Our Species is in a Race. Can we win?

There is no denying that the human species is altering the biosphere of the planet. It is not just climate change. We are also responsible for the increasing deforestation of our planet, the reduction of biodiversity, changing the composition of the atmosphere and the emptying of our oceans of wildlife while filling them up with pollution of all descriptions.

Most thinking people know this to be true and many of them have decided that we are not going to stop so we need to develop ways to adapt to the negative impacts of the changes that we are creating. They are probably right. The world is currently dominated by us and the animals and plants that we have domesticated and that is not going to change. Indeed, it will become more acute as wilderness is reduced to areas of the planet that are specifically protected by governments, such as national parks.

So the question then becomes how quickly are we going to be able to adapt to the changes in the biosphere? So far we are keeping up. That is probably because the changes to the biosphere, while substantial, are happening at a rather slow pace. As long as it stays that way our species, in its genius, should be able to adapt. Certainly there will be local disturbances that will cost lives and destroy livelihoods but our species and our civilization will go on.

The big concern however is the fact our biosphere is a system and like all systems if the pressure on it becomes too great it collapses. All systems have a breaking point and if the biosphere reaches that breaking point the impacts will come at us fast and I highly doubt that we will be able to adapt as well as we are currently adapting. The results could be catastrophic.

Of course, that leads to the question of how far away are we from that breaking point?

Some say a couple of decades. Others say much longer but no one knows for certain. 

I do not harbour any delusions that I have the answer but I do know that we are part of the biosphere that we are changing and that we are changing it without knowing ahead of time what the impacts of those changes will be. We do not know whether a certain action will just result in the extinction of yet another species or be that action that tips the balance and leads to the collapse of the biosphere. 

In short we are blindly conducting an experiment with a very volatile system, hoping that we will be able to clean up any mess we make and hoping that we do not blow up the lab in the process. I do not believe that such a situation is tenable in the long-term.

The Conservative Attack on the Government over Inflation

An event that should surprise no one, inflation has spiked as the world economy recovers from the worst of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. As they become normalized people are doing some of the things they did before the pandemic shut everything down. That release of pent up demand and the continuing impacts of the pandemic on global supply chains has caused inflation to jump.

Every economist or economics organization that does not have any skin in the political game has stated that the inflation will be transitory and we should believe them. As I stated this was predicted months ago and the one factor that contributes to run-away-inflation, wage growth, does not exist. Indeed, wage growth pretty much stopped after the pandemic hit the world and it is still dead. If that remains the case until this current bout of inflation decrease (look for that to happen early in the new year) then inflation will not be a problem. In fact, I would suspect that deflationary pressures will be the problem we need to worry about, pressures that will be made worse by the current efforts of some politicians and their cheerleaders in the media in talking up inflation.

The most interesting thing about the Conservative attack on the government over inflation is their statements that it is caused by overspending of the government. Some may just dismiss this as their usual attack on government spending. After all, Conservatives only believe governments should spend money on buying votes and to provide tax cuts to big business and the wealthy. Any other kind of spending is opposed as a matter of political faith.

The problem for Conservatives is the economic consensus was drifting away from this point of view before the pandemic hit us and then it virtually disappeared afterwards. I am still amazed that after the government announced the 2020 budget deficit was almost $350 billion and that the government debt had topped the $1 trillion mark the reaction of Canadians was a collective shrug. I am no deficit hawk but even I experienced some sticker shock at seeing those numbers. However, a broad cross-section of Canadians did not see a problem and in fact appreciated the spending of the government in supporting them during the pandemic.

That is bad news for the Conservatives. They are still married to austerity and to have Canadians generally ignore and maybe even agree to government spending is an existential threat to their long-term electoral fortunes. The two Conservative governments that have followed the austerity route, in Ontario and Alberta, are both in trouble, although part of that is also their handling of the pandemic. However, it should be noted that the popularity of both of these governments was dropping before the Spring of 2020 because of their very unpopular fiscal policies.

I have stated in this space before that the Conservative Consensus on government spending and finances has been breaking down for some time and I stated the pandemic seems to have accelerated that breakdown. I am certain that some in conservative circles are seeing the same thing and they are looking for something to at least decrease the rate of that breakdown if not completely reverse it. 

That is the reason why Conservatives are blaming inflation on government spending. They do not really care that Canadians maybe spending more for goods and services. They care about the central economic plank of their ideology being eroded away and their increasingly desperate efforts to at least slow it down. Personally, I do not believe they will succeed. The momentum away from the Conservative Consensus had reached a point of no return before the Spring of 2020 and it is probably unstoppable by now. 

Some Thoughts

I have observed a few things over the last few weeks which I will briefly write about.

The whole Kyle Rittenhouse situation demonstrates that the acceleration of the decline of American society, which began in 2000, has not slowed up despite the results of the last US federal election. I have stated in this space before that it took many decades for the decline of the Roman Empire to reach a point of no return but the US has done it in about two. There is no coming back. The decline will continue until some external pressure, such as the rise of China, climate change hitting critical mass, automation hitting critical mass or a combination of all three leads to the inevitable fall. I do not know what that fall will look like but I believe I will live long enough to find out.

The COP26 talks pissed off both the climate change deniers and the climate change extremists, which probably means that they got it right. I know that the extremists would like to see revolutionary change but that kind of change always leads to a backlash, which always leads to a loss of momentum towards the goal they want to achieve. And that is what we should be trying to achieve. Maintain and increase the momentum towards change without generating a serious backlash. As well, I have noticed some deniers have changed tack and stated that we need to focus on adapting to climate change instead of trying to prevent it. This is a convenient but self defeating argument. It is true that we do need to adapt to climate change because we were too slow to prevent it. However, that does not mean we can just focus on that while continuing to spew GHGs into the atmosphere. The simple fact is the climate will change faster than we will be able to adapt if that happens. We need to do both.

Inflation has reared it ugly head again but it is not nearly as bad as some would have us believe. It was always going to increase because it was always going to be part of the bounce back of economic activity once the worst of the economic impacts of COVID-19 were behind us. Many experts, who do not have any skin in a political game, have stated it will be transitory until a new equilibrium is attained in the economy. That will not stop some politicians to hype it up for political gain.

COVID-19 is here to stay. We will not eliminate it from the world. The only way that is going to happen is for it to mutate itself out of existence. That is possible but it is also possible that it could mutate itself into some much worse than what we have seen in the last couple of years. We are going to have to live with it. Many of the changes in our lifestyle that we have implemented in that last two years will be permanent and I believe that the COVID vaccine will become like the flu shot, a regular occurrence. The health care systems of the industrialized world are going to have to make the necessary adjustments to being able to handle this new reality without being paralyzed. The idea that all other medicine has to stop to deal with COVID outbreaks is preposterous. The only positive in this is COVID will probably become less deadly to most of us because most of us are fully vaccinated and we will take the boosters when they are available and when medical experts indicate we should. The same cannot be said for anti-vaxxers but I just cannot muster up any concern about that. If they want to take that risk then sobeit, they can live with the consequences.

Jean Chretien is wrong

I have nothing but respect for PM Chretien. I believe he was a great PM and I worked for his government back in the 90s. However his assertion that PM Trudeau should be consulting with the old Liberal guard is flat wrong.

The old Liberal guard had no answer for Stephen Harper. They barely beat him in 2004 and then went on to lose three elections after that, including being reduced to the third party in Parliament in 2011. Yes, for 2004 and 2006 they had to deal with the Sponsorship Scandal but it was also the old guard that got the Liberals into that mess in the first place. 

If the old guard would have still been in charge in 2015 it is highly likely that Stephen Harper would have hung on to government for at least a couple more years if not longer.

I have stated many times in this blog that Justin Trudeau does not receive enough credit for renewing and reviving the Liberal Party of Canada in the three short years he was leader of it, before the 2015 election. He did so by ruthlessly tossing the old guard into the dust bin of history, to the hatred of some of them to this day. The results speak for themselves. Yes the Harper government in 2015 was long in the tooth and Canadians wanted a change but Canadians still have to like the alternatives presented to them before they will make that change. Justin Trudeau represented that change and he did it by bringing the Liberal Party into the 21st Century and by bringing in new blood and new ideas. 

