world economy into the crapper.  The fact that more than one of these events could happen within the next 6-12 months would be distasterous for the world economy, including Canada's.  Although, we should be really worried about China.  That is the country that is buying most of our natural resources, which is the sector of the economy that is keeping up Canada's economic growth.  If China runs into a serious bout of economic trouble the economic recession that has been hammering Canada's industrial sector will come to its resources sector and the whole of the Canadian economy will go into a deep and probably prolonged recession.

What are we to do?

Do not count on central banks.  Interest rates in the Western world are at or near zero so the central banks' ability to stimulate the economy by loweing interest rates is very limited. 

That would leave only governments to take up the slack with fiscal measures to stimulate the economy.  However, do not count on them.  Any measures they take will probably just make things worse. Governments are completely unable to stop or reduce the duration of recessions.  Unfortunately, most people do not realize that so they demand governments to act and when they do the situation invariably gets worse, which leads to demands for more action which leads increasingly desperate governments to take action, any action, that gives the appearance that they are dealing with the recession when in fact they are usually screwing things up more.   At any rate, we should be watching what governments do after the next recession.  They may not be able to stop or reduce the duration of a recession but they can make the recovery from one more even across their societies by what they do after the economy begins to bounce back. 


Do not count on businesses either.  They will demand that governments hand them billions of dollars to stay afloat "to save jobs" but they will retrench and lay people off by the 10s of thousands.  As well, as they did in 2008 they will stay on the sidelines waiting for someone else to make the investments that will be necessary to finally pull the economy out of any recession.

So really, you can only count on yourself. Scary thought is it not?

The "Occupy" Movement

With each passing year it is getting more difficult for ordinary citizens in the Western world to live well.  Everything is becoming more expensive, from food to education to shelter to transportation.  The middle class is shrinking and those who still remain there do so by means of credit.  Most ordinary citizens of the Western world know that they are just one economic shock, international, national or local, from economic ruin.  But for the most part it is just a slow erosion of the economic well being of ordinary citizens.

This trend has continued for decades and no government, of any political stripe, in any western country has been able to stop that erosion.  Indeed, this erosion has accelerated.

The result is more and more ordinary citizens have turned away from politics, as demonstrated by the continuing trend of increasingly lower voter turnout in most Western democracies.  This is disinheartening as part of the means of stopping this continued erosion is politics.

So, it is with some satisfaction that I see the creation of the "Occupy" movement.  Finally, ordinary citizens are beginning to make their voices heard.  Certainly many in this movement are activists but there are enough ordinary people who just want to see change to assert this movement is not just a slow motion G20 protest.  Maybe it is a sign that political apathy can be reversed.

So, will the "Occupy" movement change anything?

No.

The key reason is the movement is targeting the symptom of the problem and not the underlying condition. 

The 2008 recession was caused by the excesses of Wall Street and other corporate interests and that is a fact.  However, the reason why they were allowed to go to such excess was the US government's decision to relax financial rules and regulations governing the work of Wall Street and the big financial players in the country.  The result was a financial meltdown not seen since the 1930s that required the US government to bail out corporate America with a bailout package of more than $700,000,000,000.  Considering the damage that Wall Street did to the world economy it would have been logical that US law makers would have reinstated some of the tougher financial regulations to prevent a repeat.  Of course, that did not happen because Wall Street and other corporate interests took a portion of that $700 billion aid package and used it to lobby US lawmakers to keep things the way they were.  They were successful.  It is ironic really.  Corporate interests fucked things up so much that they almost destroyed the world financial system.  They demanded taxpayers funds to be used to pull their nuts out of the fire and then used that same taxpayers money to lobby the government to maintain the conditions that lead to them fucking things up to begin with.

That is the underlying problem.  The voice of ordinary citizens in now completely drowned out by the very well funded voice of corporations through their lobby groups.  They have proliferated to the point that ordinary citizens cannot put forward the consistant and sustained efforts necessary to convince policy makers to listen to their point of view.  It is now a simple fact in the western democracies that money buys access.  Corporations have the money and ordinary citizens do not.  Therefore, corporations have the access and ordinary citizens do not.

Until ordinary citizens realize this and demand change to this situation nothing will change for the better for them.  If the "Occupy" movement wants to begin that process they will have to change their focus.  Instead of occupying Wall Street, set up their camps on the Washington Mall and demand the government begins governing for the people again, as it states in the Constitution.  Of course, such protests would be broken up pretty quick for "security" reasons.

The "Occupy" movement is a reason for some cautious hope that ordinary citizens can eventually be shaken out of their apathy to redress the growing inbalance in addressing their interests over corporate interests but it still has a long way to go and you can be certain that the corporate interests will be using all available resources to maintain the current imbalance.

Low Voter Turnout

Voter turnout for the Thursday election in Ontario was the lowest it has ever been and it continues a trend that has been occuring for more than two decades.  This is not unique to Ontario as other provinces are experiencing the same trend, we are seeing it at the federal level and we are seeing it in other western countries where there are no laws making voting mandatory.

Seeing this trend I am reminded of the quote from Plato at the top of my blog.

Why is this trend occuring?

I think the main reason is that most of the populations of the western democracies believe politics is no longer relevent to their lives.  They see the political classes in their respective countries engaging in short-sighted partisanship where the short-term interests of the political players trumps the broader interests of the societies in which they exist and that dynamic remains the same regardless of which party is in power.

Such a situation in untenable.  It will eventually come back to haunt the societies that are experiencing it. 

So how do we fix the problem?

Making voting mandatory is one solution but it is just a band-aid.  It does not fix the underlying malaise that is the root cause of low voter turnout.  As well, some of the western governments that do not already have it are predisposed to reducing what they consider to be the unreasonable burden governments already place on their citizens.  Making voting mandatory would go against that predisposition.

The real solution is to make politics relevent again but that is easier said than done. 

However, it is necessary for democracy to survive.  I know many people believe democracy is the pinnacle of political development and that it will last forever but the same was believed of feudalism, mercantilism and communism.  History proved those beliefs to be false as they all collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions.  Democracy is not immune to this. 

If democracy is to survive those who cherish it will have to revive it by taking it out of the hands of the current political classes of the western world. Failure to do so will eventually cause democracy to suffer the fates of the political systems it replaced.  I am not smart enough to know how it will happen, wether it happens quickly or gradually, and I cannot say what will replace it but I do believe that it is inevitable unless we fight to save it. 

Then again it might already be too late.

Election Night Coverage and Other Thoughts

Who in the CTV and Global braintrust thought it would be a good idea to have former Ontario premiers and other hacks from the various political parties as analysts?  Their reactions to how things unfolded was totally predictable spin, quite useless in explaining what we were watching unfold Thursday night.  After watching that for 30 minutes I turned it off and only went back a few time during the evening to check the seat ticker.

