Changing How We Vote

The government has set up a special committee to deliberate on a new way for voters to choose their government.  I personally do not believe our way of choosing a government needs to be changed but the Liberals did make a promise and I guess we should not be too surprised that they have decided to keep that promise.

Predictably the other parties have staked out positions that are case studies for political hypocrisy.

The NDP are insisting on some form of proportional representation.  They state that it is the "most democratic" method of choosing a government.  Of course, the fact that proportional representation tends to produce perennial coalition governments and the fact that historical voting patterns would make the NDP the kingmaker AFTER EVERY ELECTION is never mentioned by them.  They claim that they only have the voters needs in mind and they have never even considered the huge advantage it would give their party.

The Conservatives insist on a referendum because something as fundamental as how we vote should not just be left to politicians.  To do otherwise is undemocratic.  This from a party that until about seven months ago lead one of the most undemocratic governments in Canadian history.  The fact that they believe such a referendum would result in maintaining the status quo and the fact that they believe the only way they can ever win government again is to maintain that status quo is never mentioned.  

The Liberals would prefer some sort of ranked ballot as the means for voting.  The other parties accuse the Liberals of being self-interested because they believe, as do the Liberals, that such a system would give a big advantage to the Liberal Party in future elections. 

They are probably right.  Such a system would be an advantage to the Liberals...until it wasn't.  

You see, Canadians are much smarter than the people we elect to govern us.  Canada has become the prosperous, tolerant and globally respected country that it is DESPITE its politicians not because of them.  So, when the time comes that Canadians collectively decide to change their government they will do so regardless of the voting method put in front of them.

So, if we have to change the way we vote then let's just get it over with.  Go through the motions but in the end the Liberals should just choose their option and be done with it.

The election is over, what now?

With the election ending in a victory for the Liberals it is now time to take a look at what the future might hold for each of the three main parties.

The Liberals are back!  Their victory was convincing and it has been accompanied by an almost palpable feeling of relief amongst Canadians.

In the short-term the Liberals will do no wrong.  They will enjoy the usual honeymoon that comes along with a change in government and they will have all sorts of low hanging fruit left over from the last administration with which to establish their bonafides for governing.

However, in the medium to long-term the Liberal government is going to face many challenges.  First and foremost they are inheriting a weak economy that unlike 1993 is not on the cusp of the second longest economic expansion of the post-war era.  The economy is more likely to go down than up in the next year or so although we should see an improvement after that.  That is going to present a great challenge to them.  Fortunately, they have promised to stimulate the economy for the next few years by investing in infrastructure.  That might mitigate some of the upcoming economic downturn and it might act as a bridge from now to the upturn that should happen in a couple of years.

The second big challenge is the TPP.  The usual suspects will be out in force to oppose that agreement and as history has demonstrated they have the easier argument than those who would support the agreement.  Fortunately, there is no rush to ratify the agreement.  There is no way the Tea Party controlled American Congress will give President Obama a trade victory by ratifying it during the final months of his term.  That will leave it to the next president and most of the credible replacements for the President have come out against the agreement.  The Liberals can safely wait until 2017 or beyond before bringing any enabling legislation forward for the agreement.

The NDP is back, to their traditional place in the House of Commons.  

It is an open question of whether Mr. Mulcair will be able to hang onto his position.  The NDP usually does not eat its leaders like the other two parties do but the NDP have never been so close to winning government only to see it slip away either.  That is going to make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Mulcair in the coming months.  The only saving grace for him is that most of the most credible replacements for him all lost their seats in the election. As well, the NDP has not been successful as the conscience of the Canadian Parliament and they have now suffered failure pursuing a more pragmatic approach as well.  Is there a third way?  I cannot see it.  I suspect the NDP will be in third place for the foreseeable future.

The Conservatives are screwed.

History has demonstrated that a political party that is defeated after holding government for an extended period of time wanders the political wilderness for a great deal of time afterwards.  It will take that time for the party to renew itself and get rid of the dead wood and hangers on that always infest a party long in power.  Many names have been put forth to replace Mr. Harper but I would bet that none of them will ever see the inside of 24 Sussex.  The next Conservative Prime Minister has not entered anybody's radar at this time. That will probably not happen until after 2019.

Added to the Conservatives' problems is Stephen Harper pretty much tore the Conservative house down in his attempt to cling to power.  The Conservatives spent more than a decade attempting to shed the redneck, intolerant image that it was saddled with when the party was formed.  They threw all of that away with the Niqab, Cultural Barbarity tip line and taking away citizenship gambits of the election.  All of their work reaching out to new Canadians has been wasted.  All of their efforts to put forward an image of being a tolerant, big tent party has been for naught.  It is going to take a great deal of time to repair the damage that was done during the election.

Finally, it is an open question as to whether the Conservatives can remain united without the discipline of power.  The party is inevitably going to go through some upheaval over the next couple of years and no one knows what long-term impact that will have on the party.  

All of the parties are going to have to adjust to the new reality.  It is going to be interesting to watch how each one makes those adjustments.

In the end it wasn't even close

The election produced the outcome that I predicted on August 2.

The Final Week of the Election

We are one week away from election day.  That means there are six more days where we will have to endure the endless blathering of all of the party leaders.

The polls seem to indicate that the Liberals have the momentum and that they could very well win the majority government that I predicted on August 2.  Of course, polls are not the best way to predict an election outcome as they are a snapshot in time and by the time they are published they are already out of date.  

To supplement what the polls are indicating it is always a good idea to see what the parties are doing.

For the Liberals it has been business as usual since the campaign has begun.  I do not believe anybody can objectively state that they have seen anything resembling discomfort in their campaign since it started.  They have stuck to their script and it seems to be paying dividends.  It is interesting that Mr. Trudeau actually had a campaign stop in Nepean today. That has been a Conservative stronghold since 2004.  Usually leaders do not waste their time in these ridings unless they believe that they might be able to swing it to their side.  

If the Liberal internal polls are indicating what we are beginning to see in the public polls no one should be too surprised if today's foray into a Conservative stronghold is only the first of such forays over the next six days.

The Conservatives on the other hand are beginning to look like a party that expects to lose. It is just little things.  Stephen Harper has changed tack a bit in recent days and stated that this election is not about him but it is about issues that Canadians find important.  What a silly statement from a man who has run three straight elections telling Canadians that those who would replace him are "Not a leader" or "Just visiting" or "Just not ready".  However, Mr. Harper is somewhat correct.  One of the most important issues of a large number of Canadians is to be rid of him as the leader of our government.  So, he is correct that this election is about issues important to Canadians, it is just that his removal seems to be one of those issues, perhaps the most important.

