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.

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

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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."

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.

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."

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

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

Stephen Harper Quotes: Top Ten

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."

Stand Up for Canada Stand Up to Stephen Harper

Rick Mercer:

To get a feel for the Harper campaign you only need a few hours. The differences from one event to the other are minuscule. In English Canada they start each event by singing “O Canada,” and Stephen Harper tells the crowd he’s proud to lead a party that starts every event this way no matter where they are in the country. In Quebec they skip this part and they hide the Canadian flags in the plane. Barring this nationalism of convenience, if you have seen one Harper event you have seen them all. The Harper campaign is far and away the most disciplined, the most professional and the most scripted. Every word is on a teleprompter, it is delivered in exactly the same way, and the Prime Minister does something I have, in a lifetime of watching live performers onstage, never seen before: he actually stops and sips his water in the same spot every time. Nothing is left to chance. Either that or he is a hologram on a loop.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/

Given that Stephen Harper begins every event by singing “O Canada,”, you would think that the Liberals would want to drive a wedge between Harper and his audience by pointing to Stephen Harper's serial Canada bashing and the fact that he once wrote a paper called "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", but you would be wrong.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/09/stephen-harper-and-canada-a-love-story-iv/

So many great quotes. Be sure email them to friends and to post them on facebook, the Liberals decided to not bother.

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) "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"

5) On Canada: “I’m starting to wonder what kind of banana republic we’re living in up here.”

6) "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."

Conservatives Bring in Hundreds of Thousands of Unskilled Guest Workers to drive down Wages

The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer.

"According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, there were 57,843 temporary foreign workers in Alberta by the end of 2008, a 55 per cent jump from 2007 and more than four times the number residing here five years ago. By contrast, permanent immigration has been relatively stagnant, with fewer than 25,000 immigrants coming to Alberta last year from outside the country, only a few thousand people higher than in 2004.

Alberta is not the only the province to import workers. In raw numbers, Ontario has the highest number at 91,733. B.C. has about the same number as Alberta. Quebec has many fewer at only 26,085."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224

Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.

Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/

The report notes that Ottawa does not impose any minimum standards on workers selected by the provinces, and calls for these programs to be reviewed.

Provincial auditors-general in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island have all warned that the program is failing to track whether workers brought in by a province actually stay there.

The Auditor-General also reviewed the impact of controversial new powers awarded to Canada's immigration minister that were passed as part of the Conservative government's 2008 budget bill.

“We found that the Department [of Citizenship and Immigration] has made a number of key decisions in recent years without properly assessing their costs and benefits, potential risks, and likely impact on programs,” Ms. Fraser said. “Some of these decisions have caused a significant shift in the types of foreign workers being admitted permanently to Canada. There is little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy to best meet the needs of the Canadian labour market.”

In her first use of these new powers last year, then-immigration minister Diane Finley dropped the list of eligible occupations for the skilled worker program to 38 from 351.

Stephen Harper's less than impressive Economic Record

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.

Harper Thinks Medical user fees are a great idea and wants some medical services delisted

Canadian Press. "Harper also said co-payments by patients, user fees and delisting of some Medical services would help repair the Health System"

Research conclusively shows that user fees drive costs up not down. People do go to the doctor less often, but that is the problem. Many small treatable aliments go undiagnosed until they become more serious and much more costly to treat and people with chronic diseases visit the doctor far less than is good for themselves or the health care system.

Of course, there is one thing Canada can do to greatly reduce health care costs and both the NDP and Liberals are least partially receptive to idea, but which Stephen Harper has never had any time for and that is a national pharmacare program.

"For the past 20 years, prescription medications have been the fastest-growing segment of health-care spending: according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), from 1985 to 2007, the share of drugs in the total health expenditure increased from 9.5% to 16.5%; last year the drug bill totalled a whopping $30 billion."

But rather than seek ways to keep costs down, the evidence suggests that government has for years continuously and consciously overpaid. Part of the problem, it seems, is that drug coverage is fragmented — government picks up about 45% of the tab while private insurers and individuals pay the rest — which has acted as a disincentive. Instead of bargaining with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices, says Marc-André Gagnon, an assistant professor at Carleton University's School of Public Policy and Administration, "the whole pricing system is based on the idea that we need to artificially inflate costs to create a more business-friendly environment." (In exchange for higher prices, drug companies pledged to invest at least 10% of Canadians sales on research and development.) But as he argues in a recent paper, this practice has raised prices without prompting significant spinoff investment: Canada now pays up to 40% more for drugs than other industrialized countries. (He estimates that adopting a national pharmacare program would save an estimated $10.7 billion annually."