Predictably the Liberal "analysts" stated it was a good night for the Liberals while the Ontario PC and NDP "analysts" stated it was a lousy night for the Liberals and a great night for their parties.  Indeed, listening to Ernie Eves, I was almost believing the Ontario PC Party was winning on Thursday night.

Cutting through all of the spin here is what we are left with.  The Liberals won the election.  They won a minority government but they only came up short of a majority by one seat.  That is it.  Everything else that was said on Thursday night was spin, speculation and conjecture.

How all of this plays out in the coming months and years remains to be seen. 

Things could go badly for the Liberals.  There is no denying that is a possibility but they are not the only party that has to worry about the future.

Pay attention to the Ontario PC Party.  Virtually all of their gains came from rural ridings, which is the base for Randy Hillier and his band of Tea Party wannabees.  It will be interesting to see what happens if they decide to flex their new found muscle within the Ontario PC Party and how Tim Hudak responds to that.  Any sign of internal dissent would not be good news for a party that may face a snap election at any time and if the more radical instincts of the Hillier wing of that party begins to seep into the Party's policies it could frighten alot of urban voters enough to hold their nose and vote for the party that is currently in the best position to keep them at bay, namely the Liberals. 

Polled

I just answered a poll from Ekos about a North American Customs agreement.

It will be interesting to see the estimates of this poll, provided they are published.

It's about time!

Word out of the United States is a bond rating agency has downgraded the United States credit rating one notch from its AAA rating.  This has created the predictable reaction from the US government and political class but for me my reaction is:  What took them so long?

Since before Reagan this is a government that has:

• Spent close to half-a-trillion dollars a year on defence despite the fact that there is no longer any threat to the US by any other country on the planet and the fact the US miliary has only won one war since end of the Second World War.  Criminy, they lost the war in Iraq, are going to lose the war in Afghanistan and have been hopelessly incapable of getting rid of a dried up and desicated regime in Libya.  Talk about a waste of money.
• Spent more on non-military spending that the rest of the G-20 combined.
• Lowered taxes on the very rich and on corporations, the two groups most capable of paying taxes without any undo hardship, reducing revenues just as they are increasing spending.
• Generally, living beyond its mean with that situation accelerating at a time when it is becoming increasingly evident that the government and the country are becoming less and less capable of meeting their obligation.

It was only a matter of time before some one screamed, ENOUGH!!

Now if the American political class was smart and forward thinking they would look at this event as a wake-up call and the adults within their ranks would begin pushing the radicals and wingnuts to the fringes, where they belong, and work together to begin resolving this problem.

Not that we should hold our breath on that score.

The President, who should be the one leading the charge on this, is a major disappointment and it is increasingly obvious that he lacks the vision and the spine to take up this necessary task.  Unfortunately, there is no one on the other side of the American political divide who can do it either.  The adults within the Republican Party are so afraid of a small minority of radicals and wingnuts within their ranks that they are paralyzed and powerless to suggest let alone do what needs to be done to fix this.

In short the American political class is so caught up in their petty, short-term political interests to do what is necessary to right the American ship.

More and more governments around the world are looking at the situation in the US and they will be taking steps to insulate themselves from any fallout of it on their countries.  As those processes proceed the relevancy of the US will decrease, probably at an increased rate as time goes on.

In a century or two historians are going to look upon the events of the past few months as the trigger for the beginning of the fall of the American Empire.

The United States is screwed

Regardless of how the budget ceiling crisis is resolved in the United States in the coming days it is obvious that the US political class is, in all likelyhood, permanently split beyond any reconciliation.


There was a time not too many years in the past where the two parties, and their activists, in the United States disagreed on the means of getting things done but they agreed on the ends, the objectives for the government and Amercian society.  That consensus began breaking down under Reagan and it accelerated under Clinton, creating a schism that has continued to grow until we see the chasm between the Democrats and the Republicans we now see.


The most recent crisis is only going to cause that gap to grow more and to cement itself into a permanent situation.  The result is more of these self-inflicted crises will occur that will cause the already gradual decline of the US in the world to accelerate until Americans find themselves overtaken by other states like China, India and Brazil.  In other words they will suffer the same fate as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.  The successor states will certainly take care not to offend the sensibilities of the US, at least until this diminished state drives the US into a new isolationism, but they will still be the ones making all of the important decisions in the world.


We are probably only a decade or so away from this situation.  Barring a radical change in how the American political class conducts itself the decline of the US is probably irreversible. 


The question for Canada is does it have a political class that recognizes this reality and is taking action to reduce our dependance on our deteriorating neigbbour to the South?  Of course not.  It is quite obvious that the current government and its supporters are completely oblivious to the long-term threat the current situation in Washington poses to Canada.  However, it is also quite obvious that the part of the Canadian political class opposed to the current government lacks the vision to see the threat as well.


So, I guess you can probably say that Canada is also screwed.

Fill out your Census Form

I received my a letter yesterday asking me to complete the Census and it gave me the opportunity to do it on-line.

I typed in the access code and then complete it.  It took me 7 minutes to complete for a family of two.

After I submitted it I was informed that I was chosen to complete the new National Household Survey and that I could complete it right then.  I did and it took me 40 minutes to complete the information for my wife and I.

The interface was good and easy to use and there were plenty of instruction.  The one time I did make a mistake the application popped an error message and let me go back to fix it.

I know alot of Liberals and progressives reacted very negatively to the government's decision to eliminate the long form census last summer so I would urge you to put your money where your keyboard is and complete the Census asap.  And if you are chosen for the National Household Survey complete it as well.

You do not owe anything to Canadians Mr. Ignatieff

Since nobody else will probably do it I am going to pay tribute to Mr. Ignatieff and provide him with some parting advice.

Mr. Ignatieff had the attributes that could have made him a fine PM.  There is no doubting his abilities and brilliance as one does not become the head of one of the most prestigious departments of one of the most prestigious universities in the world by being a dolt.  I believe his natural abilities combined with his life experience would have put him in good stead for dealing with the myriad issues that are facing Canada and that are being largely ignored by our out of touch political elite.

What I found most impressive about him was his choice of how he wanted to serve Canada and Canadians when he decided to return to Canada. 

Considering his background and where he was coming from Canadian universities like McGill, Queens, U of T, etc. would have been falling over themselves to offer him the presidencies of those institutions if he would have let it be known that he was available.  He could have shaped the young minds of Canadians for years or he could have gone into business or some other vocation that would have allowed him to influence Canadian society without having to expose himself to the bullshit of the rotted political culture in this country.