The other statement that Mr. Harper has made about polls not winning elections is clarion call of a political loser.  

Mr. Harper campaigned yesterday in the three Toronto ridings held by Conservatives yesterday. When, in the final days of an election campaign, a leader campaigns in a stronghold of political opponent if is because they believe it is ripe for a change in MP.  When a leader campaigns in one of their own strongholds it is for the same reasons.  

Finally, Mr. Harper has announced he will no longer be interviewed by the national media and it has been reported that he has stopped taking questions at his campaign stops.  He did the same thing in 2004 when he realized that we was going to lose.

The Conservatives are at a crossroads in the election.  Do they continue to fight to win or do they begin to save the furniture?  To slow the apparent momentum of the Liberals they will have to do something really desperate and history has demonstrated that such actions often just lead to more crushing defeats.  However, if they begin to focus on the places where they are the strongest they might be able to mitigate some of the damage they could face.  

The next week will reveal what they have decided.

For the NDP I would just point to Mr. Mulcair's statement that he is still running and expecting to win a majority government on October 19.  

That statement is an example of what I would consider to be an iron law in Canadian politics. 

"When a political party, which is shown to be in third place for an extended period of time in the public polls, states that they are still running to win a majority government they are actually admitting that they have no hope of achieving that goal."

There is still a week to go and anything could happen.  It would not surprise me one bit to see the Conservatives try to use the levers of government to change the momentum. George W. Bush used the Department of Homeland Security in the US, on several occasions, whenever John Kerry showed any signs of momentum so I would not put it past Mr. Harper to try something similar.  The question would be whether the RCMP and/or CSIS would be willing to play along.

Barring something like that Liberal supporters will be celebrating winning the election with a majority government on October 19.

The Election's Second Month

We are now exactly 60 days into the 2015 election campaign.  It has been an interesting second month.

Generally speaking it is looking like it is shaping up to be like every other election of the last 50 years, with the 2011 election being an aberration.  That is, a two way race between the Liberals and Conservatives with the NDP barely relevant in third place.

The Liberals have managed to:

• Set themselves apart from the other parties with their plans for the economy.
• Largely establish themselves as the real agent of change.
• Allow Justin Trudeau to establish himself as someone who can handle the job of PM.  
• Make the Liberal Party not only relevant but to make it a contender for government.

The Liberal campaign has been focused and positive and it has been resonating with Canadians.  So far they have run a nearly flawless campaign so I am really looking forward to what they have in store for the final two week sprint to the finish.  If the final two weeks are anything like the first two months things could be very ugly for the Conservatives and NDP on October 19.

The Conservatives have so far managed to stave off the "Conservatives are losers" narrative so that is an accomplishment.

However, I cannot help but notice that they are continuing to throw an inordinate amount of red meat as their base.  By contrast at this stage in the 2011 campaign they had already moved on to convincing those outside of their base to vote for them.  So that begs the question of why they believe it is still necessary to placate their base.

One hint might be the fact that every poll that measures the desire for change is indicating that it is between 70 and 75%.  To put that into perspective the last time we had a change of government, in 2006, the Martin Liberals never had a "desire for change" score higher than 65%.  Further some of these polls are also indicating that the percentage of respondents that do not want change is less than 25% with one poll even putting it at 18%.

Political parties keep polling firms on retainer during election campaigns.  They poll Canadians in order to gain real and useful data with which they can tweak their message to maximize its impact.  I believe the internal polls of the Conservative Party are saying in no uncertain terms what the public polls are hinting at, which is, that the Conservative base is not as solid as many believe it is.  I personally know a half-a-dozen people who voted Conservative the last two times who will not be voting that way this time.  I suspect the Conservative base is not as happy as the party would like and they believe there is a real danger that a significant number of Conservative supporters may not bother showing up on election day or worse yet voting for someone other than a Conservative candidate.

I think the NDP might have blown it.  They were so close but I think the dream is gone. They made the mistake of believing the hype and they have been running a front-runner campaign when they were never really the front-runner.  Further they banked on maintaining the same high level of support of the Quebecois as they received in 2011 and as the polls indicated they might receive again this time. That was just plain stupid considering how volatile Quebec voters can be.  Now the NDP has begun a steady fade.  I am pretty certain that they have not yet hit the floor with regard to where the support will wind up.  Historically, they have generally been in the 20% range and I would not be surprised if that is where they finally end up by the time this is all over.

At this point in the campaign the Liberals are right where they want to be.  

• They are in contention.
• Mr. Trudeau's star is rising.
• Their main opponent has not begun the effort of building the voting coalition of 2011 that took them to their majority.  Instead, it looks to me like they are running more of a save the furniture type of campaign.
• The desire for change is at unprecedented levels in the country.
• The NDP is looking less and less like the most viable party to replace the Conservatives.  As that sinks in with those desiring change the Liberals are going to take off at the expense of the NDP.

On August 2, I predicted a Liberal majority government.  I still believe that is the most probable outcome of this election.

The election's first month

Some thoughts on the election after the first month.

The Conservatives have had a brutal campaign so far.  They have been completely unable to get their message across because outside events keep stomping on it.  Duffy, the recession, the picture of the drowned refugee boy have all conspired to put the Conservatives on the defensive.  The result has been predicable.  Polls are now consistently putting the Conservatives in third place and there are rumblings from within the campaign that things are not going well.  It is interesting that the stories regarding Ms. Byrne originated from within the Conservative campaign.  That is a bad sign.

Can the Conservatives turn it around?  It is not looking good but it is conceivable.  I would say at this point that they have less than two weeks at most to do so.  In about two weeks, if the Conservatives are still in third, the story of the election will become the probable changing of government on October 19.  Once that narrative takes hold it will develop its own momentum and quickly grow to the point that nothing short of a miracle will prevent that outcome.  We have all seen it before.  At that point everything the Conservatives do during the remainder of the campaign will be seen through that lens, which would result in every action they take being seen as a party desperate to stave off defeat instead of a party confident in victory.  This is assuming that they can stop the descent they currently find themselves in.  If that descent continues over the next few days the "Conservatives are losers" narrative will take off much earlier and they will be done.

The NDP are still running a disjointed election campaign.  I still cannot discern a central message. They are still doing a decent job of trashing the other guys but they have not done a good job of convincing Canadians why they should vote for them.  Their economic plan is a study in contradiction and their opponents are only going to continue to point that out to voters.  They have an historic opportunity here but I am getting the sense that it is beginning to slip away from them.  Like the Conservatives if their numbers begin to slip to the point that they lose the lead they have had for the past five month that situation will feed upon itself and make recovering that lead very difficult.

