The climate crisis is front and centre on the minds of Canadians. That is true whether you believe in it or not.
Unfortunately for Mr. Scheer most Canadians believe that we need to do something about it. Mr. Scheer proposed a plan. By most accounts it is not very good but it is a plan that he can point to. If he wants people to take it seriously he should be showing that he takes the climate crisis seriously. Marching today would have accomplished that even if he personally does not believe in it. Hell, he would not be the first politician to do or say something he does not personally believe.
Instead, while the eyes of the country were focused on the millions of Canadian marching to fight climate change he was putting pictures of himself eating pizza on Twitter. Talk about being politically tone deaf.
When the Conservatives lose the election I believe the postmortems of the election will point to this day as the beginning of the end of their hopes of gaining power.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Why I discount polls.
I have mentioned many times, here and on other on-line blogs, that I do not put much stock in polls. The reasons are many but the biggest reason is because of their inability to adequately account for people who say "Don't know" or "Undecided" during polling interviews.
I will demonstrate. Let us say for the sake of argument that I conducted a poll of 1000 respondents. The results that I found:
I will demonstrate. Let us say for the sake of argument that I conducted a poll of 1000 respondents. The results that I found:
- 300 people who support the Conservatives
- 290 people who support the Liberals
- 150 undecided
- and the rest divided roughly equally amongst the other parties.
- 300/1000x100 = 30%
- 290/1000x100 = 29%
- 150/1000x100 = 15%
When polling companies publish their estimates in the newspapers and online these are probably the raw numbers they have. Unfortunately, nothing can really be inferred from these estimates except that no one as a clear advantage. No one can say that any party will form a strong stable government with just 30% support.
The problem is the undecideds. They have always been a problem for pollsters who want to publish for news organizations because the news organizations want something that will pop. They want something that will provide their reporters and columnists with something to write about. Unfortunately, those numbers above do not do it. It used to be the pollsters would just distribute the undecideds amongst the decideds using some kind of formula and each polling company would have its own formula for doing so. They discovered that it did not work very well. So then they decided that they would just remove all of the undecideds which is why you will always see polls indicating that their estimates are of decided and leaning respondents. When you remove the undecided you have:
- 300/850x100 = 35.3%
- 290/850x100 = 34.1%
There you go. There are some estimates that you can sink your teeth into. Those estimates can be used by the media to advance whatever narrative they choose. They can be fed into a seat projection model to show how many seats each party will receive and the regional estimates can be used to "refine" the projections. Unfortunately, they are false because you cannot remove 150 respondents from a survey of 1000, who respond with a valid response to a survey question, and produce reliable statistics.
The funny thing is the first example that I gave above probably reflects reality. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a base of support that is about 30% of the electorate and there are probably about 15% of the electorate who could be termed non-partisan swing voters. The Conservatives have a bit of an advantage because their base is pretty solid while the Liberal base is a bit more wishy-washy but in both cases neither has enough to form a strong government with just their base. Therefore they need the swing voters to put them over the top. That is the job of the leader's campaign. The local campaigns attempt to identify and pull as many of their partisans as possible within each riding and hope the national campaign can successfully swing a sufficient number of swing voters over to them to take the seat.
Of course, the problem for all campaigns is there is no way to really know how successful they are until the votes are counted. Most of the swing voters will not make up their minds until much later in the campaign, with a significant number of them doing so only when they step behind the cardboard divider to mark their ballot. So, there is no way to predict which way they will jump. However, it is interesting that they tend to jump in one direction when the finally do make a decision. It is really quite remarkable. For some reason the swing voters collectively decide to vote one way. That is, the majority decide to vote for one party and the minority divide their votes between the rest, giving the one who earned the majority of their votes government. No one has been able to figure out why.
So that is where we stand. The two main parties are hanging on to their bases and waiting for the swing voters to make up their minds. Neither know which way they will jump but they are working very hard to convince them to jump to their side.
As I have stated before I believe they will jump to the Liberals. The main reason is the Liberals have three different historical voting patterns on their side. First term governments tend to be re-elected in this country. Since the introduction of the CCF/NDP to Canadian politics the Conservatives have only won when the NDP does well and the NDP is not running an aggressive campaign this time so they probably will not do as well as the Conservatives need them to. Voters in Ontario seem to like governments of opposite stripes in Toronto and Ottawa. With a Conservative government at Queens Park it is very possible that Ontario voters will vote Liberal at the federal level, and that is before taking into account any possible Doug Ford effect on their voting intentions.
So there you have it. The public polls are telling a misleading story because they cannot account for undecided voters. As long as that is true the polls and the different seat projection models that are fed by them are interesting to look at and debate but they are not a reliable indicator of how the campaign is unfolding and they definitely cannot be used to predict the outcome of the election.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Federal Election 2019: Week Two over - Alot of sizzle but very little steak
Week two of the election campaign got off to a interesting start with the leaking of the pictures of Prime Minister Trudeau in brown/black face at a party. That gave the media, which was bored to tears by week one, something to talk about and something they could preach about, which most media love to do. In the end I do not believe it had much impact on any of the campaigns.
For the Liberal campaign they did have to do some damage control but Mr. Trudeau's clear apology, provided within an hour of the release of the pictures went a long way towards that effort. Believe it nor not most reasonable people realize that everybody makes mistakes and that if you acknowledge the mistake and try to be better they are willing to forgive if not forget. That damage control effort lasted two whole days. By Friday their campaign was returning to normal and by Sunday it was back to being focused and disciplined as it was in week 1. As well, with the end of week two upon us they brought out their heavy guns. The announcements on another tax cut, Pharmacare and their Climate Change announcement today are going to be their signature policy planks for this election. I imagine between now and election day we are going to hear alot about all three. We may hear some more minor announcements in week three but I believe the Liberal campaign is going to begin focusing on these three policy proposals.
