I have to disagree with Jason Cherniak

In this post Jason Cherniak argues that if Mr. Harper only wins a minority government on October 14 he will be gone as leader of the Conservative Party. I have to respectfully disagree.

Jason presents a reasonable argument. However, I believe he is missing one key element. The party in power does not have the luxury of voluntarily replacing its leaders when that party only has a minority government. As soon as they do so they make the current leader a lame duck completely unable to govern. That in and of itself would be bad enough for the prospects of the Conservatives winning another election. However, there is also the consideration that the government may fall as a result of a no-confidence motion during the chaos of a leadership selection process. Such a threat would make it even more difficult for the party to govern.

So the only way that the Conservatives get rid of Mr. Harper is if he loses the election and even then he may be able to hang on if the Liberals only win a very slim minority. Otherwise Mr. Harper is staying as leader of the Conservative Party. Either as a hero because he manages to pull out a majority government or because they are stuck with him because they cannot risk trying to replace him in a minority government situation.

Of course, if he only has a minority government then he can expect this time to be very different from the last time.

The media will be less inclined to carry his water. One of the reasons why they have been doing so since 2006 is because the corporate bigwigs that run our media believed what their journalist employees were saying. They believed that the Liberals had no hope of forming the government so they could ignore them without having to worry about their interests being threatened. If Mr. Harper only wins a minority the corporate bosses of our MSM will realize that the Liberals will become a government in waiting and it is not in their best corporate interests to alienate said government in waiting. If Mr. Harper only wins a minority government he can expect his long honeymoon with the MSM to be over.

If Mr. Harper only wins a minority government he can expect a very different Conservative Party. Gone will be the days where he will be able to demand that it is his way or the highway. More and more Conservatives, both internal operatives and members of his caucus will be less inclined to stay quiet on issues they consider to be important. Such a scenario could actually be helpful to the Conservatives as it would allow them to shed some of their "secretive" image. However, the weak bench strength of the Conservative caucus and the Conservatives Party's abundance of raving loons could also create the nightmare of giving the Party the image of just being the Reform/Canadian Alliance resurrection.

Then there is the Liberal Party. It will be a true government-in-waiting. It will receive much more attention and positive coverage. It will be a much stronger opposition because of its experience at it for the last couple of years, because of the increased stature of Mr. Dion and because of its considerable bench strength. Of course, if the Liberal Party reacts badly to another Conservative minority and the knives come out for Mr. Dion they will just be shooting themselves in the foot and negating all of the problems Mr. Harper would be facing.

Mr. Harper has to win a majority government. If he only wins a minority government he will be able to hang on to his position as Party leader but he will wish he was somewhere else. If he actually loses this election he will be gone.

The Conservatives will probably win the election

In the final days of the election there are two important but contrary dynamics at work. The first dynamic is the incumbent advantage where alot of undecided voters decide to stick with the party already in power because they are the party in power and it was expected that they would win this election at the outset. The second dynamic is the strengthening of Liberal support as many progressives decide that they are the only ones that can replace the Conservatives so they switch their vote to them.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives will probably come out on top in this situation.

There are several reasons.

1. They are leading at the moment so they have the advantage of not having to pick-up as much additional support as the Liberals to win the election.
2. The desire for change in this country is not that strong so alot of Canadians will not care if the Conservatives continue to be the party in power.
3. The Liberal surge is 7-10 days too late. Their current position in the polls should have been where they were before the debates. That would have given them a chance to overtake the Conservatives with enough time for the changing media narrative to sink in with Canadians.

So the only question will be what kind of government will be see on October 15?

That depends on how the two competing dynamics play out. The nightmare scenario is the incumbent advantage causes the maximum shift of support for the Conservatives while the progressive vote completely fails to coalesce around the Liberals. In that situation a slim Conservative majority government is possible.

However, I do not believe it is plausible. Unfortunately for the Conservatives the increasing economic crisis will probably hold them back. As well, it is likely that enough of the progressive vote will swing towards the Liberals to deny the Conservatives their much sought after majority.

So, I believe we will be stuck with another Conservative government on October 15. It will probably be another minority government but there is still the possibility that it will be a slim majority government.

Yikes!!

So I arrive at my in-laws yesterday for Rosh Hashanah and my father-in-law drags me down to the family room to see the results of the House vote on the $700 billion bailout package. You see the vote took place as my wife and I drove from Ottawa to Montreal.

What does it all mean? Despite the hemmings and hawings from all of the "experts" that were in fine form after the failed vote it is too early to tell. We have seen these market meltdowns before and they have rarely amounted to much beyond Wall Street and Bay Street.

It is true that this meltdown combined with the credit crunch, resulting in bank failures, are eerily similar to the conditions in 1929. However, those events were helped along by the governments of the big economies of the day when they reacted with protectionism. Fortunately no government is talking about raising trade barriers this time.

All that being said I am very happy that my wife and I are currently debt free.

How will this impact the elections in both Canada and the US?

Well judging from the rhetoric from Republican members of Congress yesterday it would appear they expect to wear this failure. I suspect they may be right. Barring a major error on Senator Obama's part I believe he has the momentum to take him into the White House.

In Canada, the events of yesterday could help the Conservatives. For whatever reason Canadians seem to believe Conservatives are better shepards in bad economic times. It defies reality and history has proven that but that really does not matter. As well, this could be very bad news for the NDP. Canadians firmly believe they cannot be trusted on the economy and the events of yesterday could remind them of that. As well, the Greens could take a hit. In times of economic uncertainty fringe parties like them lose support as voters decide to stick with those with a proven track record to govern. In this country that is the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. (That was not a mistake).

The remaining days of this campaign could very well come down to a showdown between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

So the Liberals should pound the Conservatives on blowing the surplus and they should use Paul Martin to do it. Get him out there accusing the Conservatives of destroying what he and Canadians spent so many years building. The Liberals have a stellar track record when it comes to the economy and the Liberals should be using the one who created that record to remind Canadians of that fact.

I hate to sound like a broken record but...

There is still a distinct disconnect with what the media is telling us about this election and how the campaigns are fighting it.

In the last three days Mr. Harper has pandered to his base twice, (youth crime announcement and comments about the arts) and he has made statements that folks should not vote for the NDP because they would just wind up electing a Liberal government.

These are not the actions of a man enjoying a massive lead with less than three weeks to go before an election.

As I have stated before Mr. Harper has to expand beyond his base to win his much sought after majority and both the crime announcement and arts comments are extremely counterproductive. Both will not play well in Quebec. Both provide Gilles Duceppe with something to pound the Conservatives with for the remainder of the campaign. The arts in particular is a big issue as Quebecers look at the arts as a way to promote and elaborate the French culture and a political party threatens or is perceived the threaten that at its peril.

As for the NDP statement that was just weird. Someone should inform Mr. Harper that according to the media he has a huge lead and no one is taking the idea of the Liberals winning the election very seriously right now.

As for the Liberals, they are supposed to be history. In fact, Jane Taber wrote today that according to "senior Liberals" the party was now looking just to save what they have and forgetting about winning the election. I guess those "senior Liberals" should have told the campaign that because they have Mr. Dion in Quebec City and Trois Rivière today, rather safe Conservative and Bloc areas respectively. If the Liberals are indeed toast and pretty much a political corpse in Quebec, as the media claims, why are the Liberals not campaigning in their strongholds and trying to shore up their base?