The Liberals have had the best campaign so far.  The month of August saw them pound the economic message relentlessly, ignoring virtually everything else.  Only the picture of the boy on the beach caused them to stray from that message but only for a short time.  It seems to be paying off.  The Liberals are the only party that has shown any persistent increases in their polling numbers.  The other two parties held steady or saw decreases.  By most standards that would seem to indicate that the Liberals have the momentum. Although, it is the momentum of a snail which is probably why no one is getting too excited at this point.  Not surprisingly the other parties have about two weeks to reverse any momentum the Liberals are enjoying.

I have seem some arguments about what will happen after October 19 if a minority Parliament is elected.  I have seen some rather implausible arguments of coalitions preventing the Conservatives from forming the government if they win the most seats or of the Conservatives attempting to cling to power even if one of the other parties wins the most seats.

This is great speculation but both scenarios goes against Parliamentary convention in this country.  In our system the party that wins the most seats on election night wins the first crack at forming a government.  So if that is the Conservatives they will use all of the levers of government, public funds and Conservative Party funds to discredit any idea of a coalition replacing them.  They will delay the opening of Parliament until they are certain that they can win the first confidence vote. Anybody that does not believe that they would be successful in their efforts has not been paying attention for the last decade.

If one of the other parties wins then the Conservatives will step aside.  To do otherwise would only make their defeat during the next election that much more comprehensive.  

This "October 20" speculation is all premised on the idea that the current logjam in the polls will exist on October 19.  Between now and October 19 Canadian voters will collectively decide whether they want to replace the Conservatives or not.  In either case they will vote in sufficient numbers to ensure the the outcome is not in doubt.

Can the Conservatives recover from the Duffy Trial?

With the adjournment of the Duffy trial until November the daily revelations of the corruption in the PMO has come to a stop.  

That has caused some commentators to express the idea that the Conservatives now have a chance to recover from the trial and possibly win the election.

While anything is possible in politics I would say the probability of that happening is not very high.

First, I have been trying to think of a political party that had a brutal first quarter of an election campaign and went on to win the election and I cannot think of one.  Just in recent memory, Mr. Hudak, Madame Marois, and Mr. Prentice all had very bad first weeks of their campaign and they all lost big.  They were never able to recover.  The same for Mr. Martin in 2006 and Mr. Day in 2000.

Most commentators point to the length of this election as the reason why they believe the impact of the trial revelations may not do serious harm to the Conservative campaign.  They also claim that Canadians do not care about the Duffy trial and that Canadians have short memories 

I believe they are forgetting one very important aspect of the last three weeks in their assessments. The revelations of the trial have created a widespread perception in this country that Stephen Harper lied, was caught in that lie and has been lying more to try to get out from under the original lie. Canadians are not going to forget that.  It is going to be at the back of the minds of Canadians for weeks and it will influence the vote of a large number of voters.  We only need to see how Canadians reacted the first time the Senate Expense Scandal came to light.  The Conservative polling numbers slumped and stayed slumped for over a year only rising again when two disturbed individuals decided to kill some Canadian Army personnel last fall.  

A second consideration that needs to be accounted for is the fact that the last three weeks has given the Liberals and the NDP a rich vein of material to mine to create political advertizements to remind Canadians of the lies and corruption of Stephen Harper and the PMO.  I imagine we will be seeing those ads in the coming weeks.

As much as they would like the testimony of the last three weeks to be forgotten by Canadians between now and October 19 I do not believe it is going to happen.  The perception that testimony created is going to be around for awhile so the only way that the Conservatives can overcome it is by running an stellar election campaign and by having both of their opponents stumble and stumble badly in the next few weeks.  

Karma's a bitch isn't it - two

I noticed today some Conservative sympathizers, both in the media and ordinary folks, lamenting the cost of the Duffy trial and how it has become politicized.

Again I am reminded of the 2006 election when Liberals desperately tried to distract Canadians from Adscam.

This time I disagree 100% with the concerns of these Conservative sympathizers.

First the cost.  The judge in the case, the Crown Prosecutor and all of the court personnel are salaried employees that have to show up for work regardless of which case they are working.  So whether they are working on the Duffy case or that of a drug lord they are going to get paid.  Further Mr. Duffy's lawyer is a private contractor.  His fees are being paid by Mr. Duffy, by some unnamed benefactor or Mr. Bayne is working pro bono.   In other words Canadians are not being saddled with any costs that they would not otherwise be on the hook for as part of the workings of our justice system.

Now some would argue that the money would be better spent prosecuting that drug lord but I would counter that you have nobody to blame but the Harper government for that as they were the ones that called in the Mounties to begin with.  Maybe they thought Mr. Duffy would be cleared or maybe they were just desperately trying to find some way to quench a political fire when they did so.  My money is on the quenching of a political fire.

As for the argument that the trial has become politicized that has to be the stupidest thing I have heard this summer.  The trial involves all of the senior advisors in the Prime Ministers Office, an office by definition that is a political.  To be surprised or upset that a trial involving them has become political is naive at best and extremely disingenuous at worst.

Both of these arguments are the same thing.  They are desperate attempts by Conservative supporters to distract Canadians away from the damaging revelations that have come from the Duffy trial, on a daily basis, for the last three weeks.  

Again, I have no sympathy.  If Conservatives really believed they were not going to wear this scandal they were living in a fantasy land.  

Karma's a bitch isn't it?

I recall during the 2006 election Liberal commentators, including myself, stating that there were more important things to talk about during that election than Adscam.  However, we were gleefully shouted down by Conservatives, and Dippers for that matter.

Now, as the slow drip of the revelations from the Duffy trial slowly dissolve the Conservative election campaign I cannot help but notice that many Conservative commentators, both the Conservative apologists in the media and non-professional ones at large are stating that there are more important things to talk about than the Duffy trial.

I happen to agree with them.  The Canadian economy is in a recession and the outlook for the short and medium future is not great.  Oil prices have not hit their floor yet and that floor is going to be lower than originally expected because of the expected influx of Iranian oil into the oil market.  Dozens of manufacturing companies fled Canada in the last decade taking over 1 million jobs with them.  They are not coming back which means the lower Canadian dollar will not have the same positive impact on exports and the economy as before. Finally, the only thing holding up the Canadian economy at its current level is the housing market and record consumer debt, which are approaching their limits before a major correction occurs.  That is what we should be talking about.  How each party is going to deal with that situation is what Canadians should be demanding.

All that being said, I have no sympathy for the Conservatives and their sympathizers.  Their holier-than-now attitude from 2004-2006 was infuriating and the current political travails that they are dealing with as a result of rampant corruption in the PMO is something they are going to have to wear for awhile.  