The leak of the pictures of Mr. Trudeau, probably with foreknowledge of the Conservative campaign, has shone some light on their election strategy. They seem to realize that they cannot win without a strong showing by the NDP and/or the Greens. Releasing a video and going all in on accusing him of being racist seems counter intuitive for the Conservatives. They have their own bigotry problems, from their current leader, some of their supporters in the media and from their candidates. As a result they were not in a great position to directly benefit from Mr. Trudeau's troubles. However, if they could use it to siphon off some voters from the Liberals to the NDP or Greens then they might benefit. It is actually not a bad strategy but if depends on the NDP and/or the Greens being able to exploit the opening presented to them. They were unable to. More on that in a moment.
Otherwise, the Conservative campaign has been more of the same. Throw out some random policy ideas, many of which are just recycled Harper policies, insult and attack Justin Trudeau at every turn and lie their asses off. Politics being what it is it could work but it is very risky. Attacking the other guy to convince people to vote against him is a strategy as old as democratic politics but you also have to be able to show that you are a compelling alternative. If you do not then you lose. If you do not believe me ask Tim Hudak. So far I am not convinced that Mr. Scheer is accomplishing this. Last week several picture were published showing Mr. Scheer making announcements to empty rooms and football fields. When it was questioned they indicated that they were forgoing rallies to allow potential attendees to knock on doors. Interesting spin but I remember in 2006 Paul Martin had the same problem. He had difficulty getting people out to his announcements. They were often him in a room full of reporters and that was it. The fact is rallies and well attended policy announcements create buzz and energy for the campaign and those cannot be discounted. As well, Mr. Scheer has not looked happy since the campaign started. He has often looked miserable in fact. Contrast that to Mr. Harper in 2006. Although he did not jump for joy during that election there was a bounce in his step, which was probably because he could see that he had a very good chance that he would win. Does Mr. Scheer feel the same way? I am not getting that vibe from him.
The NDP was handed a gift by the Conservatives and they were unable to exploit it. The reason is simple. They are not running a full blown campaign. As I have stated here before they are running a save the furniture campaign and it would appear they are not going to let themselves be distracted from that. If there was no Green Party they might have changed tack but they have to worry about the Greens siphoning off their votes so they seem to be keeping their focus on a campaign to maintain official party status.
The Green Party has not changed anything from week one and their campaign during week one was invisible. They may believe what the public polls are saying, which seem to indicate that may win up to 7 seats but those polls are going to change by election day and the Greens will probably find themselves back where they have always been. Five to seven percent of the vote and Ms. May being the only Green MP.
Maxime Bernier is blowing his one chance to be relevant. The Independent Debate Commission gave him instant credibility when they invited him to the debates but he has failed to exploit that. As well, I still say his best shot at winning seats was to campaign in the Conservative ridings of Ontario and Quebec but he is not doing that either. It could be he is worried about his own seat, in which case him and his party will be a non-factor come election day.
One note about the polls. As I have stated often I put little stock in the polls. However, some people do and the current state of the polls have them worried. What needs to be understood is we have seen this before.
In 2015, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the three main parties were tied with the Conservatives having a bit of an upper hand.
In 2011, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Ignatieff Liberals had a slight lead over the Harper Conservatives. I remember how happy many Liberals were after week two of that election.
In 2008, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Dion Liberals had a slight lead over the Conservatives. Again, Liberals were quite pleased at that time.
Of course we all know how those elections turned out. The point, of course, is that polls early in an election campaign cannot be used to predict, project, or otherwise guess the final outcome of the election. Neither can polls at the end of the campaign for that matter.
Between now and election day Canadians will decide who they want to govern them. We will not know that decision for certain until October 21. I still believe it will be the Liberals that they choose, for many reasons, but we will know for certain in a little over three weeks.
For the Liberal campaign they did have to do some damage control but Mr. Trudeau's clear apology, provided within an hour of the release of the pictures went a long way towards that effort. Believe it nor not most reasonable people realize that everybody makes mistakes and that if you acknowledge the mistake and try to be better they are willing to forgive if not forget. That damage control effort lasted two whole days. By Friday their campaign was returning to normal and by Sunday it was back to being focused and disciplined as it was in week 1. As well, with the end of week two upon us they brought out their heavy guns. The announcements on another tax cut, Pharmacare and their Climate Change announcement today are going to be their signature policy planks for this election. I imagine between now and election day we are going to hear alot about all three. We may hear some more minor announcements in week three but I believe the Liberal campaign is going to begin focusing on these three policy proposals.
The leak of the pictures of Mr. Trudeau, probably with foreknowledge of the Conservative campaign, has shone some light on their election strategy. They seem to realize that they cannot win without a strong showing by the NDP and/or the Greens. Releasing a video and going all in on accusing him of being racist seems counter intuitive for the Conservatives. They have their own bigotry problems, from their current leader, some of their supporters in the media and from their candidates. As a result they were not in a great position to directly benefit from Mr. Trudeau's troubles. However, if they could use it to siphon off some voters from the Liberals to the NDP or Greens then they might benefit. It is actually not a bad strategy but if depends on the NDP and/or the Greens being able to exploit the opening presented to them. They were unable to. More on that in a moment.
