Prairie Topiary

It's a four-peat (54 out of 57 ain't bad)

2011-10-05T01:31:00.007-05:00

Looks like I was right in 54 of 57 constituencies in my Manitoba election prediction. I was wrong in thinking the NDP's rural vote would slide enough for them to lose Dauphin and Dawson Trail. In the end, they held on against strong Tory challenges in those seats. I was also wrong about St. Norbert, where new NDP candidate Dave Gaudreau managed to narrowly hold the seat for the party by around 150 votes.

The end result is 37 NDP to 19 PC and 1 Liberal rather than the 34 to 22 to 1 I had predicted. I thought the Conservatives would beat the NDP in popular vote, but the NDP still won 46% to 44%. That means an unprecedented fourth majority government and seat count, at least in modern Manitoba political history, and a stunning win for Selinger who entered his first campaign as party leader.

Election Oracle, Manitoba edition

2011-10-02T17:49:00.009-05:00

After the mediocre prediction posted in last spring’s federal election, you think Prairie Topiary would have the good sense not to come out of retirement once again to make an election prediction. Alas, old habits die hard.

This is my forecast for this Tuesday’s provincial election: 34 NDP, 22 PC and 1 Liberal. Yes, so that means an unprecedented fourth majority for Manitoba’s NDP and a first for Premier Greg Selinger, a slightly larger and stronger PC opposition under Hugh McFadyen, and Liberal survival as Jon Gerrard clings to perhaps the last bastion of Liberal support in his River Heights seat.

Expect the NDP to win a comfortable majority of seats but lose the popular vote to the Tories who tend to pile up massive wins in rural areas yet fall just short of victory in most of Winnipeg suburbia.

Throughout the campaign, the media has kept its focus on the battles in Winnipeg, which holds 31 of the province’s 57 seats and the bulk of NDP holds that the Tories have to win to form government. I think, however, that the races outside of Winnipeg are just as interesting, so let’s start there.

South-western Manitoba

In southwest Manitoba, which has eight seats, expect the Tories to win solid victories in Arthur-Virden, Spruce Woods, Agassiz and Riding Mountain. I’m expecting previously NDP-held Dauphin and Swan River to be close. Though incumbent and Finance Minister Rosann Wowchuk is not running again, I expect the NDP to retain their Swan River Riding. In Dauphin, the battle is much tighter given riding redistribution, which reduces the NDP’s 2007 lead to 900 votes. I predict Tory candidate Lloyd McKinney will score an upset victory here over the NDP’s Stan Struthers, taking the seat for the Tories for the first time since 1977.

Brandon’s two seats are also battlegrounds. Brandon East has been held by the NDP since 1969, though the party’s wins have been slimmer in recent years. Brandon West, though traditionally Conservative, went NDP in 1999 and 2003 before Rick Borotsik took it back for the Tories in 2007. Both races could go either way in this election, though I predict an NDP hold in East and a Conservative hold in West.

SW MB tally: 2 NDP, 6 PC

South-eastern Manitoba

This region has 14 seats, most of which elect Conservatives. The NDP is hoping to hold its seats in Interlake, Gimli, Selkirk, and Dawson Trail, with Tory challengers strongest in Interlake and Dawson Trail. I predict defeat for Ron Lemieux in Dawson Trail against Tory Laurent Tetrault but NDP holds in the other three, with Interlake the narrowest of these. I may not be right – in 2007, I wrongly predicted defeat for Lemieux.

The only other seat worth watching is Portage la Prairie, which has never elected a New Democrat MLA, a goal the NDP has nevertheless been coming closer and closer to achieving in recent years. With redistribution, the 2007 Tory margin is only 400 votes and their incumbent is not running again while the NDP’s James Kostuchuk is. I’m not predicting it, but this may be one of the few places the NDP can make gains despite slippage in their vote elsewhere. Expect easy Tory wins elsewhere in this region.

SE MB tally: 3 NDP, 11 PC

Northern Manitoba

I don’t see any surprises here. Provincially, the NDP has long ruled northern Manitoba and should take all four seats again in this election.

Northern MB tally: 4 NDP

Winnipeg

Let’s get the strongholds and easy wins out of the way. The Conservatives will easily win Charleswood, Tuxedo and McFadyen’s seat of Fort Whyte (3 seats). Expect easy NDP wins in Wolseley, Minto, Logan, Point Douglas, St. Johns, Burrows, Elmwood, Concordia, Kildonan, The Maples, Transcona and Greg Selinger’s seat of St. Boniface (12 seats). And though the Tories may be eyeing the following seats (as they should), they’ll also remain safe for the NDP in this election: Assiniboia, St. James, Rossmere, Radisson, St. Vital, Fort Garry-Riverview and Fort Richmond (7 seats). That leaves nine Winnipeg battlegrounds to consider.

Kirkfield Park and Southdale: In 2007, these were the site of shocking NDP gains in Tory heartland. While the Conservatives are putting up stronger campaigns in this election, the organizational resources of the NDP combined with the incumbency factor of the MLAs likely mean NDP holds. Either way, these will be close races.

Tyndall Park and Fort Rouge: These represent the only true Liberal-NDP battles in the city. As Inkster in 2007, most of what is now Tyndall Park was strongly Liberal. Redistributed results, however, put the Liberals only 400 votes ahead in this seat and, without now-MP Kevin Lamoureux as their candidate, the Liberals will almost certainly see the seat return to the NDP fold. Liberal Paul Hesse is putting up a strong campaign in Fort Rouge against the NDP’s Jennifer Howard and it’s their only chance – albeit a long shot – of actually gaining a seat in this election. With Liberal vote fizzling in this election, I predict an NDP hold.

River Heights: Liberal leader Jon Gerrard is fighting to hold his own seat against Marty Morantz of the Conservatives. With redistribution, he would have won 4,448 to 2,407 votes in 2007, which is still an impressive margin of victory. Despite the Liberals’ plunge in the polls, I think the good doctor can eke out a victory here. This seat was traditionally Conservative until Sharon Carstairs took it in 1986 and they have struggled to win it since, succeeding only in 1995.

Riel, Seine River and St. Norbert: These three NDP seats in southern Winnipeg are being strongly targeted by the Conservatives. Under redistribution, the NDP would have won them last time by 2,200, 2,100 and 500 votes, respectively. With a close margin of victory and no incumbent running for the NDP, St. Norbert is ripe for Tory picking and I think they’ll do it. My gut tells me the margin of victory is too much for the Tories to overcome in the other two seats, though, even for popular former City Councillor Gord Steeves, who hopes to knock off Health Minister Theresa Oswald in Seine River.

River East: Conservative Bonnie Mitchelson barely held on to this seat in 2007, in what was a surprisingly strong result for the NDP. Under the redistributed boundaries, the NDP would have actually won the seat by 70 votes instead of losing it by 52 votes. I think the NDP’s numbers will drop here, like in most areas of the province, so that the Conservatives hold the seat.

Winnipeg tally: 25 NDP, 5 PC, 1 Liberal

Final thoughts

Of the 16 close races I’ve identified throughout Manitoba, I predict NDP wins in 9 (Swan River, Brandon East, Interlake, Kirkfield, Southdale, Tyndall, Fort Rouge, Riel, and Seine River), Conservative wins in 6 (Brandon West, Dauphin, Dawson Trail, Portage, St. Norbert, and River East) and a Liberal win in River Heights. Whether I’m right or wrong will come with Tuesday night’s news.

If I am right, the NDP will be jubilant even if stung by a few of their losses, Conservatives will devastated even if in a stronger position to win in 2015 (with a similar seat count to the NDP’s before they took power in 1999), and the Liberals will be relieved to be alive even with the soul searching that undoubtedly lies ahead for them.

---

Photo: A ballot from Afghanistan’s 2006 legislative elections. Large numbers of Manitoba voters will hopefully exercise their own right to vote on October 4.

Election Oracle: 2011

2011-05-01T15:39:00.011-05:00

It’s been about a year and a half since I’ve made any posts on this blog. Life has made it hard to keep up with the writing and there’s a good community of Manitoba bloggers that keep the ideas flowing and the debates going. While I’m not sure if I’ll bring this blog back to life at some point, I’m happy for now to use it for my election predictions. Usually, I come in a bit closer than just about anyone, but we’ll see if that holds true for this time, especially when the last polls of the campaign are still showing increased movement toward the NDP.

Canada

Last election (incl byelections): C 145, N 36, L 77, B 49, I1
Prediction: C 152, N 84, L 51, B 20, I 1

They key question from the start of the campaign was whether the Conservatives would get a minority or majority. The second that emerged was whether the NDP will form the Official Opposition. I’m predicting 152 Conservatives, which is a small increase and within a few seats of a majority. If I’m wrong and they pick up a few extra Liberal seats in Ontario, then they may eke out a slight majority. The NDP will be solidly in second place, even if their organization can’t convert all of their support into hard votes. The last few polls of the campaign have showed the NDP numbers still increasing, but I’ve tried to offer fairly conservative predictions.

If my prediction is right, it’ll be a tepid win for the Conservatives – they’ll have yet another minority, leaving them unable to push their agenda through Parliament, but it’ll be a strong minority, which means they’ll be too strong to be pushed aside by an opposition coalition. It’s a historic rout for the Liberals and one from which they may never recover, if a British-style left-right realignment is the outcome. It’s also a crushing defeat for the Bloc in Quebec, which has dominated since their formation in the early 1990s. Now they’re more of a chip than a block. For the NDP, it’s an astonishing result and an endorsement of Jack Layton’s style and direction.

So what lies ahead? For the Conservatives, they’ll continue in a minority government and continue strategizing about how to hold back the NDP from further growth. I can only hope that the Conservatives see this election as a sign that Canadians prefer vision and substance over dirty tricks and character assassinations, but that might be too much to hope for. It may get worse yet.

For the NDP, as Official Opposition, the task ahead will be one of discipline, coalition building (informal rather than formal) and developing an image, platform and strategy for forming government. All parties go through some growing pains as they transition from a protest party into a governing party and the federal NDP won’t be any different. As well, with Liberals, Bloquistes and Greens all migrating to the NDP, the party may no longer be interested in a formal merger or coalition deal. The new NDP is the coalition.

For the Liberals and Bloc, regrouping will be tough. Right-wing Liberals may gravitate to the Conservatives in the hopes of stopping further NDP growth. Left-wing Liberals who’ve flirted with the NDP but saw them as having no chance of forming government will now feel the pressure to move to the NDP. With the Liberals in third place, potential candidates, leaders and donors will now all be much harder to come by. For their part, Bloc members may wonder what point there is in sticking around. More socially conservative nationalists may drift to the Conservatives while left-leaning ones will feel compelled to join many of their colleagues in supporting what is now the largest social democratic party in Quebec. The Bloc and Liberals will try to convince voters that this election was a blip or a one-off event, but clawing their way back isn’t going to be easy.

Atlantic

Last election: C 11, N 4, L 17
Prediction: C 14, N 7, L 11

Apart from several Conservative and NDP pickups, I expect the Atlantic to be mostly unchanged, even though some polls are pointing to a last-minute NDP surge here. I see Tory pickups in Avalon, Malpeque, Madawaska-Restigouche and Moncton and one loss to the NDP in Nova Scotia’s South Shore. Look also for NDP gains in St. John’s South and Dartmouth.

Possible surprises: Tory win in Random-Burin-St. George or NDP wins in Central Nova (Peter McKay) or Halifax West. Some pundits have suggested these, but I’m sceptical they’ll happen.

Quebec

Last election: C 10, N 1, L 14, B 49, I1
Prediction: C 8, N 36, L 10, B 20, I1

The story here is the catastrophic meltdown of the Bloc and the meteoric rise of the NDP. Many pundits are completely puzzled by the NDP’s strength, but the party’s been laying the groundwork for growth and seeing incremental results for years. Of course, the perfect storm of good fortune for the NDP in this election helped throw open the flood gates. I predict Duceppe will lose his own seat in Laurier-Ste-Marie, making the Bloc’s collapse even more stunning. Look for NDP gains throughout the Montreal/Laval, Gatineau and Quebec City regions.

While the Liberals will lose some seats to the NDP, including Westmount, NDG, Lasalle-Émard and Hull-Aylmer, the few good news stories of the night will come when they pick up Bloc seats (Ahuntsic, Haute-Gaspésie and possibly Brome-Missisquoi where Denis Paradis is running) as the NDP siphons away Bloc votes. The Tories will lose Beauport-Limoilou, Charlesbourg and Pontiac (Lawrence Cannon, one of my least favourite MPs) to the NDP, but should hold on to the rest. Unfortunately, independent Arthur André, known for working another job while being an MP and making intolerant comments on the radio, will probably eke out a victory over his Bloc and NDP competitors.

Possible surprises: Everywhere, as untouchable Bloc and Liberal strongholds fall. Watch for NDP star candidate and Innu leader Romeo Saganash in a close battle with the Bloc for his northern Quebec seat.

Ontario

Last election: C 52, N 17 , L 37
Prediction: C 60, N 22, L 24

With Quebec not interested in their party, the Tories needed Ontario to get their majority. It would have worked well if the NDP only cut into the Liberal vote, so as to toss Liberal-Conservative races to the Tories, but the NDP have pulled votes from the Tories too. I predict most new wins for the NDP in the Toronto area, including Beaches-East York, Davenport, Oshawa, Parkdale-High Park and and York South-Weston. I think they’ll also win Oshawa from the Cons.

The Liberals, squeezed from both sides, will probably lose around one third of their Ontario seats, including many in the 905 belt. The Holland-Alexander race has drawn a lot of attention in Ajax-Pickering. I predict a Tory win there as well as in Mississauga South, Brampton-Springdale and Brampton West. A few Toronto seats are likely to swing Tory as well (a first since the 1980s), giving them Don Valley West, Eglinton-Lawrence and York Centre.

Possible surprises: I expect Iggy will be safe in his own seat, but a surprise of the night could be the Tories giving him a run in his home seat. If the NDP really surprises, they may pick up Scarborough Southwest, Guelph, Essex, Kenora and others, but I expect they’ll fall a little short in these ridings.

Manitoba

Last election: C 9, N 3 , L 2
Prediction: C 9, N 4, L 1

I don’t expect the electoral drama that’s going on in most other provinces to really reach us here in Manitoba. The NDP should win Winnipeg North back from the Liberals in a close race, giving us the same result as in 2008.

Possible surprises: The Conservatives could surprise and win Winnipeg South-Centre from the Liberals or Elmwood-Transcona from the NDP, but I don’t think their numbers are quite high enough to do it.

Saskatchewan and Alberta

Last election: C 40, N 1 , L 1
Prediction: C 39, N 2, L 1

There is NDP momentum in our two neighbouring prairie provinces, but it’s probably not enough to make many seats change hands. NDP targets include Palliser, Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Edmonton Centre and Edmonton East. Of these, I predict an NDP win in the Saskatoon seat with tighter races but not wins elsewhere.

Possible surprises: Conservative nomination loser James Ford is running again as an Independent in Edmonton--Sherwood Park and there’s an outside chance he could pull off an upset. The NDP might also surprise with a second seat in Alberta. On the other hand, it’ll be one of the few big letdowns of the night for New Democrats if they surge Canada-wide but end up shut out of Saskatchewan again.

British Columbia

Last election: C 22, N 9 , L 5
Prediction: C 21, N 12, L 3

The NDP has seen big upward movement in their poll numbers here as in most other provinces and it should gain them a few more seats. On election night, watch for them battling to pick up Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, Vancouver Island North and Surrey North from Tories, while the Tories fight close races to pick up Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (vacated by Keith Martin) and Vancouver South (Ujjal Dosanjh).

The Greens are of course hoping for a win in Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running. It’s their one shot at a seat and I think they’ll fall well short, despite the poll they released claiming they’re in the lead.

Possible surprises: A stunning upset could come if Hedy Fry is defeated by the NDP in Vancouver Centre or if Elizabeth May somehow does pull off a win on Vancouver Island. A last minute NDP surge might also toss them some seats they haven’t won since 1988.

The North

Last election: C 1, N 1 , L 1
Prediction: C 1, N 1, L 1

Don’t forget about the north! I predict one seat apiece for each of the three parties – same as last time. The NDP in the Western Arctic (NWT) and the Conservative in Nunavut each stave off a former Territorial Premier running as the Liberal candidate.