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20101025_10022_10022

You would think that a man who spent 3 years heading up an organization dedicated to the destruction of public health care and two more years as VP would know more about health care economics, but I guess we should not expect too much of him given his views about higher education.

Stephen Harper "I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small"

Stepĥen Harper " 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."

Stephen Harper courts the ethnic vote

"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."

This Election is now all about the Greater Toronto Area

Brampton West
Brampton Springdale
Eglinton-Lawrence
York Center
Don Valley West
Ajax Pickering
Mississauga South
Richmond Hill
Mississauga-Streetsville
Bramalea-Gore-Malton

Moreover, for the Liberals the very survival of the party depends on them being able to firm up their support in these ridings. If these ridings all go Conservative, there is very good chance the party will no longer exist as a viable political force in Canadian politics. That begs the question. Why are Liberals not attacking the Conservatives like their is no tomorrow -- because really there might not be.

Stephen Harper " "Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous."

It is kind of weird having a serial Canada basher as a PM and it is even stranger and troubling having him on the verge of a majority.

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) "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."

Stephen Harper was once a Alberta Separstist

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."

Like Medical User fees and want some Medical Services delisted? Stephen Harper Does

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 "I think we're vastly over-invested in universities."

Stephen Harper on the importance of a university education.

"I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small"

Still a Conservative Majority, but NDP on the Move

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
Yukon from the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Ajax Pickering from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Richmond Hill from the Liberals
Guelph from the Liberals
London North Center from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Mississauga-Streetsville from Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from Liberals

NDP pick ups

Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 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

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 Bloc
Vaudreuil-Soulanges from Bloc
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles from Bloc
Marc-Aurèle-Fortin from Bloc
Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou from Bloc
Saint-Maurice-Champlain from Bloc
Châteauguay-Saint-Constant from Bloc


Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier from Independent

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
Jonquière-Alma from the Conservatives
Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles from Conservatives
South Shore-St. Margaret's from the Conservatives


Liberal pick ups

Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia

Green pick ups

Saanich-Gulf Islands from the Conservatives


National

Conservatives 156
NDP 74
Liberals 47
Bloc 30
Greens 1



BC

Conservatives 20
Liberals 3
NDP 12
Greens 1


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1

Man

Conservatives 10
NDP 4


Ontario

Conservatives 64
Liberals 22
NDP 20

Quebec

Bloc 30
Liberals 11
Conservatives 7
NDP 27

NB

Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1

NS

NDP 5
Conservtives 3
Liberals 3

PEI

Liberals 2
Conservatives 2

NFLD

Liberals 4
NDP 2
Conservatives 1

Yukon

Conservatives

NWT

NDP

Nunavut

Conservatives

Liberals need to Focus on the Conservatives

The Liberals ability to attack the NDP is basically nil. Any attack on Jack Layton fuels the NDP is on the march narrative and that the Liberals are bleeding left and right. The Liberals need to focus their guns on the Conservatives. They stand a far better chance of being successful and the vast majority of their losses will come at hand the hands of the Conservatives. The NDP are nowhere in the 905. Most important of all the Liberals need to paint the Conservatives not themselves as having lost the most support.

The Liberals need to keep up their attacks on the health front. There is no doubt this has hurt the Conservatives. Second the Liberals need to paint Stephen Harper as once having been an Alberta separatist. This could be accomplished by repeatedly referring to Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada and emphasizing the following quotes.

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."

Angus Reid has the Liberals third in Ontario!

It is going to be near impossible to predict seat by seat switches at this rate. I will have a go on the weekend, but doubt my batting average will be very good. Last election was very easy to predict. I got 94% of seats right. This time I would be happy with 75%.

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011.04.27_Politics_CAN.pdf

Changing topics, I would be remiss if I did not say Canucks win!

