So Andrew Scheer dropped the Conservative Party Platform today and it is not pretty. Depending on who you talk to it contains $35 to $53 billion in budget cuts for the Federal Government. That is over 5 years but anyway you slice it cutting that much money in that short amount of time cannot have any impact but a negative impact.
Of course, the Conservatives want to do this to "balance the budget".
When I first heard the news my gut said, "Holy crap, he just threw the election away." but then my intellect took over and I thought about it for awhile.
It is very true that a rather substantial part of the electorate do not like deficits and debt. For the most part they do not like it because they equate government debt with household debt, which is completely wrong but trying to convince them of that is like talking to a block of wood. Fortunately, they are mostly part of the Conservative base to begin with so they would vote for the Conservatives regardless of what was contained in the Platform.
However, there are a few of what I call the non-aligned swing voters that are centrist but lean to the right. Under normal circumstances these voters might decide that this is a good idea as well but for the experience in Ontario. Many of these right leaning centrists voted for Doug Ford and many of them are experiencing some buyers' remorse.
The voters of Ontario tend to choose governments of different political stripes in Ottawa and Toronto and this Platform document might just remind them of the wisdom of that practice.
So what does this do to the election?
I believe it will shake the electorate out of its apparent stupor to begin with and not just in Ontario. The Conservatives released this Platform late on Friday before a long weekend, probably to reduce the chances of anybody hearing about it but that is rather stupid considering we are in the last nine days of an election campaign. People are going to hear about it and that is for certain. The Conservatives essentially gave their chief opponent a bat with which to beat on them for the next nine days, which is plenty of time for Canadians to learn about the implications of the Conservative Platform. The Liberals will be selling investing in Canadians while the Conservatives will be selling divesting in Canadians. Most Canadians are going to choose the former.
Of course, the question then becomes whether those voters focus their votes on the one party that can actually prevent the Conservatives from implementing their proposed cuts, namely the Liberals. I believe the answer is yes.
As an aside let's understand that the Liberals knew going into this election that their victory would go through Ontario and retaining their majority would go through Quebec. As a result they have developed a strategy to target all of the winnable seats in those two provinces and they have been implementing that strategy since at least June, probably earlier. They poured resources and effort into those ridings to identify as many Liberals as they can. They will have a GOTV effort in those ridings that will reduce the number of swing voters needed to put them over the top in those ridings. That is the reason why the Liberals have only made passing comments to Quebecers about not voting for the Bloc and the reason why Mr. Trudeau has not rushed into Quebec to attempt to shore up their support. I would bet a substantial amount of money that their internal data is telling them they are still on track to win a majority government despite what the public polls and the media are saying. You always have to remember that a national election campaign is like an iceberg. The leader's tour is just the tip. It is what is happening out of sight that wins campaigns.
There is a very good probability that the Conservative Party platform will make the Liberal's implementation of that strategy easier. Left leaning voters that were dabbling with the idea of voting for some other party but the Liberals are going to look at the Platform and freak. The argument that only the Liberals can stop the Conservatives from implementing their plans will resonate with alot of left leaning voters. The argument that only the Liberals can stop the Conservative cuts will probably also resonate with many of those Quebecers that are dabbling with the idea of voting for the Bloc. The Liberals argue that Quebecers would be better served by a large contingent of Quebec MPs on the government benches instead of the Opposition benches. That message probably would have resonated with the ever so pragmatic Quebec electorate before October 21 anyway but the Conservative Platform may just cause it to resonate more.
I have stated before, in this space, that the ballot question is going to be "Do Canadians want a change of government?" I do not believe so. There is no "throw the bums out" vibe this time around. The radical change from the status quo that the Conservative Party Platform represents may reinforce that.
So to answer the question in the title of this post. I believe the answer is No and yes. No because he was a long shot to win to begin with and yes because this could very reduce his chances to near zero but we will know for certain in nine days.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Federal Election 2019: 10 Days to Election Day - The final sprint to the finish
As a write this the final French language leaders debate is ongoing. These debates are organized by the media for the media and they rarely have the impact the media would have us believe but the last one is usually the starting line for the final sprint to the finish in every election. After tonight the parties will step up their efforts until it reaches a frenetic pace during the final weekend of the election.
One thing about this period is polls become even more unreliable than usual. For the most part public opinion begins to change fast and that rate of change increases as we get closer to election day. As a result, polls which often take at least a day or two to collect, process and publish cannot keep up. Remember that the last polls of 2015, published about 48 hours before the polls closed were "predicting" a Liberal minority government.
So if you want to see how the election is shaping up over the next 10 days watch the parties. The two main parties and maybe the NDP have pollsters and data analysis experts on retainer during elections. They conduct polls, although for gaining useful information instead of advancing a media narrative plus all of the parties have central databases that are fed nightly by the local campaigns. They take that data plus some other data, such as social media metrics, and model the probable results of the election down to the riding level. They are similar to the seat projection models used by the media but the parties have much better quality data than the media has so their models are much better quality as a result.
Of course, the parties do not make any of their data public. They keep it to themselves and they use it to refine their message and to determine where they need to focus their efforts. However, one can gain some insight into what they are seeing by watching the parties in general and the party leaders in particular.
At this stage of the campaign those managing it are going to put the leader where they believe they can do the most good. That is where the leader can either save a seat from falling to the other parties or where there is a possibility of picking up a seat currently held by another party. So for the next 10 days watch where the party leaders campaign. As well, watching what they say can also be a good indicator.
An example would be the fact that Mr. Trudeau campaigned in the Carleton Riding today, a riding that has been held by Pierre Poilievre since 2004. I found that interesting. That has been a safe Conservative riding for 15 years. It is true that it is very close to Gatineau, where the debates are occuring but that can be said of over a dozen ridings around Ottawa. He could have gone to Glengarry-Prescott-Russel, which according to the media seat projections is a Liberal Riding that could change hands this time or there are other ridings in Quebec where the media is saying the Bloc could defeat a Liberal incumbent. He did not do that. Instead he campaigned in what has been a safe Conservative seat. Either he really wanted to buy that pumpkin from a farm near Manotick or maybe their data is indicating that the ridings the media say are vulnerable are not so vulnerable and that the Carleton riding could be a candidate to change hands this time. It is true the local Liberal candidate is running a particularly strong campaign and we have not seen anything of Pierre Poilievre during the whole election. This is not to say that the Carleton riding will switch. It is just to say that there are plenty of places to buy pumpkins in the National Capital Region and it is curious that Mr. Trudeau's handlers had him buy one there.
Oh yes, remember the media is stating that the Bloc is on the rise in Quebec threatening the Liberals. So what is Mr. Trudeau's play. Go to British Columbia tomorrow morning. I bet the Bloc never saw that coming.
It is harder to find out where Mr. Scheer was because finding his itinerary on the Conservative Party website is much harder but it should be noted that Mr. Scheer blew the dog whistle very loudly yesterday in Quebec while the various Proud websites brought up the fear of Sharia Law again. It is curious that they have decided to do this at this stage of the game and a clue as to why might be the news that Mr. MacKay appears to be gearing up for a leadership race for the Conservative Party after the election.
This was stated by a senior Conservative "friend" of Mr. MacKay's, who apologized soon after. However, it should be noted that he apologized. He did not retract the statement. Make no mistake. This was not a error on the part of the source. If the person is a senior Conservative he would have had the media sense not to make those kinds of statements to a reporter. This was a deliberate act designed to do what? I am not certain right now but it does seem that at least some of the Conservative Party do not believe Mr. Scheer will pull out a victory in 10 days.
Over the next 10 days you should be able to discern how the election is going to turn out by watching what the parties and the party leaders are doing. They will be a much better indicator than anything the media will tell us.
One thing about this period is polls become even more unreliable than usual. For the most part public opinion begins to change fast and that rate of change increases as we get closer to election day. As a result, polls which often take at least a day or two to collect, process and publish cannot keep up. Remember that the last polls of 2015, published about 48 hours before the polls closed were "predicting" a Liberal minority government.
So if you want to see how the election is shaping up over the next 10 days watch the parties. The two main parties and maybe the NDP have pollsters and data analysis experts on retainer during elections. They conduct polls, although for gaining useful information instead of advancing a media narrative plus all of the parties have central databases that are fed nightly by the local campaigns. They take that data plus some other data, such as social media metrics, and model the probable results of the election down to the riding level. They are similar to the seat projection models used by the media but the parties have much better quality data than the media has so their models are much better quality as a result.
Of course, the parties do not make any of their data public. They keep it to themselves and they use it to refine their message and to determine where they need to focus their efforts. However, one can gain some insight into what they are seeing by watching the parties in general and the party leaders in particular.
At this stage of the campaign those managing it are going to put the leader where they believe they can do the most good. That is where the leader can either save a seat from falling to the other parties or where there is a possibility of picking up a seat currently held by another party. So for the next 10 days watch where the party leaders campaign. As well, watching what they say can also be a good indicator.
An example would be the fact that Mr. Trudeau campaigned in the Carleton Riding today, a riding that has been held by Pierre Poilievre since 2004. I found that interesting. That has been a safe Conservative riding for 15 years. It is true that it is very close to Gatineau, where the debates are occuring but that can be said of over a dozen ridings around Ottawa. He could have gone to Glengarry-Prescott-Russel, which according to the media seat projections is a Liberal Riding that could change hands this time or there are other ridings in Quebec where the media is saying the Bloc could defeat a Liberal incumbent. He did not do that. Instead he campaigned in what has been a safe Conservative seat. Either he really wanted to buy that pumpkin from a farm near Manotick or maybe their data is indicating that the ridings the media say are vulnerable are not so vulnerable and that the Carleton riding could be a candidate to change hands this time. It is true the local Liberal candidate is running a particularly strong campaign and we have not seen anything of Pierre Poilievre during the whole election. This is not to say that the Carleton riding will switch. It is just to say that there are plenty of places to buy pumpkins in the National Capital Region and it is curious that Mr. Trudeau's handlers had him buy one there.
Oh yes, remember the media is stating that the Bloc is on the rise in Quebec threatening the Liberals. So what is Mr. Trudeau's play. Go to British Columbia tomorrow morning. I bet the Bloc never saw that coming.
It is harder to find out where Mr. Scheer was because finding his itinerary on the Conservative Party website is much harder but it should be noted that Mr. Scheer blew the dog whistle very loudly yesterday in Quebec while the various Proud websites brought up the fear of Sharia Law again. It is curious that they have decided to do this at this stage of the game and a clue as to why might be the news that Mr. MacKay appears to be gearing up for a leadership race for the Conservative Party after the election.
This was stated by a senior Conservative "friend" of Mr. MacKay's, who apologized soon after. However, it should be noted that he apologized. He did not retract the statement. Make no mistake. This was not a error on the part of the source. If the person is a senior Conservative he would have had the media sense not to make those kinds of statements to a reporter. This was a deliberate act designed to do what? I am not certain right now but it does seem that at least some of the Conservative Party do not believe Mr. Scheer will pull out a victory in 10 days.
Over the next 10 days you should be able to discern how the election is going to turn out by watching what the parties and the party leaders are doing. They will be a much better indicator than anything the media will tell us.
Tuesday, October 08, 2019
Federal Election 2019: Week Four - Now the real election begins
Well with week four now in the books the real election begins. The week of the debates are usually when non-partisan voters begin to pay attention to the election. So, all of the partisans for each of the parties are going to be joined, more and more, by the non-aligned swing voters in watching this election. Many will not make a final decision until the final week and days of the campaign but they will now begin to pay much closer attention as the days go on. They will be the ones who decide this election.