Photo: John William Waterhouse's Consulting the Oracle, 1882.

Inside last year's coalition deal

2009-12-06T16:39:00.017-06:00

Brian Topp's chronology of last year's events in which federal opposition parties banded together in an attempt to take power from the minority Conservative government is a must-read for any political junkie, no matter your opinion of the deal itself.

Topp, a former NDP campaign co-chair and a coalition negotiator for the NDP, presented his take on the day-to-day drama in a six-part series in the Globe and Mail over the past week.

All the juicy details are there: Dion's desire to un-resign his leadership by leaping right into the Prime Minister's chair, the coalition's strategic error in closely associating themselves with the Bloc (which the Tories seized on pretty much within seconds of hearing about the plan), the Ignatieff team's tepid embrace and then rejection of the coalition, some funny moments of Liberal "entitlement" behaviour (for example, see Marlene Jennings's comments during cabinet negotiations), Dion's final big flop on national television and a whole lot of "big names" playing a role, among them Dion, Ignatieff, Layton, Rae, Chrétien, Broadbent, Blakeney and a host of others.

The series has created quite a stir among political commentators. See the reactions by Chantal Hébert, Rex Murphy, Paul Wells and Curtis at Endless Spin Cycle (whose earlier post I initially missed when composing this one). Jane Taber comments on how the Tories celebrated the one-year anniversary of the coalition's demise.

Photo: Competing protests in favour and opposed to the proposed coalition in late 2008.

A shameful lack of vision

2009-12-01T01:24:00.007-06:00

Andrew Coyne sure tells it like is. Why is a government that so adamantly denies any knowledge of Canadian complicity in torture so desperate to keep us guessing? If they're holding the truth in their back pocket, why are they more determined than ever to block the way forward?

With one Tory MP after another getting in on the act of trying to undermine former diplomat Richard Colvin's testimony (for example, for being filmsy, inconsistent, and unreliable), it took Christie Blatchford two articles to articulate what weeks of inept spinning have failed to do: poke holes in Colvin's credibility. Don Martin of the National Post has done some similar work.

Of course, many questions remain and Blatchford focuses only on Colvin's testimony, not on the bigger torture issue (as one Globe letter writer suggested, her "wheat vs. chaff" comment sounds like she misses the boat entirely on the torture question). We can only hope the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating the allegations, is able to eke out the truth despite the government's best efforts to block and obfuscate.

Once again, we see petty and angry politics trump reasoned, articulate, responsible leadership at the federal level. After all, were the leaders of this government to have the courage of their own convictions, surely they would continue to champion the mission in Afghanistan while rushing to sincerely address the damaging allegations that have surfaced. Yet, we see no leadership; we hear no vision. Instead, they duck and hide behind angry, petty invective disguised as spin.

Swan is out!

2009-09-28T10:55:00.013-05:00

On Saturday, I posted a comment to Never Eat Yellow Snow's post saying that Swan had reached his “do or die” moment and had to do well in this past weekend’s delegate selection meetings or see his support crumble amid an increasingly polarized Selinger-Ashton battle.

Today, we see the result: Swan is dropping out, changing the race into a simple one-ballot, two-candidate contest for the Premiership.

While there's no word yet on whether he'll publicly endorse one of his former rivals, it's almost a certainty that Swan will back Selinger. At least 67 Swan-declared delegates will also be freed up to vote for one of the other two candidates. It's certain they'll go disproportionately to Selinger, who, despite a slow start, has emerged in the last couple of weeks as the odds-on favourite to win.

Followers of the leadership race should also check Never Eat Yellow Snow and Endless Spin Cycle regularly for their great ongoing coverage.

UPDATE: Swan and several ministers who had lined up behind him have endorsed Selinger. As Yellow Snow notes, we can expect the rest of the Swan-endorsing cabinet ministers and labour leaders to follow suit.

Why Manitoba Liberals will never win power

2009-09-16T00:02:00.007-05:00

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/09/15/mb-doer-conflict-gerrard-manitoba.html

How much political mileage can the good doctor expect to get by bashing the guy who's being fêted as he heads for the exit?

Be nice, Mr. Gerrard -- offer up the mandatory bouquet of nice words and funny anecdotes and then turn your attention to someone you'll actually be facing off against.

A leisurely rant

2009-08-24T23:31:00.015-05:00

I was considering live-blogging my attempt to register for some of Winnipeg's Leisure Guide courses Monday morning, but my readers should be thankful I didn't. It would have looked very much like this, only much, much longer:

9:00 Web page tells me too many users are trying to access the system. Can't get in.
9:01 Registration by phone impossible. 311 number busy. Can they not use some queuing software?
9:05 Repeated attempts to access the website and 311 line prove fruitless.
9:11 Now, even the City's "too many users" webpage won't load.
9:15 Back to the regular error message.
9:22 Ditto.
9:29 Still no luck.
9:37 Same thing.
9:50 Ditto.

*snip*

10:57 Same thing.
11:00 Ditto.
11:01 Wow, just got in. Okay, first step after clicking "English" is to log in. How to do so is not so obvious. Found help page which told me I have to click "my basket" as the first step. Okay, in. Found my course and clicked register and got... oh no, the "too many users" error message. I've been booted out after trying all morning to get in.
11:25 Trying the website continuously for 20 minutes. No luck. 311 still busy.
11:34 Registration by phone still impossible. 311 number busy.
11:39 Ditto.

Finally, sometime shortly after 12, the e-gates opened and I was able to register. It was hardly a hassle-free process, though, as finding and registering for a few courses took me nearly 30 minutes. A few of my experiences:

- Some of the courses listed in the Leisure Guide had incorrect ID numbers, which meant having to manually search for them to find the real numbers.

- Often, clicking on the "details" button for a course provided no information or gave me an error message.

- When clicking to register for a course, the site took me to my shopping basket where the next step was to choose the "client" or course taker, assuming you have more than one person in your account. For one of the courses I added, I had to click the name of the course-taker more than 20 times before the site would accept my selection -- it would otherwise load a blank webpage; browsing back to my basket showed the person selection still not yet made.

- After selecting one course brought me to the "my basket" page, I chose the user and was informed by the site that the course was no longer available (yet checking it showed many spots still open).

Now, I love taking the fabulous courses that are offered in the Leisure Guide each year and find the quality of instruction to be very high, but can we not get a proper registration system? The site and process would have looked and felt archaic ten years ago. And the 311 phone line -- can I not just be put on hold, even if I am kindly told by an electronic voice I will be there for 30 minutes?

Websites have been around for over 15 years. While we can afford to suffer the bugs of brand new technology, there's no excuse for having a website that wonky. The standard these days is that sites are user friendly, bug-free, and linked to databases thoroughly checked for errors. With hundreds of colleges and universities in this country that take course registrations every day, there are sure to be some best practices that can be emulated.

In the meantime, assuming the folks that went through what I did didn't just give up in frustration, you can bet that the courses in anger management, blood pressure control, and meditation are now all full.

Lawrence Cannon, no friend of Canadians

2009-08-23T17:04:00.019-05:00

As the Tories launch their latest round of plans to secure a majority government, they might find getting off the ground is easier if you first get rid of the anvil sitting in the luggage bay.

The anvil in question is Lawrence Cannon, our federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Canadian citizens travelling abroad. In this weekend's Globe, both Rex Murphy and Gerald Caplan eloquently describe Cannon's bungling and bizarre comments that make clear his inability to stand up for the citizens his government is supposed to represent. If law-abiding Canadians find themselves in trouble abroad, who can they count on if not their own government?

The latest mistake -- trapping Toronto woman Suaad Hagi Mohamud in Kenya after Canadian officials wrongly denied she was Canadian -- has resulted in a $2.5 million dollar suit against the government. Abdelrazik, the Canadian citizen trapped in Sudan for over six years until a court forced the government to bring him home, will likely cost the government millions more. Money of course doesn't make up for the grief and trauma experienced by the victims.

While we can't personally blame the Minister for every mistake made, it's his inability to speak up and resolve issues that we should question. In some cases, his department is
completely silent when dialogue with a foreign government is clearly warranted. In the case of Abdelrazik, for reasons still never thoroughly explained, his department deliberately created additional roadblocks to prevent the citizen's return home.

The question now is how much more will this Minister cost Canadians before he finds the exit?

Building mosques as economic strategy

2009-06-11T00:05:00.022-05:00

This Globe article makes for some thought-provoking reading: it details how Prince George, BC is building a mosque and Islamic cultural and educational centre in the hopes of luring in the high-skilled workers it desperately needs.

Interestingly, this comes at a time when some citizens of the western world – in a decade likely to be defined by 9/11 and the sudden economic downturn near its close – are being taken in by the dark side of xenophobia and anti-immigrant finger-pointing (see this week’s European Parliament election results).

While it was undoubtedly in the works for some time, Prince George’s announcement dovetails nicely with Barack Obama’s recent overtures to the Muslim world. His message of peace – eloquently quoted from the Koran last week – was no doubt expressed also in the hopes of achieving not just social objectives, but economic objectives: in this case, economic stability, improved trade and access to markets, and an end to the costly and controversial military conflicts that continue to rage through many Islamic regions of Africa and Asia.

The likely role that Prince George’s mosque will play in its future might also bear some comparison with the role the Winnipeg Central Mosque (or WCM) plays in the West End neighbourhood’s development. Open in 2004, the mosque is a resource and prayer centre for the local Muslim community, which must be quite large if the crowds that can be seen coming to and leaving the centre are any indication. The WCM, along with the Halal food shops I also see opening up in the neighbourhood, likely represent both a sign of and a draw for local and immigrating Muslims.

While Winnipeg continues to face its own significant skilled labour shortages, there is also hope that the WCM, along with other West End developments, represents a new wave of community pride in the neighbourhood, which many suburban Winnipeggers may have long written off as lost to prostitution and crime. Along with neighbours such as the Ellice Café & Theatre, the Black Sheep Diner, and the new West End Cultural Centre, the WCM is one of a number of growing spaces of vibrancy in an area long characterized by its pockets of vibrancy.

If Prince George’s strategy works to its benefit – and I think it will to some degree – this will only fuel the debate over what religious, cultural or artistic investments a city or region can make to successfully lure and then settle new migrants to ultimately benefit its own economy (take note, Richard Florida).

Governments of course have a long-running preference for investing in large "bricks and mortar" type projects that have more finite, predictable, and mathematically-derivable estimates of economic impact than something more indirectly beneficial like a mosque. Of course, those same "bricks and mortar" projects usually bring in office drones who extend the morning Tim Horton's lineups even further down the street but who, like clockwork, quickly desert the neighbourhood to the shadows a moment after 5 pm.

Maybe building mosques and other types of community centres is a better strategy for developing thriving neighbourhoods and healthy economies.

Photo: Istanbul's Blue Mosque, also known as the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, was built between 1609 and 1616. It is renowned for its more than 20,000 handmade blue ceramic tiles and six minarets.

Election watching

2009-06-08T18:29:00.010-05:00

It's been a slow spring in the Manitoba blogosphere, including here at PT. That's not to say there isn't a lot going on politically around the world.

Europe

Election watchers might be interested in this BBC summary of the EU election results.

I find it quite fascinating how diverse political parties from very different European political cultures have managed to forge a series of pan-European slates. On the left, labour-oriented, moderate socialist and social democratic parties are largely united under the Party of European Socialists (PES) banner. They are second to the bloc of centre-right, Christian democrat and conservative parties that have banded together under the umbrella of the European People's Party – European Democrats (EPP-ED), which Britain’s Tories are in the process of leaving in the hopes of forming a new coalition. Centrist and liberal/pro-free trade parties comprise the third-largest grouping in the European Parliament, known as the Alliance Of Liberals And Democrats For Europe (ALDE).

The mostly right-wing Euro-skeptics, those mostly opposed to greater European integration through the building of pan-European institutions and regulations, have their own pan-European party, called the Union For Europe Of The Nations or UEN. Extreme Euro-skeptics, those looking for their country’s complete withdrawal from the EU, are part of the Independence And Democracy (IND/DEM) coalition.

Small regional and nationalist parties, such as those from Scotland, Wales and the Basque region of Spain, have banded together as the European Free Alliance (EFA) and are now allied with the European Greens. Communist and radical left parties also have their own left parliamentary bloc.

Results in this weekend's elections mark a continued decrease in voter turnout to just 43% and a general rightward tilt in votes cast, particularly in Britain, where Gordon Brown’s struggling Labour Party was reduced to a mere 15% of the votes. Left-leaning parties in France, Spain and Portugal also saw their share of the vote decline.

Alarmingly, a number of xenophobic, anti-immigrant and far-right parties, including the British National Party, saw their numbers increase.

Finally, Sweden’s Pirate Party, which runs on a platform of copyright and patent law reform, won its first seat in the European Parliament.

Lebanon

Election followers are no doubt casting their eyes southeast of the EU to Lebanon, where the governing coalition just staved off a strong challenge from the opposition coalition that's led by the infamous Hezbollah movement.

This Globe article provides a good overview of the different religious, ethnic and political associations of each party.

Nova Scotia

Closer to home, a lot of people are following developments in Nova Scotia, where the NDP looks poised to form its first government ever in Atlantic Canada. Three polls have now put the NDP around 45%, far ahead of the governing Conservatives and third-place Liberals, who are each reported to be holding around 25%.

Some good sites to follow the coverage include those of the Chronicle-Herald and CBC, Nodice, an elections facts and figures site, and the Elections Nova Scotia site itself.

Elsewhere around the world

Election watchers can follow recent and upcoming elections at sites such as Election Guide.

Photo: A display meant to promote the 2009 European elections.

PT turns two!

2009-04-26T10:51:00.009-05:00

Prairie Topiary turned two today, an event worth celebrating! (somehow, I managed to completely sleep through the blog’s first anniversary.)

While the posts here tend to be wordy and infrequent, they also tend to be well received by readers.

In two years since this blog has started, the local politics-oriented blogging community has changed somewhat. Missed are Blackberry Addicts and Comments Closed. Great new additions to the community include PolicyFrog and The Don Street Blog. A host of others continue to provide regular, valuable contributions. My blogroll provides a selection of the blogs I follow regularly and that are worth checking out.

No blog anniversary is complete without a look back on some favourite posts:

Are we bad eco-citizens? (January 2009): I asked this after coming across some Statistics Canada data that suggests Manitobans are behind most other Canadians when it comes to a range of environmentally friendly behaviours.

The prorogation and 2009’s limping victor (December 2008): We all remember the drama that played itself out before Christmas, with government and opposition battling it out for power. My take was that the prize wasn't much of a prize given the long hard road ahead either government would face, something that Ignatieff likely came to realize and that Harper is finding out.

A two-horse race and other pre-election myths (September 2008): Looking back to the eve of the last federal campaign, it seems obvious now that the Tories were strong, the Liberals were in disastrous shape and that the NDP hadn’t lost dramatic numbers of votes to the Greens. However, that’s not what you’d think from reading news reports and poll punditry at the time. One Liberal commenter took strong exception to my post.

The non-issue of crown donations to the human rights museum (May 2008): Policy Frog and I debated the merits and appropriateness of provincial crown donations to the CMHR, with me taking the side that the donations were appropriate.

New software does not an urban vision make (February 2008): I critiqued Sam Katz’s annual Chamber of Commerce mayoral speech, particularly for its lack of vision and obsession with the CrimeStat software program. Unfortunately, I didn't make it to Katz's 2009 one.

The endorsement game (January 2008): I had fun watching American celebrities line up behind their favourite candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Who knew then that Obama would go on to trounce first Clinton and then McCain?

Canada’s shameful day at the UN (June 2007): I called attention to the federal government’s disappointing decision to withdraw support for the UN’s Draft Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples after years of work promoting it.

Forward not back (May 2007): Manitoba’s voters elected a greater share of women to its Legislature than sit in the House of Commons or in the legislative assembly of any other province. Obviously, at 32%, we’re a long ways yet from gender equality among our provincial representatives.

Triumphant! (May 2007): While I love making election predictions, I can't say I’m always right. However, I did very well in Manitoba’s last contest, successfully predicting the result in 54 out of 57 constituencies, for 95% accuracy.