The time of the old Liberal guard is long past. So far past that some of them have become Conservatives. Remember I used to work for them and even I can see this reality. Consulting with them would be a step backwards.

The Continued Inferiority Complex of French Quebecers

Quebec has alot going for it. It is the second largest province by area and population in the country. Its levels of education is among the highest in the country. It has resources to burn and it has access to the outside world through one of the longest rivers in the world.

You would think that with all of those advantages that the people or Quebec would have a much broader view of the world and would not be so damned provincial. And yes, with the exception of a few pockets in and around Montreal Quebecers are probably the most inward looking people in the country.

I can understand this to a certain extent. When I was born Quebec was dominated by a minority English speaking elite that exploited the French majority for their own benefit. Those benefits never reached the French majority. 

That began to change soon after I was born and the majority French were successful in throwing off the yoke of the English elite and taking control of their own province and they did it with next to no violence. It really was an astounding achievement.

Which brings up the question of why French Quebecers have not shown the confidence in themselves that would come from such an achievement. There is no sign of it. If you speak to some francophone Quebecers you would think that nothing has changed in the last 60 years, that les anglais are still plotting to reverse the progress they have made.

It is a preposterous notion. It is true that Quebec is 5 million French people in a sea of almost 400 million English people. However, Americans do not care about Quebec. Many of them would not be able to find it on a map. They are not an active threat, although like the rest of Canada, Quebec does have to push back against American culture in order to maintain its distinctiveness, but this is just a function of the sheer size of the US population and the dominance of the US on the international scene. As for English Canadians, there are no evil anglos, sitting in offices in Toronto and other places in Canada, twirling their mustaches, and planning the subjugation of French Quebecers.

So why are French Quebecers still so damned afraid of losing their identity?

The reason is the English elite has been replaced by a French elite and it is in their interests to keep ordinary Quebecers in fear for their identity. Just look at the ruling class in Quebec. Politicians of ALL stripes, the media, business moguls and academics all still claim that the French identity is fragile and in constant threat of being overwhelmed. They do this of course for the same reasons other politicians use identity politics, to cover up the fact that they are exploiting ordinary French Quebecers and to cover up the fact that Quebec is probably the most mismanaged political jurisdiction in Canada, and in the top 10 mismanaged jurisdictions in North America.

Simply put Quebecers threw off one parasitic elite only to be saddled with another one. The result is Quebec is a perennial poor province in relation to its population, education levels and natural gifts. Government services are below the national average in quality, again despite its many advantages. 

Some Quebecers are noticing, which is why there has been a rise in the use if identity politics in the province in recent years. However, the Quebec elite have a problem of not being able to kick around the English any more, which is why they have begun to target immigrants, particularly those of other cultures and religions.

It really is too bad. Quebec could be a power house in this country but it is being held back by an elite that sees political and economic value in perpetuating that process and a population that is unable or unwilling to look outside of their little bubble. As long as that remains the reality Quebec and it people will never reach their full potential.

A Shot Across the Bow?

Yesterday a bunch of prominent Conservatives all posted the same anti-carbon tax tweet. Many commentators believed that this was directed at the Liberals but in fact I believe it was directed at Erin O'Toole.

The simple fact is he lost an election to the HATED Justin Trudeau, even losing a couple of seats in the process. There is internal tension within the party as a result as they try to figure out why they lost. The reason is simple and obvious and you would know what it is by reading some of my previous posts. This figuring out what went wrong is causing various factions within the party to jockey for position so that they can influence policy and election planning for the next go round in 18 to 24 months.

It would seem one of those factions still believes that eliminating the carbon tax is the way to go and they are letting Erin O'Toole know this because he has accepted the need for one, a watered down carbon tax but a price on carbon nonetheless.

The Conservative loss is going to test Mr. O'Toole's leadership. Before the election he was an untested leader and the party was not going to replace him. Now he has been tested and found wanting. He will be struggling to hang onto his job and for that he is going to have to find allies within the Party. Many of the factions in the party will be putting forward their conditions for providing their support and it would appear that one of those factions did just that, in a very public way, yesterday.

It is still an open question of whether Mr. O'Toole will stay on as leader or be pushed out. If he succeeds in keeping his job then it will be because he managed to "buy off" enough of the different factions within the party. Of course we will not know which ones he managed to buy, the internal logic of the deals and how they will impact party policy until the next election. However, if history is a guide, Mr. O'Toole will probably still have the same issues he had during the last election. Different factions, with positions in opposition with each other, expecting him and the party to satisfy their demands. 

The Liberals will have a much tougher time next time

I largely walked away from the election about half way through. When Justin Trudeau ended the third week by taking a day off, despite the pundits and the pollsters saying he was losing, I knew that the election was pretty much in the bag. What happened after that would not and did not change that outcome. 

The aftermath has been predictable as well. Both Mr. Singh and Mr. O'Toole are on the hot seat and it is an open question of whether either will still be the leaders of their respective parties in the new year. My guess is that Mr. Singh will survive. The NDP does not have a history of eating its leaders and they have been accepting mediocrity since before I was born so he will probably be OK. Mr. O'Toole has a 50/50 chance. The revelation about him double-dipping on his housing allowance is just the thing that can be used to turf him. Keep an eye on that. His only saving grace is there is no obvious choice to replace him. Mr. Ford and Mr. Kenney have both shit the bed in their respective provinces, none of the current CPC front bench are worth a damn and there is no outsider who has the stature to be able to convince Canadians to vote for them as PM just months after winning the leadership.

The Liberals won again but it is only going to become tougher from here on out. The simple fact is the next time we go to the polls Justin Trudeau and the Liberals will have been in power for around eight years and they will be going for their fourth straight mandate. As I have stated here many times governments have life spans. Usually around the eight year mark the desire for change becomes very high and voters begin to look seriously at the alternatives. If they can live with that alternative they make the change. The Liberals will be in that situation the next time we go to the polls. While it is not guaranteed that Canadians will want to make a change it could be a strong possibility. 

The problem for the Party that would replace the Liberals is they are going through a serious identity crisis. Are they the hard-right populist party that the West wants them to be or the more moderate conservative party that central Canada wants them to be? How do they satisfy their social conservative supporters without alienating moderate voters who do not want to even talk about their issues? They are going to have to figure that out. However, do not believe for a second that their problems automatically eliminate them from contention. Mr. O'Toole tried to paper over these conflicts but he did a lousy job of it and Canadians were not ready for change anyway. The next time the situation will be different and either Mr. O'Toole or his replacement could be more convincing at hiding the Conservatives' inner conflicts. Mr. Ford became Premier of Ontario because there was a strong desire for change and he managed to appear non-threatening. That was the strategy that Erin O'Toole attempted this time without success but there is no guarantee it will not work the next time, assuming they try to repeat that strategy again.

This is not to say that the Liberals will lose the next election. However, I would point out that the outcome of this election was never in doubt regardless of what the pollster and pundits were saying. The only question at the beginning of this election campaign was whether the Liberals would win another minority or win their much sought after majority. That question never changed. The next time the question will be can the Liberals win a fourth straight mandate? I do not have an answer but I do know that it is possible that the answer could be no.

I am Constantly Reminded of Why I Really Do Not Like Politics

Believe it or not I really do not like politics. For me it is like a drug, an addiction that I have tried to kick in the past without success. I guess if you are going to be addicted to something politics is better than drugs or alcohol but it still sucks sometimes.

The latest reminder is the PM going on holidays on Truth and Reconciliation Day and the media making a big deal of it. It is patently stupid on their part on so many levels but it further indicates how far modern politics has fallen. There was a time when politics meant something, big issues were debated and decided upon, and the bullshit that we have been seeing for the past few days never saw the light of day. Now politics is all about the bullshit and the important issues are ignored.

This is not just a thing with the current PM. We see it everywhere and no political figure is spared the BS. Andrew Scheer was a terrible candidate for PM and the policy ideas that his Conservatives produced for the 2019 election were retrograde in the extreme. However, what did we talk about ad nauseum during that election? The fact he did not actually pass a real estate licencing exam and the fact he was an American citizen. Both were interesting things to know about him and I would say they were relatively important as well but not dominate-two-weeks-of-the-damned-election-campaign important. They should have been one or two day stories, tops and then we should have been talking about policy again.