That is what is so weird about this campaign. The "frontrunner" is acting like they are ones in danger of losing the election. It is the Conservatives who are campaigning in safe areas and pandering to their base. With the lead the media says they have Mr. Harper should be going into Liberal strongholds to try to cause some upsets in those ridings. As well, the one perceived to be losing by a big margin is acting like they are leading. Their is no sense of urgency (my pet peeve) let alone panic in their campaign and they are not a party trying to shore up its base, which is what I would expect it to be doing if the polls saying they are around the 25% mark are true.

As I stated before, at the moment, this election seems to be much closer than the media is telling us.

Not that I believe the Liberals are leading. The Liberals are losing this election right now and they are on their way to losing it October 14. The reason is simple. They utterly failed to foresee the toxic media atmosphere for the Liberals and they have completely failed to adapt to it. I have never seen a media atmosphere like this one during any election. Even in 2000 when the media completely dismissed Stockwell Day as suitable material for being PM they did not give Jean Chretien the free ride that Stephen Harper is receiving. It is unprecedented and a sight to behold.

The upcoming debates will not save the Liberals either. I would wager a fair amount of money that the media already has their spin for those nights. Short of Mr. Harper growing horns and a tail they have already decided that he will win the debates. As well, Mr. Dion could speak English as clearly and eloquently as Sir Ian McKellan and they will still have a problem with his English. Most Canadians do not watch the debates (they are a ratings dud) they make judgements based on what the media says about them so the Liberals really are screwed.

This has been the weirdest election that I have ever witnessed. The media is telling us one thing but the actions of the parties are telling another. I have no idea which one to believe.

Ugh, the dog days

Well we have entered that period of the election campaign when not much will happen.

The excitement of the first two weeks is over and the debates are still a week away.

I suspect we will see another set of ads from all parties leading up to the debates and then a blitz afterwards.

As well, it will be after the debates that all of the campaigns will really kick it into high gear and that is also when we will really see how this election is going to finally unfold.

For now though, if you are feeling a little election fatigue, now would be good time to take a break. Not much is going to happen.

Now I am really confused

According to all of the polls except Nanos the Liberals are toast. They are done, history.

Yet today we had

• Mr. Harper pandering to his base with a silly crime and punishment announcement,
• Mr. Rae telling voters that we have to end vote splitting on the left to beat the Conservatives, and
• Mr. Layton stating that he would be willing to form a coalition with the Liberals.

Guys, guys, guys, the Liberals are toast. I know because Mike Duffy says so and he has all sorts of polls to back it up.

So, Mr. Harper, why are you pandering to your base? You apparently have this election in the bag. You should be talking to everybody but your base at this point to push you over the top to a majority.

Mr. Rae, why are you even talking about a Liberal victory at all? Mr. Duffy et al says the Liberals are done so you should not be talking about actually winning this thing. You should instead be plotting strategy for the leadership convention to replace Mr. Dion. C'mon, get with the program!

Mr. Layton, why are you talking about a coalition? According to Peter Donolo and Bruce Anderson you are going to be fighting for second place in this election. You are on the cusp of making the NDP the Official Opposition. Now is not the time to talk coalition. You should be fighting to put yourself over that hump.

At this time in the election campaign there is a massive disconnect with what the media is telling us about it and how the various campaigns are pursuing their respective campaigns. None of them are acting as if the Liberals are way down and possibly facing third party status.

Although things can change in a heartbeat during an election campaign the actions of the various parties seems to indicate that this thing is alot closer than we are being lead to believe.

Where is the panic in the Liberal campaign?

Am I missing something here?

Pretty well every poll except the Nanos one (more on that later) are showing the Liberals in the low to mid-20s, about 15 points behind the Conservatives. It is three weeks before the election, which means if those polls are correct the Liberals lose unless there is a meltdown of biblical proportions in the Conservative campaign. Again, if those polls are correct the only thing the Liberals could hope for is to cut their losses.

So, why is there no sign of panic or even a heightened sense of urgency in the Liberal campaign? Usually, when a campaign is this far down signs begin to show. However, it would seem it is not there. In fact, Mr. Dion is taking the day off today.

Some would say that Mr. Dion "shifting" focus from the Green Shift Plan would be a sign except he has not actually made that shift. That was all made up by the media still trying desparately to maintain the "Dion is a dead duck" narrative.

As well, why are the Conservatives not as relaxed as they should be considering they would appear to have this election in the bag? If the polls are correct they cannot lose and the only thing in question now is whether it is a majority or a minority.

So what's up?

The Nanos poll might give us a clue. One of the reasons why he has become the polling guru is because his client is CPAC, a television station that goes out of its way to be non-partisan and balanced. They do not care about creating a narrative. Instead they care about bringing Canadians information about Canadian politics with much less spin. So, instead of demanding polls to support their narrative they demand polls to give Canadians solid information on how things are going out there. So, Mr. Nanos designs polls to do that. That is why his polls are the most methodologically sound of all of the polls being produced out there right now.

That incidently is exactly what the party pollsters are doing. All three of the main stream parties have their own pollsters doing nightly tracking polls probably using very similar methodologies as Nanos. All three political parties want their polls to give them solid information to help them in their decision making as the campaign goes forward. They do not need or want spin.

So what are those polls saying? Are they saying the Liberals are 15 points back and certain to lose the election or are they saying the Liberals are much closer to the Conservatives?

Who knows for certain except the party insiders running the respective campaigns. However, the apparent lack of panic or even a heightened sense of urgency within the Liberal campaign would suggest that they do not see much of a problem at this juncture in the election campaign. As well, the one poll (Nanos) that is conducted using methodology very similar to the party tracking polls has been saying the Liberals have been within striking distance of the Conservatives since the election campaign started.

Of course those public polls could be correct and the Liberals could just be going quietly into the night but for some reason I doubt that would be the case.

Like I said, am I missing something?

The national media has decided who they want to win this election

And it is not the Liberals.

Wow, stating the obvious am I not?

The media have been doing this for years. The only problem now is they have the 24 hour news channels with which to promulgate their narrative and pollsters who are willing to design their polls on the side of art, with the price of sacrificing the science. That makes them much more effective in influencing the outcome of elections.

As well, the Liberals have not always been the victim of this. The national media skewered Stockwell Day in 2000 and they grabbed hold of every gaffe by Stephen Harper in 2004 preventing him from winning that election. An election he would have won if not for the national media.

So why do they do this?

Well, they have the power to determine what is important and what is not. The media can make up any story it likes by just emphasizing certain events or the statements of certain people. They can deny Canadians access to all sorts of news by just not reporting it. That is an awesome power and we all know power corrupts.

As well, I recall after the 2004 election some media commentators saying that they had been unfair to the Conservatives and Mr. Harper in that election. So, now they are being unfair to the Liberals and Mr. Dion in this one. In their warped little world the national media probably believes that they are being "balanced".

With regard to this election the national media just does not like the Liberals. The reason is they had the temerity to elect Mr. Dion as their leader. Before the Liberal leadership convention the whole of the national media predicted that it would be Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Rae. Then the Liberals picked Mr. Dion making the national media look foolish. Their treatment of Mr. Dion and the Liberals before and during this election is their revenge for that and it could be the reason why they have meekly taken all of the BS that the Conservatives have thrown at them since their election. First Stephane Dion then Stephen Harper.

So what can the Liberals do to fight this?

