Winnipeg is getting an NHL team. They might go with Jets, but I hope they go with something that better reflects life in Winnipeg. The following are my three favorites.
1) The Winnipeg Wind Chill,
2) The Winnipeg Mosquitoes,
3) The Winnipeg Sandbaggers
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Abolish the Senate
Reformers held that the regions needed more say and an "equal" “effective” and “elected” senate was the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is a province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total) is just piling on.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is a province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total) is just piling on.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Liberal Fundraising and the Per Vote Subsidy
Some Liberal bloggers have made the argument that the per vote subsidy allowed the Liberals to put fundraising reform on the back burner and Harper's decision to end the per vote subsidy will push the Liberals into at last changing the way the Liberals go about fundraising. Thus, Harper's decision may turn out to be a good thing. I find argument akin to someone saying that if they blind themselves, their sense of hearing will become more acute and thus they will be better off. It is a bad argument. It is also based on two false premises.
One, there is no magic fundraising formal. The Conservatives are better at fundraising than the Liberals are not because they are better at pestering their base for donations but because more people believe in the Conservatives than do the Liberals. It is that simple and that complex. Two, the notion that the Liberals were ignoring the fundraising issue because they were getting enough money from the per vote subsidy to compete is absurd. The Conservatives ran anti Ignatieff and Dion ads outside of the writ time and the Liberals were not able to respond in kind.
Finally, regardless of what is good for the Liberal party the decision to end the per vote subsidy is bad policy. There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
In order to insure that the politicians are spending more time serving the community and less time fundraising their is another subsidy that should end. Indeed, Canada has long subsidized political parties by making political contributions tax deductible and the amount of money being subsidized by the Canadian tax payer is equal to the amount given out to the political party as part of the per vote subsidy. If we are going to eliminate a subsidy, it should be this one.
One, there is no magic fundraising formal. The Conservatives are better at fundraising than the Liberals are not because they are better at pestering their base for donations but because more people believe in the Conservatives than do the Liberals. It is that simple and that complex. Two, the notion that the Liberals were ignoring the fundraising issue because they were getting enough money from the per vote subsidy to compete is absurd. The Conservatives ran anti Ignatieff and Dion ads outside of the writ time and the Liberals were not able to respond in kind.
Finally, regardless of what is good for the Liberal party the decision to end the per vote subsidy is bad policy. There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
In order to insure that the politicians are spending more time serving the community and less time fundraising their is another subsidy that should end. Indeed, Canada has long subsidized political parties by making political contributions tax deductible and the amount of money being subsidized by the Canadian tax payer is equal to the amount given out to the political party as part of the per vote subsidy. If we are going to eliminate a subsidy, it should be this one.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
An Elected and Effective Senate is a Terrible Idea
Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, the 2011 census might show there to be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, the 2011 census might show there to be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Pragmatic versus Ideological.
Politics can not be reduced to bad technocratic approaches and good ones. There are real philosophical differences as to what is good and what is bad. Without such agreement you are not going to have the common ground necessary to compare to different approaches. Perhaps the level of ideological agreement is such that many people of lost site of this fact. If so, it is sad commentary on the state of Canadian politics.
So, how should the Liberals philosophically differentiate themselves from the NDP? The Liberals should withdraw their support for asymmetrical federalism, collective rights, and equity. And the Conservatives? The Liberals should get firmly behind the principle of universality and be a full blooded socially liberal party.
So, how should the Liberals philosophically differentiate themselves from the NDP? The Liberals should withdraw their support for asymmetrical federalism, collective rights, and equity. And the Conservatives? The Liberals should get firmly behind the principle of universality and be a full blooded socially liberal party.
The Liberals need to be bold and Consistent
The Liberals need to more than bold. They also need to be consistent. In the past the Liberals have shamelessly held inherently contradictory policies in hopes of capitalizing on both sides of a particular issue. Take Marijuana. On the one hand the Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” On the other hand, just as they long downplayed the affects of smoking marijuana they have long stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. Both positions are popular with the public, but run the two positions together and it is as if Chrétien said this instead. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me in put him in jail for a very long time.” If the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale for trafficking comes crashing down. Add to mix an acknowledgment on behalf of the Liberal party that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy.
Far from helping the Liberals such an approach probably harmed them. It pissed off the ardent supporters of both sides of the political divide at the same time and prevented them from saying anything intelligent about various issues.
Far from helping the Liberals such an approach probably harmed them. It pissed off the ardent supporters of both sides of the political divide at the same time and prevented them from saying anything intelligent about various issues.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Liberals need to Abandon Asymmetrical Federalism once and for all
While the Liberals are hatching a plan to draw out the leadership race as long as possible and in the process make the Liberal party even more of an amorphous irrelevant mess than it is now, the other parties are moving forward.
Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair are busy playing to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec and Harper is busy cementing his domination of everything west of Quebec by taking note of everything the NDP is promising Quebec nationalists as ammunition to use against them in Ontario and the West.
When the Liberals finally come to in 2 years time or so, the party will probably plan to spilt the difference between the two major parties and in the process get wiped off the map.
The Liberals need a plan and that starts with abandoning asymmetrical federalism once and for all. The Liberals need to differentiate themselves from the other parties by being willing to propose national programs and national standards. So long as the NDP are going to play to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec they will be unwilling to play that role. Everything they will propose will come with the following proviso and so will amount to nothing. "We will work with the provinces to" The Conservatives on the other hand are philosophically opposed to such programs and so will never offer them.
Yes Quebec will squawk and so will Alberta. However, that will work in the Liberals favour. Remember, Harper's plan is divide a wedge between Francophone Quebec and everything west of Quebec. Decoupling Alberta from Ontario and pairing Quebec and Alberta is exactly what the Liberals need to do to stand any chance of making a comeback in 2015. Meanwhile, the Liberals can challenge the NDP's hold on Quebec by promising policies that are popular with the NDP's socially democratic base in Quebec but which can only be implemented federally.
Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair are busy playing to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec and Harper is busy cementing his domination of everything west of Quebec by taking note of everything the NDP is promising Quebec nationalists as ammunition to use against them in Ontario and the West.
When the Liberals finally come to in 2 years time or so, the party will probably plan to spilt the difference between the two major parties and in the process get wiped off the map.
The Liberals need a plan and that starts with abandoning asymmetrical federalism once and for all. The Liberals need to differentiate themselves from the other parties by being willing to propose national programs and national standards. So long as the NDP are going to play to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec they will be unwilling to play that role. Everything they will propose will come with the following proviso and so will amount to nothing. "We will work with the provinces to" The Conservatives on the other hand are philosophically opposed to such programs and so will never offer them.
Yes Quebec will squawk and so will Alberta. However, that will work in the Liberals favour. Remember, Harper's plan is divide a wedge between Francophone Quebec and everything west of Quebec. Decoupling Alberta from Ontario and pairing Quebec and Alberta is exactly what the Liberals need to do to stand any chance of making a comeback in 2015. Meanwhile, the Liberals can challenge the NDP's hold on Quebec by promising policies that are popular with the NDP's socially democratic base in Quebec but which can only be implemented federally.
Liberals and the Right Wing Media
Trying to use the media as a vehicle for getting your message out is like trying to pass a message to someone across a large room by having a series of people whisper in the ear of the person next to them. What message is eventually received is seldom the same as the message given. Some people will hear about such talking points though an unsystematic columnist or pundit, others will discover it buried in a lengthily article and so on and so on. None of these scenarios has been focused grouped for. People in focus groups are exposed to the talking point and only the talking point.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore this problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk of pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 20011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
In order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore this problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk of pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 20011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
In order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Liberals and Western Canada
The Liberals have never fully absorbed what happened to Liberal level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact on the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. Most important of all it was passed 16 years after the Liberals first showed a significant decline in their level of support. As for the former, the chronology is also wrong. It was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.