Maybe these last few days will teach them something about humility.  Not Stephen Harper and his gang.  They would not know humility if it came up and kicked them in the nuts.  But perhaps Conservatives at large will learn a little bit about it.

The impact of the Duffy trial on the election

The trial has progressed to the really critical bits.  Gone are the housekeeping days where the workings of the Senate and its byzantine expense rules were the main topics.

Now we are getting down to the real trial where the main characters behind the Senate expense scandal have to testify under oath.  Mr. Wright is the first and some of what he has stated is quite enlightening.

He has only been on the stand for three days but I am already seeing some pundits stating that the trial will not have an impact on the election.

What these pundits are forgetting is the trial is still in prosecution phase.  Mr. Duffy's lawyer has not yet launched his defence.

Since Mr. Bayne's defence seems to be to depict Mr. Duffy as someone who made an honest mistake, navigating the convoluted Senate expense rules, and then got caught up in the PMO's "scheme" to prevent such errors from embarrassing the government I would imagine that Mr. Bayne will be seeking to introduce evidence to back up that defence when his turn rolls around.

At that point things should really get interesting for the Conservatives.  I would imagine that frequent revelations about the machinations of the PMO during an election campaign it not good news for them.

The trial has the potential to become a running sore on the hide of the Conservative campaign as weeks of revelations are disseminated to the public. At best those revelations will distract from the Conservative election message and at worst they will put them on the defensive for weeks at a time during the campaign.  That cannot be a happy prospect for an incumbent government trying to overcome a desire for change.  As well, it is an open question on how Mr. Harper will react.  He is a well known control freak so his reaction to having journalists ask questions about the latest evidence coming out of the trial, instead of the Conservative announcement of the day could be interesting.

Then there is the fodder being produced by the trial that could be used by the Liberals and the NDP in election ads.  Mr. Wright gave them some rather juicy quotes and more will probably be forthcoming in the coming weeks.

We cannot overestimate the impact of the trial on the election but we also cannot dismiss the trial as never going to have an impact either like some pundits are currently doing.  

Thoughts on the election so far

My first thought is it has been rather dull.  It almost seems that the parties are not really on a full election footing yet.  Heck, I have not seen a single lawn sign in my riding yet or the ones they usually post at major intersections.

Some of my other thoughts.

The debate was a bust.  Dull, lifeless, pointless.  I agree with many of the professional pundits that no one was hurt or helped by the debate.

I am impressed that the Liberals seem to be sticking to their message of pounding the economy during the early going.  They are ignoring all of the other stuff going on and focusing on it.  They virtually ignored the Wright testimony.  There has been some hay made of the "economy of the heart" statement of Mr. Trudeau, by the usual suspects, but if that is all they have then it is thin pickings indeed.  It is a message that could resonate as the Conservatives suddenly appear vulnerable on the economy, the NDP have no experience running the national economy and the Liberals have a very recent stellar track record.  It is apparent that the Liberals want to make the economy and their plan to make it more beneficial for ordinary Canadians the ballot question.  If it does indeed become that the other parties could be in trouble.

I am biased but I believe the Conservatives are a tired, old government that has run out of ideas and the first couple of weeks of the campaign seem to bare that out.  Everything they have promised is more of the same and it does not seem to be resonating with Canadians at large.  Their plan so far seem to be to just attack Justin Trudeau, otherwise their campaign so far has been underwhelming. Also the Duffy trial is the proverbial wild card. The Conservatives were at their lowest ebb during the height of that scandal and the trial could remind Canadians as to why they were very unhappy with the government at that time just in time for the election.  

The NDP seems to be disjointed.  I have yet to discern a central message for their campaign. They are doing a good job of attacking their opponents but they have yet to provide any real reason why Canadians should vote for them.  They are trying to overcome a 150 year old voting pattern so they are going to have to do more than give reasons why voters should not vote for the other guys.  They need to give compelling reasons to vote for them.  I would say this is most true for the NDP.  The other parties can get away with not doing so to a certain extent because they are known quantities to voters.  The NDP is not.  They need to convince Canadians that they can be trusted to govern and so far they have not done so.

The polls are not changing much although you can see some hints of where things might be headed.

The gap between first and third is about five points.  That is an extremely small gap and it means that it is still anybody's election.

The Liberals are dominating the Eastern provinces.

The NDP is leading in Quebec but the Liberals are leading amongst Anglos and federalists, which if it holds could mean big gains for the Liberals.  You can expect the Liberals to pound the NDP promise to scrap the Clarity Act in that province so that they can solidify their support amongst these groups.

The most recent Nanos poll seems to indicate the NDP has fallen to third place in Ontario.  I firmly believe that as the campaign unfolds in that province it will become a two way contest between the Conservatives and the Liberals.  Could this poll be the first hint of that dynamic beginning to develop?

The position of the parties in the Western provinces are exactly where you would expect them to be so there are no surprises there.  

So far there is nothing to become overly excited about but there is still nine weeks to go so I am certain that will change.

And the winner will be...

The election has been called so I am going to go out on a limb and make a guess on who will win the the election.

My assumptions:

1.  The desire for change will become strong enough that the Conservatives will lose the election.
2.  While Canadians will want change they will not want the radical change represented by the NDP. Canadians will stick to their habit of alternating between Liberal and Conservative governments.
3.  Justin Trudeau will perform better than many expect.  He is likable, approachable and without fear and that will come through during this long campaign.
4.  The Conservatives will grow increasingly desperate as the campaign goes on and it will add to the extent of their defeat.
5.  A man very wise to election once told me that long campaigns always benefit the Liberal Party the most.  It seems to take them awhile to find their stride but when they do they become all but unstoppable and a longer campaign allows them more time to hit that stride.

So the final result of the election will surprise everyone as it will be a Liberal majority government.

The resurgence of the Liberals will begin in the East where they will win at least 25 seats.
It will continue in Quebec where Montreal and Western Quebec will go red.  The NDP wave will recede considerably during this campaign.  Although Mr. Mulcair will win his seat it will be by the thinnest margin of all of the party leaders.
Ontario will see the largest resurgence.  The Liberals will win a large majority of seats in that province, particularly within the cities and their suburbs.  The NDP will steadily lose relevance in that province as the campaign unfolds.
In the Prairies the Liberals will double their seat count in Manitoba and maintain their one seat in Saskatchewan.
The Liberals will breakthrough in Calgary, while the NDP does the same in Edmonton.  That will be a contributing factor in the Conservative loss.
The Liberals will meet their historical high water mark in BC.
The Liberals will sweep the North.