Produce more ads like the one on Mr. Ritz. I know that many in the Liberal blogsphere are a little uncomfortable with it because they believe it is negative. To which I say, pointing out the truth is not negative. The Conservatives have made some very questionable decisions and have had some ethical problems since their election. It is fair game for the Liberals to remind Canadians of those, provided they do it in a factual manner.

As well, the Liberals should take a page out of the Conservative playbook from when they were first elected. Cultivate the regional and provincial media. Have high profile candidates blitz that media with interviews and announcements. The Liberals cannot count on the national media to be balanced in this election but I would imagine the regional and provincial media would be more so. They do not have an axe to grind and alot of these news organizations have greater difficulty getting content for their products.

The media will continue to give the Conservatives a free ride. They gave them a free ride after the Ritz fiasco became public so any event that changes that will have to be mind boggling. Like a revelation that Stephen Harper-pays-for-a-weekly-dominatrix-session kind of mind boggling.

All the Liberals can do is grin and bear it, keep plugging away at it and go over the national media's head with advertizing and under their knees by cultivating regional media.

Is this the weekend the Liberals lose the election?

As I stated yesterday the first polls of the election are coming out and their is a beginning of a narrative of the Conservatives having momentum. CTV and the National Post will release polls this weekend and I can guarantee that they will not be kind to the Liberals. By the end of this weekend the narrative that the Conservatives have momentum will be solidified.

It will be in that narrative that the Liberals will probably begin releasing its ads directed at Mr. Harper and the Conservatives but under those conditions that ad campaign will be greeted with claims of Liberal desperation. Such claims are poison to any election campaign.

It was vital for the Liberals to force the media to begin changing what they were saying about them and Mr Harper before this weekend. They have missed that opportunity and that could very well be fatal.

Mr. Dion has run a competent campaign but there has been no sense of urgency. There has been no story arc, it has just been a bunch of seemingly random announcements.

The Conservatives are running a campaign centred on Mr. Harper. That campaign became even more centred on him as a result of the implosion of the Conservative war room. The Liberals should be getting in his face. Right now he is not under any pressure and until he is he can just coast. Paul Martin tried to do that in 2004 but the Conservatives would not let him. They were in his face from the beginning. If it were not for the wheels falling of the Conservative campaign later in that election the Conservatives could have eked out a minority government.

There are four weeks left in the campaign but the Liberals have until about the middle of the coming week to find that sense of urgency and begin to actually fight this election. If they have not done so by Wednesday they will be pretty much finished.

The Liberals have put themselves into a very nasty spot. At the beginning of this campaign they were in the position of being the masters of their own destiny. However, their lack of urgency has let that moment pass and now they have to hope for a meltdown in the broader Conservative campaign if they hope to pull this out.

Mr. Harper is now more vulnerable

The departure of Mr. Sparrow and the apparent unravelling of the Conservative war room will have a negligible effect on the the immediate Conservative campaign. Mr. Sparrow's comments will not cause a huge shift of support away from the Conservatives.

The effects of these events will be felt much later in the campaign.

This situation leaves Mr. Harper as THE Conservative campaign. There appeared to be some strategy behind the War Room where it launched the most outrageous Conservative attacks on the Liberals, going so far as to peddle bald-faced lies, while Mr. Harper could go around looking "Prime Ministerial".

That is no longer the case. Mr. Harper finds himself in the position of having to perform two equally important but largely incompatible functions of this campaign. Appear like a PM and be an attack dog.

Misleading Canadians in the most blatant fashion is part of the Conservative strategy and as long as it was coming from the war room in Ottawa Mr. Harper was insulated from it. Now he has to do it himself and that could put him on the hook personally for any lies he is caught telling. An example of that is his assertion of The Green Shift Plan being a trigger for a recession and being a threat to national unity. The Globe and Mail called him on it today, although in a very gentle fashion. However, if he keeps doing this eventually even this compliant media will have to call him on it much more forcefully just to maintain its what's left of its credibility. If that happens Mr. Harper's credibility is toast and so is the Conservatives re-election chances.

The pressure on Mr. Harper is now much greater than it was at the beginning of the campaign. Now more than ever the Liberals have to find a way to make him mad and they have to be on top of everything he says from this point forward, ready with quick and factual rebuttals of what will likely be more fabrications by Mr. Harper.

This is an opportunity for the Liberals. Mr. Harper is now completely exposed and the Liberals have to find a way to take advantage of that situation.

So far the Liberals are losing

The first five days of the election campaign have been boring, uninspiring and pointless.

The campaign has been dominated by the trivial, from Liberal airplanes, to Pooping Puffins to Lizzie May in the debates. I know it is not a popular view but I am really pissed off that almost two whole days of the campaign were about her and the debates. There are so many other issues that we should be talking about. Issues that effect the lives and livelihood of Canadians but instead of addressing them we have two days Liz May bitching about being left out of the debates dominating the conversation. Who cares? Obviously my priorities for this election are much different from others.

Neither of the two big parties has done anything to grab the attention of Canadians. They have made some announcements that will not penetrate the Canadian consciousness one iota. Both are running low-key campaigns. As well, neither really has a campaign theme. All of these announcements seem to be just random promises.

In such a situation the advantage goes to the incumbent.

Some have commented the media seems to be giving the Conservatives a pass on their gaffe-a-day campaign. They are complaining and wondering why. Considering how the media treated the Liberals during the 2004 and 2006 election and since the last election they should not be surprised. If they were thinking that the media would suddenly become more balanced during the campaign they were dreaming. I thought the media might have grown a pair and pushed back at the Conservatives for the shabby treatment they have received at the hands of that party but such is not the case. Our MSM really is populated by a bunch of wimps.

My biggest fear is the braintrust of the Liberal Party is also expecting fair and balanced reporting by our MSM. If so they are screwed.

Further, the first round of election polls are due to come out this weekend with one due as early as tomorrow. Mark my words, they will not be kind to the Liberals so the media narrative next week will be the Conservatives have the momentum and considering the week the Conservatives have had the media will add the twist that they have the momentum DESPITE a lacklustre first week.

The Liberal Party has to get ahead of this and the only way to do it is to give the media the Shawinigan handshake. They have to force them out of their complacency. They have to force them to rethink their narrative.

To do so they have to have a two pronged attack.

First they have to announce a big policy plank or two that are different but complementary to the Green Shift Plan and they need to announce them in the next day or two. The Plan is old news and it does not grab anybody's attention anymore. A major plank about the economy and a major plank directed at Quebec would do the trick. Beginning to articulate an actual campaign theme would be a good start too.

Second, they need to highlight the brutal record and scandals of the Conservatives with a high impact ad campaign and they need to do that before the weekend. If they do so during the coming media narrative they will be accused of being desperate. They need to do it before that narrative really begins to develop.

Ads about the "In-and-Out Scheme", the Cadman Affair, the Bernier Affair and the Nafta Affair would be a good start. And they need to make a decent ad buy. I have yet to see the Green Shift ad on TV. I have turned off the Stephen Harper sweater vest ads on more occasions than I can count but nada for The Green Shift. There is no use producing ads if you do not bother with an inadequate ad buy. Oh yes, the internet does not cut it. It still only reaches a fraction of what the MSM reaches.

If the Liberals really want to win this thing they have to kick it into another gear and they need to do so now.

Update: A third prong in their attack is they have to start doing things to make Stephen Harper mad. He does not take criticism well so they have to start piling it on. In all cases it has to be issue based and not personal.

The Conservatives announce a $1 Billion subsidy to Big Oil.

The announcement of the cut in excise taxes on diesel and jet fuel will cost the Federal treasury $1 billion dollars.