Tory justice: lock up the poor (May 2007): In Manitoba’s last campaign, the Tories came up with the ridiculous idea of denying legal aid to people who have a previous conviction for certain types of offenses. Not only did they throw the concept of being innocent until proven guilty out the window, but the plan would probably cost more in the long run than it would save. It's clear they didn’t think through that one very well.

Wells and Coyne on torture

2009-04-25T00:08:00.009-05:00

A good debate between Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells on the torture issue in the US. Wells hits it out of the park in this debate compared to Coyne's weak, mumbling defense.

Proponents of torture always use the ticking time bomb analogy to justify why it should be legal. If that's really the rationale for why torture should be allowed and if that really describes the rare occasion when its use would be acceptable, then isn't its illegality (with extreme penalties for its use) exactly the right deterrent necessary to prevent its regular use by authorities?

Does the left gain when the economy is down?

2009-04-04T19:45:00.018-05:00

There’s an interesting debate going on in the Globe and Mail about the role of the NDP and the reason why it doesn’t seem to be making headlines these days despite the economic downturn – the question Lawrence Martin asks (see Letters to the editor responses) in the article that kicked off the discussion is that, when capitalism is in crisis, shouldn’t the left see gains?

It’s logical to think that the NDP should make gains during tough times as people look for alternatives to the economic system that may be causing them hardship. This might partially explain the NDP’s surprising win in Ontario in 1990.

However, it’s also possible that a sinking economy might actually harm the left electorally. In good times, voters may feel more comfortable having their government deal with issues that people perceive to be left: addressing poverty and inequality, expanding social programs, funding the CBC, mandating environmentally-friendly behaviours, etc. In tough times, voters often focus on the economy as the sole issue, and the Conservatives have traditionally been best at branding themselves as economic managers. Besides, in bad times, governments of all stripes will tend to sound and act a little like New Democrats: showing concern about rising unemployment, wanting to curb or prevent poverty, speaking about education and training, penalizing arrogant corporate leaders, and actively intervening in the economy where it’ll save some jobs and earn points with voters.

I decided to see if I could see any relationship between economic ups and downs and federal voting behaviour for the past several decades. There are two charts I've created (click to enlarge). The one on top shows the share of popular vote received by right wing parties (Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives, Canadian Alliance, Reform party and Social Credit/Ralliement créditiste) and left wing parties (one bar shows just the NDP; another shows the NDP grouped with the Greens and the Bloc, which assumes we can lump those parties in as left) since 1972.

In the chart, the right-wing vote appears relatively consistent outside of the two big Mulroney victories in the 1980s. The drop in the NDP vote from 1993 to 2000 also stands out, but its vote is otherwise remarkably consistent from 1972 to 2008. The combined "left" vote begins to differ from the NDP as the Bloc emerged in the early 90s. The grouped left vote stands out as very strong in each of the last three elections, with 2008 representing a high water mark.

I included in the bottom chart two economic indicators. The first is the annual unemployment rate and the second is the quarter-over-quarter real GDP growth rate.

The unemployment rate curve shows two dramatic peaks – one in 1983 and one in 1993. Interestingly, the two biggest electoral shifts over the period also occurred around those times. The first, in 1984, swept Mulroney to power with the largest majority in Canadian history. The second, in 1993, did the opposite, nearly wiping out the Progressive Conservatives and vaulting the Chrétien Liberals into power.

What's striking about the GDP growth curve is the relative flatness since about 1981 and especially during the 1990s. In the past ten years, quarter-to-quarter growth has been mostly positive, but is relatively inconsistent, with 9/11 having a noticeable negative impact in 2001. The plunge at the end of 2008 appears dramatic when compared historically.

So can we conclude any relationship between swings to the left or right and economic downturns? Not likely, at least not based on the data I've presented. Interesting shifts in the popular vote do appear, but they don't seem to be dependent on economic upturns or downturns. Economic shifts probably do affect voter behaviour, but not in ways that are entirely predictable. Furthermore, the traction that a party may get politically isn't always evident in the electoral numbers. Having an influence on the policy process and in the marketplace of ideas – regardless of which party ultimately takes credit – is something that can’t be measured here.

A primer on the resolutions process

2009-02-26T12:46:00.012-06:00

The annual pre-convention exercise of making fun of NDP resolutions has begun (see the Globe, Free Press and Rise and Sprawl). The exercise typically involves digging through the hundreds of resolutions submitted by grassroots NDP members to find those that can be most portrayed as "kooky," usually with the end result of right-wingers everywhere nodding and patting themselves on the back for being such sensible folks in comparison to those crazy Dippers.

Sure, there are and always will be ideas presented that are ill-informed and unrealistic, but that's simply part of grassroots democracy. After all, resolutions can be drafted by any party member and make it into the convention book if they're passed at any one of the constituency, committee or affiliated organization meetings. Some of those meetings might only have three or four voting members in attendance, so it's relatively easy for any member to draft a resolution, have it end up in the convention book and presumably be mocked in the local and national media.

Any party that genuinely accepts and debates resolutions from a diverse membership across regions far and wide will end up with a grab-bag of ideas, some good and some bad. And it's not like the bad ones automatically become party doctrine. In the NDP, a policy committee reviews and prioritizes all resolutions ahead of the convention to bring those most relevant and well-thought out to the fore. Convention delegates then have an opportunity to change the prioritization before they debate and vote on the resolutions. Those passed become party policy, but not necessarily government policy.

It may be fun to sift through hundreds of ideas just to laugh at the three or four that seem most far-fetched, but in the mix will also be some policy winners. I wonder if, in mocking the outcome of a system that lets ordinary people participate in policy development, the critics would feel more comfortable shutting out the grassroots and leaving all of the idea-generation to elites.

UPDATE: See the Globe's snidely-toned March 2 editorial here and Endless Spin's take here.

Photo: This year's NDP convention will be held at Brandon's Keystone Centre.

A raw deal for the consumer?

2009-02-26T08:37:00.006-06:00

This article in today's Globe should be required reading for anyone tempted to think that sales of unpasteurized or "raw" milk will be ultimately better for the consumer.

Food safety regulations aren't in place out of some need for bureaucratic red tape. They save lives by preventing the spread of food-borne pathogens that exist in food, including in raw milk.

We tend to sympathize with the idea of raw milk because it conjures up some idyllic image of a family farm from which only fresh, wholesome food comes. The reality of most farming today is much different (see the Meatrix video, a take on the movie The Matrix).

We've seen widespread sickness and death come many times from the breakdown of food safety regulations. As the article states, "the last thing we need is to go adding to the list of risky foods by casting aside techniques like pasteurization that have served us so well."

Open consultation or sell job?

2009-02-24T21:36:00.007-06:00

So, a firm by the name of Biggar Ideas has landed a $250,000 contract from the city to "engage the public, provide information and conduct consultations" about Winnipeg’s proposed new water utility. This follows City Council's plan to "explore" the idea of creating a new city water utlity, one rationale for which is that the city can then sell its water to neighbouring municipalities.

Sounds okay, right? The city has apparently not made any decision and is only "exploring," so we can be confident that it's legitimately seeking to hear all opinions on the matter, right?

Wrong.

The hired firm's marketing identifies its hallmark as "its ability to shift and shape public and stakeholder opinion." Sounds a little like someone in the mayor's office has already made a decision and is hiring someone to manipulate public opinion in the favoured direction, no?

If we're truly in the exploratory stage, then why hire a firm to sell the idea? And if the mayor truly believes this move would be best for the city, why doesn't he just say so and champion the idea publicly himself? Let's have a debate! Glen Murray, for all his faults, was never afraid of promoting his ideas openly.

The burden of proof will now be on the city and their chosen consultant to respectfully facilitate the gathering of public opinion. If anything less happens, those with tough questions will be right to see it as nothing less than a sell job.

It will also be incumbent on those pushing the idea to explain to Winnipeg citizens how the move won't amount to just fueling more urban sprawl at the city's own expense, as Christopher Leo and others suggest could be the case.

Jenny Gerbasi is absolutely right to be suspicious of this one.

Photo: Building the Winnipeg Aqueduct, which draws water to Winnipeg from Shoal Lake, Ontario (published in the Manitoba Pageant, Winter 1979).

Harper's Guantanamo?

2009-02-23T13:45:00.009-06:00

A Canadian citizen has supposedly been cleared of all suspicion of criminal activity -- enough for the Canadian government to formally request his name be removed from the UN Security Council's blacklist -- and yet the same government keeps throwing up roadblocks to prevent him from returning to Canada. The Harper government appears to be deliberately lying about the requirements he has to meet in order to be allowed back in Canada as they immediately change the requirements the moment he meets them.

If the Harper government is truly confident of Abdelrazik's innocence as they say they are and as they're willing to state in a note to the UN Security Council, then why prevent him from coming home? If they somehow DO have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, then he deserves to be formally charged and then sent home for a proper trial.

Either way, there's no good reason for deliberately keeping a Canadian citizen interned in a foreign country (where's he's been stranded for six years now) without charges or convictions.

By all means, let's do what we can within the law to prevent the perpetration and promotion of violence and hatred. But there's no place for the arbitrary mean-spiritedness, lying and complete disregard for human rights and the rule of law that we're seeing by our government in this case.

Are we bad eco-citizens?

2009-01-27T19:39:00.005-06:00

Are Manitobans dismally poor citizens when it comes to environmentally friendly behaviours? A newly-released Statistics Canada study suggests that we are.

We’re last in recycling, which only 88% of us do, far behind second-last place Newfoundland and Labrador’s share of 94%. We’re second-last in the country in using low-flow showerheads (46%), composting (23%), lowering temperatures (50%), and even in using compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs; 50%), though the numbers are from 2006, so recent promotions, such as Manitoba Hydro’s CFL campaign last fall wouldn’t have affected the numbers.

We’re also second-last in the country in “very active” environmental behaviour, which is defined as participating in four or more environmental activities, and have the largest share of households that are “less active.”

While the numbers are disappointing, I can’t say I’m surprised. The oft-heard whining about parking (already over-abundant and relatively cheap) and traffic jams (practically non-existent compared to most major cities) in Winnipeg is a constant reminder of our idolization of the car and stigmatization of more environmentally-friendly alternatives. The surprised expressions I receive regularly from sales clerks when I say “I don’t need a bag” for the already-over-packaged single item I’m buying confirms our zombie-like acceptance of ever more trash and our resistance to change.

So what’s the reason? The Statistics Canada study points out that environmental activities increase with greater income, education, and homeownership, of which the first two may play some role in Manitoba. The Canadian Press article (available here and here) on the issue quotes Randall McQuaker of the Resource Conservation Manitoba as pointing out the lack of consequences associated with sending our trash to the landfill. Certainly, an abundance of prairie land has allowed us to revel in car culture and urban sprawl while filling up our landfills without much cost or afterthought.

Cheap land doesn’t explain it all. There’s a lot more we can do – more of our public institutions and big corporations stepping up to the plate with public awareness advertising and leadership by example would be a great start. The article mentions hospitals that don’t recycle – let’s make it easy for people to do the right thing.

Visionary leaders make a big difference – bans on free plastic bags and curbside waste limits should be looked at seriously. More can be done to encourage the recycling of electronics, which otherwise leach toxins into the ground, and composting. It shouldn’t have to be hard to be nice to the environment.

Here’s to hoping we can put a green foot forward and make some significant strides soon.

My kind of urban renewal

2009-01-24T14:01:00.006-06:00

In an era of yet more big box sprawl, fortress-style architecture, and heritage building gutting, it's nice to see some genuine urban renewal involving one of the things I love most: breakfast.

I frequently enjoy the food at two relatively new diners in the inner city. Both feature fantastic home-cooked food (including an abundance of real vegetables and fruit), warm and friendly service, pleasant atmospheres, and a comfortable sense of genuineness that's so often lacking in ordinary suburban chain restaurants. You can tell these newcomers must be doing something right by the healthy number of mostly under-40 customers who flock there on weekends.

The Tallest Poppy is on Main at Logan. Enjoy their hearty breakfast scramble and homemade bread and marmalade (all of it made with locally sourced ingredients, where possible) in an open kitchen-style atmosphere.

The Black Sheep is on Ellice at Langside. Enjoy their fantastic goat cheese omelettes, potatoes or fruit while admiring the LPs on the piano, checking out the unique salt and pepper shakers (a different set on each table), and examining your Art Hive (a refurbished now-non-carcinogenic cigarette dispenser) purchase.

Brunch never tasted so good!

Photo: The Tallest Poppy (photo originally posted by 1ajs at http://skyscraperpage.com/)

Manitoba's new electoral boundaries

2008-12-23T17:43:00.008-06:00

As some fellow bloggers (Curtis, PolicyFrog and The Hack) have already pointed out, the new provincial election boundaries have been finalized. While most of the outgoing constituencies will be replaced with fairly similar new counterparts, there are a few big changes. Most notable is the loss of one seat in southwestern Manitoba and the gain of another in southeastern Manitoba.

As PolicyFrog also noted, there are some interesting name changes and I like what I see. For example, most of Inkster, a constituency named after a street, becomes Tyndall Park, a constituency named after a community. Rupertsland becomes Kewatinook (Cree for "from the north"), in a nod to the constituency's large aboriginal population.

A few nomination battles could well result. For the Conservatives, five sitting MLAs will have to fight it out over the four seats that remain in southwestern Manitoba. In south Winnipeg, the NDP-held seats of Fort Garry and Lord Roberts unite to become Fort Garry-Riverview (a much better name than the ugly Pembina-Jubilee moniker that appeared in the draft proposed maps). NDP-held St. Norbert loses Fort Richmond but gains some Tory territory from Fort Whyte.

I'll have more thoughts soon. In the meantime, those wanting to take a look for themselves should consult the boundaries commission site and report.

The prorogation and 2009's limping victor

2008-12-06T21:25:00.021-06:00

So after a debate that split the country and amid rallies in which words like "coup" and "antidemocratic" were tossed around, a group of opposition legislators announce they have secured a majority in the House and plan to take power.

But enough about Thailand... Here, in Canada, some coalition supporters might be disappointed that our Governor General accepted Stephen Harper's request to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament until January 26.

The Prorogation

While I'm a supporter of the coalition, I don't find her decision at all unreasonable. After all, if the opposition coalition can't stay together through seven weeks of Tory apologies and/or anti-coalition PR, what would have been the odds of it sticking it out for the promised 18 months? If it is able to hold together until the end of January, and if the Liberals can sort out their leadership issues without clobbering each other over that time, then there's a good chance it can form a workable government. And, if it does hold together, it'll be entirely within its right as a majority-group of MPs to pass non-confidence in the current government and to form an alternative one.

Of course, there'll be no clear winner and loser, even after the budget/confidence vote. Whether the Tories cling to power or the coalition takes over, Canadians will be left with an exceptionally weak federal government.

If the Tories Survive

Consider that, if the Tories do hold on, they'll be chastened and cautious. Harper will be weakened and his hold over the party will be much more tenuous than it was before all this drama -- his reputation as a brilliant tactician is in tatters. And, as part of its effort to survive, the government will likely have committed to a budget that has a more centrist or left-leaning flavour than the Conservatives would really like. Many divisive Tory policies, such as dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, may have to be shelved. At the same time that Conservative supporters see their hopes deflated by the continued backpedaling of their own party, other parties will be able to accuse the Tories of having a hidden agenda and have many voters believe them. The Conservative Party will also have much rebuilding to do in Quebec and they'll be taken to task nationally for having risked opening the sovereignty/national unity can of worms. Finally, they'll be at the helm of a Canadian economy that's on its way downward, something they may have to rightly or wrongly shoulder the blame for the next time they face voters.

If the Coalition Succeeds

Of course, it won't be all fun and games for the coalition if it assumes power. After all, it will likely be the weakest minority government ever to preside over the country. It will be led by the Liberals, a disorganized and money-strapped shell of what was once the country's natural governing party, in partnership with the NDP, whose inexperience in federal cabinet may well show. With a mere 114 seats to the Tories' 143, the coalition will have difficulty passing bills that aren't confidence motions, since the Bloc is not bound to vote with the government on every bill. Ditto for having control of the House committees. And, like any government that holds office through 2009, it will preside over a sinking economy and a federal deficit, all of which the Conservatives will be only too happy to blame on the coalition's supposed fiscal mismanagement. Then, when the coalition parties eventually do face an election, some voters will rightly or wrongly punish them for having worked with the Bloc, not to mention for the above mentioned economic woes.