This past Federal election was not as bad as previous ones. At least when Mr. O'Toole tripped up it was because he could not settle on a final policy decision around gun control. That deserved all of the attention it received because it was a policy issue, which is what election campaigns should be about. Still, that discussion of policy never ventured past the superficial and there was still way more attention being paid to process than policy for the election campaign to be useful.

I am old enough to have seen when politics was different and that is when I became hooked on it. At that time politics was actually kind of fun. I could have thoughtful, in depth debates with people who disagreed with me without them calling me names or questioning my intelligence, the legitimacy of my birth or suggesting I was a man lacking certain man parts. Hell, I could have these debates and then have a beer with my debating partner afterwards, where we would piss each other off talking about hockey. Those days are gone and we are left with the cesspool that we all now swim in.

Of course, our society is the worst for it and I believe that eventually this debasement of politics will have some real world impacts that will surprise alot of people when it finally happens and/or put all of us in a pile of shit from which we will not be able to escape. (Runaway climate change, I am looking in your direction.)

The blame for this can be put squarely on the shoulders of those who would govern us and those that attach themselves to them. As has happened many times before throughout history the ruling class (politicians, journalists, the influential wealthy, the bureaucracy) have lost touch with those that they would rule with the predictable results. They are all so engaged in one big, incestuous circle jerk that they cannot see what is actually happening in the world around them. They have absolutely failed in their duty to those that they claim they have the right to govern. History has shown that such a situation cannot last indefinitely. In the extreme cases that ruling class is completely swept away, sometimes losing everything including their heads. 

This time will not be any different. I have written in this space many times about the triple challenges of automation, climate change and the rise of China and how they are going to change the world we live in now. If politics were being done right our rulers would be tackling these issues with more gusto, energy and thought than they are now. But politics is not being done right so when the impacts of these changes really begin to be felt by ordinary people they are going to find that their rulers are completely unequipped to help them deal with them and those ordinary people might be convinced that they need to replace the ruling class. (Note this does not mean a change in government but a change in how we are governed.)

I may live long enough to see a revolution in the West. I believe there is a very good chance one will happen, or at least begin, in my lifetime. Maybe when that happens politics will become fun again.

Delusional Dippers

During the election campaign I found myself in an argument with some NDP partisans. These are the "NDP or bust" types who believe that the NDP deserves to govern just because the Conservatives and the Liberals have been governing for so long it is now the NDP's turn, regardless of how Canadians vote. Naturally they are all supporters of Proportional Representation because they believe it will make the NDP the kingmakers in every election. They are wrong of course. Right now our politics is geared towards the FPTP voting system. If we change that our politics will also change which will lead to a change in the Canadian voting patterns. That is the first delusion of these Dippers. I have written extensively on this and I will not repeat it here.

I discovered a second delusion among this group during the election. Essentially they believe that if the Conservatives would have won the most seats in the election but not a majority the Liberals could still govern. Their theory was that in such a situation Justin Trudeau would still be PM so he could stay in that position, even though the Liberals had less seats, by convening the House and having a confidence vote. The NDP would support them and things would go on as if no election really took place.

Their argument is technically true. Justin Trudeau is the PM and if the Liberals would have lost the election on Monday he would still be the PM unless he resigned. In the extreme, if a sitting PM were to be crushed he could technically not resign, convene the House and see if he could gain its confidence., lose that vote and ask the GG to drop the writ again.

However, all of that goes against 150+ years of Parliamentary convention in this country. Simply put, which ever political party wins the most seats in the House earns the right to form a government and seek the confidence of the House. This time it was the Liberals but if it would have been the Conservatives then Mr. Trudeau would have resigned and Mr. O'Toole would be on his way to forming a government. When the time came in a few weeks they would seek the confidence of the House and Mr. Singh, who has already said that we would be able to work with a Conservative government, would have probably voted confidence in that government.

All of this was denied by these delusional Dippers. It is was a pretty convenient argument for them though. If Mr. Trudeau did not go against 150+ years of Parliamentary convention and the Conservatives formed a government, with the NDP voting confidence in that government in the House, then Justin Trudeau would be the reason why all of the regressive policies of the Conservatives being implemented, not the NDP, because he did not exercise his right to seek the confidence of the House. It is very twisted logic but it goes back to Jack Layton's role in the destruction of the child care agreements and the Kelowna Accords in 2006. They become really prickly if you bring this up.

The more insidious part to their argument is if Mr. Trudeau would have done what they suggested it would have set up a 2011 scenario for the Liberal Party in the subsequent election. I am certain that such considerations did not come into play in their arguments. (If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.)

All of this was based on the third delusion that the NDP would gain win more than 30 seats, as the polls were saying they would at the time. That was not going to happen and it never was going to happen. The pollsters always overestimate the NDP support during the writ period. Simply put, take the average poll estimate for the NDP and subtract three and you will get the actual number they will receive on e-day. That is exactly what happened. So if Mr. Trudeau would have lost the election and tried to hang on he would have needed more than the support of the NDP to maintain government. He would not have received it.

Of course, their Trudeau defying 150 years of convention gambit is not really a delusion. They know the reality. The argument was calculated to provide cover to any role the NDP had in implementing a Conservative agenda and to set up a 2011 scenario. 

In short, they were playing political games. I have no problem with that. They are acting like all of the other partisans for political parties.

However, as I have stated before my problem is with the sanctimonious self-righteousness of their beliefs that they are still the "conscience of Canadian politics", that they do not play politics like the other parties do and that they are the only real "progressive" option for Canadians. 

None of the above is true and it has not been true for quite some time, although they still believe it is, and that is why they are and continue to be delusional.

Election 2021: The English Language Leaders Debate

Unlike me my wife is not political and I often find she is a good sounding board for hearing what ordinary people, those who do not live and breathe politics, think about the political events of the day.

Each election my wife always invites me to watch the English debate with her. That is when she becomes most engaged in elections. I always turn her down because I learned a long time ago that they are a pointless exercise but she still watches them. In most cases she watches them to the end but this time she called me and asked me what she was seeing. Like alot of other people she was having a hard time following the action because of the format and because the candidates "don't seem to saying much". After about 45 minutes she turned it off, which is the least amount time I have known her to watch a debate since we became a couple. 

As with all of the debates I asked her what she thought. I never ask her who she thought won the debate I ask her what she thought about each candidate. Usually, she gives me impressions and then asks me questions to clarify what each said. This time she could not do that because she really did not understand what was being said by the candidates.

I will spend the next few days educating her on what each party platform says. She is generally progressive so she will either vote for the NDP or the Liberals (she has voted for both in the past.)

That got me thinking about the impacts of the debate on other "ordinary voters". For many the debates are when they start to become engaged and when they begin to form an opinion of who they want to vote for. If other Canadians had the same reaction as my wife it could be bad news for the Opposition parties.

As I have stated in past posts I do not believe this is a change election. However, if I am mistaken then voters would want to be looking at the alternatives to discern if the alternatives represent the change they want. The debates are usually when they begin that process but if the debates do not allow them to do so because they were unwatchable then many of these voters will default to the "devil you know". 

I know why the moderators did what they did yesterday. Erin O'Toole screwed up both French debates in a big way, so the moderators for the English debates decided to shield him this time, to prevent any big screw-up by him. The problem with that approach is it also prevented him from presenting a viable alternative to the Liberals.

Justin Trudeau is trying to convince Canadians to give him another shot. Erin O'Toole is trying to convince Canadians to so the opposite. As voters generally do not vote for change Justin Trudeau has the easier task. All he had to do yesterday was end the evening without a major misstep while Erin O'Toole needed to impress enough people to have them consider voting for the Conservatives. Mr. Trudeau succeeded in his goal last night. I am not certain that Erin O'Toole succeeded in his.

Election 2021: The Focus on Process

I actually hate modern election campaigns. I have for quite some time. 

I am old enough to remember when election campaigns were about policies and no one was trying to parse what the release of this advertizement or the fact that a party leader was insulating himself by having press conferences in empty bowling allies meant to the election. In those elections the leaders had to know their party platform backwards, forwards, up and down because they would be questioned on them relentlessly.