The actual difference at the pumps for diesel will be 2 cents per litre. So if the price of diesel is $1.20/L then the price will come down to $1.18/L. How long does anybody believe the price would stay at its newly reduced level for long? Big Oil would back-fill that reduction in a heartbeat and take that money for themselves.

The actual difference in price for jet fuel is about the same as diesel. So we could expect Big Oil to do the same. Although, they might decide to give the airlines a break and not raise the price but I would bet large sums of money that those airlines would not pass on any saving, instead using the reduction to shore up their rather messy balance sheets. Of course, I would not expect Big Oil to give anybody a break so they would reap the full benefit as well.

So, there you have it. The average consumer will not save a penny as a result of these tax cuts and Big Oil will reap a $1 Billion dollar windfall.

It is nice that you are looking out for your buddies in the Oil Industry there Mr. Harper.

The Plane! The Plane!

"My guess is they will be on the lookout for any mistake by Mr. Dion or the Liberals so that they can hype it up while they will ignore or at least downplay any errors by Mr. Harper and the Conservatives."

I saw the CTV news tonight and heard Bob Fife do exactly what I stated the media would do a few days ago.

Apparently, the Liberals are finalizing the arrangements for their campaign plane and since they have not done it yet Mr. Fife tells Canadians that this is sign of disarray in the Liberal campaign. Let us leave aside that it does take time to find a suitable aircraft, particularly since it has to carry not only Mr. Dion and his entourage but it also has to carry all of the parasites, er I mean, the national media that will be following Mr. Dion. Let us leave aside that they will have finalized the arrangements by tomorrow. As well, let us not forget that they will not be using the plane until the campaign begins so they did not need to have the final arrangements made until tomorrow. No, Mr. Fife has to hype up this situation.

Oh and to add to it, apparently the airplane the Liberals do not have yet is a 737, which Mr. Fife states is a gas guzzling aircraft. How can a man who is running on the environment use a gas guzzler intones Mr. Fife. Oh the horror, the horror!! To which I ask, if the Liberals do not have an airplane yet how does Mr. Fife know that the Liberals will be using a 737? As well, all large wide bodied jets guzzle jet fuel like crazy but Mr. Fife neglects to tell Canadians that little fact.

Liberals should have no doubts about how the media will view them and present them to Canadians in the next couple of weeks and they should be prepared for it. They will not catch any breaks so they are going to have to manufacture those breaks for themselves.

Why am I surprised?

I have to admit that I am truly surprised by the media's resurrection of the idea of the possibility of the Conservatives winning a majority government. And I am surprised and perturbed that I am surprised about them doing so.

The media talked about the prospect of the Conservative majority for the first year or so of their government but then it stopped because events began to overtake their narrative. The Conservatives began to drift downwards until they were tied with the Liberals and they remained so for the last six to nine months. Indeed, less than ten days ago two very reputable polling firms put the Conservatives slightly behind while another polling firm that usually overstates Conservative support said they were tied and in the low 30 range.

Then the media released some polls this past week that showed the Conservatives spiking into the high 30 range this week. There of course, was no explanation of why this happened or of what circumstances would have brought this about. No analysis, nothing. Instead they just lept to the "Conservative majority" idea again.

And I was surprised. I would have thought they would have taken into account the situation from the last 6 to 9 months and tempered their narrative a bit or at least try to give some explanation of why there was a sudden change. Silly me, I know how the media works so I should not be surprised and I am very disappointed in my own naivté.

Oh well, live and learn.

Now that my cynicism about our MSM has been renewed and reinforced I can say that I do not believe this narrative any more than I believe any other narrative they have peddled over the last 20 years. I have observed way too many elections to believe what the media says at the beginning of them will reflect what the reality will be at the end of them. The narrative could be right but I would wager a fair amount that it will be flat wrong so I will wait until mid October and see what happens.

But I am still quite upset with myself for letting them surprise me.

Welcome to 2004

I am always amazed at how history repeats itself in politics. It must be because no politician has had an original thought on how to win elections since the creation of representative democracy.

In 2004 Paul Martin was riding high in the polls, with personal leadership ratings 25 points higher than Stephen Harper and his party in the low 40% range while the Conservatives were around 15 points back. Every newspaper in the country was stating without reservation that Mr. Martin would weather the sponsorship scandal storm and win a majority government. The main reason of course was those polling numbers and the fact the media firmly believed that Mr. Harper would never be able to beat Mr. Martin and the Big Red Machine.

The Liberals apparently believed this hype themselves because their election strategy for the 2004 campaign was to highlight the superior leadership qualities of Paul Martin compared to Mr. Harper.

The first part of that strategy was to release a series of negative attack ads that were directed straight at Mr. Harper. No talk of policy just an attempt to paint Mr. Harper as a dogmatic, neo-conservative "Alberta Firewall" ideologue who could not be trusted with power. The next part of the strategy was to release a series of positive ads depicting Mr. Martin as the steady hand and friendly everyman. The final part of the strategy was to trash Mr. Harper at every turn during the actual campaign. The Liberal Red Book that year was very thin as the Party did not really develop much of an election platform.

Does all of this sound familier?

We all know what happened next. By the final weekend of the election the Liberals and the Conservatives were statistically tied in the polls with the Liberals having lost almost 10 points of support, with most of that going to the Conservatives and the rest going to the NDP and the Bloc. They made a slight recovery in the final weekend and their net loss was only 7 points with a result being a minority government.

Of course there are differences. Mr. Harper will not have the mother of all political scandals hanging over his head. He will have a few, including one where video of the RCMP raiding Conservative Party Headquarters was taken by Liberal Party cameramen, so we could be seeing that video again in the next few weeks. However, they are small compared to what Mr. Martin had to deal with.

Then again Mr. Martin could boast a multi-billion government surplus and he was running as the government when the Canadian economy was running on all cylinders. As well, he was not saddled with a war in a far off land and a casualty rate that could hit the psychologically important century mark during the course of the election campaign.

As well, Mr. Harper was kind enough to have an election platform as thin as the Liberal platform. There was not much to it. It remains to be seen if the Conservatives will have a comprehensive platform this time around or if they will stick to the "five priorities" strategy that he employed with some success in 2006.

The final big difference is now Mr. Harper is running as the leader of the government. Many pundits have pointed out the fact this will be his third campaign but it will be the first where he will be running as the head honcho. He will no longer have the luxury of running without having a record to defend. He will no longer have the luxury of being able to attack another party without them having plenty of ammunition to fire back. He will be the primary target for all of the other parties this time around and he will be subject to relentless attacks from them. He has never reacted well to criticism so it will be interesting to see how he reacts to almost six weeks of it.

Mr. Martin's decision to make the 2004 election about him and his leadership turned out to be an almost fatal political mistake. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Harper's decision to do the same thing will result in a different outcome.

How will this election play in the media?

That is one of the intangibles in the upcoming election.

The current media narrative is not positive for the Liberals. After months of not mentioning the notion of a Conservative majority government, because the Conservatives were drifting in the other direction, many media pundits have resurrected the idea. Of course it is based on a couple of polls that suddenly show the Conservatives in the high 30 range after they had been sitting in the low 30s for more than six months. The media fails to mention why such a sudden change took place especially since nothing dramatic has happened in the last two weeks. Unless, of course you include more bad economic news in Ontario, an outbreak of a potentially deadly infection borne by tainted meat products, casualties climbing in the war in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper breaking his own fixed-elections law, and almost universal accounts that the Conservatives were about to take a beating in four by-elections. I am certain all of these events explain the sudden rise in Conservative fortunes being touted by the media.