The Liberal campaign has been rather boring really. That is not a bad thing, by the way, during an election. Usually the things that excite during election campaigns are things political parties would like to avoid during them. So the fact the last couple of weeks have been largely uneventful for the Liberal campaign should make them very happy. As well, the Liberal campaign has been the most relaxed. I check the itinerary of each leader each day to see where they will be campaigning. One thing I noticed was that after the TVA debate Mr. Trudeau essentially took the next day off. He hung around Montreal, went to one event early in the morning and then called it a day. I thought it was because he would be traveling for the rest of the day but his itinerary for the next day was for a couple of events in Quebec City and in the Rimouski area of Quebec. I found that interesting because that is the middle of Conservative country in Quebec. All of the talking heads indicated that the BQ performance during the TVA debates made them a threat to the Liberals but they went to a Conservative area instead of trying to fend off the Bloc and they are still not trying to fend off the Bloc even now. After Quebec City Mr. Trudeau took the next day off. No events were planned. Contrast that to his opponents who ran around the country for all three of those days. They campaigned like crazy. I keep hearing that the Liberals are threatened by the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens. I keep hearing that their majority, maybe even their grip on power, is threatened. If so they seem to have a very lackadaisical reaction to this "fact". Maybe the public polls and the pundits that use them to make their prognostications are missing something.
The Conservatives had a brutal week in what can only be described as an increasingly brutal campaign. Last week ended with revelations that Mr. Scheer lied about his work history. Ok, that is silly and bush league but it should not be too big of a deal. Then it was revealed that he lied about his education and then it was revealed that he has been hiding that he is an American citizen for 15 years. Holy crap! Any one of those would make for a bad day on the campaign trail but it would only be one or two bad days. Having these revelations come out over the course of a single week during an election campaign has the potential of being fatal to that campaign. One is a lapse. Three is a pattern and if Conservatives and their allies believe said pattern will do no harm to Mr. Scheer they could be in for some profound disappointment. I do not know how much this will impact the campaign in the end but is was a lousy way for Mr. Scheer to spend week four of the campaign. Now going into week five it would appear he is getting questions about Trump operatives who may be working on his campaign. If those questions persist that could very well be it for him and the Conservatives.
The other parties are no longer relevant. This has always been a two party race and the last four weeks have proven that. The other parties might play spoiler in some local races but their impact will probably not be as profound as the talking head are currently pushing.
A short word on the debates. I do not watch them because they are pointless. They are organized by the media for the media. They do not have as much of an impact on the outcome of the election as the media would have us believe. I always like to remind people that Mr. Harper never won a single debate during his victorious election campaigns. He came in second to Mr. Martin in 2006 and Mr. Dion in 2008. He was trounced by Mr. Layton on 2011. Despite that he won all three campaigns and very convincingly in 2011.
So with 12 days until the election the non-partisan swing voters in the country will be deciding whether they want a change in government or not. That is the real ballot question. All of the other stuff the media talks about is only there to inform the answer to that question.
There is no certain way to determine which way they will jump. We will just have to wait until October 21 but my intellect and my gut are still telling me that they will jump to the Liberals in a big way, electing them to a majority government.
The Liberal campaign has been rather boring really. That is not a bad thing, by the way, during an election. Usually the things that excite during election campaigns are things political parties would like to avoid during them. So the fact the last couple of weeks have been largely uneventful for the Liberal campaign should make them very happy. As well, the Liberal campaign has been the most relaxed. I check the itinerary of each leader each day to see where they will be campaigning. One thing I noticed was that after the TVA debate Mr. Trudeau essentially took the next day off. He hung around Montreal, went to one event early in the morning and then called it a day. I thought it was because he would be traveling for the rest of the day but his itinerary for the next day was for a couple of events in Quebec City and in the Rimouski area of Quebec. I found that interesting because that is the middle of Conservative country in Quebec. All of the talking heads indicated that the BQ performance during the TVA debates made them a threat to the Liberals but they went to a Conservative area instead of trying to fend off the Bloc and they are still not trying to fend off the Bloc even now. After Quebec City Mr. Trudeau took the next day off. No events were planned. Contrast that to his opponents who ran around the country for all three of those days. They campaigned like crazy. I keep hearing that the Liberals are threatened by the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens. I keep hearing that their majority, maybe even their grip on power, is threatened. If so they seem to have a very lackadaisical reaction to this "fact". Maybe the public polls and the pundits that use them to make their prognostications are missing something.
The Conservatives had a brutal week in what can only be described as an increasingly brutal campaign. Last week ended with revelations that Mr. Scheer lied about his work history. Ok, that is silly and bush league but it should not be too big of a deal. Then it was revealed that he lied about his education and then it was revealed that he has been hiding that he is an American citizen for 15 years. Holy crap! Any one of those would make for a bad day on the campaign trail but it would only be one or two bad days. Having these revelations come out over the course of a single week during an election campaign has the potential of being fatal to that campaign. One is a lapse. Three is a pattern and if Conservatives and their allies believe said pattern will do no harm to Mr. Scheer they could be in for some profound disappointment. I do not know how much this will impact the campaign in the end but is was a lousy way for Mr. Scheer to spend week four of the campaign. Now going into week five it would appear he is getting questions about Trump operatives who may be working on his campaign. If those questions persist that could very well be it for him and the Conservatives.
The other parties are no longer relevant. This has always been a two party race and the last four weeks have proven that. The other parties might play spoiler in some local races but their impact will probably not be as profound as the talking head are currently pushing.
A short word on the debates. I do not watch them because they are pointless. They are organized by the media for the media. They do not have as much of an impact on the outcome of the election as the media would have us believe. I always like to remind people that Mr. Harper never won a single debate during his victorious election campaigns. He came in second to Mr. Martin in 2006 and Mr. Dion in 2008. He was trounced by Mr. Layton on 2011. Despite that he won all three campaigns and very convincingly in 2011.
So with 12 days until the election the non-partisan swing voters in the country will be deciding whether they want a change in government or not. That is the real ballot question. All of the other stuff the media talks about is only there to inform the answer to that question.
There is no certain way to determine which way they will jump. We will just have to wait until October 21 but my intellect and my gut are still telling me that they will jump to the Liberals in a big way, electing them to a majority government.
Tuesday, October 01, 2019
Federal Election 2019 - Week Three Done - These are the dog days
Well, week three is pretty much in the books and not much has changed from when the election was called. The election campaign is pretty much unfolding as I stated it would here.
So far the Liberal campaign has been focused and disciplined. They have not made a misstep since it began. The brown face pictures was not a misstep it was a grenade thrown into the election by someone with an agenda. I am certain many in the Conservative camp would have liked it to do damage but Mr. Trudeau's handling of the situation made certain that would not happen. The Liberals have released their full platform so the next few days will be them hammering at its main themes, followed by debate preparation and the debates, followed by hammering on its main themes again for the final sprint home.
This week saw the Conservative campaign hit a bit of a pothole when it was revealed that Mr. Scheer is not a licenced insurance broker after all. Talk about bush league. A man who would be Prime Minister misrepresenting his credentials and work experience. Did he not think that someone would discover that and report on it before October 21? That is just stupid. The media is not focusing too much on it but it is getting out there and this late in the campaign the impression it might create may stick. Mr. Scheer still does not look like he is enjoying himself and there is still no rhyme or reason to the policy announcements he has been making. One thing I did notice was he made some announcements about reducing foreign aid and reopening the Religious Freedom Office in the last couple of days. These are two measures that would appeal only to his base. Why is he bringing them up now? The time for doing so would have been at the beginning, with this period being the time to pivot to appealing to more centrist voters. For this election he has done the opposite. He did not throw any read meat at his base at the beginning, instead coming out with vaguely centrist policy announcements. Then out of the blue, three weeks in, he massages his base a bit. I am not going to read too much into this now but it bears watching.
The other parties are irrelevant and I will not bother talking about their campaign. Although I will say that Mr. Bernier probably missed an opportunity by pursuing the campaign he is pursuing. His natural audience is Conservative supporters, he has some charisma and he is up against a guy who has less charisma than a turnip. There is a reason why he is called "Mr. Blandy". If he would have went hard after Conservative supporters in Ontario and Quebec he might have made himself relevant. As it is, he will probably win his own seat and that is it.
So what will the next three weeks bring? Both of the main parties have managed to hang on to their bases up to now so the next three weeks will be the time of the undecideds. No one can know how they will jump but I have to say that this election does not feel like a change election. In all of the elections where we have seen a change in government you can see that change coming long before this stage in the campaign. We are not seeing it. The undecideds could surprise us still but it is not as likely as them deciding to stick to the government they have. By the way, that may be why Mr. Scheer looks so miserable. He has spent a great deal of time and effort to convince Canadians to change their government and so far he has not seen any reward for that effort.
Three weeks in I have not seen any reason to change my assessment of how this election will end, as outlined in the post I linked to at the beginning of this one. The next three weeks may change that so we will have to wait and see.
So far the Liberal campaign has been focused and disciplined. They have not made a misstep since it began. The brown face pictures was not a misstep it was a grenade thrown into the election by someone with an agenda. I am certain many in the Conservative camp would have liked it to do damage but Mr. Trudeau's handling of the situation made certain that would not happen. The Liberals have released their full platform so the next few days will be them hammering at its main themes, followed by debate preparation and the debates, followed by hammering on its main themes again for the final sprint home.
This week saw the Conservative campaign hit a bit of a pothole when it was revealed that Mr. Scheer is not a licenced insurance broker after all. Talk about bush league. A man who would be Prime Minister misrepresenting his credentials and work experience. Did he not think that someone would discover that and report on it before October 21? That is just stupid. The media is not focusing too much on it but it is getting out there and this late in the campaign the impression it might create may stick. Mr. Scheer still does not look like he is enjoying himself and there is still no rhyme or reason to the policy announcements he has been making. One thing I did notice was he made some announcements about reducing foreign aid and reopening the Religious Freedom Office in the last couple of days. These are two measures that would appeal only to his base. Why is he bringing them up now? The time for doing so would have been at the beginning, with this period being the time to pivot to appealing to more centrist voters. For this election he has done the opposite. He did not throw any read meat at his base at the beginning, instead coming out with vaguely centrist policy announcements. Then out of the blue, three weeks in, he massages his base a bit. I am not going to read too much into this now but it bears watching.
The other parties are irrelevant and I will not bother talking about their campaign. Although I will say that Mr. Bernier probably missed an opportunity by pursuing the campaign he is pursuing. His natural audience is Conservative supporters, he has some charisma and he is up against a guy who has less charisma than a turnip. There is a reason why he is called "Mr. Blandy". If he would have went hard after Conservative supporters in Ontario and Quebec he might have made himself relevant. As it is, he will probably win his own seat and that is it.
So what will the next three weeks bring? Both of the main parties have managed to hang on to their bases up to now so the next three weeks will be the time of the undecideds. No one can know how they will jump but I have to say that this election does not feel like a change election. In all of the elections where we have seen a change in government you can see that change coming long before this stage in the campaign. We are not seeing it. The undecideds could surprise us still but it is not as likely as them deciding to stick to the government they have. By the way, that may be why Mr. Scheer looks so miserable. He has spent a great deal of time and effort to convince Canadians to change their government and so far he has not seen any reward for that effort.