Instead of taking that route he decided to go into politics.  I cannot think of a more thankless job than being a politician.  The hours are long and you have to give up anything resembling a private life.  Every so often you have to overcome the ignorance and apathy of the electorate just to hang on to your job.  This is true even if you are just a back bencher.  If you actually manage to take the helm of a political party you then have to deal with the fact that a significant number of people will think you are an asshole, and that is just amongst members of your own party.  Your opponents from other political parties would use much stronger language to describe your perceived shortcomings.

Despite this Mr. Ignatieff decided to to serve Canadians by being an elected member of our Parliament and then the leader of a major political party.  And he was we resoundingly reputiated and rejected by those he wished to serve.

So Mr. Ignatieff, here is my advice.  You have resigned as leader of the Liberal Party and you do not seem to be someone who wants to go off into a quiet retirement so find yourself a new challenge where ever you can find it.  If that means that you have to leave the country again then sobeit.  Certainly, many will crow that they were right about you but who cares.  Canadians rejected you so you owe them nothing.  Go and live the rest of your life where ever is best for you.

While you are there think about us here back in Canada and lament the fact that your experience will act as a cautionary tale for any other capable men and women, from all points political spectrum, and will cause them to think twice before deciding to serve their people and country as elected official.  Thus leaving us to be governed by navel gazing professional politicians and hacks, with no vision, no scruples and no skills outside of being able to play politics.

Well, that's it for me

Believe it or not but I do not really like partisan politics.  Our politicians' obsessive focus on each other instead of on the issues that are really important to the lives and livelihoods of Canadians is infuriating.

However, I am addicted to partisan politics.  I have known that for sometime but I had a WTF moment last Tuesday that really got me thinking.  I won't bore you with the details but I will say I have spent the last week thinking and reflecting on it and I have decided to walk away from partisan politics.

The upshot for this blog is that I will be doing a lot less blogging than I did in the past, which was not much to begin with really.  As well, going back to the beginning of this blog I stated in my first post that I wanted to engage in intelligent debate about issues.  It certainly did not take long for that idea to be swamped by partisanship.  So, I am actually going to do what I intended to do with this blog.  I will talk about issues instead of the personalities and the organizations that so pollute our political culture.

The last week has also allowed me to put the current election into a non-partisan perspective and I have concluded that it will be what it will be.  I will do my bit to effect the outcome on Monday but after that it is out of my hands.  Otherwise, the final result will have very little impact on me or society at large with only political partisans from all parties being the most effected.

So long, I wish you all good fortune.

Go Habs! Go Canucks!

Stasis

I usually do not comment on polls.  They are all polling the same population but they always seem to come up with radically different estimates so I generally do not give them much thought or credibility.

For example, if you are following Nanos the Conservatives seem to have been on the verge of a majority government for weeks.  However, if you look at EKOS and Harris Decima the Conservatives are firmly planted in minority territory with the Liberals not as far behind as the Conservatives would like.

In short, the polls are giving us very conflicting information on where the parties stand in the eyes of Canadians, which to my mind make them largely useless.

However, something all of the polls seem to be indicating is there has not been much change in the opinions of Canadians for about a week.  The last time we saw any real movement was a week ago today, after the leaked AG draft report caused a tightening of the race.  Since then we have had the debates but the estimates have really not changed. 

Yes, yes, yes, some in the media have been touting an NDP surge but if you look at said surge most polls are showing the differences between the national horse race estimates today being within the MOE compared to where they were this time last week.  In other words, the difference is statistically insignificant, statistical noise.  This is true for all of the parties.

What about the regionals you might ask.  The same is true there as well.  The MOEs are much greater for these regional breakdowns so if you look at the estimates for each of them you will note any changes in the estimates for the regional breakdowns today are within the MOE compared to this time last week.  Certainly there appears to have been large fluctuations but that always happens with polls with large MOEs.  There is no way you can discern statistical noise from actual changes in public opinion.

It is as if the electorate is holding its breath.  So the question is why.

Has the electorate made up its mind and we are just playing out the string?

Or is conventional wisdom wrong, and Canadians are still not paying as much attention to the election as expected at this point in the campaign?

Who knows.  However, I do know that a significant portion of the electorate makes up their mind during the final weekend of any election campaign, with a significant portion of them waiting until they pick up the pencil behind the voting screen.  So, I am leaning towards the second choice.

This election is not over yet.

What are the trolls trying to accomplish?

As can be expected with the election the blogsphere has been humming.  More people have been posting their ideas in their blogs and more people have been commenting on them.

One thing I have noticed with these comments is the number of Conservative trolls who have invaded Liblogs.  Sometimes their comments make sense and are even insightful but most of the time it is just drivel I can only conclude is designed to agitate and often their comments are out and out lies.

What are these people trying to accomplish?  Do they believe that their comments will be seen by anybody else besides partisans from other political parties?  Do they seriously believe that they can sway those partisans to change their support for their parties?

I visit the blogs of supporters from other parties to see what they are saying but I rarely feel the need to comment on them because I know that none of my comments will sway that person's opinion.  I really do have better things to do with my time.

So why do Conservative supporters insist on commenting on Liberal blogs?  Are you really getting paid for it?  If so, what a colossal waste of money that is.  Do you really have that much time on your hands?  If so, get a job, unless commenting on Liberal blogs is your job, in which case carry on I guess.

But if you are not getting paid to do it might I suggest that you could be something much more useful with your time.

Rise Up Video

I have been watching the reaction to the Rise Up video.

As expected that reaction depends on your political bent.  Conservatives pan it and Liberals love it.  As for the media pundits I really could not say.  I concluded they were idiots a long time ago and stopped reading or listening to them. 

What everybody seems to forget is that you cannot always predict what Canadians will care about.  As well, you cannot always predict how they will react at any given point to any given situation or statement.

Will this video and the sentiment it hightlights resonate with Canadians?  Who knows.  The Conservatives hope not, the Liberals hope so and the media pundits will try to tell Canadians what they should think but it will be ordinary Canadians who will have the final say.

Use Humour in advertizing

Today is was revealed that the $30 billion dollar cost for the new F-35 jets may not include the engines for them.  I hope that the folks doing the ads for the Liberals are on top of this and that they use humour because really this whole situation is side splittingly funny.

Here is an idea.

Take the photo Stephen Harper is his silly leather Calgary Stampede getup.  Animate it like South Park.  You know those characters where the top of the heads bounce up and down while speaking.

Give this animated Stephen Harper the classic used car salesman voice and then have it "sell" the F-35 to Canadians using all of the information that has come out showing that these are the wrong planes for Canada. 

At the end of the sales job have the animated Stephen Harper make the statement:  "And you can have all of this for the low, low price of $30 billion, (pause) engines not included."

This whole F-35 situation is absurd and one of the best ways to show absurdity is to use humour to mock it.  The Liberals should use that to their advantage.

