Bombing Campaign against IS

I do not know where the idea that bombing never works comes from.

Of course, bombing campaigns sometimes work.  For example, it worked fabulously in Libya. What the US et al need is people on the ground to mark targets and for indigenous ground forces to press home the advantages created by a bombing campaign. Both those conditions were present in around Kurdistan and IS was pushed back there.

Now, however, badly lead the Iraqi army is, there is some reason to be believe the Iraqis could successfully drive IS back from Baghdad. The question is who to partner with in Syria. The US is pushing the Turks to fulfill that role, but I doubt Erdogan will bite. He has staked far too much on regime change in Syria. Indeed, according the Seymour Hersh, it was the Turks that supplied Syrian rebel groups with Chemical weapons in the hopes of goading the US into bombing the crap out of Sryia. You can read the article here. That said, there is hope that the US can put enough pressure on Turkey to prevent it from becoming to IS what Pakistan, the ISI in particular, has been to Taliban. Up to this point Turkey has been a jumping off point for Jihidi tourists, the primary destination for illegal oil transports and a major source of funding.


Kobani may be a game changer for a number of reasons.


1) If the city falls and IS does its worst, the Pesherma may reconsider its unwillingness to press beyond the Kurdistan.

 
2) In Turkey, both internal and external pressures will increase exponentially. Conservatively the number of ethnic Kurds in Turkey is around 10 million. 

3) There will be a great deal of pressure on the US to step up bombing. This in turn may prompt other rebel groups within Syria to A) distance themselves from IS to prevent from being targeted and B) offer to aid the US campaign for their own purposes. 

 
4) Although the Syrian regime helped spawn IS (see Hersh again), the regime is in many ways a natural partner in the fight against them. A massacre in Kobani may make cooperation, which has hitherto been unthinkable, possible - albeit on a convert level.

The Supreme Court gives away BC and the 5th Estate barely utters a word of protest

The 5th estate in Canada has a lot to answer for. A little more than two months ago the 9 idiots, then 8, laid the groundwork for all crown land in BC to be given away to single ethnic group. One immediate consequence is that the Feds, the province and the municipalities now lack the ability to sell, lease or develop Crown land -- at least not without paying substantial kickback to various native bands. The provincial government is now in shambles; one ethnic group has a veto over much of what it does and sanctions, what gets logged, where oil gets drilled for, what natural gas reserves are tapped, what damns get built, what roads are built, what electrical towers are built -- everything. Of course, all these problems could just be the tip of the iceberg. It would seem to follow from the Supreme Court idiotic decision that if much of province was not ceded to the crown, then virtually all private property in the province is ill gotten fruit.

It is time that 5th estate acknowledge the scope of this idiocy and call for the judges to be ousted. It is possible to oust them. If the government lowers the retirement age for Supreme Court justices to 65, then Canada would be rid of 7 of the 9. The government does not need a reason to carry out the needed purge, but there seems one in the offing if they did. The justices are showing signs of dementia.

Lower the Supreme Court retirement age to 65

In light of the Tsilhqut decision, it clear that something needs to be done about the Supreme Court. Billions upon billions of dollars are at state. No longer can Canadians stand idly by as idiot judges give one ethnic group control of the country’s resources. In the long term that will mean that the Supreme Court needs to be politicized. Judges with a predilection for idiocy must be made objects of scorn and a heavy political cost must be attached to political parties that appoint such judges to positions of power. In short term though, something needs to be done about the existing court and that will require doing something much more far more drastic. The only way of getting rid of majority of the existing court is lower the retirement age to 65. With that 7 of 9 would be gone.

Stephen Harper and Adrian Peterson on Spanking -- with "spanking sticks" and "switchs"

Stephen Harper 

"Yet the most recent Liberal Throne Speech, as part of its "children's agenda," hinted at more government interference in the family. We saw the capacity for this abuse of power in the events that took place in Aylmer, Ont. Children there were seized for no reason other than the state disagreed with the religious views of their parents. No conservative can support this kind of intrusion, and conservatives have an obligation to speak forcefully against such acts."


The judge ruled in the Aylmer case that spanking the kids with a metal "spanking stick" went well beyond the use of "reasonable force" and that Children's Aid Society had every right to intervene; the parents claims to the contrary were "sheer nonsense". "No community, or society, could reasonably agree with the concept that a parent who sexually abuses or physically mistreats a child should be entitled to give his/her consent to the interviewing, or examination of the child by a member of a Children's Aid Society."