Update

False Alarm. SFU election polls had the Liberals at 27% and NDP at 30. However, if you go to Angus Reid site you see that the reverse is true. My bad and their bad. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls-regional.html#ON

Liberals need to Paint Stephen Harper as having been an Alberta Separatist

The really good Harper quotes fall into two categories; the ones on Health Care and the ones bashing Canada. The Liberals have started to use the first of these, but they badly need fit the later into some kind of narrative.

I would paint him as once having been an Alberta separatist. This could be accomplished by repeatly refering to Harper's Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada and emphasizing the following quotes.

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."

New Harper Quotes

1) Or his lament, also in 2002, that 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.”

2) “I'm not ashamed to say that, in caucus, I have more pro-life MPs supporting me than supporting Stockwell Day.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-collected-harper-quotes-that-could-come-back-to-haunt-him/article1998176/print/


3)on an Ipsos poll showing only 15 per cent of Canadians thought Canada should contribute troops to a unilateral attack on Iraq:
"I don't give a damn about the polls."

4) "I think we're vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small and provide excellent education and research in a number of specialized areas. I think the vast majority of young people should be going through non-university, post-secondary training."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html

5) Febuary 24 2002 Canadian Press article was also meaty. "Harper also said co-payments by patients, USER FEES and DELISTING OF SOME MEDICAL SERVICES would help repair the Health System"

Conservative Majority, NDP Official Opposition

I suspect I will be moving a lot more Bloc seats to the NDP and possibly more Liberal seats to the Conservatives. As things stand, I have the Conservatives with a majority, NDP as the official opposition and Liberals well on their way sharing the fate of Progressive Conservatives.

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
Yukon from the Liberals
Winnipeg South Centre from the Liberals
Eglinton-Lawrence from the Liberals
York Center from the Liberals
Don Valley West from the Liberals
Ajax Pickering from the Liberals
Mississauga South from the Liberals
Richmond Hill from the Liberals
Guelph from the Liberals
London North Center from the Liberals
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe from the Liberals
Malpeque from the Liberals
Mississauga-Streetsville from Liberals
Bramalea-Gore-Malton from Liberals

NDP pick ups

Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl 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

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




National

Conservatives 159
NDP 55
Liberals 52
Bloc 38
Independent 1


BC

Conservatives 21
Liberals 3
NDP 12


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 12
Liberals 1
NDP 1

Man

Conservatives 10
NDP 4


Ontario

Conservatives 65
Liberals 24
NDP 17

Quebec

Bloc 38
Liberals 12
Conservatives 9
NDP 15
Independent 1

NB

Conservatives 8
Liberals 1
NDP 1

NS

Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2

PEI

Liberals 2
Conservatives 2

NFLD

Liberals 4
Conservatives 1
NDP 2

Yukon

Conservatives

NWT

NDP

Nunavut

Conservatives

The Liberals Need to Attack the Conservative's Economic Record: they need to point to exploding Housedebt levels and Housing costs

The Liberals have run a better campaign this time around. They have done a good job contrasting their spending priorities to that of the Conservatives and their ads are better. That said, the Liberals focused far too much energy trying to play up the democracy angle at the beginning of the campaign, Ignateiff's performance in the English debate was very poor and Ignatieff's CBC interview was an unmitigated disaster. What is more the Liberals have failed to do two things. One, they have failed properly address the coalition question. Two, they have let Harper greatly overstate Canada's economic standing. When compared to other OCED countries Canada has not performed particularly well. We are middle of the pack.

Now, given the media's complicity in the second, there was probably not much the Liberals could do to put Canada's economic performance into proper perspective. However, the Liberals can still point to something that every Canadians knows, viz., exploding costs. Housing costs, in particular, have exploded under the Harper government and in no small measure this is the Conservative's fault. The Conservative government decided to pour fuel on an already red hot real estate market in 2006. 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.

The sheer folly of such actions have been underlined by the fact that ever since the downturn Flaherty has been scrabbling to undo some of 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 of this year 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. Household debt levels in Canada are out of control. Canada now has higher household debt levels than the US and some of the highest household debt levels in the world. This represents by far the biggest threat to the Canadian economy and housing costs are at the center of it all. 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 and Canadians deep into debt. Private debt crisis has very real could easily morph into a public one as well. 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.