Oh yes, the Liberals need to make certain that they run it as much as possible in the last few days of the election as well as on Youtube.

Week Three in the books: Now the real election begins

The debate week of the election is now over and the real election campaign is underway.  How do we assess the week gone by?

For the Liberals they had both positives and negatives.   The debates did not help them as much as they would have liked but at the same time they did not hurt them either.  They can take some solace from the fact that 10 million Canadians tuned into watch the debates and that was probably their first look at Mr. Ignatieff without the media or Conservative filter.  Although he did not blow the doors off I would imagine that he did make a reasonably positive impression, one that he can build on for the next two weeks.

The Liberals are showing signs that they are focusing their message with the new healthcare ads.  That is a good start.  Now I would like to see four other ads before the end of the election.  One to tie all of the undemocratic actions of the Conservatives together, including the attempted disenfranchizement of those students in Guelph.  The other three each focusing on jets, jails and corporate tax cuts and contrasting them with the Liberal family plan.  One ad for each of those Conservative priorities.  Then blanket the airwaves with them from now until E-day.

Mr. Ignatieff is still packing them in at rallies and the enthusiasm of Liberals has not waned since the beginning of the election.  That bodes well for the GOTV efforts on May 2 and it could mean those 800,000 or so Liberals who stayed home in 2008 will come out this time.  If they do that will have a profound effect on alot of ridings in this country.

Finally, if you believe the public polls the Liberals have cut the initial Conservative advantage, at the beginning of this campaign, in half.  Not bad when you consider that voters were not really paying attention during the first weeks.  Now that they probably are the Liberals have a great opportunity to keep moving up if they can continue to run a good campaign.

The Conservatives began their week with a controversy and ended it with two more.  In between the debates did not help them or hurt them.  It seems they just cannot run their campaign without stepping in it.  Their position has been on a steady and slow decline even though voters were not paying attention.  If they continue to suffer from more controversies in the next two weeks their fortunes would probably continue to wane, possibly beyond the point of no return.

Of the two controversies today watch the effects of the Guergis controversery.  Her experience could reinforce the notion amongst professional women in this country as to why they do not like nor trust Stephen Harper.  They contributed to costing him majorities on two other occasions and they could do the same thing this time, or worse. 

The NDP had a good week.  The polls tell me so, if you can believe the public polls.  However, one good week out of three is not nearly good enough and it is doubtful that they can sustain it over the next two weeks.  It would not surprise me one bit to see them fade in the coming days and weeks.

The Bloc also had a good week.  However, they are still not doing nearly as well as they did in 2008.  It is an open question as to whether they will be able to sustain their post-debate bounce for the next two weeks.

For the Green Party the debates gave them another opportunity to get noticed by complaining that they were not in the debates.  However, while that might get them some sympathy I doubt that it will get them any votes.

At the third week mark of the campaign it is still a toss-up as to who will win it.  Certainly, the Conservatives have the advantage in the public polls but their campaign is still being beset by scandal and controversy while the campaign of their chief opponent is being run smoothly.  The campaign is still the Conservatives' to lose but they are alot closer to doing so now at the beginning of the real election campaign than they were three weeks ago.

No knockout

As much as we would all like to see Mr. Ignatieff reducing Mr. Harper to a pile of goo during these debates it is not going to happen.  Neither will it happen in reverse.  There will be no knockout blow during either debate.  There are two reasons.  One, each of the participants will be too well briefed and prepared.  Two, the debate format is not conducive to knockout blows.


So, with this in mind the mindset of Mr. Ignatieff going is should be to focus on what he can control, namely delivering his message with passion and resolve.  Being a former TV journalist he should have no problems in front of the cameras.  If he just falls back on that experience he should be fine.

Week Two in the Books: Liberals with momentum and Conservatives in trouble

So week number two is pretty well over and if we are to assess the results from it we can say that the Liberals seem to have a little bit of momentum heading into debate week and the Conservatives have some real troubles in the present and probable future.

The sense of momentum for the Liberals can be felt in the polls with most of them seeming to indicate that the Liberals and Mr. Ignatieff have made up alot of ground on the Conservatives in week two.  As well, they seem to be taking support from the NDP, which is a necessary step in gaining power.  Reducing vote splitting and convincing soft Conservative supporters to switch sides has always been the key to victory for the Liberals.

However, the real momentum can be seen in the campaign itself.  Mr. Ignatieff is playing to packed houses.  As I stated in a previous post in most cases these people are Liberal partisans.  So, if Mr. Ignatieff can attract 1200 Liberal partisans in Hamilton that probably means that the candidates in Hamilton and surrounding areas are attracting alot of volunteers.  That bodes well for the GOTV effort on election day.  As well, all reports seem to indicate that fundraising is going very well which would seem to indicate that Liberals are engaged in this election.  Remember folks that the Conservatives lost votes during the 2008 election but still won because almost 1 million Liberals decided to sit out that election.  If they decide to come back things will be very good for the Liberals.

The Conservatives are having real difficulties.  Week two of their campaign was just a brutal, if not more so, than week one.  They stomped on their own message with three days of reports of their tactics for keeping undesirable young people out of their rallies, the illegal use of the RCMP in doing so and the ongoing Carson saga.  It is starting to rattle Stephen Harper.  That is the only reason why he would release the Conservative platform in the setting he did today.  The bubble boy campaign claims are beginning to hit home and he desperately wants to appear to be reversing it without actually doing so of course.  Then there is the content of the platform.  Only a party that is feeling the heat would stomp on their own budget 17 days after tabling it in the House.

The Carson Affair is the real danger for the Conservatives.  I know that Conservative supporters and their apologists in the media have been trying to downplay the whole thing and they have had some success so far.  However, this affair just does not seem to end and with every new revelation more Canadians are wondering just what is going on there.    

Further the elements of the affair can be very easily stitched together into a nasty narrative for the Conservatives.

"Stephen Harper appointed, as one of his senior advisors, a man who was convicted of a felony five times and who seems to have had links with a money launderer, a man who is now under RCMP investigation for allegations that he illegally lobbied the government for government contracts that could have kicked back 10s of millions of dollars to him and his fiancee, who happens to be a former high prices prostitute."

Do you think such a narrative could be nicely explained in a 30 second spot?  One that is run, alot, from the end of the debates to the end of the election.  As the Adscam ads the Conservatives used during the 2006 election demonstrate, they do not need to be totally true.  They just need to tell a plausible story. 

Mr. Carson could very well bring down the Conservative Party on May 2.

The Liberals are exactly where they want to be going into debate week.  They have the momentum and they are facing a chief opponent that is showing signs that they may not be able to turn things around before election day.