Battle Stations

These issues must be on the minds of those considering their options right now, particularly by Michael Ignatieff and his supporters, as they consider how to ease the honourable yet inept Dion out of his leadership role. Meanwhile, coalition solidarity is being driven by Dion, who desperately wants to become Prime Minister even if for just one day; Bob Rae, who's support of Dion and of the coalition is really a proxy for his own bid to stave off Ignatieff and win the leadership for himself; the NDP, which hopes to bolster its own legitimacy by sitting in a federal cabinet for the first time ever; and a diverse array of interest groups, including labour unions, women's organizations, human rights groups, wheat board supporters, arts organizations and others who abhor Tory policies and who see opportunity in the coalition.

From the Prime Minister and his crew, who seek to hold power, we should fully brace ourselves for all of the following:

- Bend-over-backwards apologies for Financial Update misdeeds (note the statement's initials -- from a joke making its rounds this week);

- Promises of a new era of cooperation (no doubt to be accompanied by a strong sense of deja vu among Canadians...)

- A budget so steeped in Liberal and NDP policies as well as treats for every Canadian that the opposition will risk embarrassement and/or the wrath of Canadians by voting against it to defeat the government;

- More national-unity-be-damned "the separatists are at the gates" hysterics and other Tory coffer-funded PR aimed at turning popular support against the coalition;

- PR aimed at driving wedges between the two Liberal Party camps; and

- A push to have the coalition accept a return to the polls if it chooses to defeat the government on January's budget.

Bennett replayed

2008-11-29T22:15:00.011-06:00

Wow, R.B. Bennett is back.

At the very time when fearful and uncertain Canadians are looking to elected leaders to put aside their petty squabbles and work toward staving off a looming economic recession, what does our newly elected Conservative government do? They pull a complete flop on the economic front and use the crisis instead as an opportunity to attack their opponents.

It sounds like an earlier Tory Prime Minister, R.B. Bennett, who came to power amid the Great Depression only to declare it over in 1930 when it was really just getting underway. His then-refusal to provide anything in the way of economic stimulus sounds like our current finance minister's declaration that no more spending is presently needed and, in fact, that cutbacks are the answer!

Bennett's ideological devotion to laissez-faire-style government and his belief that "the sole function of government is to favour private enterprise" is strikingly similar to the thinking of the current government, whose worship of tax cuts as the cure for all ills is so devout that they actually believe that last year's tax cuts will somehow prevent next year's recession.

Another tenet of R.B. Bennett's Tories was that government assets = bad. Modern day Tories believe the same and so have proposed a fire sale of $2.3 billion of crown corporations and other federal property in a supposed attempt to prevent a deficit. As blogger NDP Outsider suggests, maybe the best time to sell one's assets isn't in a buyer's market. Once again, blind ideology trumps common sense.

R.B. Bennett also took the opportunity to beat up on anyone he thought a political opponent. Under the guise of preventing communism, he revised Section 98 of the Criminal Code to do away with the fundamental democratic right of being innocent until proven guilty where association with supposedly subversive organizations was concerned (you could be put away for simply showing up at a rally or meeting). This was used to arrest members of far left organizations as well of members of that old Tory bogeyman: labour unions.

The thinking among Tories apparently hasn't evolved much since Bennett's days: they made sure to ban strikes and bypass collective bargaining for public sector workers in this week's economic update, something that's puzzled even the Globe and Mail, which is hardly a pal of the unions. Maybe the Tories didn't want to be outdone by Bennett in repealing rights (collective bargaining is a charter-protected right) or attacking political opponents. Why bargain when you can simply take out the club?

The federal Conservatives also decided to open a new front against the opposition by doing away with federal public financing of political parties, hardly an issue at the top of the public agenda. So much for the new era in civility that the Tories seemed to be all in favour of a mere two weeks earlier. So much for putting aside the House's characteristic squabbling to focus on our most pressing common problem. So much for real leadership.

One might have thought that here was Harper's golden opportunity to cement his brand as statesperson and leader by reassuring Canadians, by listening to ideas from all sides, and by working together to move forward. In such a scenario, it wouldn't be hard to envision him being rewarded with a majority government in our next trip to the polls. Instead, he squandered the chance and now faces the prospect of losing power to an opposition party coalition no one dreamed possible a week ago. Thursday's smugness became Saturday's backpedal. My favourite reporter question to a fuming Harper: “Sir, did you make a mistake?”

Of course, R.B. Bennett eventually relented and opted for a big fiscal dividend in an effort to boost the economy, but by that time, Canadians had suffered through more than five years of tough economic times. In what we can only hope is another parallel with R.B. Bennett's Conservatives, the Tories went on to be crushed in the following election and then spent the following 22 years in the political wilderness. Let's just hope we don't have to endure five years of clueless leadership before repeating that history.

Further reading: The economic update and responses by Jeffrey Simpson, Dan Lett, Thomas Walkom, The Globe, and Pierre Berton's book The Great Depression.

Photo: A Bennett Buggy, named after Depression-era Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, was the term used for a car pulled by a horse, after the owner could no longer afford gasoline.

Predicting recessions

2008-11-18T14:19:00.006-06:00

This is a funny video posted today by Jason Kirby of Macleans.

It shows a variety of panel interviews over the last couple of years with some wall street loud mouths, really exposing how completely vacuous is the advice most of them give. Of the talking heads, only Peter Schiff had any real understanding that the American economy was in serious crisis. It's worth a watch.

When Schiff speaks of paper wealth versus real wealth and productive capacity, it reminds me a lot of Jim Stanford's argument in his very interesting book Paper Boom.

Prairie Topiary out-predicts other pundits!

2008-10-15T10:32:00.013-05:00

Time for some gloating: I predicted the correct result in 287 out of 308 seats, for a 93% success rate. That's down from my 95% success rate in last year's provincial election, but it beats out Democratic Space's 92% (282 correct) and Election Prediction Project's 91% (281). My totals were also much closer than theirs -- you'd need to switch the result in only seven seats to match my predicted totals. It seems that just about everyone, including the rational investors putting their money down at the UBC election stock market, thought the Tories would do worse and the Liberals better than I did.

Final result: CON 143, LIB 76, NDP 37, BQ 50, IND 2
PT's prediction: CON 137, LIB 80, NDP 40, BQ 49, IND 2

Curtis Brown also did very well in his predictions, beating out most other pundits; his were CON 137, LIB 86, Bloc 49, NDP 37 and Ind 2. He'd have to change the result in just 10 seats to be dead on.

Bart the fish (aka Warren Kinsella), whose prediction was 135 CON, 75 LIB, 50 Bloc, 40 NDP and "some Green stuff" was also quite close.

What now?

For the Liberals, the question will be whether Dion can hang on. I doubt he will. And that leaves Bob Rae as the frontrunner for a job that will involve a lot of party rebuilding.

For the NDP, it's onward. Though last night's seat count is their second-best result in history, there were certainly many disappointments, especially the loss of MPs Catherine Bell and Peggy Nash, being shut out of Saskatchewan for the third time and not winning more than one seat in Quebec. Those are balanced with proud wins in Alberta and Newfoundland and the near-sweep of northern Ontario.

For the Bloc, they've made it clear they're still a force to be reckoned with, but now will face continued questions of their purpose in Ottawa and whether Duceppe will continue to stick around.

For Harper, he can govern with a little bit more of a comfort level, but with opposition control of the committees in particular, the next Parliament may be as frustrating as the last. We may well be back at this in a year or two.

For me, I have a flight to catch and a short, but thankfully election- and punditry-free holiday to enjoy.

Election Oracle 2008: wrap up

2008-10-13T19:07:00.006-05:00

Prairie Topiary's predictions suggest the following result (with change since 2006 in parentheses):

Con 137 (+13)
Lib 80 (-23)
Bloc 49 (-2)
NDP 40 (+11)
Ind 2 (+1)
Green 0 (-)

I feel I’ve been fairly conservative in my predictions, usually siding with the incumbent in what I believe to be extremely close races. In particular, I’ve been fairly conservative in predicting NDP wins. Party supporters are often overzealous in predicting wins for their own party and I’d like to avoid falling into that trap. I obviously hope for higher numbers, and I won’t be terribly surprised if the party picks up ten more seats than I predicted tomorrow night. Tomorrow will tell all.

If these do turn out to be the results of tomorrow’s election, then we can expect every party to feel a mix of elation and disappointment. The Tories will be happy to have gained some extra seats, but disappointed for having failed to attain a majority. The Liberals will be relieved to see that the world didn’t end for their party, but disappointed to have lost so many seats. The NDP will be elated to see its caucus expand by 25%, but will wish they had gained more, perhaps even to surpass the Liberals or at least their best-ever seat count. The Bloc will be happy to see it hold Quebec, but will face tough questions about its purpose in the new House of Commons and after Gilles Duceppe’s departure (I’m betting he’ll step down before the next election). Finally, the Greens will be saddened to again be without any MPs in the House, but will see a silver lining in their increase in popular vote and important role in this campaign.

For comparison, here are the predictions of a few other pundits:

Democratic Space: Con 128, Lib 92, Bloc 52, NDP 34, Ind 2, Green 0

Election Prediction Project: Con 125, Lib 94, Bloc 51, NDP 36, Ind 2, Green 0

Nixtuff: Con 124, Lib 88, Bloc 51, NDP 42, Ind 2, Green 1

Paulitics: Con 131-133, Lib 80-81, Bloc 55, NDP 38-40, Ind 1-2, Green 0

Trendlines: Con 132, Lib 84, Bloc 52, NDP 39, Ind 1, Green 0

UBC Election Stock Market (rounded): Con 129, Lib 88, Bloc 48, NDP 40, Other 2

Sovereignty en Anglais: Con 123, Lib 94, Bloc 55, NDP 34, Ind 2, Green 0

EKOS (Oct. 10) : Con 152, Lib 60, Bloc 57, NDP 39, Other 0

LISPOP: Con 135, Lib 87, Bloc 51, NDP 33, Ind 2, Green 0

Hill & Knowlton: Con 124, Lib 86, Bloc 56, NDP 42, Ind 0, Green 0

Vote for Environment projection: Con 131, Lib 85, Bloc 52, NDP 38, Other 2

Interestingly, compared to these, my results are high for the Conservatives and NDP and low for the Liberals and Bloc. Feel free to post other predictions in my comments section.

Photo: John William Waterhouse - The Crystal Ball (1902, oil on canvas)

Election Oracle 2008: BC and the North

2008-10-13T18:16:00.004-05:00

British Columbia is a true three-way race. Polls have showed buoyant Conservative numbers here. The Liberals, which many polls showed in fourth place in mid-campaign, have recovered somewhat, while the NDP, traditionally very strong in BC, are likely down in some parts of the province and up elsewhere.

Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland

In greater Vancouver and the lower mainland, there are 21 seats and, of these, eight elected Conservatives, eight elected Liberals, and five elected New Democrats. Liberal slippage, much of it to the Greens, will likely mean Conservative gains in suburban Vancouver: namely, in North Vancouver, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast and Richmond. This will mean the loss of Liberal Don Bell, turfed Liberal-turned-Green Blair Wilson, and Liberal Raymond Chan. The NDP should win the same five it won before, while Liberals will likely fend off strong challenges in Newton-North Delta (Sukh Dhaliwal), Vancouver Centre (Hedy Fry), and Vancouver-Quadra (Joyce Murray). Many expect David Emerson’s former riding of Vancouver-Kingsway to go NDP, but I think Wendy Yuan of the Liberals will eke out an extremely narrow win.

2006 result: Con 8, Lib 8, NDP 5
2008 prediction: Con 11, Lib 5, NDP 5

BC Interior

There are nine seats in BC’s interior and, in 2006, they split 7-2 Conservative-NDP. The NDP should easily hold its BC Southern Interior and Skeena-Bulkley Valley seats, plus are likely to present a strong, but ultimately unsuccessful, challenge in Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo.

2006 result: Con 7, NDP 2
2008 prediction: Con 7, NDP 2

Vancouver Island

There are six seats on Vancouver Island: 3 NDP, 2 Conservative, 1 Liberal. With the NDP candidate withdrawing in Saanich-Gulf Islands, the Liberals and Greens are both eyeing this seat. The race will be closer than ever, but I think the Conservative will prevail as the opposition vote splits.

Neighbouring Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is also a close race, perhaps too close to call. Liberal – once Reform Party – MP Keith Martin is fending off very strong challenges from both the Conservatives and NDP, the latter team of which gained a pile of volunteers following the events in Saanich-GI. I will call this race narrowly for the incumbent.

In Vancouver Island North perennial competitors Catherine Bell of the NDP (currently the MP) and John Duncan of the Conservatives (formerly the MP) are again facing off. A mere 600 votes separated the two last time. I predict slight momentum for the Conservatives here, meaning that John Duncan will likely regain his seat.

2006 result: Con 2, Lib 1, NDP 3
2008 prediction: Con 3, Lib 1, NDP 2

BC Provincial total

2006 result: Con 17, Lib 9, NDP 10
2008 prediction: Con 21, Lib 6, NDP 9

Northern Canada

I’m also including the three northern seats (one for each Territory) here. The Liberals will easily hold the Yukon, while the NDP will easily hold Western Arctic. The wild card is Nunavut, where prominent candidates for all four parties are running. I place my bet on former territorial cabinet minister Leona Aglukkaq, who is running for the Conservatives.

2006 result: Con 0, Lib 2, NDP 1
2008 prediction: Con 1, Lib 1, NDP 1

Election Oracle 2008: Alberta

2008-10-13T17:30:00.004-05:00

In Alberta, election drama comes at a premium price. Who won every seat in 2006? Who’s likely to again win every seat? Who always wins? Yeah, you guessed it.

In this campaign, only the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona has a real chance of electing a non-Tory. There, NDP candidate Linda Duncan is running a very high-profile campaign. In 2006, she came less than 5,000 votes from toppling MP Rahim Jaffer. This time, known Liberals have been endorsing Duncan while Layton has been visiting Edmonton a bunch of times. The race is truly neck-and-neck. It’s hard to defeat an incumbent, so I’m predicting a slim Tory hold. I hope I’m wrong.

A couple of other candidates have longer shot odds of winning. These are former Alberta NDP leader Ray Martin running in Edmonton East (the only federal Alberta riding the NDP’s ever held), independent Jimmy Ford in Edmonton-Sherwood Park, and Liberal James Wachowich in Edmonton Centre (Anne McLellan’s old riding). I predict Conservative wins in these ridings.

2006 result: Con 28
2008 prediction: Con 28

Election Oracle 2008: Atlantic Canada

2008-10-13T16:40:00.006-05:00

In Atlantic Canada, the Tories were set for larger gains, but have slid in the last half of the campaign. While they are weak in Nova Scotia and face Danny Williams’s ABC campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are likely to win additional seats in New Brunswick. The NDP is also very strong in the region, but may have difficulty translating the increased support into additional seats.

Newfoundland and Labrador

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Danny Williams has led the ABC ("Anyone but Conservative") campaign against the federal Tories. Given Williams’s popularity, two of the three Conservative MPs for the province have opted not to run again. That leaves only the riding of Avalon, where I predict Conservative MP Fabian Manning will squeak through, despite the ABC campaign. In St. John’s, the NDP is running a strong campaign and will prevail in St. John’s East with former provincial leader Jack Harris as candidate. Though it's a close race, I predict the Liberals will take the city’s other riding, St. John’s West. The Liberals will clean up in the province’s remaining ridings.

2006 result: Con 3, Lib 4, NDP 0
2008 prediction: Con 1, Lib 5, NDP 1

Prince Edward Island

In PEI, the Liberals are likely to sail to victory in three ridings, but face a tough challenge in Egmont, the province’s fourth riding. There, former PEI Transportation Minister Gail Shea is attempting to win for the Conservatives and is ahead by several points, according to at least one riding poll. Nevertheless, I think the Liberals will hold this riding for yet another sweep of the province.

2006 result: Lib 4
2008 prediction: Lib 4

Nova Scotia

In Nova Scotia, the Conservatives are down several points, and up against Green leader Elizabeth May in Central Nova, former Conservative MP Bill Casey, who is running as an independent in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, and a number of strong NDP and Liberal candidates.