The source of the collapse was the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals' inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again. 60.2% Albertians voted against the Charlottetown Accord, and 68.3% of British Columbians did. The later figure was by far the highest in country and the voter turn out in BC was second only to Quebec.
Let the "coalition" be a warning to the Liberals; these feelings are still deeply felt in "Western" Canada. The Liberals need to learn from history. They need to vigorously oppose the NDP's flirtation with extending bill 101 to federal intuitions in Quebec and their suggestion that Quebec's share of the House of Commons be fixed at 25%. The Liberals should welcome the addition of 30 new seats for Ontario, Alberta, and BC and be strong advocates of rep by pop. .
In a strange twist of fate the Liberals also need to oppose an elected Senate and propose abolishing it -- supporting the status quo is an untenable position and has been for over 30 years. I say strange because an elected and "effective" senate was historically sold to Westerners as counterpoint to Quebec securing 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. The Liberals need to point out they 1) do not support the NDP's position to fix Quebec's seat total at 25% 2) under any model of senate reform electoral clout of the Western provinces will be diluted and violate the principle of rep by pop. People not provinces deserve equal representation. Also, an elected senate, particularly and "effective" one, is terrible idea for so many reasons it hard to count.
The source of the collapse was the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals' inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again. 60.2% Albertians voted against the Charlottetown Accord, and 68.3% of British Columbians did. The later figure was by far the highest in country and the voter turn out in BC was second only to Quebec.
Let the "coalition" be a warning to the Liberals; these feelings are still deeply felt in "Western" Canada. The Liberals need to learn from history. They need to vigorously oppose the NDP's flirtation with extending bill 101 to federal intuitions in Quebec and their suggestion that Quebec's share of the House of Commons be fixed at 25%. The Liberals should welcome the addition of 30 new seats for Ontario, Alberta, and BC and be strong advocates of rep by pop. .
In a strange twist of fate the Liberals also need to oppose an elected Senate and propose abolishing it -- supporting the status quo is an untenable position and has been for over 30 years. I say strange because an elected and "effective" senate was historically sold to Westerners as counterpoint to Quebec securing 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. The Liberals need to point out they 1) do not support the NDP's position to fix Quebec's seat total at 25% 2) under any model of senate reform electoral clout of the Western provinces will be diluted and violate the principle of rep by pop. People not provinces deserve equal representation. Also, an elected senate, particularly and "effective" one, is terrible idea for so many reasons it hard to count.
Monday, May 09, 2011
It would be Insane for the Liberals to bring back Dion as Leader
Dion's shortcomings are too numerous to count. I will limit my comments to three.
One, his English sucks.
Two, outside of Quebec this loss has a lot to do with Dion. The Liberals were never able to shake off talk of 2008 "coalition" that Dion put together. The Liberals were the party of national unity until Dion decided to form a non aggression pack with the Bloc! Stupid stupid stupid.
Three, while the Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the Green shift was ("Less on what you earn more on what you burn"), the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
One, his English sucks.
Two, outside of Quebec this loss has a lot to do with Dion. The Liberals were never able to shake off talk of 2008 "coalition" that Dion put together. The Liberals were the party of national unity until Dion decided to form a non aggression pack with the Bloc! Stupid stupid stupid.
Three, while the Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the Green shift was ("Less on what you earn more on what you burn"), the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
Liberals should dump Weighted one member one vote
Fiscal necessity will likely compel the Liberals to do something that they should have done long ago, viz., get rid of their youth, seniors, women's and aboriginal peoples commissions. However, it will not end the Liberals mania for affirmative action. Indeed, although it is never I good idea to marginalize what is left of the base, finances will not compel the Liberals to dump the daft weighted one member one vote and move to one member one vote. Apparently it is not enough that urban and suburban ridings are grossly underrepresented in Parliament. The Liberals feel that they Liberal urbanites and suburbanites should also be short changed when it comes to electing a leader. I do not have access to the membership numbers, but I assume they roughly correlated with how many people voted for the Liberals in each riding . That being said, it should be stated that 260,000 people voted for the Liberals in the 13 ridings they won in BC and Ontario as compared to the 23,000 people who voted for the Liberals in the 13 ridings they lost in Saskatchewan.
In Battlefords-Lloydminster 944 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 3.32%
In Blackstrap 2710 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.32%
In Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River 1144 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 5.22%
In Cypress Hills-Grasslands 1870 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 6.35%
In Palliser 1897 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 5.61%
In Prince Albert 1070 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 3.46%
In Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre 2555 voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 7.52%
In Regina-Qu'Appelle 1400 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 4.71%
In Saskatoon-Humboldt 3021 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 7.98%
In Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 697 people voted Liberal; The Liberal share of the vote was 2.32%
In Saskatoon-Wanuskewin 2428 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.7%
In Souris-Moose Mountain 1236 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 4.23%
In Yorkton-Melville 2167 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.82%
In Ottawa South 25,991 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 44.05%
In Battlefords-Lloydminster 944 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 3.32%
In Blackstrap 2710 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.32%
In Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River 1144 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 5.22%
In Cypress Hills-Grasslands 1870 people voted Liberal; the Liberal share of the vote was 6.35%
In Palliser 1897 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 5.61%
In Prince Albert 1070 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 3.46%
In Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre 2555 voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 7.52%
In Regina-Qu'Appelle 1400 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 4.71%
In Saskatoon-Humboldt 3021 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 7.98%
In Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar 697 people voted Liberal; The Liberal share of the vote was 2.32%
In Saskatoon-Wanuskewin 2428 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.7%
In Souris-Moose Mountain 1236 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 4.23%
In Yorkton-Melville 2167 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 6.82%
In Ottawa South 25,991 people voted Liberal: the Liberal share of the vote was 44.05%
The Right Wing media: What the Liberals need to do
Political parties conduct polling to find out what issues favour them and what do not, develop their talking points accordingly, focus group these talking points and then repeat these tried and tested talking points every chance they get. Whether, such talking points make much sense does not matter a lick. What matters is soccer moms and Nascar dads or what have you like them.
However, such an approach has two main shortcomings, one minor, one major. The minor shortcoming is this. Just because a talking point tests well does not mean that people will never see behind the facade. Some talking points are like fruit. They spoil. Others are like Twinkies and stay fresh forever. It is hard to guess what kind of expiration date a particular talking point will have coming out of the gate. It could go rotten rather quickly. Moreover, the growing prominence of social media is surly going to mean that such talking points have shorter expiration dates in the future. All that being said, all a political party needs to do overcome this problem is to remain vigilant, restock the shelves when needed and throw the rotten talking points in the garbage.
The second shortcoming is not so easily overcome. Specifically, such an approach presupposes that these talking points will reach the public unfiltered and that is just not realistic. Trying to use the media as a vehicle for getting your message out is like trying to pass a message to someone across a large room by having a series of people whisper in the ear of the person next to them. What message is eventually received is seldom the same as the message given. Some people will hear about such talking points though an unsystematic columnist or pundit, others will discover it buried in a lengthily article and so on and so on. None of these scenarios has been focused grouped for. People in focus groups are exposed to the talking point and only the talking point.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore the latter problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 20011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
In order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Of course for such a strategy to be effective the Liberals actually need take stand on issues. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their policies, they have been only ones willing to put forward consistent set of policies (e.g., senate reform). When pundits talk about policy more often than not it is Conservative policies they are dealing with. Outside of the policies announced in Chretien's last year in power and Dion's disastrously ill defined Green Shift, the Liberals have not given the media much to talk about. Indeed, since 2006 the Liberals have almost abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The gun registry is a case in point. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
However, such an approach has two main shortcomings, one minor, one major. The minor shortcoming is this. Just because a talking point tests well does not mean that people will never see behind the facade. Some talking points are like fruit. They spoil. Others are like Twinkies and stay fresh forever. It is hard to guess what kind of expiration date a particular talking point will have coming out of the gate. It could go rotten rather quickly. Moreover, the growing prominence of social media is surly going to mean that such talking points have shorter expiration dates in the future. All that being said, all a political party needs to do overcome this problem is to remain vigilant, restock the shelves when needed and throw the rotten talking points in the garbage.