My God, they must think Canadian are idiots.

So what can we expect for the election?

My guess is they will be on the lookout for any mistake by Mr. Dion or the Liberals so that they can hype it up while they will ignore or at least downplay any errors by Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. That mean the Liberals will have a great deal of pressure in them for the first couple of weeks. If they can get through the first couple of weeks relatively unscathed they will be in good shape.

The Liberals will have to hammer Stephen Harper while staying on message with regard to their platform. They will need to be disciplined. That does not mean Stephane Dion will have to muzzle his team. It does, however, mean that the Liberals will need to avoid another "Beer and Popcorn" moment, which was the most hyped moment in the 2006 election. How an off the cuff remark by a party apparatchik can become a three day story just demonstrates how bankrupt is our media. But I digress.

They will also have to realize that the media cares more about strategy than policy. So while they should be releasing their policies as the election goes on they will have to keep a close eye on their overall election strategy and that of the Conservatives.

Media narratives can change on a dime during elections.

• In 1984, the narrative was John Turner would win the election for the Liberals over the inexperienced Brian Mulroney.
• In 1993, the narrative was Kim Campbell would hang on to government over yesterday's man Jean Chretien.
• In 1997, the narrative was Jean Chretien would handily win another majority government.
• In 2000, the narrative was Jean Chretien would be reduced to a minority government.
• In 2004, the narrative was Stephen Harper, a bookish, policy wonk with zero charisma and leaderhship ratings more than 20 points behind Paul Martin would not stand much of a chance and the Liberals would hang on to their majority, just not the sweep that was expected when he became Prime Minister.

In all of these elections the narratives changed in mid-election because events overtook them.

The Liberals are in better shape that the media is letting on. They are well within striking distance of the Conservatives and as I stated in my previous post history has demonstrated that election campaigns are not kind to incumbents. The Liberals have as much chance of winning as the Conservatives and I would even state they have a better chance of winning a majority than the Conservatives. (See my previous post for why)

However, the Liberals have to understand that they will have to be prepared to deal with a hostile to ambivalent media as well as the other political parties.

The Liberals have the advantage in the upcoming election

I am still not convinced there will be an election call in the next week or so and I have always believed that handicapping an election is a mugs game but what the heck.

Looking at the current levels of support for the two big parties and historical voting patterns I would say the Liberals are the ones holding the advantage at the moment.

First of all both parties are sitting at around 34% in the polls. Successive polls in the last 6 months have indicated such with only minor variations here and there so it is safe to say that both are probably at that level of support in the country. It is reasonable to assume that for any party to achieve a majority government they would need to achieve a minimum support level of 40%. It could be more depending on how the votes are distributed across ridings but for the sake of argument let's say 40% is the brass ring both parties are reaching for.

So, both parties need to increase their current support by 6 points.

If we look at voting patterns for the past 30 years the party in government has never grown its level of support by that much during an election campaign. Indeed, in most cases the party in government actually see an erosion of support between the time the writ is dropped to election day. Looking at the elections from the past 30 years that erosion can be anywhere from 2 percentage points to 10 percentage points, although it averages around 6 points. The one exception I found in checking elections over the last 30 years was the 2000 election, where Jean Chretien managed to increase his support by 2 points over the course of that election campaign.

Conversly, the support for the Opposition tends to grow over the course of election campaigns. That was true, even in 2000 when the Reform Party was lead by Stockwell Day. Certainly he lost that election but he did manage to grow Reform Party support during that campaign.

So, if this historical pattern remains true the highest level of support the Conservatives can realistically hope to achieve is 36% but a more likely outcome is an erosion of support with a rise in support for the Liberals. Considering the current level of support for the two main parties that is a recipe for an electoral loss for the Conservatives and depending on the numbers it could be a big loss.

As well, there is the question of what votes are available to each party to expand their support.

In this case the Liberals have a clear advantage. Again, looking at historical voting patterns the Liberals have always lost elections after long periods in government when they have become arrogant and ethically challenged. In that case many who voted Liberal previously tend to switch to the NDP. The NDP hits a high water mark as a result of this dynamic but eventually when progressives in this country become disenchanted with Conservative governance the progressive vote once again coalesces around the Liberals. Could that happen this time? That remains to be seen. However, many Green supporters will be realistic enough to realize that they will not form the government and that they have the greenest Liberal leader in history. As well, many NDP supporters may decide that getting rid of the Conservatives is the goal and they will realize that Jack Layton is not the man to do it. Sorry NDP partisans, but Liberal support is double that of the NDP, it is still the only real alternative to the Conservatives and many of your supporters know that.

The Liberals just need to convince around 6 % of Green and NDP supporters to lend their votes to the Liberals for the Liberals to have a chance at a majority government and they need even less to form a minority government, particularly if Conservative support erodes over the course of a campaign as history suggests is the most likely possibility.

In the case of the Conservatives, their pool of potential swing votes in much smaller. It is unlikely that they will be able to tap a big enough pool of NDP or Green supporters for the simple reason that they are pretty much diametrically opposed in political philosophy. There might be a pool available from the Liberals but their support has been pretty solid over the last year despite a very bad year for the party and its leader. It is not likely that enough of them would desert the party during a campaign to allow Mr. Harper to grasp that brass ring of a majority. There is the Bloc and Quebec but even then for the Conservatives to win enough seats for a majority they would need to grow their support in that province by double digits during the campaign, something that is totally unheard of in that province.

Of course history is not always a good indication of the future although I have always been fascinated by how much it tends to repeat itself over time.

As well, we have no idea how the campaign will unfold but even here the Conservatives might be a victim of their own success. They have been successful in painting Mr. Dion as ineffective so they have managed to set expectations really low for him. If he performs above those expectations he will benefit.

It is interesting that politician who go into a campaign with alot of credibility can be at a disadvantage, particularly if they have a bad campaign. Both Mr. Day in 2000 and Mr. Tory in 2007 went into their respective campaigns with a fair degree of credibility amongst pundits and the voters only to lose most of it as a result of bad campaigns.

Constrast that with Stephen Harper. He went into the 2004 election campaign with very little credibility but despite runnning a rather undisciplined campaign he managed to reduce the Liberals to a minority government. Expectations were low for him in that campaign and he exceeded them so he benefited.

Stephane Dion enjoys that happy situation now. Expectations are not high for him so it will not be that difficult for him to exceed them. When he does he will benefit from it.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a shot at winning the next election. However, if the campaign unfolds as they have done historically the Liberals hold a clear advantage and considering they are sitting in the mid-30 range in the polls a Liberal majority government is not beyond the realm of possibiliy. Indeed, I would go so far to say that based on historical voting patterns the Liberals have a greater chance of forming a majority government than the Conservatives, although I do not believe it is likely.

Want to fight Global Warming, put a value on carbon

One of the more interesting things about capitalism is putting a price on something will change behaviour but putting a value on something will change attitudes and beliefs.

At the moment, the best way to reduce ghg emissions is to put a price on those emissions. It is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem. It is a necessary step because to do nothing is to march toward oblivion. However, make no mistake, it will not be enough to stop that march. It will just slow it down.

To really reduce ghg emissions and reverse GW we need to find a way to put a value on them. Right now we spew tonnes of the stuff into the atmosphere because it is considered a worthless waste product. If that were to change, if it became a valuable commodity, then you would really see a change as companies and entrepeneurs fell over themselves to develop ways to capture this commodity for exploitation.