The Conservative party has vowed in the past to stop such activist judges and Children's Aid Societies from interfering again.  2005 Policy Declaration: "The Conservative party believes in the right and duty of parents to raise their own children responsibly according to their own beliefs. We belief that no person, government or agency has the right to interfere in that process accept though due process of law."

How the Liberals can handle reefer madness

Potent Pot

Potent pot is more myth than reality.

However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has a higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological effects depend upon the overall amount of THC consumed not the amount in any one joint. Moreover, as various researchers (e.g., Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School, Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and UCLA's Mark Kleiman) have pointed out, the vast majority of users aim to consume only so much THC and are comfortable consuming only so much THC. As such, potent pot may actually be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high.

That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized.  The only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it.

Finally, the attempt to scare parents that have grown up on marijuana by distinguishing between potent pot and “your dad's marijuana” is too clever by half. It begs the following question. If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?

Talking Points

1) Saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense.

2) If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be okay to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?

The US will Never Let it happen

Yes Canadians understand some Americans would not be pleased about legalization. As such, Harper's musings about legalizing marijuana causing trouble at the border seem reasonable enough. The problem is this does not make marijuana prohibition any more legitimate in the eyes of the Canadian people. Support for legalization has been above 50% since 2004 and a recent poll in BC put it at 75% here. In BC the last year 4 attorney generals, a large chunk of the medical establishment, a former police chief, the current mayor of Vancouver and 3 former Vancouver mayors came out in favor of legalization. Support for prohibition has all but collapsed in this province. Whether you think the marijuana issue an important one is somewhat beside the point. We as a society should not pass laws or keep others in place simply to placate foreign governments. We as a society should not be enforcing laws that no one believes in. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail. Any perception that Canada is enforcing laws to meet with illegitimate demands of a bullying third party, whoever that may be, is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.

All that being said, it was one thing for opponents of legalization to employ the let us not piss off the Yanks argument in 2004; it is quite another for them to dust this argument off now and act as if nothing has changed Stateside. Colorado and Washington State voted to legalize marijuana. This changes everything. Indeed, it is hard to fathom Obama going to war with Colorado and Washington State over marijuana legalization yet alone large portion of the Democratic base. Moreover, almost two years out, there is no indication whatsoever that Obama will move against them. Finally, this is an issue that is clearly started to tip not only in Canada but also Stateside. The first polls showing the majority of Americans supporting legalization have started to appear.

Talking points:

1) It is not matter of if the US will legalize marijuana, it is matter of when. Furthermore, this is likely going to happen sooner rather than later and Canada had start preparing.

2) We do pass laws or keep others in place in order placate foreign governments. This goes especially for laws that would result in Canadians languishing in jail.

Gateway Drug

Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave rise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal. However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast on the relationship being more than mere correlation. That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana's pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana's illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged black market relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway.

In this context it should be noted that when the Dutch partially legalized the sale of marijuana, heroin and cocaine use went down despite an initial increase in marijuana use. Dutch use of hard drugs remains well below the European average.

Talking Point

Every time someone goes to buy marijuana they come into contact with criminal elements with access to other hard drugs. This is your gateway. When Holland decriminalized consumption and made it available in coffee shops, heroin and cocaine use went down.

Schizophrenia and Marijuana

Epidemiological studies have consistently failed to show any kind of positive correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population and Oxford's Leslie Iversen found the same with regard to the population in the UK. According to Columbia's Alan Brown, "If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the ‘ 50,"

Talking Point

There has been an astronomical increase in the number of pot smokers since the 1950s and no increase in the rate of schizophrenia whatsoever.

The gangs will simply move on to other drugs

The market for marijuana positively dwarfs the market for all other drugs combined and marijuana is far and away gangs' biggest money maker. The notion that the gangs would simply shift focus and thereby maintain the same levels of profitability is absurd. Comparable demand for other kinds of drugs is simply not there. Such an argument rests upon a mistaken assumption. Namely, it assumes that the sure size and scope of the marijuana industry is limiting the distribution of other kinds of drugs. The reverse is true. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. Moreover, existing infrastructure used in smuggling marijuana stateside, for example, has the potential to used for other purposes. All of this is reason enough why we need to nip this in the bud.