Of course, it is not just housing costs that are exploding. Tuition costs and childcare costs are also increasing far faster than the rate of inflation. The Liberals need to point these exploding costs and lay the blame at the Conservatives feet for either not doing enough or for making things worse.

We have Private Debt Crisis in Canada: the Liberals Need to Point this out

Tuition costs, child care costs, and housing costs are all going up way faster than the rate of inflation and on the flip side of things wages for a good chunk of the population have been frozen in real terms for decades.

Now what is true for Canada is true for most of the Western world. However, things are going down hill a lot faster in Canada than most other Western countries. Instead of introducing policies to curb the out of control costs of the aforementioned, Harper has either done nothing or he has introduced policies that have made things worse. Take housing. 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. Now in fairness to Flaherty, ever since the down turn he has been scrabbling to undo some of 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.

Wages are another example. The Conservatives decision to allow in a huge number of unskilled guest workers into Canada has hurt workers whose wages have been frozen in real terms of decades. To add insult to injury, Conservatives allowed temporary foreign workers to be brought by Gordan Campbell to work on projects associated with Canada's Action Plan. This meant that money that was designed to stimulate the BC economy was instead stimulating the recovery in Mexico instead. Most of the these workers were from Mexico.

Of course, when it comes to public spending, outside of Canada's Action plan the Conservatives have increased spending in areas (e.g., the military and corrections) that offer no direct financial benefit at all to Canadians.

The Liberals need to drive this point home by pointing out in ads just how much college tuition, housing and child care have gone up since 2006.

It is all about Ontario

What will determine whether there will be a Conversative majority is the gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Province of Ontario. An 8% difference or more probably means a Conservative majority. Right now Nanos shows a 12 point gap.

Brampton West
Brampton Springdale
Eglinton-Lawrence
York Center
Don Valley West
Ajax Pickering
Mississauga South
Richmond Hill
Kington and the Islands
Guelph
London North Center

All of the above and maybe more are in danger of going blue.

The Liberal Plan for the next week is simple. Drive the Conservative vote below 40% in Ontario.

An elected Senate is a Stupid 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, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. 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.

The Conservatives and the Economy

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.

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.

How to attack Harper's assertion that the choice is between a Conservative Majority a Coalition

Ignatieff has to turn the tables on Harper's coalition clap trap. This is how he could do it.

"Mr Harper says the choice is between a Conservative majority and coalition of the other parties. He said he will not form a minority led government. In other words, if he does not get his majority he is going to take his ball and go home. This shows a shocking lack of leadership and it is a slap in face of every Canadian, particularly every Canadian who supports him. If the Canadian people give Stephen Harper another minority on May 2, and obviously I hope that this is not the case and believe that it will not be the case, I expect Mr Harper to accept the Governor Generals invitation to form the next government and to work with other parties to make it work. I do not expect him to cry like a two year and proclaim that a minority is not a good enough and that all he is willing to accept is a majority."

Euthanasia

Solid support for it nationwide: check
A very big issue in Quebec: check
Social conservatism is Harper's Achilles heel: check
Liberals are behind in the polls: check

So, why are the Liberals not talking about euthanasia?

Time for the Liberals to send up a Hail Mary or two

I very much doubt there is anything the Liberals can do to stop the bleeding and after the CBC interview and the debates I have no faith in Ignatieff whatsoever, but here is what I would do.


English Canada: The Liberals have lost the Francophone vote. There no hope of getting them back. So there is no need to pander to them anymore. 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.

French Canada: Talk about social issues. Harper's Achilles heel has always been his social conservative base and the Liberals have been stupid not to attack it. At the this point in time the Liberals have to drop a bomb shell. I have always favored legalizing marijuana, but think it is too late for that now and doubt Ignatieff has the ability to make his lunch let alone the case. Maybe he could suggest that he would be willing to entertain the idea. However, Liberals definitely need to talk about legalizing euthanasia.

Liberals could be finished as a party: Big Conservative Majority looks likely

It looks like I will again be updating my seat projections.

Liberal support is going right and going left. The Liberals look like they could be finished as a political party. As things break down now, East of Toronto the party will be lucky to win a seat.

Not a Minority but not a Majority either

Holy Crop. The Crop poll makes a Quebec a whole lot more interesting. I do not think this will be the last update. I suspect I will be moving more Bloc seats to the NDP and possibly some Liberal ones as well. As things stand, I have the Conservatives plus Arthur at 154 and Liberals, NDP and Bloc at 154. Imagine that.