Otherwise, the Conservative campaign has been more of the same. Throw out some random policy ideas, many of which are just recycled Harper policies, insult and attack Justin Trudeau at every turn and lie their asses off. Politics being what it is it could work but it is very risky. Attacking the other guy to convince people to vote against him is a strategy as old as democratic politics but you also have to be able to show that you are a compelling alternative. If you do not then you lose. If you do not believe me ask Tim Hudak. So far I am not convinced that Mr. Scheer is accomplishing this. Last week several picture were published showing Mr. Scheer making announcements to empty rooms and football fields. When it was questioned they indicated that they were forgoing rallies to allow potential attendees to knock on doors. Interesting spin but I remember in 2006 Paul Martin had the same problem. He had difficulty getting people out to his announcements. They were often him in a room full of reporters and that was it. The fact is rallies and well attended policy announcements create buzz and energy for the campaign and those cannot be discounted. As well, Mr. Scheer has not looked happy since the campaign started. He has often looked miserable in fact. Contrast that to Mr. Harper in 2006. Although he did not jump for joy during that election there was a bounce in his step, which was probably because he could see that he had a very good chance that he would win. Does Mr. Scheer feel the same way? I am not getting that vibe from him.
The NDP was handed a gift by the Conservatives and they were unable to exploit it. The reason is simple. They are not running a full blown campaign. As I have stated here before they are running a save the furniture campaign and it would appear they are not going to let themselves be distracted from that. If there was no Green Party they might have changed tack but they have to worry about the Greens siphoning off their votes so they seem to be keeping their focus on a campaign to maintain official party status.
The Green Party has not changed anything from week one and their campaign during week one was invisible. They may believe what the public polls are saying, which seem to indicate that may win up to 7 seats but those polls are going to change by election day and the Greens will probably find themselves back where they have always been. Five to seven percent of the vote and Ms. May being the only Green MP.
Maxime Bernier is blowing his one chance to be relevant. The Independent Debate Commission gave him instant credibility when they invited him to the debates but he has failed to exploit that. As well, I still say his best shot at winning seats was to campaign in the Conservative ridings of Ontario and Quebec but he is not doing that either. It could be he is worried about his own seat, in which case him and his party will be a non-factor come election day.
One note about the polls. As I have stated often I put little stock in the polls. However, some people do and the current state of the polls have them worried. What needs to be understood is we have seen this before.
In 2015, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the three main parties were tied with the Conservatives having a bit of an upper hand.
In 2011, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Ignatieff Liberals had a slight lead over the Harper Conservatives. I remember how happy many Liberals were after week two of that election.
In 2008, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Dion Liberals had a slight lead over the Conservatives. Again, Liberals were quite pleased at that time.
Of course we all know how those elections turned out. The point, of course, is that polls early in an election campaign cannot be used to predict, project, or otherwise guess the final outcome of the election. Neither can polls at the end of the campaign for that matter.
Between now and election day Canadians will decide who they want to govern them. We will not know that decision for certain until October 21. I still believe it will be the Liberals that they choose, for many reasons, but we will know for certain in a little over three weeks.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Gun Control
I had a short conversation today with someone who was unhappy with the proposed gun control policies of the Liberals. When I suggested they made great sense he immediately accused me of being an anti-gun nut in a very snide voice. Understand we had just met and we did not know each other beforehand but my disagreeing with him caused him to insult me. Figuring he was just another classless Conservative supporter I just walked away.
I could have argued with him but I do not believe it would have mattered and as I get older I realize that life is too short to argue with close minded people but that short conversation got me thinking
I grew up in rural Eastern Ontario. I started pinging away at old tin cans with my grandfather's old single shot 22, on his farm, when I was 10. I killed my first animal, with a firearm, before I got my drivers licence. My grandfather had firearms, my father had firearms, his brothers have firearms, my brother has firearms, my cousins (both male and female) own firearms, even some family pets own firearms. I would own firearms if my wife would let me keep them in the house. To this day if someone invites me to go do some shooting I almost always say "Let's go!". So by no stretch of the imagination could I be called anti-gun.
All that being said I am a big supporter of gun control and I came to that position as a result of my family. My grandfather used to say that the only thing a handgun is good for is scaring away the moose. When I asked my father if he would ever like to own a military style weapon like the AR-15 he said no because they are useless for hunting. Understand both men were as conservative as they come but they still understood the need for gun control.
I could have said all of this to the guy if I thought it would have been useful. I could have also said that my father's preferred weapon for hunting large game was a Savage .308 magnum, which he stated could bring down a full grown moose at 400 metres and a dear at 600 metres. The small 5.56mm round of the AR-15 could not do either. If you hit a large target with such small rounds you would mortally wound the animal but not kill it outright. In all likelihood it would run off to die a slow, painful death, which all hunters want to avoid, at least all of the hunters I know. I could have argued that the AR-15 and other similar weapons are specifically designed and built to kill and maim HUMANS and nothing else. Hunting rifles and shotguns can be used for kill humans but their manufacturers are looking at the hunting market.
Allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns, with suitable regulations in place to make certain that they are handled and stored properly makes perfect sense. Banning weapons designed specifically to kill and maim humans, such as assault weapons and handguns also makes perfect sense.
A personal disclaimer. I know someone who owns and AR-15. He has given me several opportunities to shoot it. I did and I liked it. If a re-elected Liberal government bans such weapons I will not have another such opportunity. That would be disappointing but I can live with it.