Talking Point

It is not like the gangs have access to capital markets. Marijuana profits and sometimes even marijuana itself are providing the seed capital the gangs need to diversify operations (e.g., cocaine, heroin, human trafficking and guns) and to expand those other operations. This is one of the main reasons why we need to nip this, pardon the pun, in the bud.

The Black Market will live on

It is one thing to illegally sell a legally produced product and make a profit, e.g., black market cigarettes. It is quite another thing to illegally produce and sell a product (e.g., moonshine) in market where there is legal competitors. The reason is simple. The illegality of the product means that your production and distribution costs are significantly higher. Also demand for your product is always going to be less. People want to know what they buying and consuming. So when given the choice of buying an illegally produced product versus a legally produced product they are going to go with the later. (There is one notable exception and that is when an illegally produced product is successfully passed off as a legal one, e.g., fake brand name goods). That is why no matter how much Canadians drank during the time of American prohibition, I am sure that it never crossed the RCMP’s mind that American moonshine might become a competitor of Molson’s.

Talking point

Molson executives do not worry about moonshine eating into their market share. Demand for illegal products is not what it is for legal ones.  

Idle no More: the Supreme court is the biggest threat to BCs economy: it is time to fight back

The Supreme court of Canada is now one of the biggest threats to the Canadian economy and is certainly the biggest threat to the BC’s economy. It is time to fight back the only way possible. It is time politicize judicial appointments and judicial decision making.    Billions upon billions of dollars are at state. No longer can Canadians stand idly by as idiot judges give one ethnic group control of the country’s resources. Judges with a predilection for idiocy must be made objects of scorn and a heavy political cost must be attached to political parties that appoint such judges to positions of power. Immune from the savages of politics for too long every word, every foible and every indiscretion must used to against them.

Treason is reason enough to Politicize the Supreme Court

The supporters of native rights like to talk about Canada having to negotiate nation to nation with various native bands. The notion is absurd. A nation without recognized boundaries is no more a nation in the way Canada is than a “marriage” is a marriage without a marriage license. No foreign government recognizes the various bands as being a nation. NATO is not going to offer membership to the Squamish “nation”. The US and Mexico are likewise not going to ask them to join NAFTA. The US is not going enter into negotiations to have the Squamish nation join the US. However, the 9 idiots saw it otherwise. They have decreed that because title was not formally extinguished a nation that clearly no longer exists does. This is akin to saying that any soldier declared missing in the American Civil War is not dead for lack of a body. Sadly, for Canada, the Supreme Courts resurrection is far more than a textbook non sequitur. The undead nations want their pound of flesh and billions and billions of wealth that now flows to Canadians as a whole will no go to one ethnic group instead. What is lost on the supporters of this abomination is the sure absurdity of another nation’s supreme court similarly cleaving off a whack of national territory to apiece another “nation”. The citizens of those countries would not stand for such treasonous behaviour. Canadians should not either. I was once loath to see the Supreme Court politicized, as it is in the States, thereby bringing it under political control, but years of judiciary idiocy have changed my mind. For would be Supreme Court appointees down south abortion is the political litmus test par excellence. It is time to make national loyalty the litmus test up here.

Trudeau and the Median Wage

Trudeau likes to point out that Medium wages have been stagnant for over 30 years now. This is just as true of Canada as it is of the US. However, Trudeau has failed to gain much traction for two reasons. One, the issue of fairness aside (productivity has gone up by nearly 47% since then), Trudeau never identifies why this is a pressing issue rather than an annoyance. After all, it would appear that the kids are alright. Your average worker is doing just as well as his 1980 counterpart. As a result, Trudeau’s remedies seem unconvincing and somewhat half baked. Local Liberals have fared no better. I recently attended a Liberal event in which the evening’s speaker, Kevin Evans, channeled Mr. Kijiji Jason Kenny and outlined the skills gap that he contended currently plagues Canada. The only problem is there is no evidence whatsoever that a skills gap exists. This was pointed out recently by Don Drummond and by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. You can read the later’s report here. As for the government's job vacancy numbers,

"the growth in job postings was almost entirely due to a rise in postings on the classified site Kijiji. The site allows the same job to be posted in numerous sections, which inflated the job numbers." 