There are examples. Technology is being developed to capture and utilize the methane created by city land fill sites. Someone realized that this stuff could make them a profit and letting it seep into the atmosphere is a waste.

The most pervasive ghg is carbon dioxide. Considering how much of the stuff we spew into the atmosphere on a daily basis the person or company that comes up with a process or product that puts a value on it will become very wealthy indeed.

Premiers Wall and Stelmach, selfish ...

Oil.

The one substance on the planet that can light fires both literally and figuratively.

You would think from the statements of the two Premiers mentioned above that someone was going to take it away from them or at least prevent their provinces from exploiting the resource. Talk about a persecution complex.

One thing about fossil fuel is it is the only practical energy source we have. All other sources are either too expensive, even in these times of high oil prices, or hopelessly impractical to develop as a mass energy source. And by no means has the human species come up with a technology or process to replace fossil fuel as the primary world energy source.

Solar energy: Certainly it will have a niche market but it will not come close to reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy: Too expensive and then there is the problem of what to do with all of that waste, which remains lethal to humans for thousands of years.

Wind and tide energy: See my comments about solar energy.

Biofuels: Eat or drive. Hmmm, tough choice.

Hydrogen: Sounds promising but technology to exploit it has been under development for decades without a marketable breakthrough. Perhaps, because the best source of hydrogen is hydrocarbons, which brings us back to our dependence on fossil fuel.

All of this to say that fossil fuel is not going anywhere as our main source of energy any time soon. As well, there is no magic bullet to replace it because it was the magic bullet. There is nothing else on Earth that can replace it.

So why are these two Premiers in such a frigging hurry to exploit it?

One other thing about fossil fuel is there is a finite amount of the stuff. It will inevitably run out. So leaving aside the arguments about saving the atmosphere for our children and grandchildren should we not be endeavouring to save some of the most practical source of energy for our children and grandchildren?

For Premiers Wall and Stelmach, apparently not.

Listening to those two yahoos yesterday I am very happy that I am in my 40s and that I have no children. By the time the full effects of our wasteful exploitation and use of fossil fuels is felt, I will be in my dotage or my grave. And I will not have to worry about any children and grandchildren cursing my name and my generation for wasting their inheritance.

Premiers Wall and Stelmach, the bounty under the soil of your two provinces will provide for the needs and wants of your people for generations, provided you exploit them carefully and there are generations still walking around in a few decades or so. So stop with the persecution complex and get with the program of stopping global warming and climate change.

More good news for the Green Shift, from the National Post?!?

There were two pieces in the National Post today that were good news for the Liberal Green Shift.

They released a poll on the Green Shift and Jonathon Kay published a column endorsing carbon taxes.

First the poll.

The National Post spun the results as would be expected from them and I have seen a few counter-spins on Liblogs this afternoon but both The Post and the Libloggers have missed a very important point.

Three weeks after Stephane Dion released The Green Shift Plan the National Post felt it necessary to sponsor a poll specifically about it and that poll indicated that a full one-third of respondents knew about The Green Shift.

That's huge.

It is the fate of all Opposition Parties that they will largely be ignored and any announcements they make will be forgotten within days if not hours of the announcement. The fact The Green Shift Plan has remained in the consciousness of that proportion of poll respondents this long after its release is more than the Liberals could ever have hoped for.

Half the battle in selling something is having your target market be able to identify what you are selling. So the Liberals are off to a good start.

Although many Conservative supporters have been pointing with glee to this poll today, I am reasonably certain that the professionals in the PMO are not too happy about the results of this poll.

Oh yes, the last Opposition Leader who managed to keep one of his announcements in the consciousness of Canadians long after the announcement was Stephen Harper and the announcement of the Accountability Act.

Incidently, the Liberals have Stephen Harper to thank for this happy turn of events. If the "chess master" would have ignored The Green Shift announcement instead of going off on it, using some rather inflammatory language, the Plan would have been forgotten very quickly. So, I hope Liberals everywhere will extend their thanks to Mr. Harper for his assistance.

The second piece by Mr. Kay was the second piece of good news. Of course, he started off by stating Mr. Dion would lose the next election (Did anybody expect anything else?) but then he went on to endorse a carbon tax. He then ended his piece by stating he did not agree with the Liberal Carbon Tax proposal because, well, it was a liberal carbon tax proposal instead of a conservative carbon tax proposal.

After I had stopped laughing I realized that his column indicates more good news for the Liberal plan. Leaving aside his endorsement of one of the central features of the Liberal plan what is really significant is that pundits are talking about the Liberal Plan. Even the harshest critics of the plan and the Liberal Party find themselves talking about it instead of talking up the government. This is further proof that so far this summer the Liberals have taken control of the political agenda.

Again, Stephen Harper took control of the political agenda with the release of the Accountability Act and he rode that to victory.

There is still alot of time to go but if the Liberals can maintain the control of the agenda, that these two articles demonstrate, they have they will be in very good shape going into the Fall.

Don't worry, it is OK to trash Muslims

Throughout the history of this country, and throughout the history of civilization, it has been socially acceptable to openly denigrate and generally hate specific groups.

For much of the 19th Century it was completely acceptable to trash and bash the Irish. It is interesting that English Canadians during that century disliked and distrusted the Irish more than they distrusted French Canadians. They had more time for people who descended from a country that was the enemy of England for more than 800 years that they did for people who spoke their language and had a shared history.

In the 20th Century is was the Blacks, the Jews, the Chinese and of course throughout Canadian history it was OK to trash First Nation Canadians.

Of course all of that began to change in the '60s. During that period it was no longer considered socially acceptable to hate people of different skin colour. It took a little while longer for that attitude to permeate to people of different religions but it eventually did.

So, by the '80s the only people that bigots could opening hate were homosexuals. Unfortunately, even they became off limits in the '80s when AIDS caused an outpouring of sympathy for the gay community, which gave the gay rights movement a big boost of support and which eventually culminated in gays being considered equal to straights including receiving the right to marry.

So, who were the bigots going to hate? After all, like all people with addictions they need their fix in order to function. Fortunately for them, Muslim terrorists began hijacking airplanes and the Ayatollahs in Iran came along. Suddenly it was OK to trash Muslim fundamentalists. Then 9/11 happened and it was mana from heaven for the bigotry crowd. It suddenly became socially acceptable to hate all Muslims.

We have seen that recently with the publishing of the cartoons of Mohammed in a Dutch magazine and a particularly vile story in Macleans magazine that is now a subject of a couple of Human Rights cases.

Of course defenders of both cite "freedom of speech" when defending both magazines and they have the temerity of stating Human Rights Commissions are trampling on those rights.

My question to them is, if Macleans would have replaced "Muslims" with "Jews" in their story would you be so forgiving? I think not. It they would have done so they would have been condemned from virtually every quarter of Canadian society. Politicians of every stripe would have stood up and condemned the story (and some would have really meant it) and the story would not be allowed to stand.

Of course, about 30 years ago such a story could have been published and it would have received the same reaction as the one Macleans published about Muslims. The community in question would have been offended and the organizations the represented them would have made alot of noise but it would have caused nary a ripple in the broader Canadian society.

We have come a long way in recognizing that hating people because they are different is wrong but we still have a long way to go.