The second shortcoming is not so easily overcome. Specifically, such an approach presupposes that these talking points will reach the public unfiltered and that is just not realistic. Trying to use the media as a vehicle for getting your message out is like trying to pass a message to someone across a large room by having a series of people whisper in the ear of the person next to them. What message is eventually received is seldom the same as the message given. Some people will hear about such talking points though an unsystematic columnist or pundit, others will discover it buried in a lengthily article and so on and so on. None of these scenarios has been focused grouped for. People in focus groups are exposed to the talking point and only the talking point.
Liberals in particular would be fatally ill advised to ignore the latter problem. Being the third party they will be given less opportunity by the media to speak directly to Canadians and there is now an overwhelming body of evidence that 1) the bulk pundits are conservative and 2) the vast majority of articles about the Liberals are negative. The former goes a long way in explaining why the Conservatives have garnered so many more endorsements than other major political parties. In 2006 22 newspapers endorsed the Conservatives and 1 paper endorsed the Liberals 1 endorsed the Green Party and 1 the Bloc. In 2008 20 papers endorsed the Conservatives 3 the Liberals 1 the Bloc and 1 the NDP. In 20011 28 papers endorsed the Conservatives 2 the NDP, 1 the Bloc. As for the later, the last 4 McGill media election studies are a great place to start. I do not care how well a particular talking point focused grouped if it is buried in a negative piece or hammered by a pundit it is probably not going to be worth much.
In order to combat such a short coming the Liberal party is going to have to assume the role of a liberal pundit class that simply does not exist in this country and that means the Liberal party will actually have develop some academically respectable arguments. Board based talking points will not do the trick. They are easy fodder for any well informed person. The party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various Conservative positions become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out, non sequiturs need to be mocked and detailed arguments provided. The party needs to be vicious. Ignatieff talked about wanting to the be the party that bases its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. When a conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more." Special attention needs to be given to the following papers: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Winnipeg Free Press, Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette.
Of course for such a strategy to be effective the Liberals actually need take stand on issues. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their policies, they have been only ones willing to put forward consistent set of policies (e.g., senate reform). When pundits talk about policy more often than not it is Conservative policies they are dealing with. Outside of the policies announced in Chretien's last year in power and Dion's disastrously ill defined Green Shift, the Liberals have not given the media much to talk about. Indeed, since 2006 the Liberals have almost abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The gun registry is a case in point. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Mandatory Voting in Canada is Needed
Seniors vote in much greater numbers than young people and so politicians pay them more attention. The lack of attention paid to younger voters leads the youth to pay even less attention to politics and on it goes in a vicious circle. The only way out of this vicious circle is mandatory voting.
Getting young people to the polls is vital for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Of course, what can be said about young and old voting patterns can also be said about other groups as well. Politicians pander to groups who show up to the vote in disproportionately large numbers to the detriment of everyone else.
Mandatory voting will also make elections more about issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is not spent convincing people to vote this way or that, but rather identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Make voting and mandatory and parties would spend more time focusing in on the issues and lot less time and expense tracking down supporters.
Getting young people to the polls is vital for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Of course, what can be said about young and old voting patterns can also be said about other groups as well. Politicians pander to groups who show up to the vote in disproportionately large numbers to the detriment of everyone else.
Mandatory voting will also make elections more about issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is not spent convincing people to vote this way or that, but rather identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Make voting and mandatory and parties would spend more time focusing in on the issues and lot less time and expense tracking down supporters.
Per Vote Subsidy
The Conservatives want to eliminate the political subsidy and so force political parties to raise their "own money". As usual, Harper is only thinking of what political advantage could be gained and not at all about what is good for the country. He is also being dishonest. Canada has long subsidized political parties by making political contributions tax deductible and the amount of money being subsidized by the Canadian tax payer is equal to the amount given out to the political party as part of the per vote subsidy. If we are going to eliminate a subsidy, it should be this one.
There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
It is time to redraw various electoral boundaries
It is high time that some electoral boundaries were redrawn
Miramichi 53,844
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe 89,334
Labrador 26,364
St John's East 88,002
Kootenay—Columbia 86,811
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country 129,241
Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing 77,961
Kenora 64,291
Oak Ridges—Markham 169,645
Vanughn 154,206
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik 80,894
Montcalm 122,825
Miramichi 53,844
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe 89,334
Labrador 26,364
St John's East 88,002
Kootenay—Columbia 86,811
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country 129,241
Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing 77,961
Kenora 64,291
Oak Ridges—Markham 169,645
Vanughn 154,206
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik 80,894
Montcalm 122,825
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
What needs to done: the Liberals need an agenda
Philosophy
1) Liberals need to offer National programs
So long as the NDP are going to play to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec they will be unwilling to propose any national programs.
Everything they will propose will come with the following proviso and so will amount to nothing. "We will work with the provinces to" The Conservatives on the other hand are philosophically opposed to such programs and so will never offer them. The Liberals need to be the party that is willing to propose national programs and national standards. They need to abandon asymmetrical federalism once and for all and become a truly national party with a truly national vision.
2) The Liberals need withdraw their support for collective rights and equity.
The Liberals seem blind to the fact that some of their core philosophy, viz., a commitment to equity and collective rights, is deeply unpopular with large segments of Canadian society. Weather it be the funding for religious schools in Ontario, or special treatment of Quebec many Canadians are deeply offended by the very suggestion that government monies and policy should be used to protect and or foster minority interests. Furthermore, weather one believes that employment equity, for example, actually makes the government less efficient is beside the point, a commitment to equity is incompatible with the liberal notion of a government built around merit. Hiring the best person for the job is a far cry from using the government as a counterpoint to perceived or actual deficiencies in the private sector employment. Government can not be seen or indeed be an affirmative action program. Government exists to further the public good and it furthers the public good not by who it hires but by what functions it carries out. So long as the philosophy of equity rules, conservatives will have an easy time claiming that government is the problem.
Democratic Reforms
1) The Liberals need to defend bilingualism, the notion of rep by population, and abolishing the senate.
The Liberals have never fully absorbed what happened to Liberal level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact on the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. Most important of all it was passed 16 years after the Liberals first showed a significant decline in their level of support. As for the former, the chronology is also wrong. It was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.
The source of the collapse was the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals' inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again.
Let the "coalition" be a warning to the Liberals; these feelings are still deeply felt in "Western" Canada. The Liberals need to learn from history. They need to vigorously oppose the NDP's flirtation with extending bill 101 to federal intuitions in Quebec and their suggestion that Quebec's share of the House of Commons be fixed at 25%.
In a strange twist of fate the Liberals also need oppose an elected Senate and propose abolishing it -- supporting the status quo is an untenable position and has been for over 30 years. I say strange because an elected and "effective" senate was historically sold to Westerners as counterpoint to Quebec securing 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. The Liberals need to point out they 1) do not support the NDP's position 2) under any model of senate reform electoral clout of the Western provinces will be diluted. Also, an elected senate, particularly and "effective" one, is terrible idea for so many reasons it hard to count.