The second problem is that the vacancy rate is not the only bad numbers the government has been flaunting. By scrapping the mandatory long form census and replacing it with the voluntary National Household Survey, the Conservatives have effectively cooked the books. According to census data, between 1980 and 2005 median income jumped a mere $53. However according to the most recent census in mere 5 years it jumped an impressive $6464 -- in midst of the Great Recession no less. To say this is a wildly improbable finding would be an understatement. Canada was not the one Western nation to see massive increases in the median wage when most nations were at best holding steady. Something else was afoot. 

 “Brian Murphy, special advisor with Statistics Canada’s income division, cautioned not to read too much into the large jump in income from 2005. “It’s a brand new survey,” he said. “I’d be looking for these long-term trends in other data sources. It’s really important for income statistics to hold the methodology constant.” 

A note attached to the new survey warns people of the change. 

 “When comparing income indicators from one source to another, users should be aware that the methodology of how the information was collected, the concepts used and response patterns can affect the comparability of income information. Given the sensitivity of most income indicators to such methodological differences, users should use caution when comparing income estimates from the NHS to other household income surveys, administrative data or 2006 or earlier censuses." 

Still people will naturally enough want to compare to the new data with the odd thinking they are making an apples to apples comparison. The Liberals need to do a far better job explaining that they are actually making an apples to oranges comparison.  They could start by pointing out the huge uptake in the non response rate between 2006 and 2011.   The non-response rate for the 2006 long form census was 6%.  This compares to a 20% non response rate in Vancouver and Montreal, 25% non response rate in Toronto for the NHS.

To add insult to injury, the Conservatives almost always talk about family median income instead of about median income. This matters a lot. For one, the number of women entering the workforce has risen steadily over the last couple of decades and with that family income has also risen even has median income has remained the same. There are more two income families than ever before. For another, Canadians are getting married ever later in life and as a result many more Canadian couples are into their peak earning years by the time they decide to tie the knot. This has impacted the numbers. For these and other reasons the Liberals bring the discussion back to median income.

That said, in order to really make hay, the Liberals at both a local level (nominations are coming up) and federal level need to switch from talking about the need to increase wages per say to talking about the need to reduce fixed costs for families. For it is fixed costs that are jacking up private debt levels and putting the Canadian economy at risk. Child care is one driver. In Vancouver it is $1200 a month. But most important of all is housing. In Vancouver the average home listing on MLS in 2000 was around $300,000. A decade later it was over $800,000. A modest increase in the median wage and or modest tax cuts are not going to do the trick. As RBC pointed out, 

"A typical Vancouver-area home buyers would need to allocate 92% of their income to carry the costs of a two-storey home".

Liberals also needs to bring the soaring costs of post secondary education into the equation. In Ontario, for example, average fees, in current dollars, have increased from $1,464 in 1990-91 to $6,348 in 2012-13. They can do this by pointing out how the ever increasing student debt levels, coupled with sky high cost of housing will ultimately worsen the coming demographic crush. Couples, especially those living in the Lowermainland, can not afford to have too many kids full stop. However, for those that can afford them, the point at which they can afford them is getting later and later in life. Indeed, more babies in Canada are born to women over 30 than under. Incidentally, the two provinces where women wait the longest to have kids, viz., Ontario and BC, also have the most expensive real estate. In 2010, 56.2% of Ontario babies were born to women over 30 and 55.7% of BC babies were born to women over 30. The Canadian average is 51.2. The longer couples wait to have kids the smaller their window for having kids

How goose the Numbers: household income

There are several ways to goose the income numbers.  One way I have already mentioned.  Make the long form census voluntary.  People will naturally enough want to compare to the new data with the odd thinking they are making an apples to apples comparison.   Only you will know they are comparing apples and oranges.   Again, “Brian Murphy, special advisor with Statistics Canada’s income division, cautioned not to read too much into the large jump in income from 2005.  “It’s a brand new survey,” he said. “I’d be looking for these long-term trends in other data sources. It’s really important for income statistics to hold the methodology constant.”  Another way is to switch from talking about median income to talking about household income.   The number of women entering the workforce has risen steadily and with that household income has also risen.   Also Canadians are getting married ever later in life.  As income levels tend to rise throughout ones twenties and into one’s 30s, the decision to delay marriage longer is also driving up family income levels.    