I could have argued with him but I do not believe it would have mattered and as I get older I realize that life is too short to argue with close minded people but that short conversation got me thinking
I grew up in rural Eastern Ontario. I started pinging away at old tin cans with my grandfather's old single shot 22, on his farm, when I was 10. I killed my first animal, with a firearm, before I got my drivers licence. My grandfather had firearms, my father had firearms, his brothers have firearms, my brother has firearms, my cousins (both male and female) own firearms, even some family pets own firearms. I would own firearms if my wife would let me keep them in the house. To this day if someone invites me to go do some shooting I almost always say "Let's go!". So by no stretch of the imagination could I be called anti-gun.
All that being said I am a big supporter of gun control and I came to that position as a result of my family. My grandfather used to say that the only thing a handgun is good for is scaring away the moose. When I asked my father if he would ever like to own a military style weapon like the AR-15 he said no because they are useless for hunting. Understand both men were as conservative as they come but they still understood the need for gun control.
I could have said all of this to the guy if I thought it would have been useful. I could have also said that my father's preferred weapon for hunting large game was a Savage .308 magnum, which he stated could bring down a full grown moose at 400 metres and a dear at 600 metres. The small 5.56mm round of the AR-15 could not do either. If you hit a large target with such small rounds you would mortally wound the animal but not kill it outright. In all likelihood it would run off to die a slow, painful death, which all hunters want to avoid, at least all of the hunters I know. I could have argued that the AR-15 and other similar weapons are specifically designed and built to kill and maim HUMANS and nothing else. Hunting rifles and shotguns can be used for kill humans but their manufacturers are looking at the hunting market.
Allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns, with suitable regulations in place to make certain that they are handled and stored properly makes perfect sense. Banning weapons designed specifically to kill and maim humans, such as assault weapons and handguns also makes perfect sense.
A personal disclaimer. I know someone who owns and AR-15. He has given me several opportunities to shoot it. I did and I liked it. If a re-elected Liberal government bans such weapons I will not have another such opportunity. That would be disappointing but I can live with it.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Federal Election 2019: Week 1 over - Nothing but Chaff
Week one is in the books and I can honestly say that none of the campaigns have provided Canadians with anything they can really chew on.
The Liberals are running a typical front-runner campaign. They are making announcements on a daily basis but I am not detecting a election theme. In 2015 they remained laser focused on the economy. They were not distracted by three weeks of the Mike Duffy trial. They made only a passing remark on the drowned boy on the Turkish beach. In short, their campaign was focused, disciplined and on message from the time the writ was dropped to the end. For this campaign they have certainly been disciplined but they have not stuck to a central message because they do not seem to have one. They would go along way to ensuring their re-election if they had such a central message and if they could tie in all of their policy announcements to that message.
The Conservatives have run the campaign that I expected, namely negative. Although I have to admit to being surprised at how shameless they have been in lying to voters. I cannot see that as being a winning strategy for a 41 day campaign. I know that many point to success of Doug Ford's and Donald Trump's campaigns. However, if anybody, including the Conservatives, believe the same tactics will work this time around they are probably in for a major disappointment. Doug Ford was up against a government that had been in power for about 16 years. They pulled off a miracle in 2014 but they were not going to pull off the same miracle in 2018. I always like to remind people that Donald Trump came in second, by a significant margin, in 2016. Only the vagaries of the Electoral College system gave him the White House. If the Conservatives do not win the popular vote they do not win the election. Their vote is just way too inefficient for them to do so in our First Past the Post voting system. So far all they have done is lie and announce recycled Harper government initiatives. That is not going to inspire voters, which is what they need to do to win.
The NDP has been invisible, as I expected. They are trying to save the furniture and they are pretty much avoiding any really big policy announcements. Mr. Singh is waiting for the debates hoping that he can perform well enough there to convince enough voters to give him and his party enough seats to maintain official party status. It is an open question of whether he will succeed.
The Greens and the PPC are proving that they are fringe parties. They have not done anything in the first week to make themselves stand out.
Ms. May is long past her best-before-date and if she believes the current polling indicating that she may win more than her own seat she is delusional. We have been down this road before. By election day voters in this country will likely revert to their habit of voting for the big three.
Mr. Bernier has not done anything except receive an invitation to the official debates, which is hardly an accomplishment by him. I have stated here before that his best strategy is to rent a bus and campaign hard in the Conservative ridings in Ontario and Quebec. He is not doing that. In fact I am not certain what he is doing even though I have been trying to find out. At this rate he will be lucky to win his own seat. I thought he might be waiting for the debates but until yesterday there was no guarantee that he would be invited.
All and all, I am rather disappointed in the first week of the campaign and that is despite my generally low expectations for the first week. However, I am particularly disappointed with the Liberal campaign. They ran a brilliant, near perfect campaign in 2015 and I was expecting something similar this time around, particularly since the 2015 campaign team is intact. Instead, their campaign has been rather pedestrian.
The Liberals are running a typical front-runner campaign. They are making announcements on a daily basis but I am not detecting a election theme. In 2015 they remained laser focused on the economy. They were not distracted by three weeks of the Mike Duffy trial. They made only a passing remark on the drowned boy on the Turkish beach. In short, their campaign was focused, disciplined and on message from the time the writ was dropped to the end. For this campaign they have certainly been disciplined but they have not stuck to a central message because they do not seem to have one. They would go along way to ensuring their re-election if they had such a central message and if they could tie in all of their policy announcements to that message.