2) The Liberals need to support Mandatory voting:
So long as younger people vote in far few numbers than seniors the Liberal party is doomed. The Conservatives own the over 65% crowd.
The problem has proven intractable. Seniors vote in much greater numbers than young people and so politicians pay them more attention. The lack of attention paid to younger voters leads the youth to pay even less attention to politics and on it goes in a vicious circle. The only way out of this viscous circle is mandatory voting and the Liberals need to scream it from the roof tops.
Getting young people to the polls is not only vital for the Liberal party but for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Of course, what can be said about young and old voting patterns can also be said about other groups as well. Politicians pander to groups who show up to the vote in disproportionately large numbers to the detriment of everyone else.
Mandatory voting will also make elections more about issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is not spent convincing people to vote this way or that, but rather identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Make voting and mandatory and parties would spend more time focusing in on the issues and lot less time and expense tracking down supporters.
3) The Liberals need to support the per vote subsidy.
The Conservatives want to eliminate the political subsidy and so force political parties to raise their "own money". As usual, Harper is only thinking of what political advantage could be gained and not at all about what is good for the country. He is also being dishonest. Canada has long subsidized political parties by making political contributions tax deductible and the amount of money being subsidized by the Canadian tax payer is equal to the amount given out to the political party as part of the per vote subsidy. If we are going to eliminate a subsidy, it should be this one.
There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
4) The Liberals need to support a Ban on political advertising outside of election time
Spending limits are designed to level the playing field and to lessen corporate influence and in process make campaigns more about issues than money. However, the effectiveness of such measures is undermined if parties are allowed to spend whatever they want outside of election time. It also makes the election cycle, particularly during minority governments, all but permanent.
1) Liberals need to offer National programs
So long as the NDP are going to play to the soft nationalist vote in Quebec they will be unwilling to propose any national programs.
Everything they will propose will come with the following proviso and so will amount to nothing. "We will work with the provinces to" The Conservatives on the other hand are philosophically opposed to such programs and so will never offer them. The Liberals need to be the party that is willing to propose national programs and national standards. They need to abandon asymmetrical federalism once and for all and become a truly national party with a truly national vision.
2) The Liberals need withdraw their support for collective rights and equity.
The Liberals seem blind to the fact that some of their core philosophy, viz., a commitment to equity and collective rights, is deeply unpopular with large segments of Canadian society. Weather it be the funding for religious schools in Ontario, or special treatment of Quebec many Canadians are deeply offended by the very suggestion that government monies and policy should be used to protect and or foster minority interests. Furthermore, weather one believes that employment equity, for example, actually makes the government less efficient is beside the point, a commitment to equity is incompatible with the liberal notion of a government built around merit. Hiring the best person for the job is a far cry from using the government as a counterpoint to perceived or actual deficiencies in the private sector employment. Government can not be seen or indeed be an affirmative action program. Government exists to further the public good and it furthers the public good not by who it hires but by what functions it carries out. So long as the philosophy of equity rules, conservatives will have an easy time claiming that government is the problem.
Democratic Reforms
1) The Liberals need to defend bilingualism, the notion of rep by population, and abolishing the senate.
The Liberals have never fully absorbed what happened to Liberal level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact on the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. Most important of all it was passed 16 years after the Liberals first showed a significant decline in their level of support. As for the former, the chronology is also wrong. It was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.
The source of the collapse was the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals' inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again.
Let the "coalition" be a warning to the Liberals; these feelings are still deeply felt in "Western" Canada. The Liberals need to learn from history. They need to vigorously oppose the NDP's flirtation with extending bill 101 to federal intuitions in Quebec and their suggestion that Quebec's share of the House of Commons be fixed at 25%.
In a strange twist of fate the Liberals also need oppose an elected Senate and propose abolishing it -- supporting the status quo is an untenable position and has been for over 30 years. I say strange because an elected and "effective" senate was historically sold to Westerners as counterpoint to Quebec securing 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. The Liberals need to point out they 1) do not support the NDP's position 2) under any model of senate reform electoral clout of the Western provinces will be diluted. Also, an elected senate, particularly and "effective" one, is terrible idea for so many reasons it hard to count.
2) The Liberals need to support Mandatory voting:
So long as younger people vote in far few numbers than seniors the Liberal party is doomed. The Conservatives own the over 65% crowd.
The problem has proven intractable. Seniors vote in much greater numbers than young people and so politicians pay them more attention. The lack of attention paid to younger voters leads the youth to pay even less attention to politics and on it goes in a vicious circle. The only way out of this viscous circle is mandatory voting and the Liberals need to scream it from the roof tops.
Getting young people to the polls is not only vital for the Liberal party but for the future health of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians in their 20s will move into their 30s never having voted and it remains to be seen just how many will start voting.
Of course, what can be said about young and old voting patterns can also be said about other groups as well. Politicians pander to groups who show up to the vote in disproportionately large numbers to the detriment of everyone else.
Mandatory voting will also make elections more about issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever worked on a campaign knows that most of the focus is not spent convincing people to vote this way or that, but rather identifying party supporters and then to pestering them to show up on voting day. Make voting and mandatory and parties would spend more time focusing in on the issues and lot less time and expense tracking down supporters.
3) The Liberals need to support the per vote subsidy.
The Conservatives want to eliminate the political subsidy and so force political parties to raise their "own money". As usual, Harper is only thinking of what political advantage could be gained and not at all about what is good for the country. He is also being dishonest. Canada has long subsidized political parties by making political contributions tax deductible and the amount of money being subsidized by the Canadian tax payer is equal to the amount given out to the political party as part of the per vote subsidy. If we are going to eliminate a subsidy, it should be this one.
There are two reasons defending the per vote subsidy. The first is obvious. Making the political parties more beholden to those with money is a bad idea. However the Conservatives have partially neutralized this argument by limiting the amount any individual can contribute and by forbidding corporations and unions from making contributions. The second is less obvious and needs to be repeatedly explained to the public and to pundits alike. The more emphasis placed on fundraising, the less time politicians have to spend dealing with issues and serving the community. The extreme case is what is happening in the US. Bill Clinton lamented that an ever increasing amount of time was occupied by fundraising and by the end of second term it occupied most of his time and the time of most senators. That was more than 10 years ago. Things are 100 times worse now. We want our politicians believing that politically it is more advantageous for them to spend time representing their ridings and hearing the concerns of their constituents than it is giving speeches at series of $100 dollar a plate fundraising dinners.
We also want to see people be nominated by virtue of what talents they have and not by virtue of what kind of wealthy friends are in their Rolodex.
4) The Liberals need to support a Ban on political advertising outside of election time
Spending limits are designed to level the playing field and to lessen corporate influence and in process make campaigns more about issues than money. However, the effectiveness of such measures is undermined if parties are allowed to spend whatever they want outside of election time. It also makes the election cycle, particularly during minority governments, all but permanent.
Wipe Out: Some 2011 Election Numbers
850,010 fewer people voted Liberal than in 2008
2, 783, 175 people voted Liberal. That is the Liberals lowest vote total since 1958. The population in 1958 was less than half of what it is now.
The Liberals finished below 10% in 84 ridings and two of those were in Ontario. In one riding they were below 2%.
They were above 20% in 106.
The Liberal vote was below 10% in both Alberta and Sask.
The Liberals lost a riding, Scarborough-Rouge River, that they had won by 36% in 2008. They lost 31% of the popular vote in that riding and finished 3rd!
The Liberals picked up no seats and lost 43. That said, they did hold Winnipeg North, a seat they won in a bye election in 2010.