How to increase the Median Income in one easy step

Scrap the long form census and presto. The median income which had jumped a mere $53 in 25 years goes from $41,404 to $47,868 in 5 years. Of course, “Brian Murphy, special advisor with Statistics Canada’s income division, cautioned not to read too much into the large jump in income from 2005.  
“It’s a brand new survey,” he said. “I’d be looking for these long-term trends in other data sources. It’s really important for income statistics to hold the methodology constant.” The Conservatives replaced the mandatory long-form census in 2011 with the voluntary National Household Survey. http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/11/canadians-are-making-a-lot-more-money-especially-in-the-north/

The Stagnant Median Income: Trudeau needs to look to Elizabeth Warren

Trudeau likes to point out that Medium wages have been stagnant for over 30 years.  This is just as true of Canada as it is of the US.  A 2008 study by Sharpe, Arsenault and Harrison is typical.  They found that inflation adjusted median income had jumped $53 dollars, from $41,348

(2005 dollars) in 1980 to $41,401 in 2005.   http://www.csls.ca/notes/ Note2009-2.pdf   Fairness aside (productivity has gone up by nearly 40% since then), Trudeau never identifies why this is a pressing issue rather than an annoyance.  After all, it would appear that the kids are alright.  Your average worker is doing just as well as his 1980 counterpart.  As a result, Trudeau’s remedies seem unconvincing and somewhat half baked.  For example, I recently attended a Liberal event in which the evening’s speaker, Kevin Evans, outlined the skills gap that he contended currently plagues Canada.  The only problem is there is no evidence whatsoever that an such skills gap exists. This was pointed out recently by former Bank of Canada head Don Drummond and by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  You can read the later’s report here.  http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/ files/files/Labour_Note_EN.pdf   

What Trudeau needs to talk about is the soaring costs of post secondary education.   In Ontario average fees, in current dollars, have increased from $1,464 in 1990-91 to $6,348 in 2012-13. http://www.cbc.ca/news/ canada/university-tuition- rising-to-record-levels-in- canada-1.1699103  He needs to talk about the high cost of child care. In Vancouver it is $1200 a month.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/by-the-numbers-how-much-does-daycare-really-cost-in-canada/article15006208/ Most important of all, he needs to talk about the high cost of housing, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto.  In Vancouver the average home listing on MLS in 2000 was around $300,000.   A decade later is was over $800,000.   http://www.rbc.com/ economics/economic-reports/ pdf/other-reports/ vancouverhouse.pdf   In the long term the ever increasing costs of education, coupled with sky high cost of housing will ultimately worsen the coming demographic crush.  Canadian couples can not afford to have too many kids full stop.  However, for those that can afford them, the point at which they can afford them is getting later and later in life.   Indeed, more babies in Canada are born to women over 30 than under. Incidentally, the two provinces where women wait the longest to have kids, viz., Ontario and BC, also have the most expensive real estate. In 2010, 56.2% of Ontario babies were born to women over 30 and 55.7% of BC babies were born to women over 30.  http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.

3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=75 The Canadian average is 51.2. In summary, the medium wage might have kept up with inflation, but increasingly life’s necessities and big ticket items are ever more expensive.   Once he has sketched out the issue, Trudeau needs to come up with solutions that address these soaring costs.  All the tax credits and tax cuts in the world are not going to do the trick. As RBC pointed out, "A typical Vancouver-area homebuyers would need to allocate 92% of their income to carry the costs of a two-storey home".  
Although her work focused on the US, the work of Elizabeth Warren is a great place to start. Even before the 2008 downturn Warren pointed just how much pressure the middle class was under. She pointed out that Americans are spending ever less on discretionary items and not more. Indeed, compared the spending habits of a 1970 family of 4 to a the spending habits of a 2003 American family of 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&noredirect=1 The 2003 family spent 32% less on clothes 18% less on food and eating out 52% less on appliances 24% less on a car 76% more for a mortgage on a 6.1 room house than the 1970 family paid for mortgage on a 5.8 room house. 74% more percent for employer sponsored health care 52% more for transportation (more cars and more travel time) 100% more for childcare 25% more for taxes (more two income families meant more taxable income.) The 2003 family kept cars two years longer, took 33% less vacations and was significantly more likely to live in a home older than 25 years old. The 2003 family devoted 75% of their income to housing, taxes, health care and child care and transportation. The 1970 family devoted 50%. Despite a large increase in family income between 1970 and 2003 (there was a huge increase in the number of two income families) the 1970 family had more money for discretionary spending and savings. Sky rocketing college tuition should also be factored in. Not only has tuition costs gone up 231% since 1970, college education is deemed necessary in ways it was not before. As Elizabeth Warren points out, more people believe the moon landing was fake than believe a university education is not needed for entrance into the middle class. Of course, a huge increase in the above mentioned areas only tells part of the story. American families are much more vulnerable today for other reasons as well. Not only has the savings rate declined from 11% in 1970 to below zero in 2001, the number of families that depend upon two incomes in order to make ends meat has skyrocketed. These familers are vulnerable if either partner looses gainful employment. There is no one there to step into the void if one of partner goes down. To make matters worse the social safety net is not as wide as it once was. This is especially so when it comes to health care. Whereas the average uninsured person in 1970 was a 23 year old male with no children (in other words someone who choose not to have health insurance), the average uninsured person in 2003 was 35 year old married parent of two. It is not just the poor that vulnerable either. In 2001 1.4 million lost their health insurance. Of those, 800,000 earned more than $75,000 a year. It is no wonder the bankruptcy rates have skyrocketed. Since the late 1990s an American married couple with children is more likely to declare bankruptcy than to file for divorce. 90% of those filing for bankruptcy do so for 1 of 3 reasons, viz., an illness in the family, family breakup or job loss.