Three weeks in I have not seen any reason to change my assessment of how this election will end, as outlined in the post I linked to at the beginning of this one. The next three weeks may change that so we will have to wait and see.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Dude you have to participate in a climate strike march
The climate crisis is front and centre on the minds of Canadians. That is true whether you believe in it or not.
Unfortunately for Mr. Scheer most Canadians believe that we need to do something about it. Mr. Scheer proposed a plan. By most accounts it is not very good but it is a plan that he can point to. If he wants people to take it seriously he should be showing that he takes the climate crisis seriously. Marching today would have accomplished that even if he personally does not believe in it. Hell, he would not be the first politician to do or say something he does not personally believe.
Instead, while the eyes of the country were focused on the millions of Canadian marching to fight climate change he was putting pictures of himself eating pizza on Twitter. Talk about being politically tone deaf.
When the Conservatives lose the election I believe the postmortems of the election will point to this day as the beginning of the end of their hopes of gaining power.
Unfortunately for Mr. Scheer most Canadians believe that we need to do something about it. Mr. Scheer proposed a plan. By most accounts it is not very good but it is a plan that he can point to. If he wants people to take it seriously he should be showing that he takes the climate crisis seriously. Marching today would have accomplished that even if he personally does not believe in it. Hell, he would not be the first politician to do or say something he does not personally believe.
Instead, while the eyes of the country were focused on the millions of Canadian marching to fight climate change he was putting pictures of himself eating pizza on Twitter. Talk about being politically tone deaf.
When the Conservatives lose the election I believe the postmortems of the election will point to this day as the beginning of the end of their hopes of gaining power.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Why I discount polls.
I have mentioned many times, here and on other on-line blogs, that I do not put much stock in polls. The reasons are many but the biggest reason is because of their inability to adequately account for people who say "Don't know" or "Undecided" during polling interviews.
I will demonstrate. Let us say for the sake of argument that I conducted a poll of 1000 respondents. The results that I found:
I will demonstrate. Let us say for the sake of argument that I conducted a poll of 1000 respondents. The results that I found:
- 300 people who support the Conservatives
- 290 people who support the Liberals
- 150 undecided
- and the rest divided roughly equally amongst the other parties.
- 300/1000x100 = 30%
- 290/1000x100 = 29%
- 150/1000x100 = 15%
When polling companies publish their estimates in the newspapers and online these are probably the raw numbers they have. Unfortunately, nothing can really be inferred from these estimates except that no one as a clear advantage. No one can say that any party will form a strong stable government with just 30% support.
The problem is the undecideds. They have always been a problem for pollsters who want to publish for news organizations because the news organizations want something that will pop. They want something that will provide their reporters and columnists with something to write about. Unfortunately, those numbers above do not do it. It used to be the pollsters would just distribute the undecideds amongst the decideds using some kind of formula and each polling company would have its own formula for doing so. They discovered that it did not work very well. So then they decided that they would just remove all of the undecideds which is why you will always see polls indicating that their estimates are of decided and leaning respondents. When you remove the undecided you have:
- 300/850x100 = 35.3%
- 290/850x100 = 34.1%
There you go. There are some estimates that you can sink your teeth into. Those estimates can be used by the media to advance whatever narrative they choose. They can be fed into a seat projection model to show how many seats each party will receive and the regional estimates can be used to "refine" the projections. Unfortunately, they are false because you cannot remove 150 respondents from a survey of 1000, who respond with a valid response to a survey question, and produce reliable statistics.
The funny thing is the first example that I gave above probably reflects reality. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a base of support that is about 30% of the electorate and there are probably about 15% of the electorate who could be termed non-partisan swing voters. The Conservatives have a bit of an advantage because their base is pretty solid while the Liberal base is a bit more wishy-washy but in both cases neither has enough to form a strong government with just their base. Therefore they need the swing voters to put them over the top. That is the job of the leader's campaign. The local campaigns attempt to identify and pull as many of their partisans as possible within each riding and hope the national campaign can successfully swing a sufficient number of swing voters over to them to take the seat.
Of course, the problem for all campaigns is there is no way to really know how successful they are until the votes are counted. Most of the swing voters will not make up their minds until much later in the campaign, with a significant number of them doing so only when they step behind the cardboard divider to mark their ballot. So, there is no way to predict which way they will jump. However, it is interesting that they tend to jump in one direction when the finally do make a decision. It is really quite remarkable. For some reason the swing voters collectively decide to vote one way. That is, the majority decide to vote for one party and the minority divide their votes between the rest, giving the one who earned the majority of their votes government. No one has been able to figure out why.
So that is where we stand. The two main parties are hanging on to their bases and waiting for the swing voters to make up their minds. Neither know which way they will jump but they are working very hard to convince them to jump to their side.
As I have stated before I believe they will jump to the Liberals. The main reason is the Liberals have three different historical voting patterns on their side. First term governments tend to be re-elected in this country. Since the introduction of the CCF/NDP to Canadian politics the Conservatives have only won when the NDP does well and the NDP is not running an aggressive campaign this time so they probably will not do as well as the Conservatives need them to. Voters in Ontario seem to like governments of opposite stripes in Toronto and Ottawa. With a Conservative government at Queens Park it is very possible that Ontario voters will vote Liberal at the federal level, and that is before taking into account any possible Doug Ford effect on their voting intentions.
So there you have it. The public polls are telling a misleading story because they cannot account for undecided voters. As long as that is true the polls and the different seat projection models that are fed by them are interesting to look at and debate but they are not a reliable indicator of how the campaign is unfolding and they definitely cannot be used to predict the outcome of the election.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Federal Election 2019: Week Two over - Alot of sizzle but very little steak
Week two of the election campaign got off to a interesting start with the leaking of the pictures of Prime Minister Trudeau in brown/black face at a party. That gave the media, which was bored to tears by week one, something to talk about and something they could preach about, which most media love to do. In the end I do not believe it had much impact on any of the campaigns.
For the Liberal campaign they did have to do some damage control but Mr. Trudeau's clear apology, provided within an hour of the release of the pictures went a long way towards that effort. Believe it nor not most reasonable people realize that everybody makes mistakes and that if you acknowledge the mistake and try to be better they are willing to forgive if not forget. That damage control effort lasted two whole days. By Friday their campaign was returning to normal and by Sunday it was back to being focused and disciplined as it was in week 1. As well, with the end of week two upon us they brought out their heavy guns. The announcements on another tax cut, Pharmacare and their Climate Change announcement today are going to be their signature policy planks for this election. I imagine between now and election day we are going to hear alot about all three. We may hear some more minor announcements in week three but I believe the Liberal campaign is going to begin focusing on these three policy proposals.
The leak of the pictures of Mr. Trudeau, probably with foreknowledge of the Conservative campaign, has shone some light on their election strategy. They seem to realize that they cannot win without a strong showing by the NDP and/or the Greens. Releasing a video and going all in on accusing him of being racist seems counter intuitive for the Conservatives. They have their own bigotry problems, from their current leader, some of their supporters in the media and from their candidates. As a result they were not in a great position to directly benefit from Mr. Trudeau's troubles. However, if they could use it to siphon off some voters from the Liberals to the NDP or Greens then they might benefit. It is actually not a bad strategy but if depends on the NDP and/or the Greens being able to exploit the opening presented to them. They were unable to. More on that in a moment.
Otherwise, the Conservative campaign has been more of the same. Throw out some random policy ideas, many of which are just recycled Harper policies, insult and attack Justin Trudeau at every turn and lie their asses off. Politics being what it is it could work but it is very risky. Attacking the other guy to convince people to vote against him is a strategy as old as democratic politics but you also have to be able to show that you are a compelling alternative. If you do not then you lose. If you do not believe me ask Tim Hudak. So far I am not convinced that Mr. Scheer is accomplishing this. Last week several picture were published showing Mr. Scheer making announcements to empty rooms and football fields. When it was questioned they indicated that they were forgoing rallies to allow potential attendees to knock on doors. Interesting spin but I remember in 2006 Paul Martin had the same problem. He had difficulty getting people out to his announcements. They were often him in a room full of reporters and that was it. The fact is rallies and well attended policy announcements create buzz and energy for the campaign and those cannot be discounted. As well, Mr. Scheer has not looked happy since the campaign started. He has often looked miserable in fact. Contrast that to Mr. Harper in 2006. Although he did not jump for joy during that election there was a bounce in his step, which was probably because he could see that he had a very good chance that he would win. Does Mr. Scheer feel the same way? I am not getting that vibe from him.
The NDP was handed a gift by the Conservatives and they were unable to exploit it. The reason is simple. They are not running a full blown campaign. As I have stated here before they are running a save the furniture campaign and it would appear they are not going to let themselves be distracted from that. If there was no Green Party they might have changed tack but they have to worry about the Greens siphoning off their votes so they seem to be keeping their focus on a campaign to maintain official party status.
The Green Party has not changed anything from week one and their campaign during week one was invisible. They may believe what the public polls are saying, which seem to indicate that may win up to 7 seats but those polls are going to change by election day and the Greens will probably find themselves back where they have always been. Five to seven percent of the vote and Ms. May being the only Green MP.
Maxime Bernier is blowing his one chance to be relevant. The Independent Debate Commission gave him instant credibility when they invited him to the debates but he has failed to exploit that. As well, I still say his best shot at winning seats was to campaign in the Conservative ridings of Ontario and Quebec but he is not doing that either. It could be he is worried about his own seat, in which case him and his party will be a non-factor come election day.
One note about the polls. As I have stated often I put little stock in the polls. However, some people do and the current state of the polls have them worried. What needs to be understood is we have seen this before.
In 2015, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the three main parties were tied with the Conservatives having a bit of an upper hand.
In 2011, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Ignatieff Liberals had a slight lead over the Harper Conservatives. I remember how happy many Liberals were after week two of that election.
In 2008, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Dion Liberals had a slight lead over the Conservatives. Again, Liberals were quite pleased at that time.
Of course we all know how those elections turned out. The point, of course, is that polls early in an election campaign cannot be used to predict, project, or otherwise guess the final outcome of the election. Neither can polls at the end of the campaign for that matter.
Between now and election day Canadians will decide who they want to govern them. We will not know that decision for certain until October 21. I still believe it will be the Liberals that they choose, for many reasons, but we will know for certain in a little over three weeks.
For the Liberal campaign they did have to do some damage control but Mr. Trudeau's clear apology, provided within an hour of the release of the pictures went a long way towards that effort. Believe it nor not most reasonable people realize that everybody makes mistakes and that if you acknowledge the mistake and try to be better they are willing to forgive if not forget. That damage control effort lasted two whole days. By Friday their campaign was returning to normal and by Sunday it was back to being focused and disciplined as it was in week 1. As well, with the end of week two upon us they brought out their heavy guns. The announcements on another tax cut, Pharmacare and their Climate Change announcement today are going to be their signature policy planks for this election. I imagine between now and election day we are going to hear alot about all three. We may hear some more minor announcements in week three but I believe the Liberal campaign is going to begin focusing on these three policy proposals.
The leak of the pictures of Mr. Trudeau, probably with foreknowledge of the Conservative campaign, has shone some light on their election strategy. They seem to realize that they cannot win without a strong showing by the NDP and/or the Greens. Releasing a video and going all in on accusing him of being racist seems counter intuitive for the Conservatives. They have their own bigotry problems, from their current leader, some of their supporters in the media and from their candidates. As a result they were not in a great position to directly benefit from Mr. Trudeau's troubles. However, if they could use it to siphon off some voters from the Liberals to the NDP or Greens then they might benefit. It is actually not a bad strategy but if depends on the NDP and/or the Greens being able to exploit the opening presented to them. They were unable to. More on that in a moment.