The genius of Stephen Harper

I now believe I know Stephen Harper's plan for winning this election.  It is to run a campaign filled with so many gaffes, mistakes and errors that the war rooms of the other parties will not be able to keep up.


Afterall, just in the last two days the Conservative campaign has had revelations that it is using Facebook to screen out undesirables from their rallies.  This is still ungoing as more people who have been victimized by this are coming forward.  Then there is the ungoing Bruce Carson saga and the questions of if Stephen Harper knew he was a five time convicted felon when Mr. Harper tagged him as a senior advisor.  These two events are on top of the other stuff we saw during week one.


This is very clever of the Conservatives.  In fact it is genius.  Keep your opponents off balance by running a lousy campaign.  It is so crazy it might just work.  As well, it gives the Conservatives the added benefit of hiding the fact that they do not have anything they can campaign on, at least not for this campaign.  The 2015 campaign, they have it covered, but this campaign the cupboard is bare. 

Genius I tell you. 

Note:  In case anybody does not realize it my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek for this post.  So, on a more serious note has anybody noticed that the media are no longer talking about "coalitions" and they are no longer using the phrase "Conservative majority government"?  The two key messages of the Conservatives have beem stomped on by their own ineptitude.  Can the Conservative advantage in the polls be maintained if this continues?

Plunging

The title of this post is not referring to a poll.  It is referring to the moral of the members of the Privy Council Office (PCO) after they found out that Stephen Harper threw their whole department under a bus in yet another attempt to distance himself from the smell wafting up from the Carson Affair.  You could only imagine their chagrin at being accused of not doing their job and being unable to respond to defend themselves.

I have disagreed with many conservative politicians over the years but I never had a personal dislike for any of them.  The same cannot be said of Stephen Harper.  I think the man is despicable.  The PCO's function is to serve the Prime Minister.  They are his very own department.  These people bust their butt each day to serve him, which in many cases means watching his political back.  You would think that he would appreciate that enough to do the same, after all that is what leaders do.

Canada is blessed with one of the most professional public services on the planet so Mr. Harper can rest assured that the PCO will not respond to his outrageous claims of their incompetence.  Indeed, Mr. Harper probably took that fact into account when he came up with his latest defence. 

However, there would be some justice if some damaging leaks began appearing in the media about some of the more controversial decisions this government has made over the last five years, which I will bet a large amount of money will not happen.

Politicians do not call elections unless they think they can win

An obvious statement I know but one that needs to made because of all of the BS we saw leading up to this election.


Many in the chattering classes were on Mr. Ignatieff because of his desire to have an election.  They pointed to the public polls and stating he had no chance so why force one now?


The obvious answer is he believes he can win and he is proving that by his performance this past week.  He knows that the Conservatives are vulnerable in a number of fronts and that their expressed desire to not have an election was genuine.  In politics it is generally a good idea to force your opponent to do something they do not want to do.


As the last week has demonstrated all of the reports in the media on how Mr. Harper wanted this election and how he maneuvered the opposition into bringing him down to force one was unadulterated bunk.  Mr. Harper is not performing like someone who wanted to be campaigning.  Quite the opposite is true.  Many have noted that he does not seem to be campaigning to win.  That is not true, of course he is campaigning to win.  The problem is he did not want this election and he was not ready for it.

Of course, these men did not come to their decisions at random, they did seek out data and one source of that data in internal polling.  Political parties poll to assist in their decision making and as a result they ask many questions the media do not think of or just refuse to ask.  The "desire for change" question happens to be one that we used to see all of the time but has now disappeared from the media polls.

Armed with this data, the knowledge of the progress of their election planning processes and some political instinct the two party leaders determined whether they could win an election.  Mr. Ignatieff believed he could and Mr. Harper could very well believe the same thing.  We saw the result in Week one.

Are they correct in their beliefs.  That question will be answered on May 2.

This election will be decided on the ground

I went to my local Liberal candidate's campaign office this morning to give her a big fat monetary political contribution.  I no longer have the time in my busy life to actually volunteer so I now just give them money.  I will be doing the same for the national campaign.

I arrived at the office just before the candidate was heading out to do some canvassing.  She had a good team to accompany her, she also had other teams that were going canvassing without her and the telephone canvassing stations were all occupied.  Since I was there, and not being a stranger to campaign offices, I took a quick look around and noticed that she already has over two dozen volunteers for e-day.  Just a week in and already that many have decided to take part in the GOTV effort on May 2.  Impressive.

This is just one local campaign but we may be seeing signs of it being more widespread by the size of the crowds coming out to see Mr. Ignatieff at his campaign stops.  Make no mistake, these people are not ordinary Canadians.  They are Liberal partisans, probably working for a local campaign in the area.  So, if Mr. Ignatieff can draw almost a 1000 people in say, Winnipeg, that probably means that the local campaigns in that city and the surrounding area are seeing a good turnout of volunteers.

The national campaign is important but as 2008 demonstrates without a good ground game to pull the vote you will not see success.

The first week of the national campaign was encouraging.  Seeing the crowds that Mr. Ignatieff has been speaking to and the buzz I saw today at my local candidate's office is also encouraging that the ground game for the Liberals will be much better than the last two elections.

Week One in the Books: Something for Everybody

The election is one week old and it has been an interesting week.  If you are sitting at home assessing how things went it can probably be concluded that every one of the campaigns can take away some positives from the week.

The Liberals can take the most positives.  Michael Ignatieff is proving, so far, to be a good campaigner.  He has been focused and that is rubbing off on the campaign.  The ads they have released are good.  He is doing a good job of comparing the Liberal and Conservative positions and priorites.  The chattering classes are beginning to see that the caricature that the Conservative Party created of him does not match reality.  The only real hiccup was the gentleman from Vaughn (sorry I am lousy with names) deciding to back the Conservatives.  Other than that it has all been good news and if they can keep it up the Liberals could win, maybe even win big.

The Conservatives have had a terrible first week.  Stephen Harper did not want to have this election and it shows.  From his first news conference at Rideau Hall to the present he has not looked comfortable campaigning.  His head is not in the game as demonstrated by the coalition gambit and the debate challenge.  By most accounts it was his idea to pursue the coalition angle and how he believed that his own words about the issue, from 2004 and 1997, would not enter into the conversation is astounding.  Then there is the debate challenge.  Making the challenge undid everything the Conservatives have been trying to do since Michael Ignatieff became leader of the Liberal Party.  It made him an equal.  Backing out of the debate just 24 hours after issuing the challenge makes him look weak.  This and other gaffes have made Mr. Harper go further into the bubble that he started the campaign in, freezing out the media, much to their chagrin, which could have some negative impacts on the campaign in the medium to long-term.  His campaign has been Seinfeldian in nature.  He only made two real promises this week.  One that will not take effect until Jim Kirk starts his 5 year mission and the one today, which everybody could see coming, and which he announced on a Friday afternoon.  Again, people are noticing, including the media, and some serious questions regarding the Conservative campaign are being posed.