The Conservatives have run the campaign that I expected, namely negative. Although I have to admit to being surprised at how shameless they have been in lying to voters. I cannot see that as being a winning strategy for a 41 day campaign. I know that many point to success of Doug Ford's and Donald Trump's campaigns. However, if anybody, including the Conservatives, believe the same tactics will work this time around they are probably in for a major disappointment. Doug Ford was up against a government that had been in power for about 16 years. They pulled off a miracle in 2014 but they were not going to pull off the same miracle in 2018. I always like to remind people that Donald Trump came in second, by a significant margin, in 2016. Only the vagaries of the Electoral College system gave him the White House. If the Conservatives do not win the popular vote they do not win the election. Their vote is just way too inefficient for them to do so in our First Past the Post voting system. So far all they have done is lie and announce recycled Harper government initiatives. That is not going to inspire voters, which is what they need to do to win.
The NDP has been invisible, as I expected. They are trying to save the furniture and they are pretty much avoiding any really big policy announcements. Mr. Singh is waiting for the debates hoping that he can perform well enough there to convince enough voters to give him and his party enough seats to maintain official party status. It is an open question of whether he will succeed.
The Greens and the PPC are proving that they are fringe parties. They have not done anything in the first week to make themselves stand out.
Ms. May is long past her best-before-date and if she believes the current polling indicating that she may win more than her own seat she is delusional. We have been down this road before. By election day voters in this country will likely revert to their habit of voting for the big three.
Mr. Bernier has not done anything except receive an invitation to the official debates, which is hardly an accomplishment by him. I have stated here before that his best strategy is to rent a bus and campaign hard in the Conservative ridings in Ontario and Quebec. He is not doing that. In fact I am not certain what he is doing even though I have been trying to find out. At this rate he will be lucky to win his own seat. I thought he might be waiting for the debates but until yesterday there was no guarantee that he would be invited.
All and all, I am rather disappointed in the first week of the campaign and that is despite my generally low expectations for the first week. However, I am particularly disappointed with the Liberal campaign. They ran a brilliant, near perfect campaign in 2015 and I was expecting something similar this time around, particularly since the 2015 campaign team is intact. Instead, their campaign has been rather pedestrian.
Monday, September 16, 2019
The Official Debates for the 2019 Federal Election
So it was revealed today that the independant commission that was set up to organize the official leaders debates for the 2019 Federal Election is going to let Maxime Bernier participate.
I have to admit I am torn by this decision. On the one hand giving this man a national stage to spew his hate and bigotry troubles me but on the other hand it could show Canadians just what kind of man he is and what kind of party he is leading.
When I first heard this news I imagined that Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party would not be pleased. If they have any chance of winning they have to keep their base united and Mr. Bernier is a direct threat to that goal. Having him in the debates makes achieving that objective that much harder as it gives Mr. Bernier a chance to appeal directly to that part of the Conservative base where his message would resonate. As well, now that Mr. Bernier is included in the debates the national media could begin to pay a little more attention to them. If any as much attention as they give the Greens but any publicity that Mr. Bernier receives is probably not good news for the Conservatives.
It turns out I was correct because the Conservative Party came out with a statement of displeasure that was completely overboard in the amount of vitriol directed at the commission and it went so far as to question its integrity.
I looked up the members of the commision to see if their argument had any merit. I believed before I checked that it would not but I wanted to be certain and when I checked I was correct. The commissioner is our former Governor General, a Harper appointee, and one person in the country whose honour and integrity is above reproach. In addition one of the members of the Advisory Committee is Deborah Grey. When I read that name it sounded familier and it took me awhile to place it. I finally did. She was the first Reform Party MP that came to Ottawa in the 1989, preceding their big influx of MPs in 1993. She was roasting Mr.Chretien and his government when Mr. Scheer was still in highschool. To imply she is a Liberal stooge is way off base. Make no mistake I have little respect for Ms. Grey. Her and her Reform colleagues were some of the most classless people ever to wonder the halls of Parliament Hill. Indeed, the extreme partisanship, vitriol and total lack of class of the current group of Conservative MPs and candidates is a direct result of how the Reform Party members conducted themselves in the 1990s. However, give the lady her due. No one can legitimately imply she is somehow working for the Liberals like the Conservatives did today.
There is some speculation as to why the Conservatives reacted the way they did. The most plausible explanation is so far the Conservatives are losing the election. Looking past today to the last few weeks the Conservatives are not running a campaign one would expect from a front runner. This is odd because for the past few months the media has been telling us that they were the front runner. The media has begun to change its tune somewhat in the last week or so but as late as the last week of August I was reading media commentators indicating that the Conservatives were in the driver's seat.
If the Conservatives are losing I can assure you that they know it. The big three political parties have polling and data analysis experts on retainer for the election and they will provide each leader with daily briefings of what Canadians care about and how their campaigns are progressing. Judging by how the Conservatives have conducted the first few days of the election, including their statements on the decision to allow Mr. Bernier to partipate in the debates, I would speculate that the Conservatives are not liking what their data analysis experts are telling them.
Watching the Conservatives it is quite a contrast to the Liberal campaign which looks very much like a frontrunner campaign.
There is still alot of time before the election and alot of politics will happen during that time so things could change. I do not believe they will but there is always a chance they could. However, as of now I believe the Conservatives are in tough and the added credibility given to Mr. Bernier that comes along with his inclusion in the debates will only make their campaign tougher.
I have to admit I am torn by this decision. On the one hand giving this man a national stage to spew his hate and bigotry troubles me but on the other hand it could show Canadians just what kind of man he is and what kind of party he is leading.