Otherwise, the Conservative campaign has been more of the same. Throw out some random policy ideas, many of which are just recycled Harper policies, insult and attack Justin Trudeau at every turn and lie their asses off. Politics being what it is it could work but it is very risky. Attacking the other guy to convince people to vote against him is a strategy as old as democratic politics but you also have to be able to show that you are a compelling alternative. If you do not then you lose. If you do not believe me ask Tim Hudak. So far I am not convinced that Mr. Scheer is accomplishing this. Last week several picture were published showing Mr. Scheer making announcements to empty rooms and football fields. When it was questioned they indicated that they were forgoing rallies to allow potential attendees to knock on doors. Interesting spin but I remember in 2006 Paul Martin had the same problem. He had difficulty getting people out to his announcements. They were often him in a room full of reporters and that was it. The fact is rallies and well attended policy announcements create buzz and energy for the campaign and those cannot be discounted. As well, Mr. Scheer has not looked happy since the campaign started. He has often looked miserable in fact. Contrast that to Mr. Harper in 2006. Although he did not jump for joy during that election there was a bounce in his step, which was probably because he could see that he had a very good chance that he would win. Does Mr. Scheer feel the same way? I am not getting that vibe from him.
The NDP was handed a gift by the Conservatives and they were unable to exploit it. The reason is simple. They are not running a full blown campaign. As I have stated here before they are running a save the furniture campaign and it would appear they are not going to let themselves be distracted from that. If there was no Green Party they might have changed tack but they have to worry about the Greens siphoning off their votes so they seem to be keeping their focus on a campaign to maintain official party status.
The Green Party has not changed anything from week one and their campaign during week one was invisible. They may believe what the public polls are saying, which seem to indicate that may win up to 7 seats but those polls are going to change by election day and the Greens will probably find themselves back where they have always been. Five to seven percent of the vote and Ms. May being the only Green MP.
Maxime Bernier is blowing his one chance to be relevant. The Independent Debate Commission gave him instant credibility when they invited him to the debates but he has failed to exploit that. As well, I still say his best shot at winning seats was to campaign in the Conservative ridings of Ontario and Quebec but he is not doing that either. It could be he is worried about his own seat, in which case him and his party will be a non-factor come election day.
One note about the polls. As I have stated often I put little stock in the polls. However, some people do and the current state of the polls have them worried. What needs to be understood is we have seen this before.
In 2015, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the three main parties were tied with the Conservatives having a bit of an upper hand.
In 2011, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Ignatieff Liberals had a slight lead over the Harper Conservatives. I remember how happy many Liberals were after week two of that election.
In 2008, with three weeks to go before the election the polls indicated that the Dion Liberals had a slight lead over the Conservatives. Again, Liberals were quite pleased at that time.
Of course we all know how those elections turned out. The point, of course, is that polls early in an election campaign cannot be used to predict, project, or otherwise guess the final outcome of the election. Neither can polls at the end of the campaign for that matter.
Between now and election day Canadians will decide who they want to govern them. We will not know that decision for certain until October 21. I still believe it will be the Liberals that they choose, for many reasons, but we will know for certain in a little over three weeks.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Gun Control
I had a short conversation today with someone who was unhappy with the proposed gun control policies of the Liberals. When I suggested they made great sense he immediately accused me of being an anti-gun nut in a very snide voice. Understand we had just met and we did not know each other beforehand but my disagreeing with him caused him to insult me. Figuring he was just another classless Conservative supporter I just walked away.
I could have argued with him but I do not believe it would have mattered and as I get older I realize that life is too short to argue with close minded people but that short conversation got me thinking
I grew up in rural Eastern Ontario. I started pinging away at old tin cans with my grandfather's old single shot 22, on his farm, when I was 10. I killed my first animal, with a firearm, before I got my drivers licence. My grandfather had firearms, my father had firearms, his brothers have firearms, my brother has firearms, my cousins (both male and female) own firearms, even some family pets own firearms. I would own firearms if my wife would let me keep them in the house. To this day if someone invites me to go do some shooting I almost always say "Let's go!". So by no stretch of the imagination could I be called anti-gun.
All that being said I am a big supporter of gun control and I came to that position as a result of my family. My grandfather used to say that the only thing a handgun is good for is scaring away the moose. When I asked my father if he would ever like to own a military style weapon like the AR-15 he said no because they are useless for hunting. Understand both men were as conservative as they come but they still understood the need for gun control.
I could have said all of this to the guy if I thought it would have been useful. I could have also said that my father's preferred weapon for hunting large game was a Savage .308 magnum, which he stated could bring down a full grown moose at 400 metres and a dear at 600 metres. The small 5.56mm round of the AR-15 could not do either. If you hit a large target with such small rounds you would mortally wound the animal but not kill it outright. In all likelihood it would run off to die a slow, painful death, which all hunters want to avoid, at least all of the hunters I know. I could have argued that the AR-15 and other similar weapons are specifically designed and built to kill and maim HUMANS and nothing else. Hunting rifles and shotguns can be used for kill humans but their manufacturers are looking at the hunting market.
Allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns, with suitable regulations in place to make certain that they are handled and stored properly makes perfect sense. Banning weapons designed specifically to kill and maim humans, such as assault weapons and handguns also makes perfect sense.
A personal disclaimer. I know someone who owns and AR-15. He has given me several opportunities to shoot it. I did and I liked it. If a re-elected Liberal government bans such weapons I will not have another such opportunity. That would be disappointing but I can live with it.
I could have argued with him but I do not believe it would have mattered and as I get older I realize that life is too short to argue with close minded people but that short conversation got me thinking
I grew up in rural Eastern Ontario. I started pinging away at old tin cans with my grandfather's old single shot 22, on his farm, when I was 10. I killed my first animal, with a firearm, before I got my drivers licence. My grandfather had firearms, my father had firearms, his brothers have firearms, my brother has firearms, my cousins (both male and female) own firearms, even some family pets own firearms. I would own firearms if my wife would let me keep them in the house. To this day if someone invites me to go do some shooting I almost always say "Let's go!". So by no stretch of the imagination could I be called anti-gun.
All that being said I am a big supporter of gun control and I came to that position as a result of my family. My grandfather used to say that the only thing a handgun is good for is scaring away the moose. When I asked my father if he would ever like to own a military style weapon like the AR-15 he said no because they are useless for hunting. Understand both men were as conservative as they come but they still understood the need for gun control.
I could have said all of this to the guy if I thought it would have been useful. I could have also said that my father's preferred weapon for hunting large game was a Savage .308 magnum, which he stated could bring down a full grown moose at 400 metres and a dear at 600 metres. The small 5.56mm round of the AR-15 could not do either. If you hit a large target with such small rounds you would mortally wound the animal but not kill it outright. In all likelihood it would run off to die a slow, painful death, which all hunters want to avoid, at least all of the hunters I know. I could have argued that the AR-15 and other similar weapons are specifically designed and built to kill and maim HUMANS and nothing else. Hunting rifles and shotguns can be used for kill humans but their manufacturers are looking at the hunting market.
Allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns, with suitable regulations in place to make certain that they are handled and stored properly makes perfect sense. Banning weapons designed specifically to kill and maim humans, such as assault weapons and handguns also makes perfect sense.
A personal disclaimer. I know someone who owns and AR-15. He has given me several opportunities to shoot it. I did and I liked it. If a re-elected Liberal government bans such weapons I will not have another such opportunity. That would be disappointing but I can live with it.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Federal Election 2019: Week 1 over - Nothing but Chaff
Week one is in the books and I can honestly say that none of the campaigns have provided Canadians with anything they can really chew on.
The Liberals are running a typical front-runner campaign. They are making announcements on a daily basis but I am not detecting a election theme. In 2015 they remained laser focused on the economy. They were not distracted by three weeks of the Mike Duffy trial. They made only a passing remark on the drowned boy on the Turkish beach. In short, their campaign was focused, disciplined and on message from the time the writ was dropped to the end. For this campaign they have certainly been disciplined but they have not stuck to a central message because they do not seem to have one. They would go along way to ensuring their re-election if they had such a central message and if they could tie in all of their policy announcements to that message.
The Conservatives have run the campaign that I expected, namely negative. Although I have to admit to being surprised at how shameless they have been in lying to voters. I cannot see that as being a winning strategy for a 41 day campaign. I know that many point to success of Doug Ford's and Donald Trump's campaigns. However, if anybody, including the Conservatives, believe the same tactics will work this time around they are probably in for a major disappointment. Doug Ford was up against a government that had been in power for about 16 years. They pulled off a miracle in 2014 but they were not going to pull off the same miracle in 2018. I always like to remind people that Donald Trump came in second, by a significant margin, in 2016. Only the vagaries of the Electoral College system gave him the White House. If the Conservatives do not win the popular vote they do not win the election. Their vote is just way too inefficient for them to do so in our First Past the Post voting system. So far all they have done is lie and announce recycled Harper government initiatives. That is not going to inspire voters, which is what they need to do to win.
The NDP has been invisible, as I expected. They are trying to save the furniture and they are pretty much avoiding any really big policy announcements. Mr. Singh is waiting for the debates hoping that he can perform well enough there to convince enough voters to give him and his party enough seats to maintain official party status. It is an open question of whether he will succeed.
The Greens and the PPC are proving that they are fringe parties. They have not done anything in the first week to make themselves stand out.
Ms. May is long past her best-before-date and if she believes the current polling indicating that she may win more than her own seat she is delusional. We have been down this road before. By election day voters in this country will likely revert to their habit of voting for the big three.
Mr. Bernier has not done anything except receive an invitation to the official debates, which is hardly an accomplishment by him. I have stated here before that his best strategy is to rent a bus and campaign hard in the Conservative ridings in Ontario and Quebec. He is not doing that. In fact I am not certain what he is doing even though I have been trying to find out. At this rate he will be lucky to win his own seat. I thought he might be waiting for the debates but until yesterday there was no guarantee that he would be invited.
All and all, I am rather disappointed in the first week of the campaign and that is despite my generally low expectations for the first week. However, I am particularly disappointed with the Liberal campaign. They ran a brilliant, near perfect campaign in 2015 and I was expecting something similar this time around, particularly since the 2015 campaign team is intact. Instead, their campaign has been rather pedestrian.
The Liberals are running a typical front-runner campaign. They are making announcements on a daily basis but I am not detecting a election theme. In 2015 they remained laser focused on the economy. They were not distracted by three weeks of the Mike Duffy trial. They made only a passing remark on the drowned boy on the Turkish beach. In short, their campaign was focused, disciplined and on message from the time the writ was dropped to the end. For this campaign they have certainly been disciplined but they have not stuck to a central message because they do not seem to have one. They would go along way to ensuring their re-election if they had such a central message and if they could tie in all of their policy announcements to that message.
The Conservatives have run the campaign that I expected, namely negative. Although I have to admit to being surprised at how shameless they have been in lying to voters. I cannot see that as being a winning strategy for a 41 day campaign. I know that many point to success of Doug Ford's and Donald Trump's campaigns. However, if anybody, including the Conservatives, believe the same tactics will work this time around they are probably in for a major disappointment. Doug Ford was up against a government that had been in power for about 16 years. They pulled off a miracle in 2014 but they were not going to pull off the same miracle in 2018. I always like to remind people that Donald Trump came in second, by a significant margin, in 2016. Only the vagaries of the Electoral College system gave him the White House. If the Conservatives do not win the popular vote they do not win the election. Their vote is just way too inefficient for them to do so in our First Past the Post voting system. So far all they have done is lie and announce recycled Harper government initiatives. That is not going to inspire voters, which is what they need to do to win.