That is no longer the case. No longer do we see real debate on what the parties are promising. No longer is the news talking about those policies. This could be because political parties have shown that their promises are not worth much but it is also because most political journalists are political operative wannabes. Here is a hint for all of those journalists who play at political strategist: if you were any good at it a political party would hire you. They are always looking for talented people.

I know that I am guilty of spending way too much time on process myself when I write these posts. That is because I know the difference between the policy platforms because I have read them. As well, the few people who actually read this blog have probably read them too so me talking about them would be kind of pointless.

However, let's look at them anyway.

The Liberal platform is more of the same. It essentially promises to build on what the government has been doing for the last 6 years, once we put the pandemic behind us. It is very detailed. They pack alot of information into its 80+ pages.

The Conservative platform is less precise and less detailed. Several of its key planks are what I would call gimmicks, the GST holiday being the best example. The other planks are just watered down versions of what the Liberals promise to do. It is true I am biased but really there is not much there.

The NDP platform is a typical NDP platform. Alot of good ideas but no mention of how they would implement them. 

The other platforms do not really matter because they have no chance of winning a significant number of seats, although I will say that the PPC platform is a piece of work. (And not in a good way).

Through all of this it is up to the political parties themselves to push their platforms as best they can. Through advertizing and through the local campaigns and local media, which is much less infested with political operative wannabes. 

I have detected a general decline in the living conditions of ordinary people. They have detected the decline as well because some of them have decided to do some rather extreme, but wrong headed things to reverse it, including voting for Brexit and Donald Trump. In both cases people actually harmed themselves more. The reason for this is because election campaigns in particular and politics in general has become less about policies and ideas and more about personalities, political strategy and process. Democracy and society are diminished as a result.

Election 2021: The Halfway Point

We are now almost exactly half-way through the 2021 election so what can we say about the first half?

My first thought is social media distorts reality to the extreme. The political side of it has been dominated by polls saying that the Liberals are in trouble while the Conservatives are on the rise. This of course is based off of two pollsters who release their results on social media on a daily basis, which then takes off with social media examining and analyzing every half point change with all of the effort and passion of Stephen Hawking trying to figure out the universe. This behaviour is being enthusiastically copied by the MSM who spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the "horse race" while giving the announcements by the party leaders short shrift.

The thing is the pollsters are actually all but admitting that their polls do not reflect reality. They are saying they are crap. As well, several pollsters have stated that they are not reaching all of their polling populations for a whole host of reasons, which adds further doubts to their polls. Finally most are at least hinting that people are not yet engaged in the election and they will not be for a few more days

However, the one piece of useful information I saw yesterday was from the Abacus and Leger polls. Hidden in all of the data they presented were estimates that indicated, on average, more than 40% of respondents to their surveys believe that the Liberals are going to win the election while only around one-quarter believe the Conservatives will win. So, after two solid weeks of social media and the MSM saying that the Conservatives could win this election it would appear that a very large chunk of Canadians have not received that message. I would add my usual caution about public polls but these estimates combined with the statements of the pollsters described above would seem to indicate that there is some validity in the assertion of the low level of engagement by Canadians.

Social media, the MSM and the political parties and their partisans are certainly engaged but the rest of the country? They are squeezing every last bit of pleasure they can out of the summer.

So how about the parties?

The Liberals have been running the campaign they wanted to run. This slow roll-out of their policies, culminating in the release of their full platform the day before the TVA debate was planned. The fact that they did not stray from that plan would seem to indicate that they believe they can meet their objective on September 20, despite what social media has been saying for the last two weeks. They will switch gears after today and we will see just what they are made of between now and e-day.

The Conservatives have also been running the campaign they wanted to run. Their whole strategy is to present themselves as non-threatening. Really, yesterday when the Liberals were announcing more funding and program ideas to address mental health the Conservatives were talking about puppies. Their thinking must be to say: "Hey, yes, we are going to cancel cheap daycare, allow for the privatization of health care, allow industries to continue to produce GHGs at a terrible rate and allow a whole bunch of slack jawed anti-vaxxers take us back into restrictions and lockdowns but hey we love puppies." I like puppies as much as the next guy, I absolutely love my dog, but this to the Conservatives was a serious policy announcement? This is the kind of strategy you run when you are trying to prevent your party from being crushed on election day. 

The NDP is running a typical NDP campaign. Accuse the Liberals of not being progressive enough and hope that they can win enough seats to stay relevant. Their preferred outcome is a minority government where they are the kingmakers and yes they would support the Conservatives in a minority government if it came to that. Unfortunately for them this election has become a two-way contest, so e-day could be rather disappointing when voters decide on which of the two big parties they want to govern the country.

So now we enter the second half of the election campaign. We will have three debates and the parties will focus their messaging and their campaigns. The Liberals have given themselves alot of ammo with which to convince Canadians they deserve another mandate and they may be helped by anti-vaxx protesters. As well, the Conservatives have come down on the wrong side of at least a half a dozen issues so I am certain the Liberals will begin to point that out more and more. 

Erin O'Toole is already repeating himself on the campaign trail because his platform is so thin. They are pointing to some of their most insignificant policy ideas just to have something to say on a daily basis (We love puppies!). They have been blessed with a Liberal campaign that has been busy setting up their second half so they have not yet been seriously challenged. That is about to change and you have to wonder how they will react. If they are true to form they will go personal.

I have stated for quite sometime that the ballot question is whether Canadians want a change in government or not? I still do not believe so. They may not be totally enamoured with the Trudeau government but most will also realize that the reason why we seem to be seeing the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel is because of what the Liberals have been doing for the last 18 months. As well, many will just not want to change the government after all of the upheaval we have been going through for the last year and a half. There is still half a campaign to go but at the end of it I still expect a Liberal government, with a very high probability of it being a majority government.

The Role of Data in Modern Election Campaigns

In 1997 I worked for a Member of Parliament of an Ottawa riding (The Boss) and I would go to work each day to do my job as a Member's Assistant and then, since my job was as much on the line as The Boss's, I would go volunteer at the campaign office in the evening.

Whenever we went canvassing there was always one member of the team who was responsible for recording whether a person we spoke to would support The Boss or not. They recorded this on a piece of paper on a clipboard. After each canvass that paper would be handed off to the data entry team at campaign HQ so that they could enter it into the computer. That was our database for pulling the vote on E-day. A few days ago when the Conservative candidate visited my neighbourhood I noticed someone with a tablet filling this role.

I provide this little anecdote to demonstrate that data and its analysis has been an important part of election campaigns for decades. With the increase in computer power and capabilities it has become one of the keys to winning a modern election.

With modern computing power, some of the extremely powerful data analytics software available on the market and well trained data scientists a political party can determine the probabilities of how an election will turn out at the riding level. Forget about the national, provincial or regional levels. Think about what all of the seat aggregators produce but on steroids. 

So before this election was called the Liberal data team would have had reliable probabilities for every riding in the country. Since 170 is the magic number they would have identified at least 180 ridings where the Liberals had at least a 75% chance of winning (A large chunk of them would have been in the 85%+ range). To allow for some slippage they would then have identified another 20+ ridings where they had at least a 60% chance of winning. If they were unable to meet these objectives the PM would not have called an election. Being in power with a minority is better than risking an election unless you believe you have it essentially locked up. 

The data team developed these probabilities using a whole host of data collection methods. Quantitative methods such as polling, but at the riding level and qualitative methods such as focus groups just to name two. They then would have crunched the numbers to come up with the probabilities and data analysts would have provided the "picture" to the party decision makers.

In addition these same teams would have tested all of the different policy proposals that have been released by the party and they would have tested the potential reaction to the early election call. 

Once the election is called the data team has to switch to monitoring progress. For the ridings where they identified lower probabilities of winning they would continue to collect data, from polling and other data sources to look for changes in those probabilities. For the safe ridings they would probably not regularly poll them. They would use that money on less safe ridings. However, remember the tablet I mentioned in my anecdote? All of the data collected during canvassing would be uploaded to party HQ where the data analysts would see if there were any serious signs of trouble in those 180 seats with the 75% probability of winning. If they did that would be flagged. In addition they would be testing the reaction of voters to the daily announcements and actions and words of each of the party leaders.