When I first heard this news I imagined that Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party would not be pleased. If they have any chance of winning they have to keep their base united and Mr. Bernier is a direct threat to that goal. Having him in the debates makes achieving that objective that much harder as it gives Mr. Bernier a chance to appeal directly to that part of the Conservative base where his message would resonate. As well, now that Mr. Bernier is included in the debates the national media could begin to pay a little more attention to them. If any as much attention as they give the Greens but any publicity that Mr. Bernier receives is probably not good news for the Conservatives.
It turns out I was correct because the Conservative Party came out with a statement of displeasure that was completely overboard in the amount of vitriol directed at the commission and it went so far as to question its integrity.
I looked up the members of the commision to see if their argument had any merit. I believed before I checked that it would not but I wanted to be certain and when I checked I was correct. The commissioner is our former Governor General, a Harper appointee, and one person in the country whose honour and integrity is above reproach. In addition one of the members of the Advisory Committee is Deborah Grey. When I read that name it sounded familier and it took me awhile to place it. I finally did. She was the first Reform Party MP that came to Ottawa in the 1989, preceding their big influx of MPs in 1993. She was roasting Mr.Chretien and his government when Mr. Scheer was still in highschool. To imply she is a Liberal stooge is way off base. Make no mistake I have little respect for Ms. Grey. Her and her Reform colleagues were some of the most classless people ever to wonder the halls of Parliament Hill. Indeed, the extreme partisanship, vitriol and total lack of class of the current group of Conservative MPs and candidates is a direct result of how the Reform Party members conducted themselves in the 1990s. However, give the lady her due. No one can legitimately imply she is somehow working for the Liberals like the Conservatives did today.
There is some speculation as to why the Conservatives reacted the way they did. The most plausible explanation is so far the Conservatives are losing the election. Looking past today to the last few weeks the Conservatives are not running a campaign one would expect from a front runner. This is odd because for the past few months the media has been telling us that they were the front runner. The media has begun to change its tune somewhat in the last week or so but as late as the last week of August I was reading media commentators indicating that the Conservatives were in the driver's seat.
If the Conservatives are losing I can assure you that they know it. The big three political parties have polling and data analysis experts on retainer for the election and they will provide each leader with daily briefings of what Canadians care about and how their campaigns are progressing. Judging by how the Conservatives have conducted the first few days of the election, including their statements on the decision to allow Mr. Bernier to partipate in the debates, I would speculate that the Conservatives are not liking what their data analysis experts are telling them.
Watching the Conservatives it is quite a contrast to the Liberal campaign which looks very much like a frontrunner campaign.
There is still alot of time before the election and alot of politics will happen during that time so things could change. I do not believe they will but there is always a chance they could. However, as of now I believe the Conservatives are in tough and the added credibility given to Mr. Bernier that comes along with his inclusion in the debates will only make their campaign tougher.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Saving the furniture
I have read several reports in the media in the last few days indicating that the NDP is not in very good shape for the election. It is a matter of public record that financially the Party is having some serious financial difficulties.
The NDP spent to the limit in 2015, even though they did not have the money, in an effort to push themselves over the top. I guess at the time it seemed like a good idea because it seemed that they might actually have a shot. As it turned out they went back to their traditional place in Parliament and were left with a tremendous debt as their reward. Since political parties have to report their cash intake and spending to Elections Canada it is not hard to see that they do not have the money to run a full campaign this time around. Mr. Singh has a choice, run the full campaign and probably bankrupt the party in the process or run a more limited campaign.
One media outlet indicated that the NDP has chosen the latter. They are going to focus on ridings where they believe they can win and leave the rest alone. In other words a typical save the furniture campaign.
Although I usually take what the media tells me with a truckload of salt that report makes sense. Their resources seem to be extremely limited and if they spread them too thin they could lose it all. I believe they know this and they will be running a campaign with the goal of retaining official party status in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this could be complicated by the fact that the Green Party seems to be enjoying an upswing, if we are to believe the polls, which I do not. However, if that is the case they will threaten to take votes away from the NDP, to the benefit of the Liberals. And make no mistake the Greens are not a threat to the Liberals. They are a threat to the NDP. If the Greens actually split the non-Liberal progressive vote as badly as current polls seem to indicate it is very possible that neither the NDP nor the Greens will attain official party status.
Although as the campaign goes on that may become less and less possible for the simple reason that the Greens are not conducting a true national campaign. It was bandied about the internet a few weeks ago that Ms. May retained the services of Warren Kinsella for a time. The only advice he should have given Ms. May is that if you want to run with the big boys you have to charter a plane to get around the country during the campaign. If you choose not to and just use commercial airlines very few people will take you seriously.
All of the above is bad news for the Conservatives of course. In the past 60 years the only time the Conservatives have won government was when the NDP has done well. If the NDP does not do well the Conservative do not do well. Many Conservatives won seats because the NDP and Liberals split the non-Conservative vote. If the NDP has a rough election, those splits could disappear making it way more difficult for the Conservatives. And that is before taking into account any impact that Mr. Bernier might have in Conservative ridings.
Mr. Singh will claim to be running a national campaign but behind the scenes it is very possible that the NDP will limit the expenditure of their resources during the election. For the first time since they came into existance there is a perceived replacement for them in the Green Party. The threat to the very existance of the NDP exists and the NDP will be looking more to address that threat during this election that pursuing the pipe dream of winning the election.
The NDP spent to the limit in 2015, even though they did not have the money, in an effort to push themselves over the top. I guess at the time it seemed like a good idea because it seemed that they might actually have a shot. As it turned out they went back to their traditional place in Parliament and were left with a tremendous debt as their reward. Since political parties have to report their cash intake and spending to Elections Canada it is not hard to see that they do not have the money to run a full campaign this time around. Mr. Singh has a choice, run the full campaign and probably bankrupt the party in the process or run a more limited campaign.