38, 981 people voted for the Liberals in Sask., 15, 842 of them for Ralph Goodale
The Liberal knew this was coming and tried in the last week to throw the media off the trail by having Ignatieff visit Brant among others. They lost Brant by 30%.
2, 783, 175 people voted Liberal. That is the Liberals lowest vote total since 1958. The population in 1958 was less than half of what it is now.
The Liberals finished below 10% in 84 ridings and two of those were in Ontario. In one riding they were below 2%.
They were above 20% in 106.
The Liberal vote was below 10% in both Alberta and Sask.
The Liberals lost a riding, Scarborough-Rouge River, that they had won by 36% in 2008. They lost 31% of the popular vote in that riding and finished 3rd!
The Liberals picked up no seats and lost 43. That said, they did hold Winnipeg North, a seat they won in a bye election in 2010.
38, 981 people voted for the Liberals in Sask., 15, 842 of them for Ralph Goodale
The Liberal knew this was coming and tried in the last week to throw the media off the trail by having Ignatieff visit Brant among others. They lost Brant by 30%.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Ignatieff had a Terrible Campaign
If the Liberals decide to solider on, they need to be frank with themselves. The Liberals and pundits often said that the Liberals ran a good campaign. This is laughable. They ran a terrible campaign. For starters there was no evidence whatsoever that the causa belli the Liberals gave for bringing down the government, viz., Harper's contempt for democracy, would be bought by the public. The public is hopelessly ignorant of parliamentary minutia and always will be. Try to explain to them the ins and outs of the In and Out scandal or Karios and their eyes will glaze over. Such issues are of interest to only a tiny fraction of the public. Still Ignatieff, and from all accounts he was the main driver of such a ill fated policy, raised the issue to the campaign's dying days. In this sense, Ignatieff was worse than Dion. At least Liberals had the good sense to move past the Green Shift in later half of the 2008 campaign. The only hope of getting any payoff from such a strategy was to introduce substantive democratic reforms. However, what the Liberals gave us was gimmicky and fluff. Finally, and to add insult to injury, the NDP used a completely insubstantial talk about voting attendance to turn the issue of respect for democracy against the Liberals.
Equally inexplicable was the Liberals inability to deal with the Conservatives coalition talking point and here again Ignateiff deserves a lot of the blame. Apparently two years is not enough time for a Harvard professor and an experienced communications staff to come up with a strategy for shutting down such talk. Ignatieff's mealy mouth response to Peter Mansbridge sealed the Liberals fate.
Now I have already written about Liberals daft debate strategy and I will absolve him for much of the blame for that. One thing Ignatieff does not like to do is repeat himself. On the campaign trail he was all over the map and he was rightly blasted for this. Endlessly repeating the same highly refined talking points on the campaign trail is a must. It is thus ironic that the one time Ignatieff should have tossed aside such advice and talked intelligently about the issues he instead he decided to endlessly repeat talking points he had neither mastered nor refined.
Of course, it was in the last two weeks that Liberals, and Ignatieff in particular, really fell apart. Carrying on like a half mad preacher, Ignatieff counseled Canadians to "rise up" and stupidly Liberals decided to make such revivalism the vocal point of the rest of their campaign.
They should have played the national unity card instead. The Liberals needed to talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. They needed to characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and "Separation Alberta Style" and they needed to blast Jack Layton for abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101. Chrétien covered some of these topics in his address to the party faithful, but Ignatieff has always been more of Lapierre Liberal and so did not take heed. Instead he blathered on about democracy until he and his party were finished.
Ignateiff will join Paul Martin and Stephane Dion as the Liberal leaders who killed the Liberal party.
Equally inexplicable was the Liberals inability to deal with the Conservatives coalition talking point and here again Ignateiff deserves a lot of the blame. Apparently two years is not enough time for a Harvard professor and an experienced communications staff to come up with a strategy for shutting down such talk. Ignatieff's mealy mouth response to Peter Mansbridge sealed the Liberals fate.
Now I have already written about Liberals daft debate strategy and I will absolve him for much of the blame for that. One thing Ignatieff does not like to do is repeat himself. On the campaign trail he was all over the map and he was rightly blasted for this. Endlessly repeating the same highly refined talking points on the campaign trail is a must. It is thus ironic that the one time Ignatieff should have tossed aside such advice and talked intelligently about the issues he instead he decided to endlessly repeat talking points he had neither mastered nor refined.
Of course, it was in the last two weeks that Liberals, and Ignatieff in particular, really fell apart. Carrying on like a half mad preacher, Ignatieff counseled Canadians to "rise up" and stupidly Liberals decided to make such revivalism the vocal point of the rest of their campaign.
They should have played the national unity card instead. The Liberals needed to talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. They needed to characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and "Separation Alberta Style" and they needed to blast Jack Layton for abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101. Chrétien covered some of these topics in his address to the party faithful, but Ignatieff has always been more of Lapierre Liberal and so did not take heed. Instead he blathered on about democracy until he and his party were finished.
Ignateiff will join Paul Martin and Stephane Dion as the Liberal leaders who killed the Liberal party.
National Unity: the Liberals failed to bring it up
"From a personal perspective, there were two low-points of the Liberal campaign. The first was when the issue of national unity was raised. For at least 40 years, this has been the Liberal Party’s bread-and-butter, our raison d’etre. We are the party of national unity. When the issue was brought up, Harper quickly wrapped himself in the flag and took on the role of Captain Canada. He intentionally decided he would own the issue and try to turn it into a strength for him and his party. We said we don’t want to discuss national unity. Pass. We wouldn’t speak out against extending Bill 101 to federally regulated industries, we wouldn’t defend the Clarity Act, wouldn’t speak out against NDP nonsense on the Constitution – that was literally verbatim from Brian Mulroney’s misguided constitutional adventures. We didn’t want to go there, had nothing to say in response. My anger over this decision was not great for my blood pressure."http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/the-liberal-party-what-went-wrong-and-where-to-next/article2008011/page2/
Rob Silver and I are of one mind here. The Liberals needed to raise the national unity issue. This what I had said about the same two weeks ago.
English Canada: "Talk about the Clarity Act and its importance. Characterize Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist for having written the Firewall letter and Separation Alberta Style and blast Jack Layton as having abandoning the Clarity Act and supporting the extension of bill 101."
Liberals Needed to challenge Harper's attempt to cast himself as Captain Canada
At the very minimum the Liberals needed to challenge Harper's attempt to cast himself as captain Canada. This should have been a relatively easy task. Harper once wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", said that whether Quebec separates is of "secondary" importance to him and was serial Canada basher. To wit:
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
5) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
6) "Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
However, instead of portraying Harper as an Alberta Separatist and continually referring to the above as evidence, they did what they always did, viz., sprayed old quotes around aimlessly hoping something would stick.
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
5) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
6) "Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
However, instead of portraying Harper as an Alberta Separatist and continually referring to the above as evidence, they did what they always did, viz., sprayed old quotes around aimlessly hoping something would stick.
Liberals ran a Terrible Campaign
Soon after Quebec went crazy for Jack Layton, the Liberals fell apart. Suburban Liberal voters in the 905 moved to the Conservatives to block the NDP's rise and urban Liberal voters in 416 moved to the NDP. The Liberal party in Ontario was ripped in two. To make matters worse more and more Liberal voters on the Island of Montreal moved to the NDP as Liberal numbers in Ontario dropped.