All of this would be done and a daily dashboard would be produced to be presented to the people running the campaign, which would include the PM. Now here is the rub. This data analysis would not just tell the decision makers the probabilities of victory for their party but it would also provide the probabilities for the other parties. So the Liberals know where they stand each day but they also know where the other parties stand. The Conservatives, who have a similar operation, have the exact same information.

I do not know all of the intricacies because I am not part of the team but this is a general description of the importance of data to modern elections. 

Of course, there are limits to what data can tell you and it is not uncommon for people to misinterpret what the data is telling you.  As well, although these data can provide probabilities that does not constitute a guarantee. There is always a chance the probabilities could be wrong. We can never discount that possibility.

However, I will continue to point out that one of the reason why the Conservatives were so hysterical about the early election call was their data teams were showing the same things the Liberal team was showing. The Liberals had at least a 60% probability of winning more than 180 seats. As well, I will also continue to point out that although the public polls are saying the Liberals are losing support neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are showing signs that their own data analysis teams are in agreement with those polls. 

The Anti-Vax Protesters

The reason why these protesters are so angry is because they know that they are going to lose. They will either have to suck it up and take the two needles or they will be left out of society.

The momentum in the private sector to deny unvaccinated people access to goods and services is growing. Private companies know that if someone contracts Covid while they are in their establishment they will be sued. For small businesses that would mean going out of business. For big business that would mean bad press and a smaller bottom line. That momentum will only increase as vaccine passports and mandates are instituted. 

As a result the anti-vaxxers are becoming rather frightened and desperate. Hence the over-the-top displays that we are starting to see at Liberal events. If, as expected, the Ford government announces the institution of a provincial vaccine passport then that fear and desperation will only intensify. 

Over 75% of Canadians are fully vaccinated and that percentage increases every day. These people are definitely in an ever shrinking minority but that does not mean that they will go quietly. The election provides them with the perfect way to vent their anger and they are going to use it. It will not help them but they will still do it.

Election 2021: On the Cusp of Week Three

Week two of the campaign is coming to an end and what can we make of it?

Well, you cannot talk about week two without talking about the polls. Although, as Jackie, someone who visits this blog from time-to-time, has pointed out it is just three polling companies that are driving the polls right now. They are the three that are doing rolling polls every night and publishing their estimates the next day.

These polls have not been good news for the Liberals. Two of them are rather gruesome while the third shows the Liberals basically where they were at the end of the 2019 election. Are these polls a reflection of reality? (Probably not) Two of these polling companies have estimates that, if they were true, would result in a Conservative victory but the polling companies are still saying that their seat models are showing a Liberal minority government. Say what? I know that the Liberals have the best voter efficiency of all of the parties but what you are describing is out of this world voter efficiency. Your commentary on your own polls is out of whack and the question then becomes, why. Do you not trust your own data? (They don't) It is interesting that neither of the two polling companies that have published gruesome results for the Liberals did rolling polls in the previous two elections. However, the one that has done them since I cannot remember is showing very different results, results that would truly indicate a Liberal victory with their voter efficiency. 

So how are the parties reacting to these polls? The PM took the day off. According to the polls the proverbial wheels are flying off of the campaign bus and he took the day off. This was a planned day off, by the way, because if this would have been a last minute decision, where planned events had to be canceled, our balanced, non-biased media would have discovered that fact by now and provided their usual balanced and un-biased take on that decision. The polls have been troubling long enough to allow for planning events for today without making them look like they were thrown together at the last minute, which would also be noticed and yet he still went ahead with his day off? Over the past two weeks I have not seen any indication that the Liberals have been rattled by what the public polls are saying. They are getting on with getting on.

How about the Conservatives? Erin O'Toole is still warning Canadians about a Trudeau majority. Say what? Dude, the polls say that such a majority if off of the table and a couple of polls are saying you might actually win this thing. What are you talking about? 

As for the media and the "professional" political commentators I would just point out that a certain former Liberal operative, who will never miss an opportunity to bash Mr. Trudeau, has also said the Liberal majority if off of the table. He has not gone to the next level despite the  gruesomeness of a couple of the rolling polls. 

I know that I have been saying this for weeks if not months but modern election campaigns are driven by data. Gone are the days when some "Rainman's" political instincts were the only factors impacting political decisions. While those political instincts are still important, data and its analysis has become its equal in making political decision.

Both of the major parties have data analytics teams working for them. They are collecting and analyzing a tremendous amount of data each day, using the latest data analytics techniques and providing the two leaders with accurate snap shots on a daily basis. As an example, the polling companies doing the rolling polls are interviewing 400-500 respondents each day, from across Canada. The data analytics teams of the two parties are doing that in hundreds of ridings each day and gathering data from other sources besides. What they are telling the two parties is probably much different from what the public polls are telling us. And I think the pollsters and pundits know this which is why they are hedging on what their polls are actually saying.

Enough about polls. What how has week two gone otherwise?

The Liberals book ended their week with a couple of health care announcements. The first one was to promise to hire more healthcare workers and reduce wait times. That announcement was made in Halifax, which just had an election that revolved around those very issues. Most of rural Nova Scotia voted to change their provincial government and the Liberals went to Nova Scotia and essentially said that a Liberal government would be a willing partner with the new provincial government in achieving its key election promise. That is not flashy but it is brilliant. What was funny was that announcement was preceded by a video of Erin O'Toole agreeing with the idea of more privatization of Canada's health care system. I believe it was just a way to show the contrast between the two party positions but then Twitter put a warning label on the video, the media noticed and made it an issue. That lead to the video being viewed hundreds of thousands of times and having Erin O'Toole dodge questions about his view on privatization until he could no longer dodge them. He finally had to admit that what was said in the video is accurate, he would allow more privatization. I wonder, knowing that the Liberals realize the media is hostile towards them, if they did not plan it that way. Did they pawn the media and create what could be THE wedge issue for this campaign in the process? If they did bravo.

One final note. I noticed that the DPM has been going around the country campaigning with Liberals. She is not just sticking to her own riding but campaigning on a level just below the PM. As well, I have noticed the the Liberal Party has been allowing individual election candidates make some of the more mundane election announcements. With a hostile media that is the kind of campaign you need to have. These efforts will not be noticed by the national media but they will be noticed by the local media, which are usually much less hostile towards any of the political parties.

As for the Conservatives they have not really had a spectacular campaign so far. If the media was not pulling for them they would be nowhere. Erin O'Toole is a one man band. As well, so far he has come down on the wrong side of around a half-a-dozen issues, including admitting that he would allow more privatization of Canada's health care system. That provides plenty of material for the Liberals to use over the next three weeks and there are probably a few people in the Conservative camp wondering when the next shoe will drop.

The preliminary round of the election is over. All of the campaigns will switch gears and begin the real election this week. It should be an interesting three weeks.

Mr. Trudeau's Announcement about Vaccine Passports

Documentation that you can carry with you, either on your phone or in your wallet, proving that you have been fully vaxxed will be necessary for us to return to something resembling the normalcy we all enjoyed before March 13, 2020.

Unfortunately, there are too many provincial governments in this country that have resisted them for a number of reason, but mostly because they fear the backlash of the anti-vaxxers that make up a sizable chunk of their electoral base.

So the Prime Minister did what all Prime Ministers do when they want the Premiers to do something. He offered them cash. It is as Canadian as maple syrup, tar sands oil and mowing the lawn during a snow flurry.

Will it work? For some yes. For others maybe not.

The Tasks at Hand

Mr. Trudeau and Mr. O'Toole are attempting to accomplish two different tasks. Mr. Trudeau wants to win a majority government while Mr. O'Toole wants to replace the Trudeau government with a government lead by him and if he could do that with a majority of his own he would love that.

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Trudeau has the easier task. That would seem to be counterintuitive looking at the polls for the past week but if you look past the top-line numbers it does seem to be true at this point in the campaign.

If you look at all of the polls, without focusing on just one, you will note some interesting results.

In BC the polling averages indicate that if an election were held today the Liberals could gain up to 8 seats. For the sake of this exercise let's split the difference and call it 4 seats.

On the Prairies it is 7 additional seats so let's call it 3.

In Quebec the Liberals could win up to 20 additional seats so let's call it 10.