One media outlet indicated that the NDP has chosen the latter. They are going to focus on ridings where they believe they can win and leave the rest alone. In other words a typical save the furniture campaign.
Although I usually take what the media tells me with a truckload of salt that report makes sense. Their resources seem to be extremely limited and if they spread them too thin they could lose it all. I believe they know this and they will be running a campaign with the goal of retaining official party status in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this could be complicated by the fact that the Green Party seems to be enjoying an upswing, if we are to believe the polls, which I do not. However, if that is the case they will threaten to take votes away from the NDP, to the benefit of the Liberals. And make no mistake the Greens are not a threat to the Liberals. They are a threat to the NDP. If the Greens actually split the non-Liberal progressive vote as badly as current polls seem to indicate it is very possible that neither the NDP nor the Greens will attain official party status.
Although as the campaign goes on that may become less and less possible for the simple reason that the Greens are not conducting a true national campaign. It was bandied about the internet a few weeks ago that Ms. May retained the services of Warren Kinsella for a time. The only advice he should have given Ms. May is that if you want to run with the big boys you have to charter a plane to get around the country during the campaign. If you choose not to and just use commercial airlines very few people will take you seriously.
All of the above is bad news for the Conservatives of course. In the past 60 years the only time the Conservatives have won government was when the NDP has done well. If the NDP does not do well the Conservative do not do well. Many Conservatives won seats because the NDP and Liberals split the non-Conservative vote. If the NDP has a rough election, those splits could disappear making it way more difficult for the Conservatives. And that is before taking into account any impact that Mr. Bernier might have in Conservative ridings.
Mr. Singh will claim to be running a national campaign but behind the scenes it is very possible that the NDP will limit the expenditure of their resources during the election. For the first time since they came into existance there is a perceived replacement for them in the Green Party. The threat to the very existance of the NDP exists and the NDP will be looking more to address that threat during this election that pursuing the pipe dream of winning the election.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
And we are off
The writ has been dropped. Not that is matters as the parties have been campaigning for months.
The election will probably follow the usual course.
The parties will stump for the next three weeks or so. Not much will change in the outlook for each party in the public polls. Part of that will be because public opinion is like the Titanic. It does not turn that quickly. Another part of that is the media needs a horse race in order to keep people interested. If they start publishing polls and stories indicating one party is taking a substantial lead all of the money they will be spending on the election will not be recouped. Incidentally, this is why the media is speculating so hard about a minority government. They did the same thing in 2015 but when I watched the election night coverage I did not see any media commentators showing surprise at the Liberals winning a majority government. Journalist are generally dishonest, they are totally lacking in scruples and they do not know the meaning of the phrase "intellectual consistency" but they are not stupid so I suspect more than a few who are pushing "this is a very close race" narrative know that this is not really true.
Then we will have the debates. That is when more of the electorate will become engaged. The various news outlets will make all sorts of claims about who "won" the debates in order to influence the election outcome and to continue to keep people interested but all of that will generally be meaningless because the election from that point forward will come down to one question.
Do Canadians want a change in government or not?
In the days between the debates and election day Canadians will begin to make that decision and they will answer it definitively when they mark their ballots on October 21.
My guess is the answer to that question is "No.". The Opposition Parties and many in the media will be trying to convince Canadian otherwise but Canadians have demonstrated again and again that they can think for themselves.
I have stated in this space before that the Liberals are the prohibitive favourite to win the election and that the most likely outcome is a Liberal majority government. I have not seen anything over the last four years, including the last eight months, to change that assessment.
It is politics so there is alot of room for surprises over the coming weeks and/or I could be completely wrong in my assessment. If that is the case then sobeit. It is not like have not been wrong before
However, if there are no surprises I suspect the Liberals will be celebrating another majority victory on October 21.
The election will probably follow the usual course.
The parties will stump for the next three weeks or so. Not much will change in the outlook for each party in the public polls. Part of that will be because public opinion is like the Titanic. It does not turn that quickly. Another part of that is the media needs a horse race in order to keep people interested. If they start publishing polls and stories indicating one party is taking a substantial lead all of the money they will be spending on the election will not be recouped. Incidentally, this is why the media is speculating so hard about a minority government. They did the same thing in 2015 but when I watched the election night coverage I did not see any media commentators showing surprise at the Liberals winning a majority government. Journalist are generally dishonest, they are totally lacking in scruples and they do not know the meaning of the phrase "intellectual consistency" but they are not stupid so I suspect more than a few who are pushing "this is a very close race" narrative know that this is not really true.
Then we will have the debates. That is when more of the electorate will become engaged. The various news outlets will make all sorts of claims about who "won" the debates in order to influence the election outcome and to continue to keep people interested but all of that will generally be meaningless because the election from that point forward will come down to one question.
Do Canadians want a change in government or not?
In the days between the debates and election day Canadians will begin to make that decision and they will answer it definitively when they mark their ballots on October 21.
My guess is the answer to that question is "No.". The Opposition Parties and many in the media will be trying to convince Canadian otherwise but Canadians have demonstrated again and again that they can think for themselves.
I have stated in this space before that the Liberals are the prohibitive favourite to win the election and that the most likely outcome is a Liberal majority government. I have not seen anything over the last four years, including the last eight months, to change that assessment.
It is politics so there is alot of room for surprises over the coming weeks and/or I could be completely wrong in my assessment. If that is the case then sobeit. It is not like have not been wrong before
However, if there are no surprises I suspect the Liberals will be celebrating another majority victory on October 21.