Conservative pick ups

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals

Western Artic from the NDP

NDP pick ups

Hull Aylmer from Liberals
Brossard-La Prairie from Liberals
Winnipeg North from the Liberals

Jeanne-Le Ber from Bloc
Ahuntsic from Bloc
Compton-Stanstead form Bloc
Alfred-Pellan from Bloc
Laval from Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Drummond from Bloc
Gatineau from the Bloc
Saint-Lambert from Bloc
Shefford from Bloc

Pontiac from Conservatives

National

Conservatives 153
Liberals 67
NDP 49
Bloc 38
Independent 1


BC

Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 13
Liberals 1

Man

Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1


Ontario

Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17

Quebec

Bloc 38
Liberals 12
Conservatives 10
NDP 14
Independent 1

NB

Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1

NS

Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2

PEI

Liberals 3
Conservatives 1

NFLD

Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1

Yukon

Liberals

NWT

Conservatives

Nunavut

Conservatives

Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is stupid: Part 2

There is no chance whatsoever that the NDP is going to overtake the Liberals this time around.

If the NDP is going to replace the Liberals as the official opposition in the near future, one thing has to happen this election. Harper has to be held to a minority. Otherwise, the Liberals will have 5 years to recover and any momentum the NDP might have in Quebec will be lost. Hold a Harper to minority and the Layton will be able to proclaim himself as the only true opposition to Stephen Harper as both the Liberals and Bloc continually prop up the government as they search for new leaders,

Layton's attack the Liberals first Strategy is Stupid

Layton has chosen to focus his attacks and Ignatieff and not Harper. This is a strange strategy for three reasons. One, Harper is on the verge of a majority. Two, the number of close battle the NDP have with the Conservatives is far greater than the number of close battles the NDP have with the Liberals. Three, in most parts of the country, especially west of Ontario, voters are far more likely to move between the NDP and Conservatives than between the NDP and Liberals.

Tight NDP Conservative battles

Burnaby-Douglas
New Westminster-Coquitlam
Surrey North
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Edmonton-Strathcona
Western Arctic
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Sault Ste. Marie
South Shore-St. Margaret's
Vancouver Island North


Tight NDP Liberal battles

Vancouver Kingsway
Winnipeg North
Trinity-Spadina
Sudbury

Tight Three way races

Welland
St. John's South-Mount Pearl

Prediction: Conservative Majority -- well sort of

This is a much harder election to call than 2008, but here it goes.


Conservative pick ups

Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca from the Liberals
Kington and the Islands form the Liberals
Brampton West from the Liberals
Brampton Springdale from the Liberals
Avalon from the Liberals
Saint John's Mount Pearl from the Liberals
Madawaska-Restigouche from the Liberals

Western Artic from the NDP

NDP pick ups

Winnipeg North from the Liberals
Gatineau from the Bloc

Liberal pick ups

Ahuntsic from the Bloc
Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc
Brome-Missisquoi from Bloc
Haute-Gaspésie-La Mitis-Matane-Matapédia from the Bloc



National

Conservatives 154
Liberals 73
Bloc 43
NDP 37
Independent 1


BC

Conservatives 23
Liberals 4
NDP 9


Alberta

Cons 27
NDP 1

Sask

Conservatives 13
Liberals 1

Man

Conservatives 9
NDP 4
Liberals 1


Ontario

Conservatives 55
Liberals 34
NDP 17

Quebec

Bloc 43
Liberals 18
Conservatives 11
NDP 2
Independent 1

NB

Conservatives 7
Liberals 2
NDP 1

NS

Liberals 5
Conservtives 4
NDP 2

PEI

Liberals 3
Conservatives 1

NFLD

Liberals 4
Conservatives 2
NDP 1

Yukon

Liberals

NWT

Conservatives

Nunavut

Conservatives

The bus driver Arthur becomes a Conservative and gives them a very slim majority indeed.

voter turnout 59%

NDP and Liberals later go on to merge

“It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act"

Harper headed a organization, the National Citizens Coalition, dedicated to the privatization of public health care for 3 years and was Vice president for two more. This fact seems to be lost in the attribution kerfuffle. 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 organization was clear.