The NDP has been invisible, as I expected. They are trying to save the furniture and they are pretty much avoiding any really big policy announcements. Mr. Singh is waiting for the debates hoping that he can perform well enough there to convince enough voters to give him and his party enough seats to maintain official party status. It is an open question of whether he will succeed.
The Greens and the PPC are proving that they are fringe parties. They have not done anything in the first week to make themselves stand out.
Ms. May is long past her best-before-date and if she believes the current polling indicating that she may win more than her own seat she is delusional. We have been down this road before. By election day voters in this country will likely revert to their habit of voting for the big three.
Mr. Bernier has not done anything except receive an invitation to the official debates, which is hardly an accomplishment by him. I have stated here before that his best strategy is to rent a bus and campaign hard in the Conservative ridings in Ontario and Quebec. He is not doing that. In fact I am not certain what he is doing even though I have been trying to find out. At this rate he will be lucky to win his own seat. I thought he might be waiting for the debates but until yesterday there was no guarantee that he would be invited.
All and all, I am rather disappointed in the first week of the campaign and that is despite my generally low expectations for the first week. However, I am particularly disappointed with the Liberal campaign. They ran a brilliant, near perfect campaign in 2015 and I was expecting something similar this time around, particularly since the 2015 campaign team is intact. Instead, their campaign has been rather pedestrian.
Monday, September 16, 2019
The Official Debates for the 2019 Federal Election
So it was revealed today that the independant commission that was set up to organize the official leaders debates for the 2019 Federal Election is going to let Maxime Bernier participate.
I have to admit I am torn by this decision. On the one hand giving this man a national stage to spew his hate and bigotry troubles me but on the other hand it could show Canadians just what kind of man he is and what kind of party he is leading.
When I first heard this news I imagined that Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party would not be pleased. If they have any chance of winning they have to keep their base united and Mr. Bernier is a direct threat to that goal. Having him in the debates makes achieving that objective that much harder as it gives Mr. Bernier a chance to appeal directly to that part of the Conservative base where his message would resonate. As well, now that Mr. Bernier is included in the debates the national media could begin to pay a little more attention to them. If any as much attention as they give the Greens but any publicity that Mr. Bernier receives is probably not good news for the Conservatives.
It turns out I was correct because the Conservative Party came out with a statement of displeasure that was completely overboard in the amount of vitriol directed at the commission and it went so far as to question its integrity.
I looked up the members of the commision to see if their argument had any merit. I believed before I checked that it would not but I wanted to be certain and when I checked I was correct. The commissioner is our former Governor General, a Harper appointee, and one person in the country whose honour and integrity is above reproach. In addition one of the members of the Advisory Committee is Deborah Grey. When I read that name it sounded familier and it took me awhile to place it. I finally did. She was the first Reform Party MP that came to Ottawa in the 1989, preceding their big influx of MPs in 1993. She was roasting Mr.Chretien and his government when Mr. Scheer was still in highschool. To imply she is a Liberal stooge is way off base. Make no mistake I have little respect for Ms. Grey. Her and her Reform colleagues were some of the most classless people ever to wonder the halls of Parliament Hill. Indeed, the extreme partisanship, vitriol and total lack of class of the current group of Conservative MPs and candidates is a direct result of how the Reform Party members conducted themselves in the 1990s. However, give the lady her due. No one can legitimately imply she is somehow working for the Liberals like the Conservatives did today.
There is some speculation as to why the Conservatives reacted the way they did. The most plausible explanation is so far the Conservatives are losing the election. Looking past today to the last few weeks the Conservatives are not running a campaign one would expect from a front runner. This is odd because for the past few months the media has been telling us that they were the front runner. The media has begun to change its tune somewhat in the last week or so but as late as the last week of August I was reading media commentators indicating that the Conservatives were in the driver's seat.
If the Conservatives are losing I can assure you that they know it. The big three political parties have polling and data analysis experts on retainer for the election and they will provide each leader with daily briefings of what Canadians care about and how their campaigns are progressing. Judging by how the Conservatives have conducted the first few days of the election, including their statements on the decision to allow Mr. Bernier to partipate in the debates, I would speculate that the Conservatives are not liking what their data analysis experts are telling them.
Watching the Conservatives it is quite a contrast to the Liberal campaign which looks very much like a frontrunner campaign.
There is still alot of time before the election and alot of politics will happen during that time so things could change. I do not believe they will but there is always a chance they could. However, as of now I believe the Conservatives are in tough and the added credibility given to Mr. Bernier that comes along with his inclusion in the debates will only make their campaign tougher.
I have to admit I am torn by this decision. On the one hand giving this man a national stage to spew his hate and bigotry troubles me but on the other hand it could show Canadians just what kind of man he is and what kind of party he is leading.
When I first heard this news I imagined that Mr. Scheer and the Conservative Party would not be pleased. If they have any chance of winning they have to keep their base united and Mr. Bernier is a direct threat to that goal. Having him in the debates makes achieving that objective that much harder as it gives Mr. Bernier a chance to appeal directly to that part of the Conservative base where his message would resonate. As well, now that Mr. Bernier is included in the debates the national media could begin to pay a little more attention to them. If any as much attention as they give the Greens but any publicity that Mr. Bernier receives is probably not good news for the Conservatives.
It turns out I was correct because the Conservative Party came out with a statement of displeasure that was completely overboard in the amount of vitriol directed at the commission and it went so far as to question its integrity.
I looked up the members of the commision to see if their argument had any merit. I believed before I checked that it would not but I wanted to be certain and when I checked I was correct. The commissioner is our former Governor General, a Harper appointee, and one person in the country whose honour and integrity is above reproach. In addition one of the members of the Advisory Committee is Deborah Grey. When I read that name it sounded familier and it took me awhile to place it. I finally did. She was the first Reform Party MP that came to Ottawa in the 1989, preceding their big influx of MPs in 1993. She was roasting Mr.Chretien and his government when Mr. Scheer was still in highschool. To imply she is a Liberal stooge is way off base. Make no mistake I have little respect for Ms. Grey. Her and her Reform colleagues were some of the most classless people ever to wonder the halls of Parliament Hill. Indeed, the extreme partisanship, vitriol and total lack of class of the current group of Conservative MPs and candidates is a direct result of how the Reform Party members conducted themselves in the 1990s. However, give the lady her due. No one can legitimately imply she is somehow working for the Liberals like the Conservatives did today.
There is some speculation as to why the Conservatives reacted the way they did. The most plausible explanation is so far the Conservatives are losing the election. Looking past today to the last few weeks the Conservatives are not running a campaign one would expect from a front runner. This is odd because for the past few months the media has been telling us that they were the front runner. The media has begun to change its tune somewhat in the last week or so but as late as the last week of August I was reading media commentators indicating that the Conservatives were in the driver's seat.
If the Conservatives are losing I can assure you that they know it. The big three political parties have polling and data analysis experts on retainer for the election and they will provide each leader with daily briefings of what Canadians care about and how their campaigns are progressing. Judging by how the Conservatives have conducted the first few days of the election, including their statements on the decision to allow Mr. Bernier to partipate in the debates, I would speculate that the Conservatives are not liking what their data analysis experts are telling them.
Watching the Conservatives it is quite a contrast to the Liberal campaign which looks very much like a frontrunner campaign.
There is still alot of time before the election and alot of politics will happen during that time so things could change. I do not believe they will but there is always a chance they could. However, as of now I believe the Conservatives are in tough and the added credibility given to Mr. Bernier that comes along with his inclusion in the debates will only make their campaign tougher.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Saving the furniture
I have read several reports in the media in the last few days indicating that the NDP is not in very good shape for the election. It is a matter of public record that financially the Party is having some serious financial difficulties.
The NDP spent to the limit in 2015, even though they did not have the money, in an effort to push themselves over the top. I guess at the time it seemed like a good idea because it seemed that they might actually have a shot. As it turned out they went back to their traditional place in Parliament and were left with a tremendous debt as their reward. Since political parties have to report their cash intake and spending to Elections Canada it is not hard to see that they do not have the money to run a full campaign this time around. Mr. Singh has a choice, run the full campaign and probably bankrupt the party in the process or run a more limited campaign.
One media outlet indicated that the NDP has chosen the latter. They are going to focus on ridings where they believe they can win and leave the rest alone. In other words a typical save the furniture campaign.
Although I usually take what the media tells me with a truckload of salt that report makes sense. Their resources seem to be extremely limited and if they spread them too thin they could lose it all. I believe they know this and they will be running a campaign with the goal of retaining official party status in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this could be complicated by the fact that the Green Party seems to be enjoying an upswing, if we are to believe the polls, which I do not. However, if that is the case they will threaten to take votes away from the NDP, to the benefit of the Liberals. And make no mistake the Greens are not a threat to the Liberals. They are a threat to the NDP. If the Greens actually split the non-Liberal progressive vote as badly as current polls seem to indicate it is very possible that neither the NDP nor the Greens will attain official party status.
Although as the campaign goes on that may become less and less possible for the simple reason that the Greens are not conducting a true national campaign. It was bandied about the internet a few weeks ago that Ms. May retained the services of Warren Kinsella for a time. The only advice he should have given Ms. May is that if you want to run with the big boys you have to charter a plane to get around the country during the campaign. If you choose not to and just use commercial airlines very few people will take you seriously.
All of the above is bad news for the Conservatives of course. In the past 60 years the only time the Conservatives have won government was when the NDP has done well. If the NDP does not do well the Conservative do not do well. Many Conservatives won seats because the NDP and Liberals split the non-Conservative vote. If the NDP has a rough election, those splits could disappear making it way more difficult for the Conservatives. And that is before taking into account any impact that Mr. Bernier might have in Conservative ridings.
Mr. Singh will claim to be running a national campaign but behind the scenes it is very possible that the NDP will limit the expenditure of their resources during the election. For the first time since they came into existance there is a perceived replacement for them in the Green Party. The threat to the very existance of the NDP exists and the NDP will be looking more to address that threat during this election that pursuing the pipe dream of winning the election.
The NDP spent to the limit in 2015, even though they did not have the money, in an effort to push themselves over the top. I guess at the time it seemed like a good idea because it seemed that they might actually have a shot. As it turned out they went back to their traditional place in Parliament and were left with a tremendous debt as their reward. Since political parties have to report their cash intake and spending to Elections Canada it is not hard to see that they do not have the money to run a full campaign this time around. Mr. Singh has a choice, run the full campaign and probably bankrupt the party in the process or run a more limited campaign.
One media outlet indicated that the NDP has chosen the latter. They are going to focus on ridings where they believe they can win and leave the rest alone. In other words a typical save the furniture campaign.
Although I usually take what the media tells me with a truckload of salt that report makes sense. Their resources seem to be extremely limited and if they spread them too thin they could lose it all. I believe they know this and they will be running a campaign with the goal of retaining official party status in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this could be complicated by the fact that the Green Party seems to be enjoying an upswing, if we are to believe the polls, which I do not. However, if that is the case they will threaten to take votes away from the NDP, to the benefit of the Liberals. And make no mistake the Greens are not a threat to the Liberals. They are a threat to the NDP. If the Greens actually split the non-Liberal progressive vote as badly as current polls seem to indicate it is very possible that neither the NDP nor the Greens will attain official party status.