I predict a relatively easy hold for McKay in Central Nova and a tighter win for Gerald Keddy in South Shore-St. Margaret's against former NDP MP Gordon Earle. They Tories are likely to lose in close races against Bill Casey in the seat they formerly held and against Robert Thibault, the Liberal MP in West Nova who manages to offend someone every time he speaks.

The NDP are very strong and will easily retain their two seats. While they are putting on very impressive campaigns in Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, Central Nova, and South Shore-St. Margaret's, I predict no additional seats. With their strength in areas such as Cape Breton, the Liberals will likely easily hold their remaining seats.

2006 result: Con 3, Lib 6, NDP 2, Ind 0
2008 prediction: Con 2, Lib 6, NDP 2, Ind 1

New Brunswick

New Brunswick is the Atlantic province where the Conservatives stand the greatest chance of gaining seats. They will likely win in Fredericton, where the Liberal incumbent is not running again, and the three-way race of Madawaska—Restigouche, where former NB cabinet minister Jean-Pierre Ouellet is running. Saint John, where incumbent Liberal Paul Zed is facing former Tory MLA Rodney Weston, is the hardest race to predict, but I’m going to call it for the Conservatives given the very narrow Liberal win in 2006 and the Tory history of the riding (remember Elsie Wayne?).

2006 result: Con 3, Lib 6, NDP 1
2008 prediction: Con 6, Lib 3, NDP 1

Atlantic Canada total

2006 result: Con 9, Lib 20, NDP 3, Ind 0
2008 prediction: Con 9, Lib 18, NDP 4, Ind 1

Election Oracle 2008: Quebec

2008-10-13T16:34:00.005-05:00

In Quebec, at the start of the campaign, the Tories were all set to scoop up perhaps up to 20 seats from the Bloc. But that all changed as the Bloc, aided by the other opposition parties, were able to make the arts funding cuts a major issue in Quebec. As Tory numbers plummeted to below their 2006 level, the Bloc continued to rise. It may be that the Bloc’s surge has abated, but for the Tories, the damage has been done: the majority is denied.

The Liberals remain strong in Montreal, and may win some Bloc seats there, but are a non-player in most regions outside the city. The NDP has seen its support more than double in the province, with strength in Montreal and the capital region, but that seems to have subsided late in the campaign. The Conservatives will struggle to hold on to their seats, while the Bloc will emerge from the campaign seemingly renewed.

Montreal region

In the region of Montreal, there are 22 seats, of which 10 were won by the Bloc and 12 by the Liberals in 2006. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair later won the long-time Liberal seat of Outremont in a by-election and looks set to be re-elected there. The NDP is running a very strong campaign in Westmount-Ville Marie with star candidate Anne Lagacé-Dowson, but I predict a Liberal hold. The only other changes for this region are two Bloc seats that will likely be re-taken by the Liberals: former MP Eleni Bakopanos who lost by less than 1,000 votes in 2006 is running in Ahuntsic and will likely take that seat, while Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre, is running in a very tight race in Papineau and will likely defeat Bloc MP Vivian Barbot. Thierry St. Cyr, the Bloc MP for Jeanne-Le Ber, will likely hold his seat, despite a strong challenge from both the Liberals and NDP.

2006 result: Lib 12, Bloc 10, NDP 0
2008 prediction: Lib 13, Bloc 8, NDP 1

Northern Quebec

Northern Quebec has ten seats, of which nine were won by the Bloc in 2006. The Conservatives won one seat here in 2006 and added another in a 2007 by-election. I predict the Conservatives will hold their two seats, including Jonquière-Alma, where polls apparently show the Bloc ahead of Tory MP Jean Pierre Blackburn. The Bloc should easily hold their remaining eight seats.

2006 result: Con 1, Bloc 9
2008 prediction: Con 2, Bloc 8

Rest of Quebec

The rest of Quebec, which comprises a variety of very different regions, contains 43 seats. In 2006, 32 went Bloc, while 9 went Conservative, one went Liberal, and one elected an independent. The rise in Bloc fortunes has shifted the political scene toward one very similar to 2006 and I expect remarkably few changes as a result.

The only change I do predict is that the Conservatives will lose MP Luc Harvey in Louis-Hébert. While they’ll hold the rest of their seats, they’ll be disappointed when Senator Michael Fortier loses in Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Independent quasi-Tory MP André Arthur will have no problem being re-elected in his riding.

As for challengers, in Brome-Mississquoi, it looks like the Bloc’s strength will ensure that Liberal Denis Paradis will fail in his comeback bid. In Gatineau and Hull-Aylmer, two seats very heavily targeted by the NDP, I predict re-election for the Bloc and Liberal candidates, respectively. In Rimouski, where Bloc-turned-Independent MP Louise Thibault is running, expect the new Bloc candidate to win. The Bloc should also win again in the closely watched ridings of Sherbrooke, Saint-Lambert, and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.

2006 result: Con 9, Bloc 32, Lib 1, NDP 0, Ind 1
2008 prediction: Con 8, Bloc 33, Lib 1, NDP 0, Ind 1

Provincial total

2006 result: Con 10, Bloc 51, Lib 13, NDP 0, Ind 1
2008 prediction: Con 10, Bloc 49, Lib 14, NDP 1, Ind 1

Election Oracle 2008: Ontario

2008-10-13T15:44:00.006-05:00

In Ontario, the NDP has seen its numbers soar, with noted strength in Toronto, industrial regions, and northern Ontario. In suburban and exurban areas, the Liberals have seen losses to the Greens in particular, which has endangered many Liberal incumbents hoping to fend off Tory challenges. Had the bad economic news of the last couple of weeks not happened, the Tories would likely have cleaned up in many parts of the province. Instead, the Liberals saw a bit of a bump in their numbers and go into tomorrow’s election having likely reduced the number of losses they’ll see.

GTA/905 belt

In the GTA/905 region, into which I’m including Hamilton, Welland and Niagara Falls, there are 54 seats. The Liberals won 37 of these in 2006, leaving just 11 for the Conservatives and 6 for the NDP.

For this election, I’m predicting that the NDP’s Marilyn Churley will pick up Beaches-East York, knocking off Liberal MP Maria Minna. Peggy Nash will also fend off Liberal leadership contender Gerard Kennedy’s attempt to retake Parkdale-High Park, while Liberals hopes of making a return to Hamilton will also fail. In Welland, the NDP’s Malcolm Allen is likely to defeat sitting Liberal MP John Maloney, while in Oshawa, CAW activist Mike Shields will likely defeat Tory MP Colin Carrie by a very small margin. The NDP also threaten incumbents in Davenport and York South-Weston, but I predict the Liberals will hold on to those.

The Liberals also face losses to the Conservatives in this region. In Mississauga, Liberals Paul Szabo and Omar Alghabra are likely to face defeat, while floor crosser currently-Tory Wahid Khan will survive a strong Liberal challenge. Finally, Belinda Stronach’s old seat of Newmarket Aurora will return to the Tory fold under Lois Brown, while another Brown – Oakville Liberal MP Bonnie Brown – will see her seat move to the Tory side of the House.

2006 result: Con 11, Lib 37, NDP 6
2008 prediction: Con 15, Lib 30, NDP 9

Southwestern Ontario

Southwestern Ontario has 22 seats, in which 12 went Conservative, 7 went Liberal, and 3 went NDP in 2006. The Liberals have dropped somewhat throughout the region, while the NDP is strong in and around the Windsor region. Even a small decline in numbers for the Liberals will send three of their seats (Brant, Huron-Bruce and London West) into the Tory fold, which is what I expect to occur.

In this region, many eyes will be on Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Guelph for the strong Green challenges in those ridings (and a fantastic candidate for the NDP, Tom King, in Guelph), but I predict a Tory win in the former and a Liberal win in the latter. Some also speak of NDP strength in Essex, which neighbours Windsor; I predict the Tory will hold there.

2006 result: Con 12, Lib 7, NDP 3
2008 prediction: Con 15, Lib 4, NDP 3

Eastern Ontario

There are 20 seats in eastern Ontario, which includes the capital region, and it strongly voted Conservative in 2006. Only parts of Ottawa and Kingston managed to elect non-Tory MPs.

In this election, I predict no seat changes for the region. Liberal David McGuinty is perhaps most at risk of losing his seat, but I predict a Liberal hold. A lot of noise has been made about Ottawa Liberals Penny Collenette and David Pratt taking on NDP MP Paul Dewar and Tory MP John Baird, respectively, but both MPs will easily coast to re-election.

2006 result: Con 16, Lib 3, NDP 1
2008 prediction: Con 16, Lib 3, NDP 1

Northern Ontario

In northern Ontario, the NDP has been surging and Liberal incumbents are running scared. The NDP’s strong campaign, including its release of a northern Ontario platform and the relatively high profile of a number of its candidates, has help the party build on existing strengths in the region. Expect the party to pick up both Thunder Bay seats, plus Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing and Nickel Belt from the Liberals. I also predict a narrow win for the NDP in Kenora’s three-way race, but a loss against Sudbury Liberal Diane Marleau.

2006 result: Con 1, Lib 7, NDP 2
2008 prediction: Con 1, Lib 2, NDP 7

Provincial total

2006 result: Con 40, Lib 54, NDP 12
2008 prediction: Con 47, Lib 39, NDP 20

Election Oracle 2008: MB and SK

2008-10-13T14:30:00.007-05:00

Here are the first of my regional predictions. Others will follow shortly.

Manitoba
In Manitoba, expect the Conservatives to hold all their seats, plus pick up St. Boniface from the Liberals, who won it by only 1,500 votes in the last election. The Liberals are also likely to lose Churchill to NDP candidate Niki Ashton, leaving them with just one seat of the 14 in Manitoba.

2006 result: Con 8, Lib 3, NDP 3
2008 prediction: Con 9, Lib 1, NDP 4

Saskatchewan
I also predict few changes for neighbouring Saskatchewan. There’s been a lot of talk about Liberal Ralph Goodale facing a tough challenge from the Conservatives. Others have suggested that Conservatives Tom Lukiwski and Andrew Scheer might be in tough fights with the NDP. Still others point to newly elected Tory MP Robert Clarke struggling to fend off Liberal David Orchard. I expect all these MPs to be re-elected.

Where the races are interesting are in two seats in which incumbents are not running for re-election: Palliser and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. Both seats feature close races between the Conservatives and the NDP. I think former Moose Jaw Mayor Ray Boughen will take Palliser for the Conservatives, while the NDP’s Nettie Wiebe will prevail in Saskatoon.

2006 result: Con 12, Lib 2, NDP 0
2008 prediction: Con 12, Lib 1, NDP 1

Election Oracle 2008

2008-10-12T13:09:00.010-05:00

Prairie Topiary's Election Oracle is back!

I'll post detailed province-by-province predictions here on Monday afternoon after I take a glance at the last of Nanos's daily tracking polls.

This weekend's polls show the Conservatives recovering some of the points they lost to the Liberals in the past week. The Conservatives are still down significantly in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, while the NDP looks to be down a few points in BC. Nanos shows the NDP's numbers holding strong at 22% nationally, which is probably the highest they've been all campaign. I suspect that the NDP pretty much neutralized any strategic voting lure of the Liberals, though a decline in their numbers tomorrow might suggest otherwise.

Of course, accurate predictions require something more than just poll numbers. They have to include consideration of regional swings, the influence of "star" personalities and the added recognition factor that comes from being an incumbent, as well as the role of strong local organization and "top of mind" brand status (e.g., Greens are less "top of mind" and tend to worse than the polls suggest on election day, while the opposite is often the case for the Liberals). Anticipating last minute shifts in support can also be key.

I may yet change these numbers, but right now I'm predicting the following:

Conservative minority (141 seats)

Liberal Official Opposition (76 seats)

Bloc (49 seats)

NDP (40 seats)

Independent 2

Green 0

That's a notable increase in seats for the Conservatives and NDP at the expense of the Liberals. It's not inconceivable that the NDP could surpass its highest ever popular vote (20.4% in 1988) and seat count (it held 44 seats following a win in a 1989 byelection). Passing the Bloc to become the third largest party in the House might also be possible, but passing the Liberals is unlikely, as that could only come through a Liberal meltdown in Toronto and Atlantic Canada, two areas where Liberal numbers appear to have been strengthening in the last week.

Stay tuned for more details tomorrow.

Photo: A female bowl bearer or mboko from the Luba culture in the Congo. Traditionally, bowl bearers are used by royal diviners to predict the future.

Independents, Greens to watch on election day

2008-10-05T15:01:00.006-05:00

In this election, a number of ridings feature interesting independent and Green candidates. A few stand a legitimate chance of winning and several threaten to influence the final outcome on election day, but most will be simply noted for their colourful role in the campaign.

Here’s a summary of the independents, in rough descending order of anticipated impact on the final election result.

Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier, QC
André Arthur, the only independent MP elected in 2006, is a virtual shoo-in this time around. The right-wing former radio host votes with the Tories so frequently that they decided not to bother running a candidate against him. For all intents and purposes, this is a Tory candidate, though he’s likely too much of a maverick and too controversial (some say racist over his remarks about African students) to ever join the Tory caucus. Other parties nominated candidates only at the last minute. Expect Mr. Arthur to be easily re-elected.

Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Bill Casey is a the Conservative MP who was booted out of caucus for voting against the 2007 Conservative budget, given his belief that it betrayed the Atlantic Accord with his province and Newfoundland and Labrador. Very popular locally in this typically safe Conservative riding, he is likely the candidate to beat in this election.

Rimouski-Neigette–Témiscouata–Les Basques, QC
Louise Thibault was a socially conservative Bloc MP who quit the party over differences with left-leaning leader Gilles Duceppe. She’s running a strong campaign as an independent, which is likely to split the Bloc's vote and make this race what may be one of Canada’s first five-way races (the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are all contenders to some degree). With the Bloc recent resurgence, I anticipate a loss to the new Bloc candidate, Claude Guimond.

Welland, ON
Past NDP candidate Jody DiBartolomeo decided to run as an independent after losing the nomination to Malcolm Allen, a local councillor, deputy Mayor and CAW rep. The poor sport, who put in a very impressive second place showing for the NDP in 2006, threatens to split the NDP vote in this very tight three-way race.

Cardigan, PEI
Larry McGuire, brother of Egmont Liberal MP Joe McGuire, is running as an independent in Cardigan. Larry McGuire is known for controversially suggesting in 2006 that “fat-cat, well-heeled Tories” in provincial government jobs would be replaced by Liberals if that party was elected to government in P.E.I. The Liberal leader refused to sign his nomination papers, after which point he decided to run provincially as an independent, earning 19% of the vote. He’s back at it again and, while he stands little chance of winning, there is a possibility he could draw enough votes from Liberal MP Lawrence MacAuley to cause him to lose to the Tory candidate.

Kildonan–St. Paul, MB
Ex-Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes is now running as an independent after being turfed from the Liberal party over a column she wrote a number of years ago. While she’ll likely pull in several thousand votes on election day, her presence in the campaign is unlikely to have any effect on the final outcome in this race, where Tory MP Joy Smith is expected to be re-elected.

Calgary Northeast, AB
Local cab company founder Roger Richard decided to run as an “independent conservative” after losing the Conservative nomination to replace MP Art Hanger. He alleges “unscrupulous nomination practices” are to blame for his loss to winner Devinder Shory, a lawyer. Despite running a relatively high-profile campaign, Richard is likely to come up short against Shory, whose party took 65% of the vote in 2006.

Edmonton-Sherwood Park, AB
Another riding with controversy over the Conservatives’ nomination process features an independent candidate. James Ford, a former Tory, is running against Tory Tim Uppal, in protest against rules that allowed the Tory to win by announcing a run at the last minute and stacking the meeting with supporters. In 2006, the Tories won with 64% of the vote, far ahead of the next closest rival with 14%. Expect an easy Tory win despite the controversy.

While the Greens appear unlikely to elect any MPs on October 14th, they will put in an impressive showing in a number of ridings across the country, particularly in suburban/exurban Ontario and BC. Here’s a summary of the ridings to watch, including all those in which they earned at least 10% of the vote in 2006. If the Greens were ever to shoot up further in the polls, these are the seats they'd be most likely to start winning.