The Green Shift Plan: So far so good

Decima released another poll today showing that the Liberals are still rock solid in their support amongst Canadians. That is the third one since the release of the Green Shift Plan to indicate that. The Liberals are not losing any ground but they are not gaining any either.

This is interesting because this particular poll was taken at or just after the much publicised objections of the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the three Northern Premiers. As well, it was taken after the small problems with Green Shift the company and the media's playing up of that story. It could have been expected that those events would have caused some erosion.

So what can we conclude from this. Nothing definitive. However, the preliminary conclusion we can draw from this is the Green Shift Plan has made a good first impression and quite frankly that is all Liberals could have expected or wished for upon its release. It is a great start for the Green Shift Plan. (Now build on it!!)

About the poll itself, Decima states that the Conservatives could gain support again now that the summer is here. Well, duh!! It is called incumbant advantage and I actually expect Conservative support to climb somewhat in the coming weeks. It will have nothing to do with anything they do or anything the Liberals do it will just be a factor of them being the government at a time when folks are not really thinking about politics. So, when it happens, Liberals please do not overreact.

As well, I found it interesting that the Conservatives have lost support on the 613 area code. Since the 2006 election they have had pretty good support in Eastern Ontario. When much of the rest of Ontario was turning their back on the Conservatives their support in Eastern Ontario was steady. The fact this poll indicates that support may be eroding could be significant.

Of course, the number of interviews for this geographic strata for this poll is probably between 30 and 50 respondents so we cannot put too much trust in the estimates for them. It would have a double digit MOE so you cannot read too much into the estimates for this area.

Oops he did it again

Reading the story this morning in the Globe and Mail where Mr. Dion admitted that the Carbon Tax in his Carbon Shift plan would impact Alberta and Saskatchewan the hardest left me shaking my head.

I have to admit, my first reaction was "What are you thinking?"

However, thinking more deeply on it I find myself impressed. I for one am tired or politicians who lie to me about the tough issues. Mike Harris claimed that he could reduce my taxes by 30% but still maintain the level of government services that I had become accustomed to. Larry O'Brien, the Mayor of Ottawa, stated he could freeze property taxes and still maintain services. Of course both were wrong and I cannot shake the feeling that they knew their promises would be impossible to keep when they made them. In other words, they told the voters what we wanted to here, knowing it was untrue and enough voters in both cases believed them.

Stephane Dion has taken a different approach. He has come right out and said the Carbon Tax will have an impact on producers of high carbon products and it so happens most of those producers are in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Politically, it is bass ackwards but from the standpoint of integrity you really cannot find any fault. Perhaps, Mr. Dion is going to be a different kind of politician.

Then I began looking at the impacts. By Mr. Dion's reckoning 40% of the revenues from the Carbon Tax will be from the two provinces I mentioned. If the total projected revenus of $15 billion is correct the 40 % works out to $6 billion. Forgive me, but when you compare that to the profits that the oil and gas extraction companies are making these days $6 billion is not really going to make that much of a dent. And that is assuming these companies do not pass on at least some of the cost of the Carbon Tax to consumers, which we all know is not going to happen.

So really, the oil and gas industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan should be more concerned about the continuing economic slowdown in the US and what that could do to the economies of China and India. Because the impact of simultaneous slowdowns in those three countries will have a much greater impact on the oil and gas industry than Mr. Dion's Carbon Tax.

Someone at Liberal Party HQ is thinking

I find it interesting that there is a rumour of a cabinet shuffle tomorrow so the Liberals release the "tax cut" portions of their tax shift plan today.

It virtually guarantees headlines about Liberal tax cuts tomorrow.

Now if Stephen Harper does announce a cabinet shuffle tomorrow it will drown out the "tax increase" portion of the plan, somewhat, when it is released.

So now Stephen Harper has a choice. Have the rumoured cabinet shuffle or wait until after the plan is completely released giving the plan two solid days of wall-to-wall media coverage. That after all is all the Liberals can hope for from this announcement. Coverage of the plan will quickly fade as the summer progesses.

Either way however, the Liberals have wrong footed the Conservatives by giving them two equally bad choices of what to do tomorrow.

So what is it going to be Mr. Harper?

Allow the complete release of the Liberal tax shift plan and the resulting indepth media coverage? Or to put it another way, allow the Liberals to create that all important first impression of the plan.

OR

Use your cabinet shuffle to shift some of the attention to you but at the cost of competing with the release of some of the more controversial aspects of the Liberal tax shift plan? That certainly would take some of the Liberal thunder but not before Canadians hear about planned Liberal tax cuts.

Back to you Chess Master.

Thank you Mr. Dion for not forcing an election this summer

After all what compelling issue could you have forced a summer election over?

There are several issues that many would say fall into that category. Let's take a look at each.

1) Conservative Scandals: Some would say we should point out the recent Conservative scandals. However, you and I both know that none of those scandals are fatal and that scandals tend to be most effective in hurting a sitting government when they have had time to grow in the minds of the electorate. Forcing an election too early after scandals break leaves you wide open to accusations of political opportunism. I could just see the Conservatives and their apologists in the media howling about the Liberals disrupting the summer of Canadians because of selfishness on the part of the Liberals. Then of course, there is the optic of a party that was thrown out of office less than three years ago over scandal complaining about the scandals of another party. That would negate any benefit of these scandals for you Mr. Dion.

2) The Immigration Bill: This would certainly resonate with your base but the whole idea of the next election is to grow your support beyond your base. This issue is not one that will do that. As well, you know that Immigration policy in this country is alive and ever changing so nothing the Conservatives did this spring cannot be reversed or changed when you are safely ensconced in the PM's chair.

3) The economy: Really what are you going to do about what is happening in the economy at the moment? Do you have some magic powers that will allow Alberta to make tonnes of money on high oil prices without effecting Central Canada? I doubt it. The fact is running on the economy now would be bad timing. You have to do what Jean Chretien did. Run on the economy after it has began to recover. That way as it continues to recover you can take the credit for it. Do not do what Bob Rae did. Run on the economy when it was going into the crapper. That just leads to you being blamed (wrongly) for that situation and costing you big time.

4) Your environmental plan: This is going to be an exciting policy but we both know that trying to explain it during the 36 days of the politically overheated atmosphere of an election campaign is a recipe for disaster. No real debate would take place and whatever statements you or anybody else made about the plan would be discounted as partisan election politics. As well, it does not take much political savvy to realize that one "beer and popcorn" moment would force your plan off the election agenda, probably leaving holes in Canadians' understanding of it. Holes the Conservatives and other climate change deniers would be all too happy to fill, to yours and Canada's disadvantage. You are correct to spend the next couple of months explaining this policy in the less politically charged atmosphere of the summer.

Of course there is some danger in waiting but that is politics.

Some believe the Conservatives will come back stronger. That tends to defy political trends. You have been observing politics long enough to realize that after two years a malaise sets in amongst the electorate with regard to a sitting government. So the second half of a government mandate is usually about managing that malaise so as to reduce its impact on the government's re-election chances. So far, this government has been brutal in doing so and that has been reflected in some recent polls. Whether those polls are a harbinger of a trend that is advantageous to you or just a blip remains to be seen. You will have a better idea in the Fall.

Some state that waiting gives the Conservatives time to come up with an agenda which they will then put into a Throne Speech and combine with another cabinet shuffle. We have seen that movie before. This government thinks small and has no talent in its caucus. For it to have three Throne Speeches and three cabinet shuffles in three years is a sign of weakness and they will be hard pressed to overcome that.