Although as the campaign goes on that may become less and less possible for the simple reason that the Greens are not conducting a true national campaign. It was bandied about the internet a few weeks ago that Ms. May retained the services of Warren Kinsella for a time. The only advice he should have given Ms. May is that if you want to run with the big boys you have to charter a plane to get around the country during the campaign. If you choose not to and just use commercial airlines very few people will take you seriously.
All of the above is bad news for the Conservatives of course. In the past 60 years the only time the Conservatives have won government was when the NDP has done well. If the NDP does not do well the Conservative do not do well. Many Conservatives won seats because the NDP and Liberals split the non-Conservative vote. If the NDP has a rough election, those splits could disappear making it way more difficult for the Conservatives. And that is before taking into account any impact that Mr. Bernier might have in Conservative ridings.
Mr. Singh will claim to be running a national campaign but behind the scenes it is very possible that the NDP will limit the expenditure of their resources during the election. For the first time since they came into existance there is a perceived replacement for them in the Green Party. The threat to the very existance of the NDP exists and the NDP will be looking more to address that threat during this election that pursuing the pipe dream of winning the election.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
And we are off
The writ has been dropped. Not that is matters as the parties have been campaigning for months.
The election will probably follow the usual course.
The parties will stump for the next three weeks or so. Not much will change in the outlook for each party in the public polls. Part of that will be because public opinion is like the Titanic. It does not turn that quickly. Another part of that is the media needs a horse race in order to keep people interested. If they start publishing polls and stories indicating one party is taking a substantial lead all of the money they will be spending on the election will not be recouped. Incidentally, this is why the media is speculating so hard about a minority government. They did the same thing in 2015 but when I watched the election night coverage I did not see any media commentators showing surprise at the Liberals winning a majority government. Journalist are generally dishonest, they are totally lacking in scruples and they do not know the meaning of the phrase "intellectual consistency" but they are not stupid so I suspect more than a few who are pushing "this is a very close race" narrative know that this is not really true.
Then we will have the debates. That is when more of the electorate will become engaged. The various news outlets will make all sorts of claims about who "won" the debates in order to influence the election outcome and to continue to keep people interested but all of that will generally be meaningless because the election from that point forward will come down to one question.
Do Canadians want a change in government or not?
In the days between the debates and election day Canadians will begin to make that decision and they will answer it definitively when they mark their ballots on October 21.
My guess is the answer to that question is "No.". The Opposition Parties and many in the media will be trying to convince Canadian otherwise but Canadians have demonstrated again and again that they can think for themselves.
I have stated in this space before that the Liberals are the prohibitive favourite to win the election and that the most likely outcome is a Liberal majority government. I have not seen anything over the last four years, including the last eight months, to change that assessment.
It is politics so there is alot of room for surprises over the coming weeks and/or I could be completely wrong in my assessment. If that is the case then sobeit. It is not like have not been wrong before
However, if there are no surprises I suspect the Liberals will be celebrating another majority victory on October 21.
The election will probably follow the usual course.
The parties will stump for the next three weeks or so. Not much will change in the outlook for each party in the public polls. Part of that will be because public opinion is like the Titanic. It does not turn that quickly. Another part of that is the media needs a horse race in order to keep people interested. If they start publishing polls and stories indicating one party is taking a substantial lead all of the money they will be spending on the election will not be recouped. Incidentally, this is why the media is speculating so hard about a minority government. They did the same thing in 2015 but when I watched the election night coverage I did not see any media commentators showing surprise at the Liberals winning a majority government. Journalist are generally dishonest, they are totally lacking in scruples and they do not know the meaning of the phrase "intellectual consistency" but they are not stupid so I suspect more than a few who are pushing "this is a very close race" narrative know that this is not really true.
Then we will have the debates. That is when more of the electorate will become engaged. The various news outlets will make all sorts of claims about who "won" the debates in order to influence the election outcome and to continue to keep people interested but all of that will generally be meaningless because the election from that point forward will come down to one question.
Do Canadians want a change in government or not?
In the days between the debates and election day Canadians will begin to make that decision and they will answer it definitively when they mark their ballots on October 21.
My guess is the answer to that question is "No.". The Opposition Parties and many in the media will be trying to convince Canadian otherwise but Canadians have demonstrated again and again that they can think for themselves.
I have stated in this space before that the Liberals are the prohibitive favourite to win the election and that the most likely outcome is a Liberal majority government. I have not seen anything over the last four years, including the last eight months, to change that assessment.
It is politics so there is alot of room for surprises over the coming weeks and/or I could be completely wrong in my assessment. If that is the case then sobeit. It is not like have not been wrong before
However, if there are no surprises I suspect the Liberals will be celebrating another majority victory on October 21.
Canada and Abortion
So in the past few weeks Andrew Scheer and Elizabeth May have been making statements on abortion or at least in the case of Mr. Scheer, was blindsided by the issue and was forced to make a statement that satisfied no one.
The issues of abortion and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) have been settled in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that both are constitutional rights that cannot be taken away by a government. The majority of Canadians have indicated time and again that they do not want to have any further debates on these issues. Only a very small but vocal minority thinks otherwise.
The one constant in democratic politics is once a politician wins an election he wants to win the next one and the next one after that. Such a goal would be highly endangered by opening up the abortion and/or the SSM can of worms again.
Regardless of how circumspect a politician might be in reopening these debates they will take on a life of their own and quickly roar out of control. Woe to the politician that triggers that.
As for actually banning either one that is not likely because such a ban would require an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would not survive a court challenge. Even nibbling around the edges would be fraught with risk because the current SCC is rather liberal in its interpretations of our Chart rights.
So a government would find itself in the fight of its life during the debate on the Bill banning them and then it would be embarrassed by losing landmark court cases and then it would be in another fight if they decided to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the courts. After it is all said and done the party that put the country through that would lose the next election and probably not win another again, ever.
You see these two issues are just the issues that would energize the under 30 set to actually participate in our democracy.
So if the Conservatives actually tried to ban abortion and/or SSM they would be committing political suicide. Currently, the only reason why they are competitive is the largest block of voters who actually bother to vote are the Boomers and the Gen Xers and they are pretty much split down the middle with regard to supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals. The generations that come after them have generally walked away from politics (mores the pity). However, research has demonstrated that they tend to be much more progressive than the older generations and they are also more numerous than them. They are a sleeping giant and I am certain there are many in the Conservative movement in this country who would like to keep it that way. Even so, in about three elections the number of Boomers and Gen Xers will dwindle to the point that even the smaller number of the younger generations who bother to vote will eclipse them. At that point, if the Conservatives have not changed from their current incarnation, they will be a spent force in Canadian politics.
I am certain that there are many Conservatives smart enough to see this coming and would like to have the time to adjust to the changing demographic picture. The last thing they need is to rock the boat and bring the younger generations into the picture before they can make that adjustment. And worse yet, cementing in their minds that the Conservative Party does not share their values. That is a recipe for wandering the political wilderness for a very long time.
Mr. Harper knew this which is why he made a half-assed attempt to ban SSM, in his first minority government, and then told the social conservatives that put him at the head of the Conservative Party that "he tried" before dropping the issue for the remainder of his time in government.
I am going to assume that Mr. Scheer knows this as well. However, watching him for the past couple of years I know that he is not nearly as politically astute as Mr. Harper was and it could be that he owes his victory in the Conservative Party leadership race of a few years ago more to the social conservatives than Stephen Harper ever did. Hence the total botching of his response when these two issues reared their ugly heads three or four weeks ago.
The issues of abortion and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) have been settled in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that both are constitutional rights that cannot be taken away by a government. The majority of Canadians have indicated time and again that they do not want to have any further debates on these issues. Only a very small but vocal minority thinks otherwise.
The one constant in democratic politics is once a politician wins an election he wants to win the next one and the next one after that. Such a goal would be highly endangered by opening up the abortion and/or the SSM can of worms again.
Regardless of how circumspect a politician might be in reopening these debates they will take on a life of their own and quickly roar out of control. Woe to the politician that triggers that.
As for actually banning either one that is not likely because such a ban would require an amendment to the Criminal Code, which would not survive a court challenge. Even nibbling around the edges would be fraught with risk because the current SCC is rather liberal in its interpretations of our Chart rights.
So a government would find itself in the fight of its life during the debate on the Bill banning them and then it would be embarrassed by losing landmark court cases and then it would be in another fight if they decided to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the courts. After it is all said and done the party that put the country through that would lose the next election and probably not win another again, ever.
You see these two issues are just the issues that would energize the under 30 set to actually participate in our democracy.
So if the Conservatives actually tried to ban abortion and/or SSM they would be committing political suicide. Currently, the only reason why they are competitive is the largest block of voters who actually bother to vote are the Boomers and the Gen Xers and they are pretty much split down the middle with regard to supporting the Conservatives and the Liberals. The generations that come after them have generally walked away from politics (mores the pity). However, research has demonstrated that they tend to be much more progressive than the older generations and they are also more numerous than them. They are a sleeping giant and I am certain there are many in the Conservative movement in this country who would like to keep it that way. Even so, in about three elections the number of Boomers and Gen Xers will dwindle to the point that even the smaller number of the younger generations who bother to vote will eclipse them. At that point, if the Conservatives have not changed from their current incarnation, they will be a spent force in Canadian politics.
I am certain that there are many Conservatives smart enough to see this coming and would like to have the time to adjust to the changing demographic picture. The last thing they need is to rock the boat and bring the younger generations into the picture before they can make that adjustment. And worse yet, cementing in their minds that the Conservative Party does not share their values. That is a recipe for wandering the political wilderness for a very long time.
Mr. Harper knew this which is why he made a half-assed attempt to ban SSM, in his first minority government, and then told the social conservatives that put him at the head of the Conservative Party that "he tried" before dropping the issue for the remainder of his time in government.
I am going to assume that Mr. Scheer knows this as well. However, watching him for the past couple of years I know that he is not nearly as politically astute as Mr. Harper was and it could be that he owes his victory in the Conservative Party leadership race of a few years ago more to the social conservatives than Stephen Harper ever did. Hence the total botching of his response when these two issues reared their ugly heads three or four weeks ago.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
He's baaaaack
Proof the SNC Lavalin "scandal" caused no long-term harm to the Liberals and Mr. Trudeau and proof they do not fear it will come back to bite them again during the election.
Gerald Butts is back with the Liberal Party for the election. Mind you he never really did leave. He has been involved with the Liberal Party since he "resigned" his government post he was just being low key about it...until now.
Gerald Butts is back with the Liberal Party for the election. Mind you he never really did leave. He has been involved with the Liberal Party since he "resigned" his government post he was just being low key about it...until now.
Friday, July 19, 2019
Polls are for dogs
I generally ignore polls. Which is to say that I do not put any stock in the estimates contained in them or the "analysis" of pollsters and pundits of the estimates. Polling has become way too predictable.
There are Conservative friendly polling companies that generally show the Conservative Party is in good shape.
There are Liberal friendly polling companies that generaly show the Liberal Party is in good shape.
Then there is Nik Nanos who I believe is not friendly to any party but who is still often guilty of reading way more into the estimates of his polls than what is there, just like all of the rest.
Overarching all of this is Mr. Grenier and his poll aggregator. When he was independent I found his work interesting, although I still did not put much stock in it either, but when he joined the CBC I knew that going corporate would degrade the quality of his work and I was correct. And it did not take long. I stopped looking at his aggregator well before the 2015 election.