Central Nova, NS
Green party leader Elizabeth May is running against Conservative incumbent Peter MacKay and NDP candidate Louise Lorefice in what, by all accounts, is an uphill battle for her. In 2006, the Green candidate received only 671 votes, a mere 1.6%, in what is a traditional Conservative riding. Recent polling also shows Green Party support lower in Atlantic Canada than anywhere else but Quebec. Still, with their leader running here, this remains one of the Green Party’s best hopes for electing an MP.

Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Ard Van Leeuwen is the Green candidate in a riding in which they earned an impressive 10% in 2006. Gains made largely at the expense of the Liberal Party in this Tory riding may push Van Leeuwen over the 20% mark.

Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, ON
Dick Hibma is running for the Greens in a riding where their 2006 result was 13%, which was one of their strongest showings in the country. In the last provincial election, the party won a whopping 33%, a result which put them second to the Conservative candidate. In this election, they stand a strong chance of placing a distant second behind Conservative MP Larry Miller.

Guelph, ON
Mike Nagy ran a strong campaign during the by-election that was superseded by the current federal campaign. The federal campaign inevitably focuses on two or three national leaders, which will probably result in lower support for Nagy than the by-election, where the focus is much more on the strength of the local candidates, would have. Near the close of the by-election, a Green Party-sponsored poll placed Nagy’s support at 24%, behind the first place Liberal. The race nevertheless remains one of four serious contenders, with the Liberal and Tory most likely to duke it out for first place.

London North Centre, ON
Mary Ann Hodge is running for the Greens in the riding in which Elizabeth May captured 26% of the vote while running as the candidate in 2006. Without such a high-profile candidate, expect the Greens to sink back down to a respectable 10% to 15% of the vote this time around.

Ottawa Centre, ON
The Green Party’s deputy leader, David Chernushenko, won 10% here in 2006 and was set to run again, but withdrew as the party’s candidate. While Jen Hunter, the party’s new candidate, is likely to carry her party’s share of the vote to a higher echelon, the result in this relatively safe NDP riding is unlikely to change.

Peterborough, ON
Emily Berrigan is the candidate in Peterborough, an area the Greens cited as having the fastest growing membership in Ontario in early 2007. While the party is likely to see an increase from the 5% it received in 2006, the Conservative MP is likely to be re-elected, while the Liberals and NDP fight it out for second place.

Calgary Centre-North, AB
Eric Donovan is the Green candidate in a riding that voted 13% Green in 2006, making it one of the party’s strongest ridings in one of its strongest cities. Like in the other Calgary ridings, expect the Conservative candidate to be elected in a landslide while the other candidates duke it out for second place.

Calgary Centre, AB
Kim Warnke is the Green party’s candidate in Calgary Centre, where the Greens received 11% in 2006.

Calgary West, AB
Randall Weeks is the Green party’s candidate in Calgary West, where the Greens received 10% in 2006.

Wild Rose, AB
Lisa Fox is running in Wild Rose, a riding that includes Airdrie, Cochrane, Canmore, and Banff. The Greens came in second place in 2006, with 11% of the vote.

British Columbia Southern Interior
This currently NDP seat includes left-leaning communities of BC, such as Nelson. Those same communities provide some base for the Green Party, which earned 11% here in 2006. Andy Morel is the Green candidate in this election.

Saanich–Gulf Islands, BC
This seat may offer the Greens their most likely opportunity for winning a seat in the wake of NDP candidate Julian West’s withdrawal. Green candidate Andrew Lewis, the Party’s Deputy Leader and perennial local candidate, first made a splash when he achieved 25% in a local provincial constituency. In this election, he is facing off against Liberal candidate Briony Penn, a popular former member of the Greens and incumbent Conservative MP Gary Lunn. With Conservative numbers up in BC, the Liberal and Green candidates face an uphill battle to defeat the Tory, even with the NDP now out of the race.

Vancouver Centre, BC
Adriane Carr, the former provincial leader and another Deputy Leader of the federal Greens is running in what has been billed as a high-profile four-way race. The incumbent, Liberal Hedy Fry, faces academic Michael Byers of the NDP and former provincial politician Lorne Mayencourt of the Conservatives, in addition to Ms. Carr. With such high-profile candidates and a mere 6% 2006 base to build on, Ms. Carr faces long odds in this race.

West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast, BC
Blair Wilson, originally elected for then turfed from the Liberal Party for alleged spending irregularities, is the Green Party’s first MP, having joined the party just before the current election campaign. Facing a likely Tory win, he is unlikely to be elected under his new party’s banner.

Nunavut
Peter Ittinuar is the Green Party’s candidate in Nunavut and is best-known the first-ever Inuit person elected as MP. He brings quite a storied past, which may hamper his ability to draw votes. First elected as a New Democrat MP in 1979, he later crossed the floor to become a Liberal. When he lost that party’s nomination in 1984, he ran as an independent but was defeated. Two years later, he was convicted for assaulting his wife. He sought to run again for the NDP in 1993, but was refused the opportunity. An Ontarian these days, he also recently ran for the Green Party’s nomination in Brant, but was defeated. In this election, he has acknowledged his past mistakes and is running a strong campaign. However, he faces very strong candidates for each of the other three parties, all of whom are targeting Nunavut this time around. The Greens received 6% in this riding in 2006.

Great campaign posters

2008-09-26T13:15:00.010-05:00

Martin Patriquin points out some wonderful and hilarious campaign posters made by students of UQAM graphic design professor Nelu Wolfensohn. Definitely worth a gander.

Photo: A mock campaign poster created by UQAM students Evelyne Caillé-Guibert and Francis P. Paquin

Using bad policy to troll for votes

2008-09-25T16:45:00.009-05:00

I very rarely agree with the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente , but her piece today on the Tories' motivation for cutting arts programs and treating young offenders as adults is right on the money. Whether you think the policies are misguided or not (I do for reasons such as this and this), they're more about winning votes than solving problems.

It's possible that the arts cuts have won some votes for the Tories in Ontario's 905 belt, but they've sure backfired in Quebec, where the Bloc's numbers have just shot up about ten points at the Tories' expense.

Which polls are most accurate?

2008-09-24T11:28:00.005-05:00

Here's an interesting post from Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, a keen blogger who's analyzed the seemingly inexplicable gaps in party support that we see between pollsters' numbers, particulary between the Liberals and Greens. He illustrates why poll watchers will be wise to trust Nanos's daily releases most.

Conversion: Libs sink in BC, Dippers target QC

2008-09-23T01:20:00.012-05:00

This is interesting -- if true, we're talking about a complete meltdown of the Liberals in BC (as in possibly zero seats). Maybe Blair Wilson is far smarter than any pundits have given him credit for thus far.

The regional polls being tracked at Paulitics also confirm the NDP Quebec surge being talked about by CTV/Globe and Mail (Strategic Counsel polls of its 45 identified swing ridings). Peter Donolo of Strategic Counsel credits effective ads and newly perceived relevance following the NDP's win last year in Outremont.

The NDP publicly claims it's in the running in six to twelve seats in Quebec, but a smaller number of wins is more realistic, even if the poll numbers continue to improve. For those wondering about the most likely seats, they're as follows:

Outremont, which the NDP's Thomas Mulcair picked up in last fall's byelection. In 2006, this seat had the NDP's strongest Quebec result, at 18%. Some pundits say the Liberals are a threat to take the seat back given that they've dominated it since 1935, but that's highly unlikely given the huge margin of victory in the byelection, the fact that most Mulcair votes came from the Bloc, Mulcair's high profile as an MP since then, and the fact that the Outremont Liberals have barely got their campaign off the ground (in week three!).

Gatineau, where last election's narrowly defeated progressive Liberal MP, Francoise Boivin, is now running for the NDP. Jack has been in the riding at least twice so far this campaign (first time with the House of Commons in the background across the Ottawa River) and he'll likely be back. Dropping Bloc numbers and rising Con numbers in the province mean this is likely to be one of the few four-way races in the country.

Hull-Aylmer, which neighbours Gatineau, was the NDP's third-strongest 2006 Quebec showing (15%), and features Pierre Ducasse, a former NDP leadership contender, as candidate. Ducasse, considered a strong candidate, is taking on Marcel Proulx, a Liberal who won with only 33% of the vote in 2006.

Westmount-Ville Marie, which was called as a byelection that was then superceded by the general election. Running against Marc Garneau for the Liberals in this longtime safe Liberal seat is Anne Lagace-Dowson, a well-known CBC personality. She is considered to be in a close race in this riding, which includes not only well-off Westmount, but also more working class regions of Montreal.

Jeanne-Le Ber, a Montreal riding where Quebec Green Party co-founder and high-profile environmental activist Daniel Breton is running for the NDP. While this might be a longer shot for the party, the Bloc, who currently holds the riding, has begun shifting their focus to the NDP as their primary challenger.

Those are the five most likely Quebec NDP wins, though a few other Montreal seats are also in play to some degree. I'm currently predicting wins in only Outremont and Gatineau, though that could very well change from here to the end of the campaign.

The one seat that isn't being talked about much as a potential pick-up for the NDP is one of the poorest ridings in Canada and one in which the NDP had its second-best showing of any Quebec seat in 2006: Laurier-Ste. Marie, currently held by Gilles Duceppe. If the NDP were to double its support in this seat, as polls for the Montreal area suggest is about right, it would be a hair away from winning. While I think it an unlikely win for the NDP this time, a good showing will leave it ripe for the taking once Duceppe retires as many expect him to before the subsequent election.

Sometime soon, Prairie Topiary will once again host its election oracle, featuring wondrous and amazing predictions for the coming election. Stay tuned.

Photo: The interior of the Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal, the city where the NDP's Quebec strength is currently concentrated.

Free Press Insiders polls

2008-09-19T12:30:00.010-05:00

Is it just me or is the Winnipeg Free Press taking some liberties in the way that it's publishing the results of its Free Press Insiders polls?

The Free Press seems to be portraying the results as if they're representative of voting intentions in Manitoba and in specific Manitoba ridings. However, the poll isn't a random sample of eligible voters; it's a large Internet panel of Free Press readers. As such, the poll results are, at best, only representative of Free Press readers.

If the panelists differ from electors in their voting intentions -- something that's certainly possible given that the panelists are disproportionately Internet-savvy newspaper readers -- then the published numbers aren't indicative of party standings.

Elections Canada has some very specific rules associated with the publishing of election polls. These include indicating a poll's margin of error and whether the survey was not conducted using recognized statistical methods. I don't see either in the Free Press article.

Clearly, if a margin of error applies to these results, it should be indicated along with a note that riding-by-riding numbers are less robust than the province-wide numbers. If a margin of error doesn't apply because the poll isn't scientific, then that should be made clear in the article.

Even if Elections Canada's requirements were met in an adjoining article I missed, omitting the standard caveats from a presentation of the poll results threatens to mislead the voting public. For those thinking of voting strategically and relying on the Free Press to inform themselves, that's a big problem.

SEPT 26 UPDATE: Accompanying today's Free Press Insider poll results is a cautionary note that the poll results "do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire Winnipeg or Manitoba poplation" along with more information about the sample size and methodology. The inclusion of this information represents a big improvement -- it's clear and allows readers to put the poll results in context.

Dreaming big

2008-09-14T13:38:00.010-05:00

Following a stream of historically poor Liberal poll numbers, some campaign observers are beginning to ask whether the NDP is about to surpass the Liberals (see here, here and here) and form Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the next parliament.

Indeed, the big fantasy of the federal NDP, and likely a prerequisite for the party to ever become a true national contender for power, has always been to surpass the Liberal Party. New Democrtas believe this milestone would give rise to a new political polarization between the right and left, thus damning the Liberals to the political wilderness forever.

This thinking is never far from the minds of NDP strategists, who face the tricky task of fighting the Tories without inadvertently sinking themselves by helping the Liberals who, for their part, adeptly hug the middle, adopting the rhetoric and policies of the right or the left in whatever combination is most likely to win them power.

The model of political polarization the NDP seeks emerged in Britain in the first half of the 20th century as the Labour Party surpassed the Liberals, who were never again to taste power. Canadian examples can be found in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC, though sometimes this is in a two-party system with the Liberals on the right (e.g., Saskatchewan's anti-medicare Liberals of the 1960s and 1970s and the current right-leaning Liberals in BC, who replaced the Social Credit Party there). Polarization is arguably occurring in Nova Scotia where the NDP appears close to winning power and the Liberals slip further into third place every election.

The big question: can it happen federally? As things stand, the New Democrats are likely to make gains and the Liberals likely to suffer losses, but can the shift be dramatic enough for the NDP to form Official Opposition? Some polls show the gap between the two parties to be as little as 3%, a level of competitiveness not seen since around 1990.

So what would it take?

First, it's important to note that the NDP need not necessarily surpass the Liberals in popular vote to surpass them in seats. This is because, generally-speaking, the Liberals' votes tend to be more evenly spread than either the Conservatives' or the NDPs' votes, which tend to be concentrated in particular areas. This tends to make the Liberals more efficient than other parties at converting votes into seats when they're popular but less inefficient than other parties when they're unpopular. In 1984, the Liberal-NDP gap was 28% to 19%, but the seat gap was only 40-30. Another percentage point or two might have pushed the NDP into second.

To come in second in this election, the NDP would likely have to win at least 60 seats or so, with the Liberals falling below that number. The losses for the Liberals in Ontario, where they won 54 seats in 2006, would have to especially large. Specifically, we'd need to see the following:

Ontario

Liberal numbers would have to drop below 30% from the mid-to-high 30s where they are now, while the NDP would have to climb 5 points or so to the low 20s, with noted strength in northern Ontario. The Tories would break 40%. Liberal losses to both the Conservatives and NDP, plus bleeding to the Greens in vulnerable suburban ridings, would result in a seat count of something like this:
Con 55 / Lib 28 / NDP 23 (2006: Con 40 / Lib 54 / NDP 12)

Quebec

Bloc numbers would have to stay over 30%, around where they're hovering now, as continued Bloc leakage to the Tories and NDP will produce new victories for the Liberals. The Tories would have to stay around their current 30% while the the NDP approached 20% (up from about 15% now). This might yield something like this:
Bloc 33 / Con 23 / Lib 14 / NDP 4 / Ind 1
(2006: Bloc 51 / Con 10 / Lib 13 / Ind 1)

Atlantic Canada

The Tories would need to gain only a few points (to maybe 36%) at the expense of the Liberals for them to steal a number of close Liberal seats in Nova Scotia, PEI and especially New Brunswick. This would offset Tory losses that are all but guaranteed in NL (a victim of Danny Williams's ABC campaign). The NDP, who are already up a few points over their 22% in 2006, would have to eke out a few new victories in St. John's and Nova Scotia. In seats, that would probably come out to something like this:
Con 14 / Lib 10 / NDP 7 / Ind 1
(2006: Con 9 / Lib 20 / NDP 3)

Prairies

On the prairies, a couple of points gained for the NDP over their 2006 numbers could give them up to five more seats (I can't see the party winning more than three in Saskatchewan). The Tories would have to win some, lose some, leaving the Liberals with 1-2 seats in total on the Prairies. That would leave something like the following seat count:
Con 46 / NDP 8 / Lib 2 (2006: Con 48 / NDP 3 / Lib 5)

BC

NDP numbers have been strengthening in BC in the last week. Two or three more points would put them over 30% and win them a few new seats at the expense of both other parties. The Liberals, who are bleeding to the Greens in suburban Vancouver, would see some seat losses to the Tories. That could leave the situation something like this:
Con 18 / NDP 17 / Lib 1 (2006: Con 17 / NDP 10 / Lib 9)

North

A territorial seat for each party as the Cons pick up Nunavut:
Con 1 / Lib 1 / NDP 1 (2006: Lib 2 / NDP 1)

Nationally

In order to make the above happen, the NDP would need something in the range of 22%, while the Liberals could have no more than about 26%. In addition, the shift in numbers would have to be in the right regions. The above seat counts total as follows:
Con 157 / NDP 60 / Lib 56 / Bloc 33 / Ind 2
(2006: Con 124 / Lib 103 / NDP 29 / Bloc 51 / Ind 1)

The above exercise, apart from being fun (it's still more fun than realistic at this point), suggests it's narrowly possible for the NDP to surpass the Liberals. I would suggest that it remains an uphill battle for the NDP and that they shouldn't underestimate the Liberals. Still, a lot can happen in the one month of campaign that remains.