Then there is the Conservative Policy Convention. That is going to be fun to watch. Either the control freak Stephen Harper will allow free discussion, including from the more wing-nutty branch of his party (probably blowing a gasket in the process) or he will attempt to control what comes out of that convention. Either way, much of the work of the convention will be overshadowed by that dynamic blunting the benefit of the convention for the Conservatives.

Mr. Dion, it remains to be seen whether your current strategy will work. After all there are no sure things in life. However, I agree with you that forcing an election this summer would have been a bad idea that would have probably lead to a Liberal defeat. Recent events seem to show that the Liberals have turned a corner and are now moving forward again. Given a few more months the Liberals should be able to build on that and generate some momentum.

We will see.

Tony Clemente is a happy man today

I would imagine that the decision by the BC Supreme Court, regarding Insite, brought out alot of big sighs of relief from Mr. Clemente and Mr. Harper.

The deadline for making a no-win decision was fast approaching. They had to choose from two equally unpalatable choices.

1) Ignore the growing body of evidence that suggests Insite is doing some good and close it down.

2) Or the opposite.

Decision one would have caused a storm of protest from many, leaving the government open to all sorts of accusations of placing ideology over science and generally alientating a large number of people, including many in BC, which will be very important in the next election.

Decision two would have alientated the Conservative base, which is not a good idea at the moment.

Neither option is good for a government that can now be officially labeled as embattled.

Thankfully for them the BC Supreme Court let them off the hook.

Now they have the best of both worlds. They no longer have to make that no-win decision and they can pander to their base by stating that they are "upset" with the decision. Further they can use that decision to further push their idea that Canada's judiciary is too "activist", which always goes over well with Conservative supporters.

As well, they can now appeal that decision knowing full well that the process is going to take a year or more to finish. That takes Insite off the list of issues that can hurt them and it takes away any need for a decision on Insite until after the next election. At that time the Conservatives will either still be in power facing a disorganized, demoralized opposition or they will be on the opposition benches. Either way Insite will no longer be a potentially damaging issue.

It has been a terrible winter and spring for this government but the BC Supreme Court gave them some good news yesterday. I hope that they are suitably thankful for that.

This government cannot be that incompetent, can it?

After reading about the fate of Mr. Bernier my first reaction was to just shake my head. But then I began to question this affair and other blunders of this government in the last six months and became suspicious that they are up to something.

After all, this government is supposed to be lead by a political strategic genius yet this government has made some fundamental errors in the last half-year.

Take the Bernier Affair (the misplaced documents not his choice of companion). It is Cabinet Minister 101 that you should never take secret department or cabinet documents from their secured location in your office. If, for whatever reason, you have to remove them then you take them from the secure location in your office directly to the secure location that has been installed in your residence. You do not take them to the apartment of your lover (ex-lover?) one evening and you certainly do not leave them sitting on the night stand beside her bed the next morning.

Then look at the Linda Keen, nuclear isotopes fiasco. It is usually not good for a government's fortunes to be seen by the electorate as dropping the ball on nuclear safety. For whatever reason whenever the word "nuclear" is mentioned people tend to perk their ears up to see what it is all about. So when a government is perceived to have placed political and business interests above nuclear safety it is usually not good news for them.

Then look at Mr. Flaherty's assault on the Ontario government just before the last Ontario budget. That is not really a surprise. After all, Mr. Flaherty has a well documented history of incompetent boobery from his days in the Harris/Eves governments. However, it is widely known that no minister in this government can go to the bathroom without first clearing it with the PMO and maybe even the big guy himself. (I am talking about his position and not his girth, which some are saying is actually shrinking.) Again considering the big guy is supposed to be a political strategic genius you would think he would have put a stop to Mr. Flaherty's silliness real quick.

So again, considering Mr. Harper's genius all of these errors cannot really be errors. They must be part of some elaborate and undoubtedly brilliant political strategy. The question is what?

My guess is they want to goad Mr. Dion into defeating this government. However, that raises the question of how do they overcome the negative effects of these gaffes?

The only answer is the Harperites have some really, really, really, really dramatic surprise up their sleeve and they are just itching to spring in on the unsuspecting Liberals. Perhaps they have found the cure for Cancer. Or maybe Stephen Harper single handedly captured Osama bin Laden during his last trip to Afghanistan. (When bin Laden ducked into the Khandahar Airbase Tim Hortons for his daily large double-double.) Combine this with the Conservatives almost religious belief that Mr. Harper will kick Mr. Dion's ass during the election debates because of Mr. Dion's English (of course ignoring his French and its possible effects on those debates) you can see an outline of the plan.

This can be the only explanations for the recent spate of stupidity we have seen from them for the last few months. Then again, maybe they are just incompetent and corrupt but I still have my suspicions.

Incidentally, the questions I want answered in the Bernier Affair is exactly when did Ms. Coulliard contact her lawyer about the lost documents? Was it soon after they were left behind, which most agree was before April 24? If so, why did her lawyer hang on to them for a month? What did he do with them during that month? And the million dollar question: Whose idea was it for him to hang on to them for that long? His? The Hells Angels? Ms. Coulliard's? Stephen Harper's?

After all, if this would have come out just before, during or just after the NATO summit it would have been very bad for the government. Much worse than it is now and it is bad enough as it is.

You have to give Conservatives credit

They do not air their doubts in public. You have to know that some of the more thoughtful Conservatives are probably wondering about a party and leadership that just cannot grow their support. They have to be wondering why they cannot open up a consistant double digit lead on an opponent that has had such big troubles for the last four years. Yet we hear nary a peep of worry.

Contrast that to the Liberals who upon release of another poll suggesting that Mr. Dion is not currently connecting well with Canadians several bloggers begin gnashing their teeth and making more noise about Mr. Dion having to go. Right on cue I will wager that we will hear "unnamed senior Liberals" making similar noises in the coming days thus undoing all of the progress that Mr. Dion has made in the past weeks.

And progress has been made.

After a year from hell Mr. Dion was finally beginning to get some good press. Some in the media were actually using the term leadership and Mr. Dion positively in the same sentence. Some were describing him as bold and courageous for proposing putting a price on carbon while suggesting the a reduction of income taxes. Some in the media were playing up the coming announcement hard and the communications strategy was actually working. It was whetting the interests of pundits and setting the stage for what should be a good news announcement. It was generating a debate on the merits of a Liberal policy instead of the interminable talk about party leadership and the "behind the scenes leadership race" the likes of Duffy and others were peddling.

Then, as if by design, another poll is published indicating that Mr. Dion is not well regarded by Canadians. If many of the Liberals who have complained tonight had any political sense they would have realized that the poll is just more of the same and strugged it off. They would have realized that rebuilding his image after last year will take longer than 5 months. They will have realized that having yet another round of calling for Mr. Dion's removal is counterproductive in the extreme.

Mr. Dion cannot be removed and he is not inclined to step down. So, calling for him to leave the post accomplishes nothing except to weaken him more and to strengthen Mr. Harper. In all likelihood any progress that Mr. Dion has made has been set back.

Although they take it to extremes there is something to the Conservative strategy of ignoring what the media and its opponents say about them. They refuse to buy into it. Liberals could learn from that. They could learn that a certain amount of aloofness with regard to the media narrative would go along way in rebuilding their image and that of Mr. Dion. Instead, they buy it hook, line and sinker and thus give it credibility.

Debating party policy is great but expressing doubts about Mr. Dion has to stop. It is useless, self-destructive and irrelevent.