In the Eastern Provinces they could win 4 additional seats so let's call it 2.

So when the election was called the Liberals had 155 seats. Adding the number of possible additional seats to that gives you: 155+4+3+10+2=174 seats. A slim majority.

Looking at Ontario the polls indicate that the Liberals could win anywhere from 60 to 80 seats. Again, let's split the difference which means, 70 seats, 7 seats off of their current total in that province.

So when we take the seat gains above and apply the Ontario losses we get: 174-7=167, a strong minority government. If the Liberals just beat the mean in a couple of regions they find themselves back over the majority government mark and beating the mean significantly puts them into comfortable majority territory. 

Let's contrast that with the task Mr. O'Toole has ahead of him.

The polls indicate that if an election were held today the Conservatives would lose between 6-12 seats in the West. As above we will split the difference and call it 9 seats. As well, it would appear he could lose up to 4 seats in the Eastern Provinces. We will call it 2.

When the election was called the Conservatives had 121 seats. So looking at their losses that gives the Conservatives: 121-11=110 seats. Looking at where they might gain the current polls are indicating that they may gain up to 5 seats in Quebec, let's call it 3. As well, they may gain from 5 to 15 seats in Ontario which we will call 8 additional seats.

So taking their totals with all gains and losses accounted for we have: 110+11=121 seats, essentially back to where they started. 

As an aside, it is interesting that the only part of the country where the Liberals are down is Ontario. In all other provinces and regions in the country the Liberals are either at their 2019 levels or higher while the Conservatives are mostly at their 2019 levels or lower. I would be curious to know why Ontario is the outlier here. Are they a harbinger of things to come in the rest of the country? Or will they eventually come back into line with the rest of the country in the last weeks of the campaign?

So just looking at these numbers it is obvious that after two weeks of the campaign, dominated by bad public polls for the Liberals, the Liberals are still closer to achieving their objective than the Conservatives. Currently the Liberals can afford to lose some seats in Ontario as long as they can pick up seats in the other regions and provinces and still obtain their majority. At the very least they, if the election were held today, they would retain government. The Conservatives on the other hand would need to virtually sweep Ontario and Quebec, while limiting his losses elsewhere, to win government.

Could the Conservatives change the math by September 20? Of course they could. Is it probable that they will change it? I would say no at this point. 

Either Justin Trudeau or Erin O'Toole are going to feel very helpless during the week of September 13

As I have stated before the ballot question for the election is: is this election a change election?

I do not believe it is for all of the reasons I mention in that blog post.

However, if Canadians have decided that they want to change governments this time, and if that is the case the decision has already been made at the unconscious level, then there is nothing that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals will be able to do about it.

On the other hand if Canadians have decided that they do not want to change governments then it is Erin O'Toole who will be powerless to do anything about it.

The Erosion of Western Democracy

The reaction to the video where Erin O'Toole answers in a straight, one word affirmative to a very straightforward question of whether he agrees with more privatization of Canada's health care system has been instructional. But more on that in a minute.

I had a discussion with a friend about the rise of China in the world and I expressed my opinion that I believed that the size of its economy would overtake that of the United States in my lifetime. My friend said it is possible but he stated that it probably would not happen because China does not have a mechanism for channeling anger at the government. Therefore, if they hit serious bumps in the road the Chinese government will suffer an existential crisis and that would cause a vicious circle of lower economic output, which would cause further unrest thus deepening the political crisis, and so on.

I said that is definitely a possibility but the problem with that argument is the West no longer has a reliable safety valve for rising anger and unrest in the West either because of the increasing failure and the increasing loss of faith in western democracy so they could find themselves in the same vicious cycle. That loss of faith is caused by modern Western democracies inability to actually allow ordinary citizens to improve their lot. There is empirical evidence to suggest that my generation is worse off, economically, than my parents' generation and there is more empirical evidence that the generations coming after mine will be even worse off. We can see this coming. It is a plain as the nose on one's face but we seem to be helpless in preventing it. The reason for this is the failure of democracy.

This brings me back to the video mentioned in the first paragraph of this post. Fifteen, maybe even ten years ago, if the leader of a Federal political party would have made those statements during an election campaign his campaign would be finished. The media would have jumped all over it and they would have focused on what he said and they would stay focused on it for days. What was the reaction of the media and chattering classes to Erin O'Toole's video? They focused on Twitter flagging the video.

The Canadian health care system is a point of pride for Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians do not want it falling into private hands. Yet here is a federal politicians disagreeing with the majority and so far I have not seen any consequences.

Why? The answer is simple. The ruling class in Canada and the other Western democracies have completely lost touch with those that they rule. I include the main stream media as part of the ruling class, which is not where they should be because the media is supposed to challenge the ruling class not be coopted by it. 

So if Erin O'Toole were to become PM (he won't) and allows the introduction of further privatization in our health care system, despite the vast majority of Canadians who are against it, that would lead to a further erosion in the faith in democracy. We want to keep our health care system public, we voted, it became more private, therefore democracy does not work.

This erosion of faith will have serious consequences for the people of the West. We are already seeing it with the election of Donald Trump and his continued popularity, Brexit, the rise of far-right and neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the rise of authoritarian governments in some of the former Warsaw Bloc states. These outcomes to the failure of democracy will only get worse and Canada will not escape them.

Although PM Trudeau, President Biden and some other Western leaders are fighting a rear guard action they have been unable to restore faith in democracy and that will inevitably lead to authoritarian governments taking over current democracies, especially when the full impacts of climate change and automation start to be felt among ordinary people. With democracy failing, authoritarianism will be the only way to keep order.

Note, I am not trying to single out Mr. O'Toole. He is just another example of how out of touch our ruling class is with us. There are many more of other political stripes so he is by no means unique. The reaction to his video just demonstrates the continuing trend of our ruling class becoming further out of touch with those that they are supposed to be ruling.

Early Election Polls

I rarely more than glance at public polls because they are generally useless at explaining what is happening unless you look at them over a long period of time, which means months, not weeks and certainly not days. And even then you need to take what they say with a grain of salt.

However, I have seen many people talk about them and I wanted to see what all of the fuss was about.

Full disclosure I worked for 18 years in the survey business so I know quite a bit on how they are developed, collected and analyzed to produce the estimates that we all look at when we read polls. I also spent a good part of that 18 years crafting the message contained in the data for survey reports. 

At any rate, the pollsters and the pundits have been saying the Liberals have lost support and the Conservatives have the momentum in the early part of the election. They base this on the fact that a week before the election call the Liberals had large single digit or small double digit leads in the polls and that shrank to being a statistical tie just days after the election call. I would ask you to read one of my previous blog entries on just what I think of that. I find such claims to be very dubious.

However, let's, for the sake of argument, take that claim at face value. Looking at the polls for the past five days the indicate that the Liberals have settled at about 34% and the Conservatives have settled at about 31% and the NDP at 19%. For the past five days the numbers have not moved more than the margin of error (MOE) around those numbers. Which means that the numbers are not moving at all. That means that no party has momentum. If the Conservatives did have the momentum before August 18 (a dubious claim) it stopped five days ago and it has not picked back up since then. Consider that the Liberals won their 157 seats with 33% of the vote in 2019 while the Conservatives won 34%. With the Conservatives down 3 points from 2019 they are not winning any more seats and the Liberal might pick up a few.

This is subject to change. Either the Conservatives or Liberals could gain the momentum as the election unfolds or these numbers could stay the same as we saw in 2019. I cannot say with certainty which one will happen but the Liberals probably have the better odds, for all of the reasons I have outlined in previous posts.

Now let us look at the regional numbers. Keep in mind that these have even higher MOEs because of the smaller sample sizes so even something that looks like a big swing, such as in the Maritimes, could be nothing more than statistical noise.

In BC the Liberals are around 30%, with the Conservatives and the NDP being around the same level. At 30% the Liberals would hang on to their 11 seats and potentially gain 6 more for a total of 17

In Alberta the Conservatives are sitting at 49%. That is 27 points off of what they won in 2019. That is massive. In any other election the media would be talking about the collapse of their vote in their main stronghold. The Liberals are where they were in 2019 so that opens the possibility of the Liberals winning 4 seats in Alberta.