It is hard to imagine the Liberals ever recovering from such destruction. The Liberal party has suffered major defeats before. However, 1958 and 1984 came after long periods of the Liberals being in power and never before has Liberal support been at less than 5% or below in a 3rd of the seats. West of Ontario the Liberals are no stronger than the Green party in the vast majority of the ridings. They are bit party. The situation is much the same in most of Quebec. Only in Maritimes and Ontario do the Liberals have anything to build upon. That said, what is true of the rest of Canada looks like it will soon be true for large parts of Ontario.
If the Liberals decide to solider on, they need to be frank with themselves. The Liberals and pundits often said that the Liberals ran a good campaign. This is laughable. They ran a terrible campaign. For starters there was no evidence whatsoever that the causa belli the Liberals gave for bringing down the government, viz., Harper's contempt for democracy, would be bought by the public. The public is hopelessly ignorant of parliamentary minutia and always will be. Try to explain to them the ins and outs of the In and Out scandal or Karios and their eyes will glaze over. Such issues are of interest to only a tiny fraction of the public. Still Ignatieff raised the issue to the campaign's dying days. In this sense, Ignatieff was worse than Dion. At least Liberals had the good sense to move past the Green Shift in later half of the 2008 campaign. The only hope of getting any payoff from such a strategy was to introduce substantive democratic reforms. However, what the Liberals gave us was gimmicky and fluff. Finally, and to add insult to injury, the NDP used a completely insubstantial talk about voting attendance to turn the issue of respect for democracy against the Liberals.
Equally inexplicable was the Liberals inability to deal with the Conservatives coalition talking point. Apparently two years is not enough time for Harvard professors to come up with a strategy for shutting down such talk. Ignatieff's mealy mouth response to Peter Mansbridge sealed the Liberals fate.
At the very minimum the Liberals needed to challenge Harper's attempt to cast himself as captain Canada. This should have been a relatively easy task. Harper once wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", said that whether Quebec separates is of "secondary" importance to him and was serial Canada basher. To wit:
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
5) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
6) "Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
However, instead of portraying Harper as an Alberta Separatist and continually referring to the above as evidence, they did what they always did, viz., sprayed old quotes around aimlessly hoping something would stick.
At least with health care ad, the Liberals categorized the quotes, but the lack of an over arching narrative and attributing to Harper something he did not say neutralized the effectiveness of such ads. The Liberals needed to drive home the fact that Harper headed up an organization "obsessed" with destroying public health care for three years and was VP for two more. So ill conceived was the Liberal health care messaging that the party decided to have Paul Martin of all people talk up the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives on the issue. People remember Paul Martin for the cuts he made to health care in 1990s and not for what he did in 2004. As with the democracy issue, the NDP took a Liberal point of attack and used it against them. All indications point to the NDP owning the health care issue.
The one thing the Liberals did do well in terms of messaging was to contrast themselves with Conservatives in terms of priorities. However, it is hard to believe that the Liberals had any much credibility with the public. Indeed, while the public may not have been aware the Liberals supported the Conservative tough on crime initiatives that necessitated building "mega prisons" or that the Liberals acknowledged the need for new jets, 10 plus years of Liberal support for corporate tax cuts was easy pickings for Jack Layton.
Finally, I have been saying for 5 years now that the Liberals needed to do two things. One, the needed to neutralize the Conservative's crime advantage by turning the public's attention away from sentencing issues to the legitimacy of various laws (e.g. legalizing marijuana). Two, the Liberals only hope of winning an election was make a break through in Quebec and the only way making a breakthrough in Quebec was to pursue a socially liberal agenda, e.g., euthanasia. Instead, Ignateiff abandoned social issues altogether and trotted out a hopelessly safe platform which afforded the Liberals no hope of a breakout. Ignatieff was going to make it on personality alone.
It is hard to imagine the Liberals ever recovering from such destruction. The Liberal party has suffered major defeats before. However, 1958 and 1984 came after long periods of the Liberals being in power and never before has Liberal support been at less than 5% or below in a 3rd of the seats. West of Ontario the Liberals are no stronger than the Green party in the vast majority of the ridings. They are bit party. The situation is much the same in most of Quebec. Only in Maritimes and Ontario do the Liberals have anything to build upon. That said, what is true of the rest of Canada looks like it will soon be true for large parts of Ontario.
If the Liberals decide to solider on, they need to be frank with themselves. The Liberals and pundits often said that the Liberals ran a good campaign. This is laughable. They ran a terrible campaign. For starters there was no evidence whatsoever that the causa belli the Liberals gave for bringing down the government, viz., Harper's contempt for democracy, would be bought by the public. The public is hopelessly ignorant of parliamentary minutia and always will be. Try to explain to them the ins and outs of the In and Out scandal or Karios and their eyes will glaze over. Such issues are of interest to only a tiny fraction of the public. Still Ignatieff raised the issue to the campaign's dying days. In this sense, Ignatieff was worse than Dion. At least Liberals had the good sense to move past the Green Shift in later half of the 2008 campaign. The only hope of getting any payoff from such a strategy was to introduce substantive democratic reforms. However, what the Liberals gave us was gimmicky and fluff. Finally, and to add insult to injury, the NDP used a completely insubstantial talk about voting attendance to turn the issue of respect for democracy against the Liberals.
Equally inexplicable was the Liberals inability to deal with the Conservatives coalition talking point. Apparently two years is not enough time for Harvard professors to come up with a strategy for shutting down such talk. Ignatieff's mealy mouth response to Peter Mansbridge sealed the Liberals fate.
At the very minimum the Liberals needed to challenge Harper's attempt to cast himself as captain Canada. This should have been a relatively easy task. Harper once wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", said that whether Quebec separates is of "secondary" importance to him and was serial Canada basher. To wit:
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
5) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
6) "Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
However, instead of portraying Harper as an Alberta Separatist and continually referring to the above as evidence, they did what they always did, viz., sprayed old quotes around aimlessly hoping something would stick.
At least with health care ad, the Liberals categorized the quotes, but the lack of an over arching narrative and attributing to Harper something he did not say neutralized the effectiveness of such ads. The Liberals needed to drive home the fact that Harper headed up an organization "obsessed" with destroying public health care for three years and was VP for two more. So ill conceived was the Liberal health care messaging that the party decided to have Paul Martin of all people talk up the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives on the issue. People remember Paul Martin for the cuts he made to health care in 1990s and not for what he did in 2004. As with the democracy issue, the NDP took a Liberal point of attack and used it against them. All indications point to the NDP owning the health care issue.
The one thing the Liberals did do well in terms of messaging was to contrast themselves with Conservatives in terms of priorities. However, it is hard to believe that the Liberals had any much credibility with the public. Indeed, while the public may not have been aware the Liberals supported the Conservative tough on crime initiatives that necessitated building "mega prisons" or that the Liberals acknowledged the need for new jets, 10 plus years of Liberal support for corporate tax cuts was easy pickings for Jack Layton.
Finally, I have been saying for 5 years now that the Liberals needed to do two things. One, the needed to neutralize the Conservative's crime advantage by turning the public's attention away from sentencing issues to the legitimacy of various laws (e.g. legalizing marijuana). Two, the Liberals only hope of winning an election was make a break through in Quebec and the only way making a breakthrough in Quebec was to pursue a socially liberal agenda, e.g., euthanasia. Instead, Ignateiff abandoned social issues altogether and trotted out a hopelessly safe platform which afforded the Liberals no hope of a breakout. Ignatieff was going to make it on personality alone.