All that being said, the Conservatives can take some solace from two polls today.  Despite all of their troubles they have not seemed to have suffered for it, yet. 

However, Conservatives had better take those estimates with a grain of salt.  Conservatives just need to look to Prime Minister Martin's campaign of 2006 to see what happens to party leaders who focus mainly on fear during an election campaign and who leads a campaign beset with problems like the Conservative campaign has been of late.  If it continues it will catch up to them.

Some state that the Conservatives could turn things around and that is certainly true.  However, the kind of campaign the Conservatives are having can feed on themselves and no matter what the party or leader does they just cannot right the ship.

The NDP is having its typical election campaign.  It is trying to be heard and trying to appear relevant.  So far, its policy proposals have been underwhelming.  It too can take solace from the latest EKOS poll as they were the only party that saw their estimates move outside of the MOE.  The other parties were all pretty static.

The Bloc is the Bloc.  Gilles Duceppe is a seasoned campaigner and he has the advantage of only having to campaign in Quebec.  So far, his party seems to be holding its own.  If Quebecers collectively decide, again, to be disengaged from the governance of Canada they should do well.  If that begins to change, watch their fortunes change for the worst, quickly.

The decision of the media consortium to not include the Greens is a gift for them.  It allowed them to be heard at least for a short time this week.  Any other decision and the Greens would not have received any attention at all.

Four questions per day?

Word out of the Conservative campaign is Stephen Harper is now only going to answer four questions per day.  At any other time I would find such a report as lacking credibility.  However, Stephen Harper has a history of running away form situations when he finds it getting too hot, from not answering journalists' questions to proroguing Parliament.

In one of my previous posts I asked how the media would play this election.  I stated that they would side with the campaign they believed had the greatest chance of winning.  As I said, the corporate bosses of the MSM will want to be on the good side of the victor.

I am certain that the journalists on the Conservative Leader's campaign tour are not too enamoured with these new restrictions on them.  I am also certain that some of them will see this a blood on the water.  However, I believe they will bide their time for another few days.  If the Conservative campaign continues to stumble and if polls begin to show the Liberals closing the gap then we may see the media turn against the Conservatives, possibly with gusto.

This really turning into an interesting election.

First Impressions

Some initial impressions of the party leaders after three days of the election.

Michael Ignatieff is looking like Jean Chretien in the sense that he seems to be enjoying himself.  I am not saying he has the political smarts of Mr. Chretien or anything but one thing I noticed about Mr. Chretien during his three campaigns is he always seemed to be having fun regardless of the daily vagaries of them.  The same seems to be true of Mr. Ignatieff.  He looks like he is having fun.

Stephen Harper does not look like he is having fun.  He has always been a gloomy individual having to work really hard to appear cheerful and friendly.  So far he has not been totally successful in that goal and on top of that he is channelling Paul Martin.  The Liberals have a "hidden agenda"?  Canadians have been there and done that.

Jack Layton has surprised me so far.  For the first time in longer than I can remember he has actually made the Conservatives a target of his campaign as opposed to the Liberals.  It seemed during the 2008 campaign Mr. Layton talked more about the Liberals than the Conservatives.  The past three days have been much different.  I am certain as things go forward he will change his focus but it is refreshing to see the NDP focus on the governing party for a change.

Gilles Duceppe also surprised me with his focus on Stephen Harper.  Mind you the Bloc has a better chance of taking away the few Conservative seats in Quebec than the Liberal seats.  As well, since the Conservatives tend to target the same voters as the Bloc they are a bigger threat to the Bloc than the Liberals right now. 

Lizzy May has been invisible which is not surprising considering the environment is not front and centre in this campaign.  She will not be included in the debates this time and there will not be a backlash to that fact either.

How will this election play in the media?

The Main Stream Media (MSM) in this country is not objective or balanced. That is a journalism school fallacy. This is particularly true of political reporters.

In a few cases it is because of ideology, with the Sun and the National Post being the best examples. In most cases though the media chooses the side they believe will win.

The reason is simple, money. Ownership of our MSM is pretty much concentrated in three large corporations. Those corporations want access to government (taxpayer) funds and the best way to do that is not to piss off the party that is governing or looks like it is about to become the governing party.

We saw this throughout the Liberal years. With the exception of the Sun and the National Post the MSM largely ignored or downplayed some of the more outrageous actions of the Chretien government, focusing on the positive instead. At the same time they nitpicked the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance relentlessly. This reached its peak during the 2000 election when they hounded Stockwell Day for even the most minor gaffe. Certainly he provided them with alot of content but I have always believed that the media was extremely unfair to him and the Canadian Alliance in 2000.

We saw this again in 2004 but when Stephen Harper reduced the Liberals to a minority things began to change in the MSM. They were still hard on the Conservatives but they were not as easy on the Liberals as they had been just a few years before.

Since 2006, we have seen the same thing with only the players changing. The Conservatives have enjoyed a rather easy time of it compared to the Liberals.

So which way will the media jump in this election?

That will all depend on how the election goes. I think the corporate bosses in the media will hedge their bets this time because this election is a crap shoot for both the Liberals and the Conservatives. They will want to be able to point to whoever wins that they treated them fairly during the election so they deserve a place at the public trough.

The Liberals will not enjoy an easy time of it as demonstrated by the hounding about the coalition the day before the writ was dropped but neither are they going to be nitpicked about every little thing happening in the Liberal campaign. (Remember the MSM reaction to the trouble with the campaign plane the last time?) However, the Conservatives will not receive the easy treatment they received during the 2008 election either, as demonstrated by the fact the media actually asked Mr. Harper about his coalition letter of 2004.

Both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff are going to have to work hard to impress the MSM this time and it will be interesting to see how each one of them handles that reality.

"We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois."

That is the key point in the Liberal Party media release from this morning.

I would guess that most people opposed to a coalition, who are not Conservative partisans, are opposed to it because of the idea that the a seperatist party might gain some power in our Federal Government.

Remove that worry and the idea of a coalition is no longer so objectionable, except of course to Conservative partisans.

Now all the Liberals have to do is take the above statement and place it beside the letter Mr. Harper wrote to the GG in 2004 and the statements made by Mr. Duceppe today regarding the process that lead to that letter.

Not only would the Liberals neutralize the coalition issue as a threat in this election they would turn it back on Stephen Harper, making him look like the hypocrit that he is on this whole issue.

On a related note, did Stephen Harper and the Conservatives really believe that their machinations of 2004 would not be brought back into the light when they began trying to scare Canadians about the "evil coalition" again?