Polling used to be done to provide people with an idea of what people thought about things, whether is be politics or whether they prefer Coke or Pepsi. The polling that is done for product market research is still useful but political polling ceased being about informing people about public opinion and became about trying to sway that public opinion a long time ago.
You see around 50 years ago some social science research was published that indicated that polls could swing a small percentage of voters to the party that the polls said was leading. So naturally, it was only a matter of time before political parties and their allies in the media would attempt to use that to their advantage.
The problem is 50 years ago there was only one major polling firm. That was Gallup. If a Gallup poll stated that the Liberals of Pierre Trudeau was leading in an election then it was more than likely true. Now of course there are about a dozen polling firms publishing polls, with some completely contradicting the others. No longer is there one generally trusted polling company there are many polling companies only trusted by a segment of the population that would agree with their estimates.
In other words 50 years on the social science research indicating that polls could swing votes is no longer valid. There are too many polling companies, releasing too many contradictory polls to swing any vote. People are overloaded with polling information so when they process it they are going to process it according to their preconceived notions. Conservatives will cheer polls indicating the Conservatives are doing well and stating that the polls that indicate the opposite as wrong. Liberals will do the same for polls that indicate the Liberals are doing well.
Meanwhile, those with no preconceived ideas of who they support will process the polls by generally ignoring them. It is hard to take polls seriously when companies that are polling one population, Canadians, come up with wildly different results. These are the voters most coveted by political parties but they are also the voters less likely to take what the polls say about the popularity of the policial parties into account when making their decision at the ballot box.
So John Diefenbaker was right, although he was about 60 years ahead of his time. Polls truly are just for dogs.
There are Conservative friendly polling companies that generally show the Conservative Party is in good shape.
There are Liberal friendly polling companies that generaly show the Liberal Party is in good shape.
Then there is Nik Nanos who I believe is not friendly to any party but who is still often guilty of reading way more into the estimates of his polls than what is there, just like all of the rest.
Overarching all of this is Mr. Grenier and his poll aggregator. When he was independent I found his work interesting, although I still did not put much stock in it either, but when he joined the CBC I knew that going corporate would degrade the quality of his work and I was correct. And it did not take long. I stopped looking at his aggregator well before the 2015 election.
Polling used to be done to provide people with an idea of what people thought about things, whether is be politics or whether they prefer Coke or Pepsi. The polling that is done for product market research is still useful but political polling ceased being about informing people about public opinion and became about trying to sway that public opinion a long time ago.
You see around 50 years ago some social science research was published that indicated that polls could swing a small percentage of voters to the party that the polls said was leading. So naturally, it was only a matter of time before political parties and their allies in the media would attempt to use that to their advantage.
The problem is 50 years ago there was only one major polling firm. That was Gallup. If a Gallup poll stated that the Liberals of Pierre Trudeau was leading in an election then it was more than likely true. Now of course there are about a dozen polling firms publishing polls, with some completely contradicting the others. No longer is there one generally trusted polling company there are many polling companies only trusted by a segment of the population that would agree with their estimates.
In other words 50 years on the social science research indicating that polls could swing votes is no longer valid. There are too many polling companies, releasing too many contradictory polls to swing any vote. People are overloaded with polling information so when they process it they are going to process it according to their preconceived notions. Conservatives will cheer polls indicating the Conservatives are doing well and stating that the polls that indicate the opposite as wrong. Liberals will do the same for polls that indicate the Liberals are doing well.
Meanwhile, those with no preconceived ideas of who they support will process the polls by generally ignoring them. It is hard to take polls seriously when companies that are polling one population, Canadians, come up with wildly different results. These are the voters most coveted by political parties but they are also the voters less likely to take what the polls say about the popularity of the policial parties into account when making their decision at the ballot box.
So John Diefenbaker was right, although he was about 60 years ahead of his time. Polls truly are just for dogs.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
The General Irrelevance of the Daily Political Minutae
We are bombarded with news on a daily basis regarding what is happening with our governments and the journalists and pundits cannot help but make all sorts of claims of how a given event, situation or statement will move the political needle.
We are seeing it with the situation with Donald Trump in the US, the situation with Doug Ford in Ontario and things swirling around the government of Justin Trudeau.
The Liberals are seeing an upswing in their polling according to the public polls and now the pundits are all opining about why.
In all cases I will go out on a limb and state their reasons are wrong. It is not the cooling down of the SNC Lavalin "scandal". It is not the fact women are coming back to the Liberals. It is not any particular reason that the MSM point to. The main reason for their recovery is they are the incumbent government at the end of their first term.
As I have pointed out in this space before first term governments tend to be given the benefit of the doubt during their second election in this country. Sometimes they are given the benefit of the doubt beyond that but for the most part Canadians usually decide to stick with a government for two straight elections before then considering a change.
Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty and many others all benefited from this phenomenon. They all faced serious "scandals" and controversies during their first terms and the media all questioned whether they would be able to pull off another election victory as a result. In the end the results of their second elections were not even close.
The same will probably be true for Mr. Trudeau. That is probably the reason why the Liberals seem to be climbing in the polls. That is also the reason why we have not seen any discomfort from the Liberals this year. They have been the prohibitive favourate to win the election this years since they won in 2015 and probably none of the political minutae that we have been bombarded with will change that.
Unfortunately for progressives in both Ontario and the US this same phenomenon probably means that both Doug Ford and Donald Trump are the favourates to win their next elections.
I know progressives in Ontario are heartened by what is happening to Mr. Ford in Ontario and some are saying that he might not last until the next election. The problem is Mike Harris had similar problems during his first term and he won his second election handily. My guess is Mr. Ford will still be the premier in 2022 and that he will win another majority government, a reduced majority with a strong Liberal Opposition, but a majority government all the same.
The same is true of Mr. Trump. Americans tend to stick with the same President for two elections. There have been a couple of exceptions in the last fifty years but as a rule they stick with him. My guess is the same thing will happen next November, although the Republicans could lose the Senate, fail to regain the House and lose a bunch of governors' houses and state legislatures.
I used to follow every little event in politics but I stopped once I realized just how irrelevant they are in determining the result of elections. It really is just noise with very little meaning or impact.
We are seeing it with the situation with Donald Trump in the US, the situation with Doug Ford in Ontario and things swirling around the government of Justin Trudeau.
The Liberals are seeing an upswing in their polling according to the public polls and now the pundits are all opining about why.
In all cases I will go out on a limb and state their reasons are wrong. It is not the cooling down of the SNC Lavalin "scandal". It is not the fact women are coming back to the Liberals. It is not any particular reason that the MSM point to. The main reason for their recovery is they are the incumbent government at the end of their first term.
As I have pointed out in this space before first term governments tend to be given the benefit of the doubt during their second election in this country. Sometimes they are given the benefit of the doubt beyond that but for the most part Canadians usually decide to stick with a government for two straight elections before then considering a change.
Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris, Dalton McGuinty and many others all benefited from this phenomenon. They all faced serious "scandals" and controversies during their first terms and the media all questioned whether they would be able to pull off another election victory as a result. In the end the results of their second elections were not even close.
The same will probably be true for Mr. Trudeau. That is probably the reason why the Liberals seem to be climbing in the polls. That is also the reason why we have not seen any discomfort from the Liberals this year. They have been the prohibitive favourate to win the election this years since they won in 2015 and probably none of the political minutae that we have been bombarded with will change that.
Unfortunately for progressives in both Ontario and the US this same phenomenon probably means that both Doug Ford and Donald Trump are the favourates to win their next elections.
I know progressives in Ontario are heartened by what is happening to Mr. Ford in Ontario and some are saying that he might not last until the next election. The problem is Mike Harris had similar problems during his first term and he won his second election handily. My guess is Mr. Ford will still be the premier in 2022 and that he will win another majority government, a reduced majority with a strong Liberal Opposition, but a majority government all the same.
The same is true of Mr. Trump. Americans tend to stick with the same President for two elections. There have been a couple of exceptions in the last fifty years but as a rule they stick with him. My guess is the same thing will happen next November, although the Republicans could lose the Senate, fail to regain the House and lose a bunch of governors' houses and state legislatures.
I used to follow every little event in politics but I stopped once I realized just how irrelevant they are in determining the result of elections. It really is just noise with very little meaning or impact.
Monday, July 08, 2019
Mr. Bernier goes to Calgary
In the mid to late '90s I played the political game in this town (Ottawa) being a member's assistant for a Liberal MP in the Chretien government. During that time I met other assistants from MPs of the other parties. I have kept in touch with a few.
I had occasion to have lunch with one of them a few days ago. When I knew him on The Hill he was working for a Reform MP. He came with the wave of Reformers that arrived after the 1993 election.
Inevitably we talked politics and I mentioned my theory that Mr. Bernier would be campaigning in the Conservative ridings of Quebec and Ontario leaving the Liberal and NDP ridings alone. His response was "that is what Preston Manning did to Kim Campbell so I would expect the same from Mr. Bernier." He went on to explain that Mr. Manning was not trying to win the 1993 election because he knew he could not. Instead he was trying for official party status and nothing more. The fact he went on to become the Leader of the Official Opposition was a bonus. Mr. Manning achieved this by focusing his campaign on ridings that tended to generally vote PC. He left the Liberal and NDP ridings alone.
My friend agreed with me that Mr. Bernier is not setting his sights on winning the election and that his ambitions are a little smaller and that he would probably pursue a similar strategy to what Mr. Manning did in 1993.
There are some key differences. Mr. Manning had a true national party with a large enough budget to conduct a national campaign. Mr. Bernier will be campaigning on a shoe string and will probably not have the ability to criss-cross the country searching for votes. However, Mr. Manning's base was in Alberta. He did not have a base in Ontario or Quebec going into the 1993 election. Mr. Bernier, on the other hand, has a base in Quebec and he should have enough money to criss-cross that province and Ontario looking for votes.
If he is even remotely successful he will steal enough votes in Conservative ridings in those provinces to not only deny Mr. Scheer victory but to greatly reduce the number of seats currently held by the Conservative Party of Canada.
I asked my friend what he thought of Mr. Bernier's chances of achieving his objectives. He stated that they were not high but he also stated that they said the same thing about Preston Manning's chances in 1993. He did agree with me that Mr. Bernier would probably not win more than his own seat and maybe a couple more around Quebec City. But he also agreed with me that Mr. Bernier could take enough votes, that would normally go to the Conservatives, to allow the Liberals to take a bunch of close races. He mentioned some long held Conservative ridings in Ontario that were vulnerable to a "Bernier insurgency".
All of that to say that it would appear that Mr. Bernier is beginning to implement this strategy judging by the news report I saw today. He is in Calgary where he is not criticising the Trudeau government. He is trolling for Conservative voters instead. I suspect we will be seeing more of the same as the next few months unfold.
I had occasion to have lunch with one of them a few days ago. When I knew him on The Hill he was working for a Reform MP. He came with the wave of Reformers that arrived after the 1993 election.
Inevitably we talked politics and I mentioned my theory that Mr. Bernier would be campaigning in the Conservative ridings of Quebec and Ontario leaving the Liberal and NDP ridings alone. His response was "that is what Preston Manning did to Kim Campbell so I would expect the same from Mr. Bernier." He went on to explain that Mr. Manning was not trying to win the 1993 election because he knew he could not. Instead he was trying for official party status and nothing more. The fact he went on to become the Leader of the Official Opposition was a bonus. Mr. Manning achieved this by focusing his campaign on ridings that tended to generally vote PC. He left the Liberal and NDP ridings alone.