Monday, May 02, 2011
My predictions: how I did
Right now I have 258 out of 308. 83.77% right
Ontario 91 out of 106
Quebec 52 out of 75
Man 12 out of 14
Sask 13 out of 14
BC 32 out of 36
NB 10 out of 10
NFLD 5 out of 7
PEI 3 out of 4
NS 10 out of 11
Alberta 28 out of 28
North 2 out of 3
Ontario 91 out of 106
Quebec 52 out of 75
Man 12 out of 14
Sask 13 out of 14
BC 32 out of 36
NB 10 out of 10
NFLD 5 out of 7
PEI 3 out of 4
NS 10 out of 11
Alberta 28 out of 28
North 2 out of 3
The Liberal Party is Dead
I wrote this the day the writ was dropped. "With the later looking more likely and Ignatieff looking set to join Dion, John Turner and Paul Martin as the fourth rider of the Liberal apocalypse, North Vancouver Liberal candidate Taleeb Normohamed could fair rather badly indeed."
Alas I was right. Iggy was the fourth rider. The party is dead.
Many said that the Liberals ran a good campaign. I thought that they ran a horrible campaign, but I let such talk blinker my expectations somewhat. Iggy and the Liberal brain trust will be savaged in the months to come and rightly so. All that be said in his favour is that he ran a better campaign than Dion.
Alas I was right. Iggy was the fourth rider. The party is dead.
Many said that the Liberals ran a good campaign. I thought that they ran a horrible campaign, but I let such talk blinker my expectations somewhat. Iggy and the Liberal brain trust will be savaged in the months to come and rightly so. All that be said in his favour is that he ran a better campaign than Dion.
Stephen Harper headed an organization dedicated to the Destruction of Political Health Care
Whether it was Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act,” or his boss David Somerville, the position of the National Citizens Coalition is clear. The National Citizens Coalition wants public Health Care scrapped. Harper headed the National Citizens Coalition for three years and was vice president for two more.
Oh yeah even after he left the NCC he made it clear that he wanted the Canada Health Act Scrapped.
Canadian Press "Harper also said co-payments by patients, USER FEES and DELISTING OF SOME MEDICAL SERVICES would help repair the Health System"
Stephen Harper "[The Canada Health Act]rules out private, public-delivery options, It rules out co-payment, pre-payment and all kinds of options that are frankly going to have to be looked at if we're going to deal with the challenges that the system faces.”
Oh yeah even after he left the NCC he made it clear that he wanted the Canada Health Act Scrapped.
Canadian Press "Harper also said co-payments by patients, USER FEES and DELISTING OF SOME MEDICAL SERVICES would help repair the Health System"
Stephen Harper "[The Canada Health Act]rules out private, public-delivery options, It rules out co-payment, pre-payment and all kinds of options that are frankly going to have to be looked at if we're going to deal with the challenges that the system faces.”
Stephen Harper was an Alberta Separatist
Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada and other gems.
1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
3) "We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values."
4) "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
5) "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
1) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2) "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."
3) "We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values."
4) "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become "maitres chez nous."
5) "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
Can not Afford a House: Blame the Conservatives
The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
Conservatives Economic Record is Not Great
1) It was not that Canada performed particularly well; it was that the other G-8 countries were particularly hard it. Compare us against other OCED countries and the picture is not nearly as Rosy. For example, we rank 18th out 30 in terms of unemployment. Umemployment is 25% higher than it was 5 years ago.
2) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy strong relative to the other G8 countries. It has kept the price of commodities up.
3) The opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing The stimulas package. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".
4) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.
5) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
6) Stephen Harper inherited a 13 billion surplus and in 4 years turned it into a 56 billion deficit. He also ran a deficit before the down turn.
2) The Conservatives do not deserve credit for 10% growth in China and more than anything else that is what has kept the Canadian economy strong relative to the other G8 countries. It has kept the price of commodities up.
3) The opposition parties forced the Conservatives into passing The stimulas package. They were able to do that because Michael Igantieff was at 36% in the Spring 2009. Ever since the Conservatives have spent tens of millions of dollars celebrating "Canada's action plan".
4) The Conservatives have shown a similar degree of chutzpah in celebrating a conservative lending culture in Canada that they had begun to undermine prior to the downturn.
5) The cost of housing gone through the roof since 2006 and the main reason for that is the Conservative government decided pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market. The Conservatives extended the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extended it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extended it yet again to 40 years in November 2006 During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence. Ever since the down turn, Jim Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo the damage his past actions have done. Flaherty first reduced amortization period from 40 years to 35 and again mandated a 20% down payment on secondary properties and 5% on primary properties in October 2008 and on March 18th he reduced the maximum amortization period to 30 years. Never once acknowledging that it was he who raised the amortization period to begin with, Jim Flaherty has repeatedly over the course of the last 2 and half years that reducing the amortization and increasing the minimum downplayment was the right thing to do. "In 2008 and again in 2010, our government acted to protect and strengthen the Canadian housing market," The problem is it is too little too late. The best Flaherty and Conservatives can do is prevent further damage. Weather it be Bloomberg, Paul Krugman and, if you read between the lines, Mark Carney many are worried that Canada is headed for a crash that would drive Canada deep into debt. For one thing, since 2006 Canadian mortgage and housing corporations liabilities have gone from 100 billion to 500 hundred billion. If the housing bubble bursts and Canadians start defaulting on their mortgages, the Canadian tax payer will be picking up the tab. The Canadian government guarantees all that debt.
6) Stephen Harper inherited a 13 billion surplus and in 4 years turned it into a 56 billion deficit. He also ran a deficit before the down turn.
Stephen Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada
Stephen Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada is really a must read. It contains some of the following quotes.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4) "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
5) "I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small"
6)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
7) "I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it."
8) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people"
9) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
10)"Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/
1)"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
2)"Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous"
3) "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion"
4) "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
5) "I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small"
6)"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it"
7) "I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it."
8) "In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, I don't feel particularly bad for many of these people"
9) "After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada."
10)"Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous."