If the Liberals somehow do tank and make a historically poor showing on October 14, they really shouldn't blame Dion, who seems to be a rather decent, intelligent politician. Rather, for a number of reasons, they can place the blame squarely on this fellow.

Photo: The House of Commons (facing the government side)

If I were a rich man...

2008-09-09T19:56:00.011-05:00

I wonder if this scene from the musical Fiddler On The Roof is what Dion had in mind when he announced on Tuesday that he's not a rich man.

It does make me wonder: did the Liberals not see this campaign coming? First, they were forced to scramble to secure a campaign plane (and ended up with a real gas guzzler). Now, they've suddenly realized that Dion's image needs a makeover and are trying to recast him as just a regular guy -- why didn't they do that a year ago?

Some other thoughts and observations on the campaign thus far:

You have to wonder about Ontario Liberal Premier McGuinty's decision not to endorse his federal counterparts. Apparently, he doesn't want to worsen his already abysmally poor relationship with feds. If that doesn't tell us how far ahead the Tories are in this campaign and how unlikely the Liberals are to win, I don't know what does.
The puffin poop Tory ad that was all over the new today blew up in the Tories' faces, as it well should have. Have they forgotten how their ad making fun of Chretien's paralysis backfired several years ago? Perhaps the Tories' punishment should fit the crime -- straight to bed with no dessert, plus grounding for one week.
I was somewhat surprised that May was barred from the televised debates given that the criteria for entry has always been to have a minimum of one MP, which the Greens have now met. Ironically, the Liberals, who pushed for May's inclusion, would likely have the most to fear from May's participation, as polls show it's them bleeding the most to the Greens, particularly in Ontario (confirming some comments I made previously).
One new EKOS poll puts the Liberals at the historically low level of 24%, only narrowly ahead of the NDP, at 19%. Similarly, a second poll (by pollster Segma Unimarketing, which I've never heard of until now) put them at 25% to the Conservatives' whopping 43%. The federal Liberals, one of the most successful political parties in the western world, have only received that low a share of vote once -- in 1867! In 1984, their next worst performance, the Liberals converted 28% of the popular vote into just 40 seats.
The NDP might be the only party to run a full slate of 308 candidates in this election. The Tories have bowed out of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier to help Independent MP André Arthur in Quebec, while the Liberals are of course not running against Elizabeth May in Central Nova, whose party isn't fielding candidates against either Stephane Dion in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville or former Conservative Bill Casey in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.
On Monday, Young Liberals heckled Jack Layton for borrowing Liberal votes in the last election instead of focusing on Harper. They claim that attacking the Liberals in 2006 split the anti-Harper vote and helped elect him. Now, if they really believed that, would they not be busy heckling at Tory rallies instead?
With PQ leader Pauline Marois undergoing surgery, the Bloc loses an important campaign ally (Marois had planned to stump for Duceppe). That party is desperately struggling to stop the loss of support to the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, the NDP (a just-posted Globe article suggests the Bloc may have slowed the Tory momentum in Quebec).
New Stephane Dion website: http://www.thisisdion.ca/. I wonder how many fans looking for this website will accidentally wind up at the Liberal leader's site.
Finally, there are some great online resources for political junkies who just can't get enough. Pundit's Guide is an amazing database of candidates, contests and results. Paulitics and niXtuff provide regular tracking of polls. The Globe's, Canwest's and the CBC's sites provide additional articles, polls, and punditry. Independent sites nodice.ca, Election Prediction Project are also great resources. Democratic Space will launch its election coverage on Sept. 14.

A two-horse race and other pre-election myths

2008-09-02T18:17:00.009-05:00

Today's Globe and Mail pretty much stole the headline I was planning for a blog post: Harper Tories On The Brink Of Majority. This might come as a shock to some pundits who keep looking to tied polling numbers as the be all-end all source of election analysis, so let's bust a few pre-election myths.

Myth: Harper's calling an election, but even he doesn't think he'll get a majority

Reality: The Canadian public are majority-wary and the Tories know this, so of course they're going to downplay their chances. Even if some polls show them hovering somewhere between 32% and 35%, that's only a few points short of majority territory, and they're extraordinarily well-organized and flush with cash. While they sure wouldn't mind a stronger minority and sticking it to the Liberals, as Tom Flanagan suggests, make no mistake -- they're gunning for a majority government and they just might get it.

Myth: The Liberals are neck-and-neck with the Tories and have a decent shot at winning

Reality: Party leaders rarely make gains in their first election campaign, and the odds are even worse for a leader going into the campaign with baggage in the form of a poor image, an unpopular campaign plank, fundraising challenges (now that the days of handouts from corporate Canada are gone), and close to a quarter of the caucus opting not to run again. Those who think the Liberals are in the game to win might want to ask why the party has done absolutely all it could in the last year to avoid an election.

Myth: The NDP is losing ground to the Greens

Reality: Most polls show the NDP holding all or nearly all of its 2006 levels of support and, while the Greens are still up a little over their 2006 levels, most of this added support is in Liberal-friendly suburban Ontario (though even that may vanish as the Liberals continue their fine tradition of "borrowing" the policy planks of other parties).

The NDP hopes to build on its 2006 support with a now-seasoned and well-recognized leader (no campaign gaffes as in 2004), the best-financed and most competitve campaign in the history of the party, a surprising number of "star" candidates who have emerged to run for the party in non-traditional areas, and Liberal slippage to the right (Tory success tends to throw NDP-Liberal battles to the NDP). This should produce new victories in Montreal and Gatineau, northern ridings, industrial Ontario (especially in the wake of news like this), and pockets of support in the West.

Myth: Winning or not, the Greens are more principled than the other parties

Reality: Desperate to do anything to meet the one MP threshold to join the leader's debates, the Greens recently welcomed into their ranks an MP who was kicked out of the Liberal Party for spending irregularities. With their hug-a-Liberal strategy backfiring as the Liberals steal their carbon tax plank, expect the Greens to make a lot of noise and gain a few points in the popular vote, but wind up with a big donut for seats.

A very rough early prediction:

Cons ~152
Libs ~85
NDP ~39
Bloc ~32

Image: Thomas Kelly, "The False Start," 1858. Hand-colored lithograph depicting Jerome Park Racetrack, New York City.

More Tory spam

2008-08-27T09:30:00.011-05:00

I arrived home last night to find not one, but two MP mailings in my mailbox. Both came from Conservative MPs in other provinces.

I had to laugh when I saw Calgary MP Rob Anders's piece about ending the Wheat Board's monopoly on barley and asking who I think is on the right track for farmers. I live in Winnipeg Centre, which is neither a Tory target nor does it feature very many barley farmers. In fact, if the neighbours are growing any crops at all, I can bet you it isn't barley. Slick targeting, guys.

The other mailing, from Edmonton Tory MP Rahim Jaffer, features typical Tory-style incendiary statements on crime.

Both ten-percenters, as they're known, are outrightly partisan pre-election mailings sent courtesy of Canadian taxpayers (so much for the party of "fiscal prudence"). Each one ends neatly with a picture of a ballot featuring four political party leaders.

I have no problem with MPs sending out informational mailings nor even of some political party financing, but this is way over the top. Aside from the wastefulness, are Jaffer's and Anders's constituents not being ripped off where MP communications are concerned, as what would otherwise stand as information from their MP appears instead as crass political advertising in other provinces?

In the case of Jaffer, the only Alberta MP with a reasonable chance of being defeated in the next election (by the NDP's Linda Duncan), he might be wise to keep his focus a little closer to home.

In the coming days, as we approach an election call, I'm fully expecting to see planes flying overhead and blanketing the earth with a payload of Tory ads all courtesy of some faraway MP.

Sad, sad news

2008-08-26T20:41:00.009-05:00

Just Damn Stupid put it best in response to this week's terrible news.

My thoughts are with Donne's family and friends.

We'll miss you, Donne.

The Long March, Manitoba edition?

2008-08-09T01:28:00.022-05:00

After reading several posts (see Mary Agnes Welch, PolicyFrog and Hacks and Wonks) lamenting the number of Manitoba athletes in Beijing (just two, compared to at least 11 for Saskatchewan), I decided to see if I could find comparable numbers for past Olympic Games.

The most recent games were the 2006 Winter Games in Turin, Italy. I couldn't find a regional breakdown of all of the athletes, but looking at the medal count, I came up with:

4 medals awarded to Alberta athletes;
5 awarded to Manitoba athletes;
3 awarded to Ontario athletes;
3 awarded to Quebec athletes; and
9 awarded jointly to Canadian teams,
for a total of 24.

If we look at the regional composition of each team that received a medal, we find that the teams break out as follows: 1 team of predominantly Newfoundland and Labrador athletes, 1 largely Ontario, 1 Alberta, 2 Quebec, 1 Manitoba, 1 AB-BC tie, and 2 AB-SK tie. That gives us the following approximate medal count totals:

AB: 6.5
MB: 6
QC: 5
ON: 4
SK: 1
NL: 1
BC: 0.5

Total: 24

Based on medal count, it looks like it was Saskatchewan's turn to take the lumps last time, with a measly one medal (actually one bronze and one silver shared jointly with Alberta athletes) compared to Manitoba's six medals, including two gold, for the best per-capita take in the country. And athletes from BC, who'll host the Olympics in 2010, barely even registered on the map.

I'd like to chalk up the Summer Olympics-Winter Olympics difference to Manitoba having a comparative advantage in winter itself, but ... oh wait ... Saskatchewan also has an abundance of winter.

When looking at the above numbers, some might point out that the medal take by province is a whole different ball game (sorry) than the number of athletes participating in the games by province. That's absolutely true, but taking medals is what the Games are all about, n'est-ce pas?

No matter your opinion, I think taking numbers of athletes by province from one Olympic Games gives us far too small of a sample size to make conclusive statements about the health of sports in one province relative to another. However, if someone wants to pool the data from across, say, ten Olympic Games, maybe there'd be an interesting argument to make. Until then, I think it's safe to say that athletes -- no matter what part of the country they're in -- could use more funding and better facilities.

We may only have two this time around, but they'll compete like a thousand!

Photo: Bird's Nest, Beijing National Stadium

The odds on carbon taxes...

2008-07-16T22:45:00.010-05:00

The high-stakes poker game that's leading up to the next election is playing itself out, with each party playing their hands well. The current round: carbon taxes.

The Liberals

Their "green shift" carbon tax proposal is a risky play of political strategy, but it's one that may well have saved them from losing a massive number of seats in the next election. With about a fifth of their caucus not running again, party debts and an apparent inability to fundraise (they're now third in the country in fundraising, behind both the Conservatives and the NDP), stagnant polling numbers, a perception of poor performance by Dion, and a couple of embarrassing byelection losses, many in the party were fearing historic and dramatic losses in the next election. Since the carbon tax proposal, things have cooled down somewhat.

The carbon tax -- even if it may be a tough sell for some Canadians -- finally gives the party the chance to differentiate itself from the Conservatives via a policy it can articulate. For them, that beats the non-strategy of reflexively opposing everything the Conservatives do, or worse, talking down the Conservatives but then tacitly supporting them anyway (the story for most of the past year). Differentiating itself from its opponent across the floor was something the party desperately needed after nearly a year of looking watery, timid and indecisive. What right-leaning voters would want to support a weaker, disorganized version of the governing party?

Differentiation is also something the Liberals need to fend off an attack from the NDP, who most benefits when it can paint the Liberals and Conservatives as interchangeable. The carbon tax proposal, combined with the Dion-May deal, also steals the thunder of the carbon tax-favouring Green Party. Suburban eco-conscious voters who would otherwise have considered voting Green will now find they have little reason to support that party when voting Liberal (as they likely did last time) will be just as likely to bring them "green" policy.

It's the same sneaky strategy the Liberals have used to curb the strength of the NDP for much of the past 50 years: steal the best ideas from their platform and use your organizational machine to take all the credit for them. The Greens have little on-the-ground organization to make up for having the carpet pulled out from under them, especially at a time of likely declining enthusiasm for what many perceive to be their core policy strength. Expect to see their numbers continue to slip to something much closer to the 6% they received in 2006.

Some might ask why Dion is trying so hard to sell the carbon tax in Alberta where the party has no seats and is unlikely to win any in the near future. Why? It probably has less to do with believing oil companies should get on board (suggested in Jeffrey Simpson's article on the carbon tax, Suncor and carbon capture technology) than winning more supporters in Ontario (as Chantal Hébert suggests, noting that this is the same strategy Dion used to win votes in Ontario by trying to sell the Clarity Act to skeptical ears in Quebec).

While I'm certainly no fan of the party, no matter how much they're down, the first rule in federal politics should always be to never underestimate the Liberal Party, one of western democracies most successful political parties.

Risks for the Liberals: Carbon taxes may sell well in some Toronto and Vancouver suburbs, but the party could lose a lot in the rest of the country where they're currently struggling. For them, the worst case scenario: Liberals hang on to Official Opposition status, but not by much. Dion is turfed as leader.

The potential prize: The Liberal strategy gains them few seats, but it also prevents any NDP, Conservative or Green growth. The Liberals come out of the election re-energized and Dion gains a firmer grip over the party leadership.

The NDP

The NDP has probably played its hand well -- at least strategically -- by opposing the carbon tax. It's betting that the negative impact of criticism by David Suzuki and other environmentalists (though many of them like the NDP's cap and trade proposal, and even Suzuki admits that a carbon tax would only be one of a host of solutions necessary to bring about a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) will be offset by the gains made in non-NDP ridings of the sort where voters are unlikely to be enamoured with any sort of tax on fuel. In particular, the NDP is looking at potential gains in northern regions and especially northern Ontario, rural BC, Saskatchewan, Edmonton, Atlantic Canada, and hard-hit industrial regions of Ontario, such as Oshawa.

As the traditional party representing lower income folks, remote communities, and workers, the NDP is probably also right to put the onus on the Liberals to prove that the consumption-based carbon tax won't in the end hurt those most vulnerable. And, while many have criticized the NDP for preferring to target industry, it is industry that's responsible for the greatest share of emissions.

The risks: Despite some high-profile environmental candidates running in the next election and the party's emphasis on a cap and trade plan, they've allowed the Liberals to take the environment for themselves as an issue of perceived strength (too bad, given the whole lot 'o nothing the Liberals did when they were in government, including when Dion himself was environment minister). Even despite plans for a strong campaign, the NDP risks losing several seats.

The potential prize: If the Liberals fumble and run a disorganized next election, and the NDP manages to connect with voters in Ontario and elsewhere, it isn't inconceivable that they could pick up as many as 30 seats across the country. The party might also capitalize on the BC NDP's opposition to the tax (pity the carbon tax-toting provincial BC Liberals who share voters with the anti-carbon tax federal Conservatives), though that battle is still playing itself out.

The Conservatives

The Conservatives are betting that concern about the economy will take the environment right off the agenda and, where the environment is still an issue, will focus on leaving "market" (i.e., oligopolistic) mechanisms as the best vehicle for reducing carbon emissions. After all, how much will a carbon tax of a few pennies per barrel drive down emissions when the cost of fuel is up over 50% in a year?

Of course, Flaherty has tried to use the economy as a hammer to knock Premier McGuinty (of Ontario, the one place the Liberals are strong these days) with. That strategy's so far failed, but there are signs that the environment is being all but forgotten by voters given their growing economic concern. The Conservative strategy: bide their time while acting like a moderate group of managers, all the while raising big dollars, embarrassing and/or co-opting the opposition as much as possible, and hope that they'll be rewarded in spades come the next election.

The risks: "Wait and see" might be a tough strategy as the economy worsens -- governing parties don't typically do so well when the economy tanks. And now that they've let the Liberals find an issue with which to distinguish themselves, they may have allowed that party to climb back from the near death it would have found itself in had the election been held in early 2008. There's also potential that the NDP could cut into Tory support in certain pockets of BC, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, and Atlantic Canada, thereby offsetting any Conservative gains made at the expense of the Bloc or the Liberals.

The potential prize: The Liberals flounder and Conservatives pick up support in enough suburban and rural seats to make big gains, possibly so far as to claim a majority.