My friend agreed with me that Mr. Bernier is not setting his sights on winning the election and that his ambitions are a little smaller and that he would probably pursue a similar strategy to what Mr. Manning did in 1993.
There are some key differences. Mr. Manning had a true national party with a large enough budget to conduct a national campaign. Mr. Bernier will be campaigning on a shoe string and will probably not have the ability to criss-cross the country searching for votes. However, Mr. Manning's base was in Alberta. He did not have a base in Ontario or Quebec going into the 1993 election. Mr. Bernier, on the other hand, has a base in Quebec and he should have enough money to criss-cross that province and Ontario looking for votes.
If he is even remotely successful he will steal enough votes in Conservative ridings in those provinces to not only deny Mr. Scheer victory but to greatly reduce the number of seats currently held by the Conservative Party of Canada.
I asked my friend what he thought of Mr. Bernier's chances of achieving his objectives. He stated that they were not high but he also stated that they said the same thing about Preston Manning's chances in 1993. He did agree with me that Mr. Bernier would probably not win more than his own seat and maybe a couple more around Quebec City. But he also agreed with me that Mr. Bernier could take enough votes, that would normally go to the Conservatives, to allow the Liberals to take a bunch of close races. He mentioned some long held Conservative ridings in Ontario that were vulnerable to a "Bernier insurgency".
All of that to say that it would appear that Mr. Bernier is beginning to implement this strategy judging by the news report I saw today. He is in Calgary where he is not criticising the Trudeau government. He is trolling for Conservative voters instead. I suspect we will be seeing more of the same as the next few months unfold.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
A Promise Broken
It has been identified by many commentators that middle-aged to old, low educated, white men seem to be very angry and that anger is leading to some very undesirable outcomes like the election of Donald Trump, Brexit and the resurgence of racism and bigotry in society at large.
There is a fair amount of analysis out there as to why this is. Alot of it is accurate and alot of it does partly explain why they are so angry but one thing that seems to be missing is the explanation that if you are a white male who was born between 1950 and 1975 a promise was made to you when you were a kid and that promise has been broken.
When I was a young teenager, in the late '70s, I remember having a conservation with one of my father's friends about my plans for the future. I do not remember the details of all of the conversation but he did say to me "You are white and you have your health so you will be OK". I do not know why that statement stands out for me. It just does.
However, it does explain why the old white guys are so angry. From about 1950 to the mid to late '80s white men were essentially told that if they finished high school and kept their noses clean there would be good well paying jobs waiting for them. They would be able to make a living and start a family with few problems. The promise made sense because they were witnessing it with their own fathers, who were the only breadwinners but who were able to raise families on that one income. No other demographic was made this promise of course.
Around about the early 1990's that promise was broken. Globalization took those jobs away. What jobs were replaced were replaced by low paying jobs or jobs that required much more education than highschool to qualify for. White men who made life decisions trusting that the promise would be honoured were left high and dry.
At the same time things began to change in society at large. The seeds planted during the civil rights movement began to grow and no longer were white men given first crack at all of the good jobs. Men of colour and women began pushing their way into jobs that were exclusively the domain of white men just a few short years previously.
That is when the anger of the white man began. Thirty years of conservative economic orthodoxy have allowed it to fester and to grow until it has finally come to a head. All it took was a catalyst to make that anger boil over and create the issues we are now observing.
It is interesting that the ones who broke the promise are the ones who identified and then exploited the anger they created to advance their interests. It is also interesting that the very changes in society they fought against are now being used by them to misdirect the anger they created away from them.
Old, low educated, white men are not the only demographic who are struggling but they are the only demographic that was promised a good life if they made certain life choices. They held up their end of the bargain but were then cheated out of that good life. That is probably the biggest reason why they are so angry and resentful and that is why they support those who claim they will take the country back to the way it was, to make the country "great again". When they here that they hear that the promise made to them so many years ago will be honoured.
There is a fair amount of analysis out there as to why this is. Alot of it is accurate and alot of it does partly explain why they are so angry but one thing that seems to be missing is the explanation that if you are a white male who was born between 1950 and 1975 a promise was made to you when you were a kid and that promise has been broken.
When I was a young teenager, in the late '70s, I remember having a conservation with one of my father's friends about my plans for the future. I do not remember the details of all of the conversation but he did say to me "You are white and you have your health so you will be OK". I do not know why that statement stands out for me. It just does.
However, it does explain why the old white guys are so angry. From about 1950 to the mid to late '80s white men were essentially told that if they finished high school and kept their noses clean there would be good well paying jobs waiting for them. They would be able to make a living and start a family with few problems. The promise made sense because they were witnessing it with their own fathers, who were the only breadwinners but who were able to raise families on that one income. No other demographic was made this promise of course.
Around about the early 1990's that promise was broken. Globalization took those jobs away. What jobs were replaced were replaced by low paying jobs or jobs that required much more education than highschool to qualify for. White men who made life decisions trusting that the promise would be honoured were left high and dry.
At the same time things began to change in society at large. The seeds planted during the civil rights movement began to grow and no longer were white men given first crack at all of the good jobs. Men of colour and women began pushing their way into jobs that were exclusively the domain of white men just a few short years previously.
That is when the anger of the white man began. Thirty years of conservative economic orthodoxy have allowed it to fester and to grow until it has finally come to a head. All it took was a catalyst to make that anger boil over and create the issues we are now observing.
It is interesting that the ones who broke the promise are the ones who identified and then exploited the anger they created to advance their interests. It is also interesting that the very changes in society they fought against are now being used by them to misdirect the anger they created away from them.
Old, low educated, white men are not the only demographic who are struggling but they are the only demographic that was promised a good life if they made certain life choices. They held up their end of the bargain but were then cheated out of that good life. That is probably the biggest reason why they are so angry and resentful and that is why they support those who claim they will take the country back to the way it was, to make the country "great again". When they here that they hear that the promise made to them so many years ago will be honoured.
Thursday, June 06, 2019
Rachel Notley was Bob Raed
I am a little late in commenting on the defeat of Rachel Notley's government in Alberta but then again this comment really does not have a time limit because I am not going to comment on the actual defeat.
Instead what I will be commenting on is Ms. Notley's similar rise and fall to Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario in the 1990s. Both were surprising and unlikely victories and both of them failed to win a second mandate.
Not a profound observation but what I find really interesting about both is how each governed. In both cases they were elected because the electorate was really fed up with the usual governing parties and in both cases the two victorious NDPs went on to govern just like the usual governing parties. They were given historical mandates and instead of governing like NDPs they governed like parties they defeated.
Both Bob Rae and Rachel Notley did enact policies and laws that were near and dear to the NDP but they only did so around the edges. With regard to the fundamental way in which Ontario and Alberta were governed neither of them attempted to change it. Instead, Bob Rae suddenly become concerned with deficits and did all sort of things to attempt to bring it down, during a recession, truly an impossible task. Which of course set him up for failure. Rachel Notley became just as obsessed with the oil industry and pipelines as the previous Alberta government despite the fact that their troubles were not hurting the overall economic health of her province.
In both case they could have pursued truly different ways of dealing with the issues facing their provinces and in both cases they just did what their opponents would have done.
I understand the reason why. Governments get elected to get elected again. So, they try not to rock the boat. However, in these two cases they should have known that their chances of being reelected were slim out of the gate and acted accordingly.
With that in mind both could have taken more risks and pursued policies that would have allowed them to make their marks on their provinces. Certainly they would have probably still lost their second elections but they probably would not just be remembered as lessons of why you should not elect NDP governments.
Instead what I will be commenting on is Ms. Notley's similar rise and fall to Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario in the 1990s. Both were surprising and unlikely victories and both of them failed to win a second mandate.
Not a profound observation but what I find really interesting about both is how each governed. In both cases they were elected because the electorate was really fed up with the usual governing parties and in both cases the two victorious NDPs went on to govern just like the usual governing parties. They were given historical mandates and instead of governing like NDPs they governed like parties they defeated.
Both Bob Rae and Rachel Notley did enact policies and laws that were near and dear to the NDP but they only did so around the edges. With regard to the fundamental way in which Ontario and Alberta were governed neither of them attempted to change it. Instead, Bob Rae suddenly become concerned with deficits and did all sort of things to attempt to bring it down, during a recession, truly an impossible task. Which of course set him up for failure. Rachel Notley became just as obsessed with the oil industry and pipelines as the previous Alberta government despite the fact that their troubles were not hurting the overall economic health of her province.
In both case they could have pursued truly different ways of dealing with the issues facing their provinces and in both cases they just did what their opponents would have done.
I understand the reason why. Governments get elected to get elected again. So, they try not to rock the boat. However, in these two cases they should have known that their chances of being reelected were slim out of the gate and acted accordingly.
With that in mind both could have taken more risks and pursued policies that would have allowed them to make their marks on their provinces. Certainly they would have probably still lost their second elections but they probably would not just be remembered as lessons of why you should not elect NDP governments.
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
The Government Backlash Against Fake News
This week the Trudeau government came out with a Digital Charter which has one objective of holding social media companies accountable for allowing misinformation to propogate through their websites. Other governments are looking at ways of doing the same thing and some countries such as Singapore have actually passed laws to meet that objective.
This has lead to something of a backlash from some circles that the governments are attempting to criminalize free speech and political dissent.
To which I ask what do you expect? As I mentioned here propaganda, of which fake news is the latest manifestation, is a direct threat to democracy. In the past we could always count on the Main Stream Media to fact check the assertions of propogandists but they have completely shirked that role in the last couple of decades and in some cases have become the source of the propoganda.
Someone has to look out for our democracies. Governments have been extremely patient, asking the social media companies to clean up their act for many years. They have not listened and the media are not doing their job so it falls upon the government to try to at least reduce the amount of acidic misinformation out there.
Of course, having governments do this is problematic. The opportunities for abuse and a further reduction of our democratic rights are apparent. However, while propaganda and misinformation is a long-term danger to our democracy it is becoming a much more immediate threat to governments so it should surprise no one that they are beginning to take action.
I really do not blame the social media companies. They are in the business to make money and the more traffic they have on their sites the more money they make. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the MSM. They have been in the position to counter all of the misinformation that has been circulating out there for quite some time but they have not attempted to do so. It was only a matter of time before something gave.
It remains to be seen where all of this ends up.
This has lead to something of a backlash from some circles that the governments are attempting to criminalize free speech and political dissent.
To which I ask what do you expect? As I mentioned here propaganda, of which fake news is the latest manifestation, is a direct threat to democracy. In the past we could always count on the Main Stream Media to fact check the assertions of propogandists but they have completely shirked that role in the last couple of decades and in some cases have become the source of the propoganda.
Someone has to look out for our democracies. Governments have been extremely patient, asking the social media companies to clean up their act for many years. They have not listened and the media are not doing their job so it falls upon the government to try to at least reduce the amount of acidic misinformation out there.
Of course, having governments do this is problematic. The opportunities for abuse and a further reduction of our democratic rights are apparent. However, while propaganda and misinformation is a long-term danger to our democracy it is becoming a much more immediate threat to governments so it should surprise no one that they are beginning to take action.
I really do not blame the social media companies. They are in the business to make money and the more traffic they have on their sites the more money they make. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the MSM. They have been in the position to counter all of the misinformation that has been circulating out there for quite some time but they have not attempted to do so. It was only a matter of time before something gave.
It remains to be seen where all of this ends up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)