Canada and Abortion
So in the past few weeks Andrew Scheer and Elizabeth May have been making statements on abortion or at least in the case of Mr. Scheer, was blindsided by the issue and was forced to make a statement that satisfied no one.
The issues of abortion and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) have been settled in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that both are constitutional rights that cannot be taken away by a government. The majority of Canadians have indicated time and again that they do not want to have any further debates on these issues. Only a very small but vocal minority thinks otherwise.
The one constant in democratic politics is once a politician wins an election he wants to win the next one and the next one after that. Such a goal would be highly endangered by opening up the abortion and/or the SSM can of worms again.
Regardless of how circumspect a politician might be in reopening these debates they will take on a life of their own and quickly roar out of control. Woe to the politician that triggers that.
As for actually banning either one that is not likely because such a ban would require an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would not survive a court challenge. Even nibbling around the edges would be fraught with risk because the current SCC is rather liberal in its interpretations of our Chart rights.
So a government would find itself in the fight of its life during the debate on the Bill banning them and then it would be embarrassed by losing landmark court cases and then it would be in another fight if they decided to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the courts. After it is all said and done the party that put the country through that would lose the next election and probably not win another again, ever.
You see these two issues are just the issues that would energize the under 30 set to actually participate in our democracy.
So if the Conservatives actually tried to ban abortion and/or SSM they would be committing political suicide. Currently, the only reason why they are competitive is the largest block of voters who actually bother to vote are the Boomers and the Gen Xers and they are pretty much split down the middle with regard to supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals. The generations that come after them have generally walked away from politics (mores the pity). However, research has demonstrated that they tend to be much more progressive than the older generations and they are also more numerous than them. They are a sleeping giant and I am certain there are many in the Conservative movement in this country who would like to keep it that way. Even so, in about three elections the number of Boomers and Gen Xers will dwindle to the point that even the smaller number of the younger generations who bother to vote will eclipse them. At that point, if the Conservatives have not changed from their current incarnation, they will be a spent force in Canadian politics.
I am certain that there are many Conservatives smart enough to see this coming and would like to have the time to adjust to the changing demographic picture. The last thing they need is to rock the boat and bring the younger generations into the picture before they can make that adjustment. And worse yet, cementing in their minds that the Conservative Party does not share their values. That is a recipe for wandering the political wilderness for a very long time.
Mr. Harper knew this which is why he made a half-assed attempt to ban SSM, in his first minority government, and then told the social conservatives that put him at the head of the Conservative Party that "he tried" before dropping the issue for the remainder of his time in government.
I am going to assume that Mr. Scheer knows this as well. However, watching him for the past couple of years I know that he is not nearly as politically astute as Mr. Harper was and it could be that he owes his victory in the Conservative Party leadership race of a few years ago more to the social conservatives than Stephen Harper ever did. Hence the total botching of his response when these two issues reared their ugly heads three or four weeks ago.
The issues of abortion and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) have been settled in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that both are constitutional rights that cannot be taken away by a government. The majority of Canadians have indicated time and again that they do not want to have any further debates on these issues. Only a very small but vocal minority thinks otherwise.
The one constant in democratic politics is once a politician wins an election he wants to win the next one and the next one after that. Such a goal would be highly endangered by opening up the abortion and/or the SSM can of worms again.
Regardless of how circumspect a politician might be in reopening these debates they will take on a life of their own and quickly roar out of control. Woe to the politician that triggers that.
As for actually banning either one that is not likely because such a ban would require an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would not survive a court challenge. Even nibbling around the edges would be fraught with risk because the current SCC is rather liberal in its interpretations of our Chart rights.
So a government would find itself in the fight of its life during the debate on the Bill banning them and then it would be embarrassed by losing landmark court cases and then it would be in another fight if they decided to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the courts. After it is all said and done the party that put the country through that would lose the next election and probably not win another again, ever.
You see these two issues are just the issues that would energize the under 30 set to actually participate in our democracy.
So if the Conservatives actually tried to ban abortion and/or SSM they would be committing political suicide. Currently, the only reason why they are competitive is the largest block of voters who actually bother to vote are the Boomers and the Gen Xers and they are pretty much split down the middle with regard to supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals. The generations that come after them have generally walked away from politics (mores the pity). However, research has demonstrated that they tend to be much more progressive than the older generations and they are also more numerous than them. They are a sleeping giant and I am certain there are many in the Conservative movement in this country who would like to keep it that way. Even so, in about three elections the number of Boomers and Gen Xers will dwindle to the point that even the smaller number of the younger generations who bother to vote will eclipse them. At that point, if the Conservatives have not changed from their current incarnation, they will be a spent force in Canadian politics.
I am certain that there are many Conservatives smart enough to see this coming and would like to have the time to adjust to the changing demographic picture. The last thing they need is to rock the boat and bring the younger generations into the picture before they can make that adjustment. And worse yet, cementing in their minds that the Conservative Party does not share their values. That is a recipe for wandering the political wilderness for a very long time.
Mr. Harper knew this which is why he made a half-assed attempt to ban SSM, in his first minority government, and then told the social conservatives that put him at the head of the Conservative Party that "he tried" before dropping the issue for the remainder of his time in government.
I am going to assume that Mr. Scheer knows this as well. However, watching him for the past couple of years I know that he is not nearly as politically astute as Mr. Harper was and it could be that he owes his victory in the Conservative Party leadership race of a few years ago more to the social conservatives than Stephen Harper ever did. Hence the total botching of his response when these two issues reared their ugly heads three or four weeks ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)