None of the above is based on any science.  It is based on my gut, which I find has been rather reliable in the past.  

If anybody actually reads this feel free to guffaw if you like.  I really do not care.  In the fullness of time if I am proven wrong sobeit.  It is not like I have not been wrong before but I believe the next few weeks are going to surprise alot of political observers in this country.

Who is going to win the October 19 election?

This post is inspired by a conversation I had with a colleague who also happens to be a Liberal supporter.  We had a good noon hour conversation.

The short answer to the question is ask me the same question on October 20.

However, the key question between now and then is whether the desire for a change of government will hit "critical mass".

If no, then the Conservatives will probably win the election, possibly winning a majority mandate considering the apparent split in the anti-Conservative vote.

If yes, then the Conservatives lose, by how much being the only mystery.

However, that then begs the question of which party Canadians will choose to replace the Conservatives.

Will Canadians stick to their 150 year old habit of alternating between a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party?  Or will they take the historic step of electing an NDP federal government for the first time?

We will know for certain on October 20 but my sense is the "throw-the-bums-out" sentiment is not as strong as it needs to be, at the present time, for me to be convinced that the Conservatives will lose the election.  That could change during the campaign but as of now they have a reasonable shot at winning a fourth election.

If they do not then I would say the Liberals would be their replacement.  The NDP certainly are having a good couple of months but I have serious doubts that those who are telling pollsters that they support the NDP are saying so with the degree of conviction necessary to essentially change a 150 year old political dynamic.  Further, I am not sensing a real enthusiasm with the idea of an NDP government.  In fact, from the people I speak to, and this is by no means scientific, there seems to be some trepidation at the prospect of an federal NDP government.  

Considering that, I find it doubtful that if Canadians want a change in government that they will opt for such a radical change.

But like I said at the beginning we will know for certain on October 20.

Greece

A Greek debt default and its exit from the Eurozone is probably inevitable now.  Indeed it was probably inevitable when the economic crisis first hit.

When it happens there will be alot of blame being thrown around by the various parties but really the lion's share can be place squarely on the EU, the IMF and Greece's creditors. They are the ones with the greatest room to maneuver in this crisis but due to their stubbornness they are refusing to use it.

By no means is Greece innocent in all of this.  They spent beyond their means expecting the EU to bail them out when the proverbial other shoe dropped but on the other hand Greece's creditors kept lending them money because they expected the same thing.  

The current crisis could have been avoided if the EU and the IMF would have taken a different approach to Greece's debt situation than their default position of demanding austerity before providing for bail-outs.  In order for Greece to get out from under its debts it needs to positive economic growth.  Austerity creates the exact opposite.  In fact since the crisis first materialized the Greek economy contracted 25%.

So the Greeks run into debt trouble.  They seek help and their helpers demand they take steps which reduces economic activity within Greece, which, of course, prevents the Greeks from being able to meet their new debt obligations, which leads to more demands for austerity from the EU and the IMF, which reduced economic activity some more and so on in a nice little vicious circle.

It is an untenable situation and something drastic will have to change in order to break the circle.

There are probably two choices, neither one of which is a good one.

The first choice is the EU and the IMF forgive some of Greece's debt and reschedule the rest of it, without imposing any more tough austerity measures on Greece, in order to allow that country to begin realizing positive economic growth again and give it the ability to repay its debts without having to take out new loans to pay off old loans.  This choice will not fly of course.  Internal EU politics will prevent that since other EU countries besides Greece have spent beyond their means and have been suffering the same austerity being imposed on them in order to receive EU bailouts.  If Greece gets a different deal they will demand the same and that will not just do for the movers and shakers in the EU.

So that leaves us with a Greek default and exit from the Eurozone.  Certainly it would have an economic impact in the broader EU but that would pale in comparison to what would happen in Greece itself.  The Greeks would suffer that is for certain and the EU and IMF would point to that suffering to keep the other countries going through EU/IMF imposed austerity in line.  

However, the Greeks are already suffering and this choice would eventually allow them to get off the treadmill they currently find themselves on.  

The current situation has pretty much run its course.  Neither side wants to continue down the current path.  Their reasons for not wanting to are markedly different but the final conclusion is identical. Since the chances of the EU and the IMF relenting on their austerity demands are nil it will be up to the Greeks to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to break the current vicious circle they find themselves in.

You would almost think and election is coming up

There has been alot of ink, wind and bandwidth expended in the last little while regarding politics in this country and some of it has been rather interesting.

Polls:  It would seem the NDP is on a bit of an upswing while the Liberals are in a bit of slump and the Conservatives just seem to be moribund.

As usual the punditry in this country just focuses on what is in front of their faces without looking past the present to draw their instant conclusions.  For two solid years the Liberals were ahead in the polls and they made huge gains in the half-a-dozen or so by-elections since 2011.  To read too much into these two facts is a mistake but to totally ignore them is also a mistake.  This is particularly true given the fact that an incumbent government has never trailed in the polls for that length of time in between elections.  Do the polls of the last few weeks totally erase what transpired in the last two years? Maybe, we are talking politics but I would not bank on it if you are a supporter of either the NDP or the Conservatives.  For two years the Liberals were considered the alternative to the Conservatives and it is highly questionable whether that has really permanently changed based on a few weeks of polling.

I would say this is backed up if you look at the most likely reasons for the changes.  Some pundits point to the Liberal's stance on Bill C-51 but many of these same pundits like to point out that Canadians really do not care that much about policy when it suits the narrative they are trying to push.  Others like to point to the "gaffes" committed by Mr. Trudeau but I find that rather dubious.

Opinions usually change as a result of something more visceral and you only have to look at what occurred since the fall to see the most likely cause of the current Liberal slump.

The slide began in October, after the attack on Parliament Hill.  That kind of event is right in the Conservative wheelhouse.  They were able make all sorts of noises about being tough on terror, just when Canadians wanted to hear exactly that.  Then ISIS began acting up and they figured prominently in the news for weeks and months.  Again, the Conservatives took the opportunity to appear tough.  They took a simple position of sending F-18s to the Middle East while the NDP took the exact opposite view and as is the wont of the Liberal Party they took a more nuanced approach. Personally, I thought the Liberal approach was the right one but at the same time someone in the Liberal establishment should realize that today's media does not do nuance.  They gave up reporting real news a along time ago in favour of presenting a "hook" to get you to click on a link on the many websites they place their stories on.  If you do not give them that hook they will create one and since negativity sells  it will not be good news for you.  This focus on ISIS and terrorism allowed the Conservatives enjoy a bit of a bounce while the Liberals slowly sank.  That bounce had pretty much run its course though by the beginning of spring.  