Conservative Minority: a few minute changes
Conservative pick ups
Kingston and the Islands from the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Vancouver South form the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from the Liberals
Ajax-Pickering from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
London North Centre from the Liberals
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Parkdale-High Park from the Liberals
Beaches-East York from the Liberals
Dartmouth-Cole Harbour from the Liberals
LaSalle-Émard from the Liberals
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine from the Liberals
Newton-North Delta from the Liberals
Davenport from the Liberals
Laval-Les Îles from the Liberals
Papineau from the Liberals
York South-Weston from the Liberals
Honoré-Mercier from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form the Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from the Bloc
Laval from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from the Bloc
Drummond from the Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from the Bloc
Shefford from the Bloc
Louis-Hébert from the Bloc
Vaudreuil-Soulanges from the Bloc
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles from the Bloc
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin from the Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou from the Bloc
Saint-Maurice-Champlain from the Bloc
Châteauguay-Saint-Constant from the Bloc
Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert from the Bloc
Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher from the Bloc
Québec from the Bloc
Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel from the Bloc
Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from the Bloc
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot from the Bloc
Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie from the Bloc
Hochelaga from the Bloc
Saint-Jean from the Bloc
Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques from the Bloc
Vancouver Island North from the Conservatives
Pontiac from the Conservatives
Surrey North from the Conservatives
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar from the Conservatives
Beauport-Limoilo from the Conservatives
Oshawa from the Conservatives
Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles from Conservatives
South Shore-St. Margaret's from the Conservatives
Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo from the Conservatives
Jonquière-Alma from the Conservatives
National
Conservatives 152
NDP 88
Liberals 46
Bloc 21
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 21
Liberals 2
NDP 13
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1
Man
Conservatives 10
NDP 4
Ontario
Conservatives 60
Liberals 25
NDP 21
Quebec
Bloc 21
Liberals 6
Conservatives 7
NDP 40
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1
NS
NDP 4
Liberals 4
Conservtives 3
PEI
Liberals 2
Conservatives 2
NFLD
Liberals 4
NDP 2
Conservatives 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
NDP
Nunavut
Conservatives
Kingston and the Islands from the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Vancouver South form the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from the Liberals
Ajax-Pickering from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
London North Centre from the Liberals
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Parkdale-High Park from the Liberals
Beaches-East York from the Liberals
Dartmouth-Cole Harbour from the Liberals
LaSalle-Émard from the Liberals
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine from the Liberals
Newton-North Delta from the Liberals
Davenport from the Liberals
Laval-Les Îles from the Liberals
Papineau from the Liberals
York South-Weston from the Liberals
Honoré-Mercier from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form the Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from the Bloc
Laval from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from the Bloc
Drummond from the Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from the Bloc
Shefford from the Bloc
Louis-Hébert from the Bloc
Vaudreuil-Soulanges from the Bloc
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles from the Bloc
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin from the Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou from the Bloc
Saint-Maurice-Champlain from the Bloc
Châteauguay-Saint-Constant from the Bloc
Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert from the Bloc
Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher from the Bloc
Québec from the Bloc
Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel from the Bloc
Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from the Bloc
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot from the Bloc
Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie from the Bloc
Hochelaga from the Bloc
Saint-Jean from the Bloc
Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques from the Bloc
Vancouver Island North from the Conservatives
Pontiac from the Conservatives
Surrey North from the Conservatives
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar from the Conservatives
Beauport-Limoilo from the Conservatives
Oshawa from the Conservatives
Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles from Conservatives
South Shore-St. Margaret's from the Conservatives
Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo from the Conservatives
Jonquière-Alma from the Conservatives
National
Conservatives 152
NDP 88
Liberals 46
Bloc 21
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 21
Liberals 2
NDP 13
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1
Man
Conservatives 10
NDP 4
Ontario
Conservatives 60
Liberals 25
NDP 21
Quebec
Bloc 21
Liberals 6
Conservatives 7
NDP 40
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1
NS
NDP 4
Liberals 4
Conservtives 3
PEI
Liberals 2
Conservatives 2
NFLD
Liberals 4
NDP 2
Conservatives 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
NDP
Nunavut
Conservatives
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Corporate Tax Cuts in Canada a Windfall for the US Treasury
Throughout the election campaign Stephen Harper has claimed the political high ground on the management of the economy. The surprise is that the opposition has pretty much let him get away with this.
During the English language television debate the first question focused on $6-billion tax cuts to corporations. Harper said there were no tax cuts 'right now,' something that was only true for that second.
Corporate taxes were cut from 21 per cent in 2008 to 16.5 per cent now and will be further cut to 15 per cent in 2012.
Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff more or less abandoned the issue and did not press Harper about the inefficiency of these cuts. However, the week before the debate two credible studies showed that corporations mostly hoard the money they save from the tax cuts and don't reinvest it in the economy or jobs.
Munir Sheikh, former head of Statistics Canada, and former associate deputy minister of finance, has shown that the real winner of Canadian corporate tax cuts is the U.S.
Tax cuts here give corporations bigger profits and because the U.S. corporate tax rate is about twice as high as ours, U.S. corporations in Canada then just pay more American tax on their Canadian profits. This transfer from Canadian to U.S. treasuries amounts to $4-6 billion a year
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Harper+economic+record/4705705/story.html
Conservative minority
Conservative pick ups
Kingston and the Islands from the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Vancouver South form the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from the Liberals
Mississauga-Streetsville from the Liberals
Ajax-Pickering from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Richmond Hill from the Liberals
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Parkdale-High Park from the Liberals
Beaches-East York from the Liberals
Dartmouth-Cole Harbour from the Liberals
LaSalle-Émard from the Liberals
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine from the Liberals
Halifax West from the Liberals
Newton-North Delta from the Liberals
Davenport from the Liberals
Laval-Les Îles from the Liberals
Papineau from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form the Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from the Bloc
Laval from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from the Bloc
Drummond from the Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from the Bloc
Shefford from the Bloc
Louis-Hébert from the Bloc
Vaudreuil-Soulanges from the Bloc
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles from the Bloc
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin from the Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou from the Bloc
Saint-Maurice-Champlain from the Bloc
Châteauguay-Saint-Constant from the Bloc
Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert from the Bloc
Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher from the Bloc
Québec from the Bloc
Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel from the Bloc
Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from the Bloc
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot from the Bloc
Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie from the Bloc
Hochelaga from the Bloc
Vancouver Island North from the Conservatives
Pontiac from the Conservatives
Surrey North from the Conservatives
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar from the Conservatives
Beauport-Limoilo from the Conservatives
Oshawa from the Conservatives
Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles from Conservatives
South Shore-St. Margaret's from the Conservatives
Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo from the Conservatives
Essex from the Conservatives
Green pick ups
Saanich-Gulf Islands from the Conservatives
National
Conservatives 152
NDP 84
Liberals 47
Bloc 23
Greens 1
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 20
Liberals 2
NDP 13
Greens 1
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1
Man
Conservatives 10
NDP 4
Ontario
Conservatives 60
Liberals 24
NDP 22
Quebec
Bloc 23
Liberals 8
Conservatives 8
NDP 35
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1
NS
NDP 4
Liberals 4
Conservtives 3
PEI
Liberals 2
Conservatives 2
NFLD
Liberals 4
NDP 2
Conservatives 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
NDP
Nunavut
Conservatives
Kingston and the Islands from the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals
Vancouver South form the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from the Liberals
Mississauga-Streetsville from the Liberals
Ajax-Pickering from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Richmond Hill from the Liberals
NDP pick ups
Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Parkdale-High Park from the Liberals
Beaches-East York from the Liberals
Dartmouth-Cole Harbour from the Liberals
LaSalle-Émard from the Liberals
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine from the Liberals
Halifax West from the Liberals
Newton-North Delta from the Liberals
Davenport from the Liberals
Laval-Les Îles from the Liberals
Papineau from the Liberals
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form the Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from the Bloc
Laval from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from the Bloc
Drummond from the Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from the Bloc
Shefford from the Bloc
Louis-Hébert from the Bloc
Vaudreuil-Soulanges from the Bloc
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles from the Bloc
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin from the Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou from the Bloc
Saint-Maurice-Champlain from the Bloc
Châteauguay-Saint-Constant from the Bloc
Saint-Bruno-Saint-Hubert from the Bloc
Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher from the Bloc
Québec from the Bloc
Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel from the Bloc
Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine from the Bloc
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot from the Bloc
Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie from the Bloc
Hochelaga from the Bloc
Vancouver Island North from the Conservatives
Pontiac from the Conservatives
Surrey North from the Conservatives
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar from the Conservatives
Beauport-Limoilo from the Conservatives
Oshawa from the Conservatives
Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles from Conservatives
South Shore-St. Margaret's from the Conservatives
Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo from the Conservatives
Essex from the Conservatives
Green pick ups
Saanich-Gulf Islands from the Conservatives
National
Conservatives 152
NDP 84
Liberals 47
Bloc 23
Greens 1
Independent 1
BC
Conservatives 20
Liberals 2
NDP 13
Greens 1
Alberta
Cons 27
NDP 1
Sask
Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1
Man
Conservatives 10
NDP 4
Ontario
Conservatives 60
Liberals 24
NDP 22
Quebec
Bloc 23
Liberals 8
Conservatives 8
NDP 35
Independent 1
NB
Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1
NS
NDP 4
Liberals 4
Conservtives 3
PEI
Liberals 2
Conservatives 2
NFLD
Liberals 4
NDP 2
Conservatives 1
Yukon
Liberals
NWT
NDP
Nunavut
Conservatives
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