Stephen Harper is not a political genius

It is with great amusement that I read many media commentators claiming that Stephen Harper is poised to win a majority government because he is a seasoned campaigner while Mr. Ignatieff is a rookie.

How they have such short memories.

In the last two elections the Conservatives were given remarkable electoral gifts. The first was Adscam the second was a political opponent who did not have his whole party behind him and wound up having to deal with the perception that he was proposing a new tax just as a recession was starting.

In both of these cases Stephen Harper had majority governments virtually handed to him but he still managed to blow it.

I could just imagine what Jean Chretien would have done with either of these electoral gifts. Actually I do not need to imagine. Just look at what he did in 2000.

So why would anybody believe it will be different this time?

One of the other advantages that the Conservatives had the last couple of times was they did not have to defend their record over much. Things were not all great on that front in 2008 but they could deflect any flak by pointing to the Green Shift. This time around their government fell because they were found in Contempt of Parliament and they are facing all sorts of little scandals, which on their own would not be that bad, but when taken together could be trouble.

Now Mr. Ignatieff just sucked the air out of the one issue that they could have used to deflect attention away from those scandals.

In short, this election might not be as easy for Mr. Harper and the Conservatives as the last two.

The last two times the Liberals gave the Conservatives great electoral gifts and they failed to take advantage. There are only so many times that the Liberals will do the Conservatives this favour. Will they do it again this time? That remains to be seen but if they do not I wonder how Mr. Harper the political genius will react.

The secret to a good nights sleep

Do not live and die by the polls.

Watch and listen to the leaders of the parties instead. They will tell you how this thing is going much better than Nanos, EKOS, Ipsos, etc. ever will.

Oh yes, I am going to go out on a limb right now and make a prediction on how this election will end.

It will end when all of the polling booths across the country close during the evening of May 2 and the ballots are counted.

More like 2004

Warren Kinsella seems to believe that the upcoming election will be like the 1984 election. I think he has missed it by 20 years.

The beginning of this election is more like the election of 2004.

For that election the sitting government began the it under a cloud of scandal but the scandal, that eventually became Adscam, was still not fully explored, since Justice Gomery had barely begun his work. So there was a suspicion that things were not quite right with the ethical conduct of the government but it had not yet hit that critical mass that caused the sitting government to suffer for it at the polls. Although it did suffer for it at the only poll that really mattered. (More on that in a minute)

The sitting PM had a huge lead over his chief opponent in every leadership score there was. Actually the lead was embarrassingly large. So much so the media had pretty much written off his chief opponent and expected the government to be returned with a majority despite the scandals.

Hell, there was even a poll published by a government friendly newspaper just days before the writ was dropped and the banner front page headline in that paper was "Liberals heading for majority: poll". The story then went on to explain that the governing party was in majority terrritory with almost a 20 point lead.

The economy was booming and the governing party wanted to focus on that while downplaying the brewing scandal.

The governing party spent a great deal of time and money demonizing their chief opponent.

Sound familiar?

Of course, we all know how that election turned out. The governing party was reduced to a minority government and its main opponent set itself up for a victory just 18 months later.

This does not seem to bode well for the Liberals this time because if the same thing happens this time as it did in 2004 they lose.

However, there are some big differences that need to be explored.

First and foremost, the governing party had a majority government heading into the 2004 election. It could afford to lose a bunch of seats and still retain power. The margin for error for the current government is much smaller.

Second, Paul Martin was actually liked by most Canadians. They knew he was partly responsible for the good times that we were enjoying at that time. As well, he was on the right side of many issues that mattered to Canadians such as health care and child care. The current government leader is not liked and the governments priorities seem to be out of step with the electorate.

Third, the government of PMPM and of PMJC before him enjoyed majority support and double digit leads over their cheif opponent, in poll after poll, from every polling company, for years prior to that election. That remained true right up to when the writ was dropped. With the exception of the past 6 weeks the current government has been mired in minority government territory and has bounced back and forth between small leads to statistical ties with their chief opponents for the past 24 months. And if you go back to the time between the 2004 election and the 2006 election you see a similar pattern.

The parallels between this coming election and the one that we enjoyed in 2004 are quite striking. However, there are several key differences that will have an impact on how things unfold going forward so I am certain that his election will eventually turn out like the 2011 election instead of the 2004 or 1984 elections.

It's a coalition, run for you lives!!

If the Liberals want to put this issue to bed they need to take a page out of Stephen Harper's book.

At the beginning of the 2005/2006 campaign Stephen Harper neutralized the SSM issue by stating what he would do about it during his very first campaign stop. Everybody thought he was nuts but it allowed him to put the issue behind him early and focus on getting the Conservative message out there.

Michael Ignatieff should do the same thing. On his very first campaign stop, when the inevitable questions about a coalition comes up he should anwser them in three parts.

Part one, make the following statement:

"The Liberal Party is running to win this election. When we win the election and if Canadians entrust us with only enough seats to form a minority government the Liberal team and I will work with any Member of Parliament who wants to work with us towards building a better Canada for all Canadians."

Part two, when the inevitable follow-up questions about what happens if the Liberals lose but the Conservatives only win a minority government are asked make the following statement.

"We expect to win but if the Conservative Party wins the most seats in a minority Parliament they will have the first opportunity to form a government. That is just how our system works. It will then be the responsibility of Stephen Harper to to work with the other Parties in the House to gain the confidence of the new Parliament and to continue governing.

Part three, if follow-up questions about what the Liberals would do if the Conservatives failed to gain the confidence of the House are asked Mr. Ignatieff should ask, with a wry smile:

"You really do not believe that Stephen Harper would not do whatever it takes to hang on to power do you?"

Stick to this message and repeat it everytime these questions are asked. It would not be too long before they stop asking these questions.

Handicapping the election

With an election campaign seeming to be inevitable maybe its time to take a look at the main combattants in it.

Conservatives: The Conservatives are entering this campaign mired in scandal. True it is not a big, headline grabbing scandal like Adscam but it is a bunch of smaller ones that inconveniently for them fit nicely into a rather negative narrative about their government and its ethical compass. Scandals kill governments and distract parties during elections campaigns so I am certain that there is a fair amount of unease going into this campaign with these scandals still developing.

As well, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of several key issues. Corporate tax cuts, F-35s and prisons are not on the list of priorities for Canadians so the Conservatives could have some difficulty trying to sell these to the electorate.

Then there is Stephen Harper. Even his friends would say he is not really liked or a likeable man. That fact is probably the key reason why he has been unable to achieve the majority government him and his party so crave. This fact has not changed and he is now going into his fourth election as leader of the Conservative Party. If this election becomes a referendum on Stephen Harper the Conservatives could be in tough.