In Saskitoba the Conservatives are down and the Liberals are where they were in 2019. Three additional seats are possible there.

In Ontario all of the parties are at their 2019 totals. However, it should be noted that the PPC is pushing 5% in Ontario. That may not seem like much but if they can siphon off a couple percentage points in ridings where the Conservatives only won by a point or two those will be lost seats for the Conservatives, and almost 20 of those close seats saw the Liberals come in second. 

In the Maritimes the parties are sitting at what they gained in 2019 so we probably would not see any change there.

In Quebec, the Liberals are sitting around 39% while the Bloc is 13 points back and the Conservatives and the NDP are nipping at the Blocs heels. The available pool of voters in Quebec for the Liberals is 40% so they are pretty much at their ceiling. The others are fishing in a bigger pond but the are very close to each other meaning that they would split the anti-Liberal vote quite nicely if this hold. At worst, in this scenario the Liberals equal their 2019 seat totals. At best they can gain up to 25 seats, although 10 would probably be more realistic.

So the Liberals started the campaign at 155 seats. Let's not assume either the worst or best case scenario presented by the polls for each region. Let's assume the middle ground.

So we add 3 for BC, 2 for Alberta, 2 for Saskitoba, 3 for Ontario, 10 for Quebec and 1 for the Maritimes (The NDP seat in St. Johns is open so it could fall). That is 21 added to the 155 to equal 176 seats.

So when pollsters and pundits are saying the Liberals are losing the election what the f&%# are they talking about? I personally do not believe the Liberals would win a majority with just 33% of the vote but considering what I am seeing in the current polls it is not beyond the realm of possibility. And if these numbers were the final numbers on September 20 there is no way the Liberals lose.

I will add my usual caveat that elections are crap shoots and these numbers could change to the disadvantage of the Liberals but they can also change to their advantage. However, in order to change governments they will need to change much more in favour of the Conservatives than they would for us to see a Liberal majority government.

I have provided reasons why the most likely outcome of the election is a Liberal victory, possibly a majority government, in previous entries in this blog and as comments on other blogs. Looking at the latest polls, if an election were held today the outcome would be exactly that.

Election 2021: Week One Complete

Week one of the 2021 Federal election is in the books and (imagine me speaking like Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars) it is unfolding as I have foreseen.

The Liberals are running a typical frontrunner campaign because they are the prohibitive front runner. They have been for over 18 months. It can be kind of frustrating if you were expecting them to come out guns blazing but they have done what I would have expected after calling an election during the dog days of summer. Some have said that they never gave a good answer for calling the election but no answer would have been sufficient. Everybody knows that they called the election because they believe they can win a majority government. Hell, all of the Opposition Parties and the media acknowledged just that with their over-the-top reactions to the election call. The first 7 to 10 days of their campaign is going to be like this. After that they will begin to ramp up the effort and urgency of their campaign.

I stated in a previous post that the Conservatives were starting with exceedingly low expectations. So it should surprise no one that they have exceeded them in the first week. However, even then their first week has not been stellar. Hell, if they would have started with normal expectations they would have had a terrible first week. They came down on the wrong side of the vaccine mandate and child care issues, their pre-writ Willy Wonda ad was typical Conservative BS that will remind swing voters why they voted against the Conservatives in 2015 and 2019, their "GST holiday" has been widely panned as the gimmick that it is and Mr. O'Toole's statements on abortion and conscience rights seem to change daily. None of these issues seemed to impact them in the first week but they will haunt them as the campaign goes forward. One final thought, the biggest reason why they released their whole election platform early is because they know they are more likely to lose seat than gain them this time. They need to somehow reverse that and releasing an uncosted platform is their gambit to do it.

In 2019 the NDP did not really begin campaigning until the debates. It was very low key because of their financial situation. Although they are still heavily in debt (and will be even more heavily in debt after this campaign) they have enough resources to launch a typical NDP campaign and that is what they did. Some have said they have had a good week but the NDP usually have good campaigns. The problem for them is, although most Canadians like the NDP and their leader, most Canadians do not trust them to govern the country. That is a simple fact and it will probably not change. My guess is that after all this is done the NDP will garner their usual 15-20% of the vote and depending on how the Bloc does will be the third or fourth party again.

Speaking of the Bloc, some reports indicate that they did not have a good first week. This should surprise no one. Mr. Blanchett is now a known quantity. It will be harder for him to surprise Quebecers. That does not mean that they cannot recover but the Bloc is the party that denied the Liberals a majority government in 2019. If they fade in Quebec the Liberals path to a majority will be cleared of the last obstacle. Remember, there are two pools of voters in Quebec, one is federalists the other is Quebec nationalists and separatists. The first is about 40% of the Quebec electorate and the Liberals pretty much own it. The other is 60% but three parties are fishing in that pool. If each one of them can garner roughly the same proportion of voters from that pool the Liberals will come up the middle an win more seats. Hell if the conditions are just right they could win Pierre Trudeau seat numbers.

The Greens and the PPC were invisible which is not surprising. For the Greens the challenges that Ms. Paul has faced leading up to the election will probably not be overcome. As for the PPC they are running candidates in every riding of the country this time so they could very well be a dark horse. If the public polls are to be believed (they are not) the PPC is averaging just under 4% and they are climbing. If that happens it could be bad news for the Conservatives in ridings where they only won by razor thin margins in 2019.

I am not seeing anything on the Maverick Party out west but they are running in every riding West of the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border and if their Western separatist message resonates they could be trouble for the Conservatives.

The polls and the media are doing exactly what I believed they would do. They have created a horse race where one probably does not exist. It was pretty blatant too. The weekend before the election call virtually all of the pollsters indicated the Liberals had a high single digit, low double digit lead over the Conservatives. About nine days later they all said that the two parties were now in a statistical tie. Public opinion does not work that way. It is glacial and any negative reaction to the election call would not have been that intense. The only pollster that did not show this sudden change was Innovative Research. I know that it does not have the best reputation but it was the only company that produced a poll that was in keeping with how public opinion actually changes. Maybe they will begin to show a Liberal fade in the coming weeks, who knows, we will have to wait and see.

The one thing I did not expect was the situation in Afghanistan happening during the first week of the election. I knew that once the Americans left that the Taliban would reconquer the country but I was uncertain about the timing. The events there pretty much stomped on the messaging for all of the parties, which is probably something they all appreciate. As the government the Liberals will have to wear any bad news coming from that country but, although people will be concerned about the situation, it will not impact how people vote. Hopefully, over the next few weeks we can get as many Afghans who worked with Canadians out and then begin the process of bringing in refugees as they arrive in the neighbouring states.

I discovered a new website by Raymond Tomlin (Thanks Jackie Blue) and he has some really good insight into the election. Just click on the Election 44 link at the top of the page. He is much more bullish for the Liberals than I am so I thought he might just be a Liberal cheerleader but when I reviewed his feed for the 2019 election it is apparent he was not afraid to call a spade a spade. It will be interesting to see his take on the election as it unfolds.

Elections do not occur in a vacuum

On the day the election was called in 2015 I wrote on this blog that the Liberals would win a majority government.

That was not wishful thinking or bravado. That was just me looking at what had occurred between the 2011 and the 2015 elections and making an intelligent guess.

When the Senate Expense Scandal hit the headlines the Conservatives began to show weakness in their polls and surprisingly the Liberals were the ones who benefited. After a short time the polls were saying that the Liberals would win a majority government if the election would have been held on the day a given poll was released. This was true for around 18 months. I know that I say do not trust the polls but when scores of polls, conducted by all of the major polling companies in the country, indicate that the Liberals are in majority territory for 18 straight months the polls might be on to something. Essentially what they were saying was if Canadians were to change governments the Liberals would be the agent for that change.

After about 18 months the polls settled into a three-way tie and then Rachel Notley won in Alberta. Well that historical victory immediately boosted the federal NDP into first place in the polls and they remained there until the writ was dropped. At that time many commentators were breathlessly saying that the NDP would finally grab the brass ring and that the Liberals would be relegated to third party status again.

Of course that did not happen.

I provide this anecdote because what those commentators failed to understand was Canadians consistently indicated that the Liberals were their choice to replace the Harper government if Canadians were so inclined to make such a change. They were and they did. The minutiae of the pre-writ and writ period did not change that simple fact.