Then the election of an NDP government in Alberta happened.  That was a truly historic occasion and it deserved all of the attention it received in the media but is anybody surprised that all of that positive coverage did not impact the national polling estimates for the federal NDP?  By golly, a national poll came out 7 days after the NDP election in Alberta, which means the poll was taken right in the middle of all of that positive coverage, and not surprisingly it showed an NDP "surge".  Pundits who should know better then grasped at the "surge" narrative which gave the sudden good fortune of the NDP some legs. However, it should be noted that the NDP topped out in the polls about two weeks after the Alberta election and have since stayed there while the Liberals have bottomed out.  In other words the NDP "surge" already appears to have dissipated and the question in the coming months will be whether they will be able to maintain and grow their current levels or begin to sink back to where they were for the past two-and-a-half years.

The Conservatives:  I cannot get a read on them right now.  While I believe they are in tough I am not feeling that "kick the bums out" vibe I have felt that last few times we had changes in government.  Further it appears they still believe the Liberals are the threat to them more than the NDP as evidenced by the latest round of attack ads directed at Mr. Trudeau.  A divided progressive vote is vital to them retaining power so you would think, if the Liberals are truly in trouble, that they would be subtly trying to build up the Liberals a little bit instead of trying to bring them down.  After all, if we are to believe the polls it appears the NDP are now their greatest threat.  Maybe the Conservatives are seeing something that is not showing up in the national media.

The NDP:  It is interesting to see Mr. Mulcair trying to convince a business audience that an NDP government would not run deficits and that they would be good for business.  What is wrong with that strategy is the business community does not give a damn whether the government runs deficits. Witness the thundering silence from them when the Conservatives ran them for most of their term. What the business community cares about is what they can get from the government and it is a hard sell to convince them that a party that has promoted soaking corporations and the rich, for the last six decades, have suddenly had a change of heart just months from an election.  Further the NDP seems to be trying to out Liberal the Liberals.  Ms. Horvath unsuccessfully tried that in Ontario so you have to wonder why the federal party would pursue an identical strategy.  In addition, the base for the NDP is Quebec, which contains the most fickle voters in the country.  They have been known to turn on a dime.  It will be interesting to see how they act on October.  Finally, Mr. Mulcair is not Jack Layton. The reason for the NDP success in 2011 can be placed squarely at his feet.  Those are big shoes to fill and it is an open question whether Mr. Mulcair can do so.

The Liberals:  This is not the Liberal Party of 2011.  They have created a much better election machine at the riding level, they have resolved the fundraising issues they were having a few years ago.  They are still not up to the Conservatives but they have raised more than enough for the pre-campaign and actual campaign.  They are coming out with well thought out policies, although I have to admit to some reservations regarding their pledge to eliminate the first-past-the-post system.  They have a leader that still has that rock-star persona who packs them in at rallies and who people still want to be seen with.

It is going to be an interesting few months. 

Likability and politics

In politics it helps to be liked.  It is not essential but it certainly helps and in some cases it can be the difference.

We should be reminded of this by the two surprise election results in Ontario and Alberta this year.  In both cases the eventual winners were not given much chance of victory at the beginning of the election campaign but both triumphed.  Other factors went into the victories to be certain but the fact that both Ms. Wynne and Ms. Notley were generally liked played an important role in their eventual victories.

We see this phenomenon alot in politics.  Part of the reason Jean Chretien was so successful was people liked him.  Jack Layton lead the NDP to Official Opposition status partly because people liked him.  

Part of what held back Mr. Harper in 2006 and 2008 was the fact people generally did not like him and that included some of his supporters.  I have seen that personally among some of my friends and family who generally support the Conservatives.  Many of them support the Party but think Mr. Harper is a prick.  They genuinely mean that. They are not giving him a backhanded compliment.  They really do believe he is an asshole.  

In the upcoming election Canadians are going to decide whether they want a change of government or not.  If they decide that they do there is not much the Conservatives will be able to do about that.  History has made that abundantly clear.  In that case Canadians will be looking to find an alternative for the current government.  In that situation being liked by the electorate more than the other guys will not be an advantage to sneeze at.  As we have seen twice this year it can make a difference.

Senator Duffy

My fearless prediction about the upcoming trial of Senator Duffy.  It will not happen.

The Harper government will not want to have any of Mr. Harper's inner circle having to testify under oath during any trial regarding the Senate Expense Scandal.

Mark my words, a prosecutor very friendly to the Conservative government will be appointed.  He will offer Senator Duffy's lawyer a sweet plea bargain to get a guilty verdict to a couple of the charges the Senator is facing, with the remainder being dropped and this whole thing will be swept under a rug.

It will leave Mr. Harper open to further accusations of a cover up but they will blow over and he will be spared the alternative.

To all of the Bond Rating Agencies

And all of the other Conservative minded commentators bitching at Premier Wynne.

The guy that espoused your approach to the finances of Ontario lost and lost big.

So, stop trying to force Premier Wynne to follow that approach.  That is not what Ontario voters voted for.

The Prostitution Hearings

I have been paying some attention to the hearings currently taking place regarding the new Prostitution Bill before Parliament and it has come as no surprise that much of the testimony has been against it.  Most of that testimony asserts that the new Bill would make it very unsafe for sex workers and their customers.

Of course the Conservative government does not care.  It is often forgotten because he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian.  His caucus is dominated by them and the Reform wing of the Party, which currently holds sway over the whole of the CPC, is also dominated by them.

One thing that can be said about evangelical Christians is they are obsessed with sex.  They are particularly obsessed with people having sex that is not approved by their very narrow view of morality.  Same sex, premarital sex and sex for sale are anathema to them and they have no time for people who commit any of those "sins". 

So of course they do not give a damn about the safety of sex workers or their customers.  As far as they are concerned any harm that comes to them is a result of their immorality and they deserve whatever happens to them.

As well, the politics is pretty obvious.  The Supreme Court decision was ideal for firing up the base and it gave the Harper government an opportunity to enhance its social conservative bonafides without opening up any big debates on more controversial issues such as abortion.

So will the new Bill survive the Supreme Court when it reaches there?  No, but the Conservatives do not care.  By the time it gets their an election will have happened so this issue can be safely punted into the future.

Governing for your base is a lousy way to govern but it has been the MO of this government so it should come as no surprise that they did it this time too.

The Ontario Election

When the Ontario election was called I believed that it was Tim Hudak's to lose.

Up to this point it appears he is doing just that.