All that being said the Conservatives have almost double the number of seats as their next closest and chief opponent. That is a hell of an advantage to begin with going into a campaign. There will have to be a massive swing in seats for the Conservatives to lose government and it would probably take the Conservatives having the wheels really coming off of their campaign to have that happen.

I see the Conservatives in the same position that Paul Martin was in before the 2004 election. In seems likely that the Conservatives will be returned with a much smaller minority facing a much stronger Liberal Party.

Liberals: It would appear the Liberal Party is stronger than it has been since Mr. Chretien left the scene. There is a certain swagger in their step on the eve of this election and I believe that the reason for that is they know the Conservatives are very vulnerable on a number of fronts.

The wildcard in this election will be Mr. Ignatieff. He is a journalist and author making him a natural communicator. He is not very well known outside of the political classes so he has an opportunity to use those skills to define himself to Canadians. Unlike Mr. Harper he is a likeable fellow and if Canadians begin to like him the Conservatives are in real trouble. As well, if he can use his communications skill to forcefully push the Liberal message they could enjoy some success. Of course, that message better be a coherent one that resonates with Canadians or all of his communcations skill will be for naught. That is my biggest complaint about the last three Liberal campaign. They had no direction, no theme, they just threw seemingly random policy proposals out there hoping some of them would stick.

The Liberals have a rather tough hill to climb and they would have to run the perfect campaign to reach the summit so I am not really expecting them to do so this time around. If they run a decent campaign they should be able to pick up quite a few seats, perhaps even reaching the century mark again, and setting themselves up to retake government, probably in 2014.

NDP: The fate of the NDP will rest with the desire amongst progressives to finally be rid of the Harper government. If that feeling is strong many progressives will turn to the only party that has any chance of defeating the Conservatives, namely the Liberals. If that happens the NDP suffers. If that feeling is not strong the NDP will probably not take as big of a hit.

However, the NDP probably did hit its high water mark during the 2008 campaign so it can probably expect to lose some seats this time around.

Watch out for Jack Layton. He is battling health issues and that could effect his ability to campaign and there is no predicting how it might effect the internal party politics of the NDP.

The Bloc: They seem to be the most comfortable of the four big parties. However, I would not take anything for granted when it comes to Quebec voters.

Greens: Sorry Green Party supporters, with the environment no longer so prominent in the minds of Canadians the Green Party will be hard pressed to make any big inroads during this election. Like the NDP, if progressives decide they have had enough of Mr. Harper and go to the only party that can push him out the Greens will suffer.

They will again fail to win a seat in Parliament.

There you have it. Take these opinions as you like. I know myself that I will come back to his post later this spring and either say to myself that I am a freaking genius or ask whether I am willing to share what I have been smoking because it would appear it was really good shit.

Conservatives feeling the heat?

After my disgust over the attacks on Mr. Ignatieff's father abated somewhat I had to ask myself why the Conservative War Room would have taken such a direction.

Surely they really cannot believe it was a good idea. I do not know of anybody who would appreciate it if someone were to attack their dead father or grandfather, particularly if it were for personal gain. So why would they believe that such an attack would resonate with Canadians when it was directed at their chief political opponent?

If they would have done that in the heat of an election campaign I could imagine that it could have become the Harper Conservative's "reptilian kitten eater moment". In short they blundered and badly.

That is the type of blunder political parties make when they begin to feel the pressure of an election campaign that is slipping away from them. We have seen it before, Kim Campbell, Ernie Eves, and Paul Martin, just within the last 20 years.

If the attack was the result of the above it would speak volumes about the state of mind of the Conservatives going into a campaign. After all, if they make such blunders before an election campaign begins just imagine the potential for equally serious blunders if things begin to go awry during an actual campaign.

Stephen Harper won the last two elections because he imposed iron discipline on his party and its apparatus. Then again he was not really challenged during those elections so it was rather easy to do so. If Mr. Ignatieff turns out to be a greater challenge it will be interesting to see if he can maintain that discipline

It is going to be an interesting election campaign I think.

Will he or won't he?

Considering the ethical troubles the Conservatives have found themselves in during the past few weeks.

Considering Stephen Harper is a control freak whose head would explode if he was forced to fight an election he did not call.

Considering the fact that Stephen Harper has a tendency to hide from accountability whenever the media or the Opposition managed to corner him on the issue.

Will Stephen Harper prorogue Parliament for a third time to avoid all of the above?

What do you think?

Where's our revolution?

For a person who believes in democracy the recent events in the Arab world is very heartening. Leaving aside the idea that nothing will really change in these countries you cannot but be moved by seeing all of these people coming out and demanding changes and a more powerful voice for themselves in how they are governed.

In all cases these people are revolting against a rich and priviledged elite in their countries. These elites control all of the levers of power and they make decisions for the benefit of themselves, often shafting those who do not share their elite status in the process.

Upon looking at these events and who the main protaganists are in them I could not help but see many parallels between their societies and ours. Western society also suffers from the same inequalities that the Arabs are fighting against. There is a rich and priviledged elite that countrols much of the economy and has many friends within the governing class of our societies. You just need to see the reaction of governments to the 2008 financial meltdown to see that, both the immediate reaction and their reactions in the aftermath. The financial meltdown was caused by recklessness amongst the rich and powerful, whose greed caused them to make decisions that almost brought down the entire global financial system. It was criminal really but did they suffer any consequences. Of course not, during the crisis they were bailed out with taxpayer funds so that none of them even had to sacrifice their wealth and lifestyles to pay for their folly. Since then we have seen that they have not even suffered medium or long-term consequences because governments have ignored their culpability in the events of 2008 and instead seem to rewarding them and going after ordinary people instead. The corporate tax cuts proposed by the Harper government and the removal of collective barbaining rights in Wisconson are two example.

This in itself is bad enough but what is really maddening and mind boggling is the reaction of ordinary people to all of this. They are poorer because of the actions of the wealthy elite in Western society but they are siding with them against ordinary citizens in most cases. You just need to see their reaction to the fights by the unions on Wisconson and in other juristictions where governments have been trying to reduce union rights to see that. The wealth elites in Western society are building up their wealth and power to the detriment of ordinary citizens and those very same ordinary citizens are cheering them on. It really is mind boggling and it puts paid to all of those Economics textbooks that state people make decisions based on their own economic interests.

The problem is we all believe that because we can vote in actual free and fair elections we are not really in the same position as the Arabs. On the surface that is true but looking deeper it is very apparent that a wealthy and priviledged elite are using their power and influence to protect themselves from the most harmful consequences of their actions and to further their ability to gather wealth to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

So, when are those ordinary citizens going to realize this and demand change? If the Arabs can do it certainly we should be able to.