How does that relate to the current election?

Since the pandemic started all of the public polls have indicated that the Liberals have been comfortably leading the pack, with a very short period during the WE controversy where they were tied. Further, those same polls indicated that Canadians prefer Justin Trudeau to be PM, by very large margins. Again this has been true for about 18 months and all polling companies have reported this. Again, one should be cautious when trying to infer anything from public polls but when they consistently say something for that amount of time they might be somewhat reflecting reality.

Further, many commentators were indicating that the Conservative base may not be as solid as in the past because many of its more extreme elements have other alternatives and quite frankly they did not appear to trust him. And it was not just the polls saying this. The actions of Mr. O'Toole himself seemed to indicate that there was some truth to these assertions. Plus even now some of his own candidates are downplaying both the party and Mr. O'Toole in their local campaigns.

Now that the election has started many have forgotten about these facts. It is as if just because the election has started that they no longer matter. They do, in a big way.

The time and events leading up to an election usually do not consciously register with people before an election. But is does register nonetheless and they do have an impact on the outcome. It might not seem that this is the case right now but as e-day approaches the impact of the time before the election was called will probably become more apparent.

Is the 2021 Federal Election a Change Election? Updated

Everybody has heard of the so called "ballot question". That is the question voters ask themselves when they cast their ballot. Many commentators assert that the political party that convinces enough voters to cast their votes for their ballot question will win the election.

Will the ballot question be about the environment, the economy, child care, vaccines or some other issue? In general it is none of these or any other issue.

I know of only one election in the last 40 years where an actual issue was the ballot question. That was 1988 when Canadians were asked to decide whether Canada should ratify the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Note that this was the agreement before NAFTA.

For every election since then the key ballot question has always been "Do I want a change in government?" That's it. Everything else was secondary and might have informed that decision but it always boiled down to that question.

In general humans do not like change. It frightens us. It confounds us. It clouds the future because you never know what the implications of change will be. The status quo, on the other hand, offers stability and predictability which we find comforting. As a result we only make changes when we are forced to or when a situation becomes so outrageous that change in the best option. However, even then we usually are not happy making the change. It is deemed necessary but for the most part we will not be too enthusiastic making it.

From a political standpoint this means that the incumbent party has the advantage in most elections. Most of the time voters are going to choose the status quo over change. The exceptions of course are those elections where the incumbent has worn out their welcome and voters decide that a change is necessary. That usually happens after a government has been in power for a very long time, which in Canada usually means eight or more years. 

Looking at all of the change elections of the last 40 years they were in:

• 1984 - when Canadians finally grew very tired of Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals
• 1993 - when Canadians grew tired of the Progressive Conservatives
• 2006 - when the scandal plagued Liberal finally convinced voters that a change was necessary
• 2015 - when Canadian said we have had enough of Stephen Harper.

Check the intervals between those elections and you will note that none of them are under the eight year mark I mentioned above. As well, for all of those cases it was obvious when those election campaigns started that there would be a change in government when all of the votes were counted. 

So that brings us back to the question above. Will this be a change election? The Liberals have only been in power for six years and there is no sign that a desire for change is strong in the country. Yes, the shine the Liberals had in 2015 has long worn off but that does not mean that Canadians are necessarily ready to pitch them to curb just yet. 

The Liberals' opponents are going to try to convince Canadians that a change is necessary but that is what happens during every election. In general, government opponents do not succeed in convincing voters to change if that sentiment was not already there. 

We will have to see if this election bucks the trend but if I had to guess I would say that it will not. Leaving aside that the Liberals have been in power for less than eight years there is also the upset and change that we have all been living through for the past 18 months. It can probably be argued that enough Canadians will decide not to add to the uncertainty we have been living under during that time by changing governments as well.

Update: Just to expand on my thought about change elections. The first election I ever voted in was the 1984 federal election. Including that election we have had 11 federal elections since then. Of those 11 only four of them were change elections. In other words change elections are very infrequent and the conditions need to be almost perfect for one to happen.

The First Couple of Days of the Election

So the first three days of the election are behind us and these are my first impressions.

It is boring as hell.

The media is doing what I said they would do and pumping up Erin O'Toole and using paid pollsters to provide the "data" to "prove" he actually has a shot at winning.

As well, predictably the media and the Opposition parties screamed about the "unnecessary" election even though they had been speculating about one for months. The stated reasons for their consternation are ridiculous at all levels. 

Although my favourite is their claim that the PM only called the election because he believes he can win a majority government. What stupidity. Of course he did. That is what PMs in this country do when they are leading minority governments. I always get a chuckle out of people when they complain about politicians acting like politicians. That is like complaining about a snow storm in January. Certainly, it might make you feel better but it is a pointless exercise otherwise.

All elections outside of the regular election cycle are risky so Mr. Trudeau would not have called one unless he was confident that he could win it and win a majority government besides. I believe the media and the Opposition believe the same thing, which is the real reason for their upset.

In all likelihood the Liberals have discovered that their support is baked in. Their base is secure and not going anywhere so they only need to find seven more percentage points of support and they will achieve their objective. With their handling of the pandemic and what is probably going to be the most coherent election platform of all of the parties they should be able to achieve that. However, when the final week of the election is upon us we will see if they are successful because that is when the non-aligned late breakers will make their decision.

The Conservatives are a mess. I am not so certain that their base is as secure as it has been for the last few elections and they seem to be totally unprepared to actually fight a pandemic election. Coming out against vaccine mandates when they are extremely popular among Canadians seems counterproductive. The same is true of baldly stating that they would cancel all of the Child Care agreements with the provinces, which may include Ontario before the election is over. Perhaps Mr. O'Toole is hoping to do what Mr. Harper did in 2006 when he announced a few very unpopular policy proposals at the very beginning of the campaign and counted on voters to forget about them by e-day. It did work for Mr. Harper but he was also up against a Liberal government operating under the weight of Adscam and the Gomery Inquiry.

Their election platform document is a thin gruel of the Conservative Party's greatest hits from elections past. There is not an original thought or policy idea in the whole document. They have not resorted to the dog whistling yet but it would not surprise me when they do.

Then there was the Willy Wonka video. It was widely panned but there seems to be some school of thought that it was actually planned that way. People point to the two Kiwis that helped to get Boris Johnson elected but they seem to forget that particular election was a referendum on Brexit, which by that point was widely popular in key parts of the soon to be DisUnited Kingdom. No such issue exists for this election, except for the pandemic and the Liberals have built up a great deal of goodwill among Canadians for their handling of the health and economic impacts of the pandemic. Maybe there is some deeper strategy in that video or maybe it is just more of the same from the Conservatives who have been personally attacking and insulting Justin Trudeau since it became apparent he would become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. At some point they may figure out that such an approach is not working and change tack. 

For the Conservatives the wild card is the other conservative parties. If they do reasonably well they are screwed. We will not know how well or how poorly they do until September 20 but it should be noted that they do not need to win seats to screw the Conservatives. They just need to siphon off enough votes from the Conservatives to cause them to lose close races against the other major parties

I am not seeing much from the Quebec media about the Bloc so I cannot say anything about them. In 2019 they were invisible until the debates so that will probably be the case again. We will have to see how Quebecers react to the debates to see just how the Bloc will impact the election.

The NDP is invisible. I suspect this election is going to be like most others and focus on the two main parties. The NDP will struggle for air time and attention. As per usual they will get more attention at the debates but I am not certain it will mean much by then. They received more attention in 2019 and they still lost half of their caucus.

The Green Party is a dumpster fire on a train wreck sitting on the deck of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Elizabeth May might win her seat but that will probably be it.

The situation in Afghanistan could have an impact but I doubt the media will be able to focus on it for the next six weeks. It will eventually be forgotten by them as they inevitably move on to something else. However, stories of some Afghans, who helped Canadian troops when they were there, being murdered by the Taliban will not be a good look for the Liberals but I doubt it would move many votes. Canadians will have sympathy for those poor souls but not enough to really motivate them to vote one way or another.

As with all elections there is room for surprises and I am certain we will have a few before it is all said and done. However, it is widely believed that the Liberals are going to win and probably win big and so far I have not seen anything that would change that belief.