The sense that the people of Ontario want a change is palpable.  It was not just evident in the recent polls saying as much it was evident in many other ways as well.  So it is unexpected that such a sentiment has not become evident by manifesting itself as ever decreasing support for the Ontario Liberals.  In fact, all of the polls that have been published in the last couple of weeks show the Liberals gaining strength not losing it.  Even Ipsos, which has consistently indicated that the PCPO leads the OLP has shown that lead shrink from a substantial one to one that is within the margin of error.  Other polls that showed the Liberals leading are indicating they are holding steady or even increasing the gap.

Incidentally, that is how you interpret the polls.  Ignore the actual estimates as they are all over the place due to different polling methodologies.  Instead look at the delta between polls from the same company to discern a trend.  When you do that you see what I described above.

This is remarkable with only 10 days left in the campaign.  Some would say that the reason is the voters are not paying attention but considering the desire for change that seems apparent that should not matter.  If a pollster calls me and asks me who I am going to vote for and I happen to be one of those people who want change I have a perfect opportunity to tell someone what kind of change I am looking for.  If 75% of Ontarians are indicating they want change it stands to reason that a pollster is going to have a proportional number of respondents who feel that way in their polling sample.  Therefore, we should be seeing that manifest itself in the horse race numbers by now.

That has not happened yet so either the high desire for change that polls have been indicating since before the election call are wrong or people are looking at what kind of change is available and not liking it.  That is not without precedent in the recent past, as the recent BC election demonstrates.

There are still 10 days before e-day so we could see that shift yet but it is interesting that it has not yet happened and that in fact there may be some evidence that the opposite is happening

Want to win the next election Mr. Trudeau?

Then promise to work to make the Turks and Caicos Islands part of Canada in some way.  Maybe not a province but a protectorate or a territory perhaps.

The idea of warm destination where Canadians can travel without worrying about Customs or converting their currency to the Yankee dollar would be welcome by many and it would put the Liberals over the top I believe.

There are only 30,000 of them and they are relatively wealthy so the economic burden on Canada would be light.  Let them keep their open banking system but require them to give Canada a piece of that action and it would be a wash.

The advantages for them are incalculable.

Make it happen Mr. Trudeau!

Some form of Senate reform is still possible

In a decision that surprised no one the Supreme Court of Canada has essentially stated that no fundamental changes to the Senate can be made without the agreement of the provinces.  That means no abolition, no changes to a Triple E Senate not even term limits and elected senators without an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, which is not going to happen.

So we are stuck with the Senate in its present form at least until Hell freezes over and the Toronto Maple Leafs win another Stanley Cup.

In an indication of just how shallow and desiccated our politics have become most of the reaction of the media to this news were the political implications of the decision on the Federal scene.  Predictably, as I watched the "analysis" last night it shook out along partisan lines so it was pointless.  The only interesting point was some statements by Conservative friendly groups demanding a referendum.  That bears watching.

Much of the coverage indicated the Stephen Harper had "thrown in the towel" on Senate Reform and my watching of his reaction was they seem to be correct.

Does it really have to be that way?

Although there is no way to fundamentally change the Senate there is still leeway to make substantive changes around the conventions and practices of the Senate that are not covered by the Constitution, and there are a great many of them.

Not to be partisan but Mr. Trudeau did show us some ways of doing just that.  Certainly the changes he made were for partisan purposes but they are examples of what can be done within the Constitution. 

Could there not be a way of expanding on them?

Here is a thought, there is a broad consensus in this country that the Senate as it is now is broken.  Would it be too much to ask for our political leaders to put aside their petty partisan concerns and actually sit down together with some of the more thoughtful Senators to come up with ways to improve the Senate in its current form? 

There are many aspects that could be changed.  For example:

• Developing a appointment process that reduces or even eliminates patronage.
• Measures to reduce the partisanship of the Senate.
• Mechanisms in place to ensure that Senators, once they are appointed, actually do the job.

The Senate can be substantively changed but it would require true leadership from those who would call themselves our leaders.  I wonder if any of them will rise to the challenge.

I was wrong

When the Quebec election began I truly believed that the PQ would win it and most likely a majority government.  I even believed that after what was a rather bad first 7 days of the campaign.  The reason was simple.  I did not believe that Quebecers would elect another Liberal government just 18 months after turfing the scandal ridden Liberal government of Mr. Charest.

Of course this was all before the PQ conducted an election campaign which will appear in political science textbooks as a case study of how NOT to run an election campaign.

I watched some of the coverage on the CBC last night and after all of the drama was sucked out of evening they naturally turned to how this election would impact the federal scene.  I do not believe any of them said anything of value on that issue because we just do not know.  It was nice for them to speculate but they really did not add much to the understanding of what was happening last night.

About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Mr. Trudeau stated awhile ago that Quebecers would reject the Quebec Values Charter and they did.  Then again, it could have been they just rejected Madame Marois and the Charter just went down with her.

At any rate Canada and Canadians benefitted the most from last night's results and I really do not care how they might have been politically beneficial to the federal leaders.

Some thoughts

Resignation of Mr. Flaherty:  This is a man who inherited a $13 billion surplus from the last Liberal government and managed to turn it into a $20 billion dollar deficit in two years, during good economic times and before the 2008 recession.  Squandering $33 billions in that amount of time takes talent, hard work and dedication.  That fact should put everything else he did as Finance Minister into perspective.

Resignation of Alison Redford:  She was probably the reason for the surprise win of the Alberta PCP a couple of years ago.  Such a feat should have earned her some loyalty from her caucus and other bigwigs in the party but that was not the case.  That might be why some of the statements from the announcement of her resignation was her giving the rhetorical middle finger to her former colleagues.  I would not be surprised to see the PCPofA relegated to the Opposition benches next time, which really is where they should have gone the last time.

Stephen Harper:  Just got owned by the SCC. 

Quebec election:  Still a lot of time to go but the election is not unfolding as Ms. Marois would have liked.  She is still going to win, maybe even a majority government, but I imagine there is a fair amount of angst amongst the PQ election team at the moment.  As well, it is probably becoming safer to say that the leader of the PLQ does not have to worry about his job after April 7.  He has done a pretty good job for someone that has only been a party leader for about a year.

Liberal nomination battles:  It always amazes me what Liberals fight each other about.  They tie themselves in knots and make themselves look stupid for the most trivial of reasons.  Here is a free piece of information for Liberals.  None one cares how political parties pick their candidates.  Really they don't, so why some Liberals have chosen this particular hill to die on just leaves me shaking my head.  As well, to the Liberals of T-S you have no hope of winning that riding in any by-election anyway.  There is no way the NDP is going to allow the riding last held by the wife of Jack Layton to get away from them.  The amount of resources they will pour into that riding will be ridiculous. 