Trudeau and Abortion

I first published this in the comment section at Blunt Objects.  Kyle had written had post on the subject.  http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2014/05/gun-meet-foot-lpc-abortion-policy.html

Politics of same sex marriage are not at all akin to the politics of abortion. Anyone with even a fleeting understanding of the SSM issue years ago could have seen the issues potential. (Incidentally, the same is true for marijuana legalization.) It was one of those rare issues that the public had the ability and willingness to delve into. More importantly, the arguments against SSM are idiotic and little bit by little bit the defenders of “traditional marriage” were always going to pay a price for making those arguments. By contrast, public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable with no hint of either side making a breakthrough. There is a good reason for this. Leaving aside the idiotic notion that personhood begins at conception, the abortion debate is a philosophical and scientific labyrinth.

In this sense, Trudeau abortion stance could be said to be a mistake. Best to leave sleeping dogs alone. That said, electoral success for the Liberals in the next election depends on Liberals making a breakthrough in area of the country with a population large enough to affect the national numbers. With the hope that such a surge will get supporters of other parties to think about voting Liberal. An explanation is in order. Voters do not often vote strategically, but they did in both 1993 and 2011. As the PC voters in Quebec began to move on mass over the Bloc in 1993, many traditional PC voters elsewhere in the country went in search of a new home and no doubt strategic considerations, certainly region ones, played a role for many. In Western Canada most followed the lead of the NDP voters, who had already migrated over to the Reform party prior to the writ being dropped. (The NDP vote collapsed before the PC vote did in 1993. The PCs were tied with Libs going into the 1993 election. That was in marked contrast to the NDP. Going into the 1993 election the NDP were at 8% in the polls. They finished with 7% of the vote. In other words, the notion that NDP voters moved over to the Libs to block the Reform party is not there in 1993. As for 1997 and 2000, the regional makeup of Canadian politics, the unpopularity of NDP governments in Ontario and BC and NDP support for the Charlottetown accord explain why the NDP vote did not return to normal until 2004. Strategic voting had nothing to do with it.) However, a sizable chunk of PC voters in Western Canada moved over to the Liberals. Most PC voters migrated to the Reform party in Ontario and in the Maritimes the PC vote moved over to the Liberals in NFLD and PEI and to the Reform party to lesser extent in NS and NB. Finally, in Quebec a chunk of what was left of the PC vote moved over in equal portions to the Bloc and Liberals.

Something similar happened in Ontario in 2011. As the NDP began to surge in Quebec and Ignatieff turned in one of the worst debate performances ever, the Liberal vote in and around Toronto collapsed. Suburban Liberal voters moved in droves to the Conservatives and urban Liberal voters moved in droves to the NDP. The party was ripped in two.

If the Liberals are to reverse the 2011 tide, the most likely place for a breakthrough is urban Toronto. The NDP appear too strong in Quebec for a frontal assault, but the NDP appear especially vulnerable in urban Toronto. Layton and Chow are out of the picture, Toronto has been a bastion of Liberal support and the polls both provincially and federally are pointing in the right direction. All of this brings me back to the topic of abortion. While taking a more robust pro choice position gives little hope of gaining the Liberals new converts on a national level, inside pro choice urban Toronto the policy could very well bare fruit and could help establish a needed Liberal bridge head there.