Quel Surprise!

Well that did not take long.  Early in the first week of the Quebec election campaign Ms. Marois had to give the usual non-answer to the question of whether she will hold a referendum if she wins a majority government.  This has been a pattern for leaders of the PQ since the 1995 referendum loss.

You really cannot blame her. 

There is an aging and shrinking minority of Quebecers who support independence as a matter of principle and they expect a PQ premier to make it happen.  If Ms. Marois actually came out and stated that she would not hold a referendum because it is likely that she could not manufacture the "winning conditions" during a four year term there is a real threat that these people would stay home on election day and without them Ms. Marois loses.

Unfortunately for her, the broader Quebec society does not want another referendum and I would even say that at the moment they have no interest in independence.  This applies not just to federalists but to many of those Quebecers who would describe themselves as Quebec nationalists.  These folks care more about such things as the economy and other issues not having to do with independence and they do not want another round of divisive, acidic independence debates to divert attention away from those issues.

Hence the waffling on the referendum question from Ms. Marois.

Ms. Marois will probably win the election for the simple reason that Quebecers are probably not ready to hand the government back to the Quebec Liberals so soon after turfing them out.  Enough Quebecers probably still believe that the Liberals have not had a sufficient enough time out from government yet.

So will Ms. Marois call a referendum if she wins a majority government?  Probably not.

As I stated in my last post the next referendum, if it happens, will be the last regardless of the outcome and the PQ has to win it or they pretty much lose their reason for existence.  In addition they will have to win a decisive enough victory in any referendum to prevent those who lost from using the Clarity Act to fight results

How can they do that?  Pick a fight with the Feds?  On what issue?  Others before her tried but really there is just no issue out there that has the ability to fire up the passions of Quebecers enough for them to consider independence.

In addition, for any referendum to succeed the PQ must convince some of the ethnic groups around Montreal to back independence as the 1995 referendum demonstrated.  There are just not enough Fracophone Quebecers willing to take the chance on independence to carry the day on their own.  They need to convince some francophone ethnic groups as well.

That will be hard to do when the PQ is fighting an election on a Charter that essentially makes new Quebecers, particularly of non-European stock, second class citizens.  If that Charter is passed the PQ can kiss any chance of these people supporting their pet project during a referendum.

Which is why I believe that if the PQ wins a majority government they will water down the Values Charter so much as to make it meaningless while Ms. Marois appoints her version of Jason Kenney to go out and woo the very people she is currently alienating.

Not that such measures will actually work to build enough support for independence within a useful enough time frame for the PQ. 

Ms. Marois is trying to win a majority government, not because she particularly wants to have a referendum any time soon, but because that is what governments do in this country.  If she is successful she will try to build a coalition of Quebecers who support independence but I would not bet too much money on her chances of success.  Unfortunately, unless she can find an issue to fire the passions of Quebecers and she can convince enough new Quebecers to support independence she does not have much of a chance of succeeding.

Relax Folks, a Referendum has not been called

Since the PQ government in Quebec called the long anticipated election in that province commentators, both the ones who get paid to do it and the ones who do it just for fun, have been having conniptions at the prospect of a PQ majority government and a subsequent referendum.  Many of these commentators put forward "analysis" on how this will impact the current players at the Federal level and they lament the fact that they cannot see any current federal leader who can really defend Canada.

They are getting way ahead of themselves.

First, the PQ has not won a majority government.  Government is theirs to lose for certain but it is an open question whether the Quebec Charter can be sustained as the focus of the election for the whole of the campaign or whether some other issue, such as the dismal performance of the Quebec economy, crowds out that issue and thwarts their attempt at winning a majority government.

But let's say for the sake of argument that the PQ does win a majority of the seats on April 7.  What then?  Will we be looking at another referendum?

Not very soon if at all.

The next referendum, if it happens, will likely be the last regardless of the outcome.  Most Quebecers, including that aging and dwindling cohort of Quebec society that supports Quebec independence as a matter of principle, knows that if they fail to win the next referendum that will be it.  There will be no more after that.  It will be a case of "three strikes and your out" because most Quebecers, of any language, will finally say enough is enough.

So, the next referendum, if it happens, has to be as sure of a thing as you can get in politics.  It cannot be entered into on a whim or without a solid foundation of support for independence at the beginning of a campaign.

That solid foundation is nowhere near to be had.  In fact, the appetite for independence is the lowest it has been in decades.  It is going to take years to build that up to a tenable level of support, if it can be done at all. 

So how does the PQ build this foundation?  What issue does it use to do so?

In 1976 the PQ government had a century of anger and resentment at the English domination of Quebec to work with and they also had St. René to fight for it.  The result was a dismal failure.  In 1995 the PQ government had the recent memories of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords to work with and Mr. Bouchard.  They came closer but they still failed.

What issue would the current PQ government have?  The Quebec Charter?  Some future fight they pick with the Federal government?  The resentment of Quebec towards Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?  Do any of these issues have what is necessary to build a solid and enduring foundation of support for independence?  I do not think so and that is even before taking into account the fact that the one leading the independence side would be Pauline Marois.

One reason is the message from the 1995 referendum that taking Quebec out of Canada would be neither cheap nor easy has sunk in with Quebecers.  Many Quebecers ignored this message in the heat of the 1995 campaign but after the fires cooled from that and they had some time for some sober second thought they realized the verity of those arguments.  That is one of the reasons why support for independence plummeted so sharply in the years after 1995.  It will take a very hot issue to convince Quebecers to endure the economic and societal disruptions an independence process will cause.

Then we have to consider the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference that preceded it.

Certainly, if they could a PQ government would ignore both after a successful campaign but if it is close and/or the referendum question is not that clear it will give those in Quebec ammunition to fight the result.  As well, one unintended consequence of the Quebec Charter could be to convince those it targets to fight such a result because they have essentially been told that they are second class citizens in their home province.

In short, in order for the PQ to be truly successful they need to be able to go into another referendum with a rock solid majority of Quebecers supporting independence at the beginning of the campaign.  That is probably a nearly impossible task and even if they can do it the task will take a great deal of time, certainly more time than the life of the current Federal government.

Who the current leaders of Federal parties are is not relevant to a future referendum.  If we have one at all, it will be far enough into the future that the federal scene will be greatly changed. 

We all need to take a deep breath and consider the great obstacles standing in the way of a PQ government intent of moving towards Quebec independence.  Those obstacles could be insurmountable and even if they somehow succeed in doing so it is going to take a very long time.  A Quebec referendum is not imminent so there is no need to become all freaked out.