Thoughts and conclusions

Canada certainly needs to move toward curbing emissions. While a carbon tax is an intriguing idea, it's certainly just one tool in the wider toolbox of strategies that can and should be used -- the overwhelming focus on carbon taxes makes it appear as if it were the one and only option ahead of us.

If a carbon tax is implemented, the revenues should be used to alleviate the hit for low income and northern citizens as well as subsidize energy retrofits, mass transit, and green technology, rather than just given away in some supposed "revenue neutral" plan.

Either way, a cap and trade system should be implemented and looks like the way to go, given the support for such a system among most Canadian Premiers, the Conservatives and NDP, and both US Presidential candidates.

The environment certainly should be an election issue, though who knows which way the winds will blow by that time? Fears of economic meltdown may yet dwarf the environment as a primary concern in most voters' minds.

Further reading

By the way, for those following the carbon tax debate, I highly recommend the Progressive Economics Forum blog. Some of the posts on carbon taxes:

Where do greenhouse gases come from? It turns out that households emit one-fifth of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, while businesses account for five sixths of emissions.

Where do non-fuel emissions come from? Interestingly, Dion's carbon tax scheme has no impact on non-fuel emissions meaning that, for example, one-third of the oil industry's emissions would not be affected.

Responses to high gas prices How elastic is the demand for driving in response to fuel costs? In response to the overall cost of driving? Links to some articles with important implications for understanding behavioural change from driving toward other forms of transportation, such as transit.

Dion's carbon revenues How much do the Liberals propose to raise through carbon taxes and why do forecasts not show this to be a declining revenue stream (assuming that carbon taxes work)?

Carbon taxes, distribution and politics Should the carbon tax really be revenue neutral? Beyond relief for low income folks, perhaps it would be more effective if the revenues were used to subsidize mass transit, energy efficiency retrofits, and green technologies. See also Duncan Cameron's article.

The carbon tax we pay to the oil companies Jim Stanford notes that many of us get angry at the thought of the government taking a couple of cents a litre out of our pocket for a carbon tax, but yet calmly hand over the dough when it's the oil companies asking for 50 cents more per litre.

Dion's green plan or Mintz's tax plan? Is Dion's plan a sly way to simply cut income or corporate taxes? Does it adequately protect lower income folks?

Canada's ecological footprint by income decile Canada's richest 10% have a dramatically larger ecological footprint than even the next decile down, meaning that they may simply buy their way out of changing. Given this, is income tax cuts the most effective use of carbon tax revenues?

Some perspective on carbon taxes BC's carbon tax of $10 per tonne amounts to 2.4 cents per litre. In the past years, the cost of fuel has doubled -- the same as if a carbon tax of $270 per tonne had been levied.

Drawing Manitoba's new electoral divisions

2008-07-01T00:50:00.005-05:00

I spent some time reviewing the proposed electoral boundaries this weekend. Overall, I find the proposed changes to be impressive in that most constituencies face minor changes to their boundaries.

The boundaries aren’t final, of course. Many will make great arguments that some communities should be put in a neighbouring constituency given their history or natural boundaries, that geography makes some boundaries impractical due to transportation links, or that strict rep by pop should be excepted for special reasons. Others will target the constituency names, arguing that a traditional or alternative name is more appropriate than the one proposed. Once responses are taken into consideration, a new set of maps will be released.

It’s surprising to me that some folks would rather stoop to accusing the boundaries commission of making partisan decisions than address whether the boundaries are appropriately drawn. The comment made by Doug Schweitzer (PC Party of Manitoba CEO) to the Free Press was completely astonishing in its ignorance of the process behind the new boundaries. I had a great rebuttal written up, but I think Dan Lett, Curtis Brown, PolicyFrog, and Hacks and Wonks all have more than said what’s needed.

---

I’ve started with the non-Winnipeg seats this time, and have focused mostly on what the outcome will mean for the Manitoba political scene, rather than whether the boundaries could be redrawn better, which is very important.

Southwestern Manitoba

The only constituency to completely disappear this time is Minnedosa, and the decline in population for all seats in the region certainly warrant make the loss of one seat there unavoidable. It makes things tough for Minnedosa MLA Leanne Rowat, who may have to duke it out for the nomination with veteran MLA Len Derkach. Once the boundaries are finalized, expect Tory brass to work hard behind the scenes to find a solution – perhaps one of the region’s Tory MLAs will agree to retire, be appointed to a plum position somewhere, or run for something at another level of government.

Minnedosa-Russell is the proposed new constituency that rises from the ashes. Created mostly from the old Russell and the Tory-leaning communities of Minnedosa, Cordova and Rapid City from the old Minnedosa riding, the new constituency can be expected to elected Tories for some time yet.

The new Turtle Mountain takes some of the old Minnedosa’s strongest NDP regions (i.e., Justice and neighbouring towns). They won’t make much difference in the solid Tory new riding.

The new Arthur-Virden adds some relatively strong Tory regions of Minnedosa to the already strongly Tory constituency.

Dauphin-Roblin, takes the Ste. Rose du Lac (Tory-leaning) and Laurier (NDP-leaning) portion of old Ste. Rose (renamed Agassiz).

Southeastern Manitoba

Population growth of Morden and Winkler has led them to form the new, mostly urban Morden-Winkler constituency. The rest of Pembina is merged with Carman to form the new Carman-Pembina.

Emerson gains the somewhat NDP communities of St. Malo and St. Pierre Jolys from Morris, but loses the somewhat NDP communities in the southeastern corner of the province to La Verendrye.

La Verendrye has largely been split into two, with the eastern half inheriting the old constituency’s name and the western half mostly forming the new Tache. While the new La Verendrye gains the somewhat NDP communities from Emerson, it gains Tory leaning communities from Lac du Bonnet and the overwhelmingly Tory communities of Grunthal and Sarto from Steinbach. The new constituency is likely to lean Conservative, making PolicyFrog’s prediction of Ron Lemieux running in Tache (made up of mostly NDP-leaning francophone communities) a good bet.

St. Paul is the old Springfield, minus Anola (NDP-leaning; now in Tache), but plus West St. Paul (NDP-leaning; gained from Gimli). It remains staunchly Conservative.

Morris, a traditional Tory seat that nevertheless saw a sharp increase in the NDP vote in the last election, gains some Conservatives from the old Steinbach and loses some New Democrats to Emerson.

Portage stays much the same, but gains Long Plain First Nation from Carman. A quick glance at the Statement of Votes suggest this puts the seat about 60 votes closer to an NDP win.

Interlake, Gimli and Lakeside see a few other small changes, but they’re unlikely to make a big difference.

Northern Manitoba

Flin Flon has been altered to take a huge swatch of Rupertsland, including Churchill and Gillam. The Pas and Thompson don’t change at all.

----

I have to agree with PolicyFrog that Pembina-Jubilee is a pretty painful constituency name. However, the disjointed name unfortunately represents the disjointed combination of four part-communities that make up the constituency: a chunk of the Jubilee neighbourhood (formerly part of Lord Roberts), the “planets” streets of Fort Garry, a piece of Taylor Avenue, and Wildwood Park. I definitely tend to favour constituencies with boundaries approximating natural boundaries of communities, but I see how it isn’t always doable. In any event, Pembina-Jubilee is a lot easier to swallow than a lot of federal riding names, which seem to want to form exhaustive lists of every community represented. Try Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor or Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou or Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

----

Some folks have been wondering about the especially long break that Prairie Topiary has taken from posting. With most of the massive number of work, family, travel, and social commitments that landed on my plate through the Spring now behind me, I’m hoping I can post a little more regularly. Thanks to all those who still tune in from time to time.

Photo: A map of the proposed consitituency boundaries.

The non-issue of crown donations to the human rights museum

2008-05-01T20:34:00.013-05:00

I've been following with some interest the controversy over four provincial crown corporations and agencies (Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, Manitoba Public Insurance, and the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission) each donating $1 million to The Canadian Museum For Human Rights (see story here and responses by Dan Lett and PolicyFrog here).

I suppose eyebrows are raised because the organizations in question are owned by and accountable to Manitobans, and because two of them (MLC and MLCC) pour their revenues directly into those of the government. But are the donations in question unreasonable or inappropriate?

Q. If the crowns were private corporations, would they likely donate?

A. Almost surely, if the Museum's list of major donors is any indication (available in one of the Museum's promotional kits) -- the list of companies reads like a who's who of Manitoba's private sector. If Canad Inns, CIBC, HudBay Minerals, Friesens, Ben Moss Jewellers, and Bison Transport, to name a few, are all leading the way with big donations, is it unreasonable to expect that our crowns might pony up a few dollars? I think not. In fact, given the growing list of big ticket public, private and union donors, the crowns might well appear conspicuous by their absence if they chose NOT to donate.

Q. Are the amounts the crowns are donating unreasonable?

A. Hardly. A million bucks is peanuts for Hydro, which has annual revenues exceeding $2 billion. And if Wawanesa Insurance can afford to be in the $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 donor category, surely fellow insurer MPI can do the same. And MLC and MLCC will directly benefit from the new museum as any additional tourism will boost casino/VLT traffic and liquor sales, so it makes good business sense for them to chip in for the cause. That $2 million that might otherwise have ended up in government coffers doesn't seem like an unreasonable investment.

Q. Is it unusual for the crowns to support the community through sponsorship?

A. Not at all; show up at any event in town and you'll see they do it every day. I didn't see any complaints registered over MLC's sponsorship of the Manitoba Marathon nor of Hydro's support for the Winnipeg Folk Festival. And I've never heard any boos for the crown sponsors at any of the Bomber games I've attended.

Q. Is it inappropriate for the provincial government to direct the crowns to support the human rights museum?

A. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the very rationale for having crowns that they enable us to achieve social ends that might otherwise not be achieved in their absence? In MLC's case, they advertise very publicly their specific mandate to direct moneys to support the community through donation and sponsorship. In this case, the crowns are supporting a project likely to boost tourism to the city, generate significant economic spin-offs, and educate people about human rights.

The opposition might have had a point if the sums being given were so huge as to threaten the financial well-being of the crowns in question or to risk putting the government in a deficit position, but the donations are entirely appropriate and reasonable. And, to be frank, they might just help to put Winnipeg "on the map" with a much more realistic plan than trying to revive a long-gone NHL franchise.

The saddest part is that, as this same opposition grasps for straws in any attempt to find anything to pin on what's been a fairly resilient administration, it's the Canadian Museum of Human Rights itself that gets caught in the crossfire.

When I contrast the scale of corporate and well-to-do backing for the museum with the provincial Tories' pooh-poohing of crown support for the museum, it makes me think it's probably a good thing the Tories aren't so reliant themselves anymore on corporate donations.

The Museum website: http://www.canadianmuseumforhumanrights.com/

Photo: artist's conception of The Canadian Museum of Human Rights, to be located at The Forks, in downtown Winnipeg.

The Negotiators

2008-05-01T19:12:00.010-05:00

Given today’s news that Canada is talking with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents and the fact that even suggesting dialogue with Taliban opponents in Afghanistan is enough for Tory MPs and their pals to label a person with the “Taliban” moniker (e.g., “Taliban Jack”), I have just one question:

How will the same Tory MPs and their pals now refer to their own leaders -- will they opt for the more formal, full-titled version, as in the "Right Honourable Taliban Stephen Harper" or the "Honourable Taliban Peter MacKay" or will the more cutesy and informal "Taliban Steve" and "Taliban Pete" be the favoured form of address?

2007 CTV poll

The Globe's Radwanski

Photo: Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay

Drawing Winnipeg's new electoral divisions

2008-04-22T01:53:00.018-05:00

Like clockwork, that decennial ritual has begun again. The creaks and groans of the long-cold body can only mean it's beginning to stir. Soon, arisen, it will reclaim the mantle it once knew and the power it can still taste. That’s right; as readers of Curtis Brown's blog will know by now, the Electoral Divisions Boundaries Commission is back, and it will be sure to draw amazement from some and strike fear into the hearts of others.

Cheesy metaphors aside, I noted last year in my post-provincial election post that the redistribution of electoral boundaries will set off some pretty intense jockeying among incumbents over who gets to run where, particularly in regions where a seat has been eliminated. For example, in a region where five MLAs of one party see their seat count reduced to four over the same geographic region, you can bet it'll lead to some heated poll number-scanning, political organizing, and quiet deal-making. It’s Survivor: Manitoba for political junkies - literally, provincial politicians will be getting voted off the island.

I’m too intrigued by the whole process to wait patiently for the Commission to come up with their first set of proposed maps, so I’ve taken a close look at the numbers they've provided, which are based on the 2006 census data, to speculate on what they're likely to propose. While southern Manitoba is likely to see some dramatic redrawing of boundaries, I started first with my observations on Winnipeg. I'll consider non-Winnipeg and political implications of the demographic changes in future posts.

Winnipeg overview

I stated in my post last year that I thought the City of Winnipeg would see its share of the 57 seats go up from 31 to 32. However, based on the numbers, I no longer think that will be the case.

Based on the 2006 census data, the population of the city’s current 31 seats divided by the population quotient provided by the commission gives the city 31.44 seats, on average. Given that seats north of 53° (of which there are currently four) are allowed to be significantly below the quotient (with all other seats within 10% of 21,147), Winnipeg should stand a little above the quotient, which means the same 31 seats it’s had for the last ten years. By 2018, the number will likely move up again.

Within the city, the seats with the largest populations are Fort Whyte (a whopping 47% over the quotient), Southdale (22% over quotient), Seine River (15% over quotient), and Kildonan (7% over quotient). The smallest is St. Norbert (7% below quotient). What I found most interesting was that inner city seats are all very close to the quotient. It seems to me that in the last couple of redistributions, the inner city lost considerable numbers of voters and saw seats disappear as a result. This time, with an apparently more stable population, the inner city thankfully isn’t likely to lose any MLAs.

So if it’s clear that south Winnipeg -- driven by Fort Whyte, Seine River and Southdale -- must see improved representation, but that the city will stay at 31, where will the extra representation come from? The only reasonable answer is that existing constituency boundaries will be dragged southward to accommodate the growth in the south. My map's arrows (click on the map to get a larger, more readable version) and accompanying discussion illustrate what I speculate will happen.

East Winnipeg

On the east side of the Red River, there are 11 seats. Of these, seven (River East, Rossmere, Concordia, St. Boniface, St. Vital, Riel, and Transcona) are about 1,000 below the quotient, while Elmwood is close to the quotient, Radisson is above by about 1,000, and Seine River and Southdale are considerably up.

If the seven that are below quotient expand to their quotient level of voters, this will almost exactly match the amounts by which Seine River and Southdale need to shrink. This likely means that Radisson will move southward to become much more of a Windsor Park constituency; much of its northern portions will become part of expanded Rossmere, Concordia, and Transcona constituencies. Then, by taking of more of Windsor Park from Southdale, the old Radisson constituency allows the former to shed voters to achieve a near-quotient level.

Seine River also needs to shed voters to new constituencies. To achieve this, St. Boniface will likely expand southward, which will push St. Vital southward and Riel southward into former Seine River territory.

Southwest Winnipeg

In the southwest, things get interesting: Fort Whyte is 9,000 voters over quotient, which means it’s grown to nearly the size of 1.5 constituencies. How to rearrange the seats here to accommodate half of a new constituency? The one that seems an obvious answer is to take the south half of Fort Rouge (the only constituency to be divided by a river, something to be generally avoided in the creation of constituencies, I would argue) and turn it into a whole constituency. This generates the additional half a constituency needed to accommodate Fort Whyte’s growth.

How then to redraw the boundaries in the south end? I think it’s likely the commission will fall on tradition and carve out a Crescentwood, which was first created for the 1970s, then vanished in the 1980s, was re-created in late 1988, and then vanished again in 1998. As with its 1990s incarnation, Crescentwood would likely take the eastern portion of River Heights, the “planets” portion of Fort Garry, and the western portions of Lord Roberts and Fort Rouge.

With the Osborne Village piece of Fort Rouge, Lord Roberts will become much like the 1990s-era Osborne constituency. River Heights would move several blocks west to accommodate Crescentwood, which would push some of Tuxedo southward to take up some of Fort Whyte’s current territory. The new Fort Garry, robbed of the “planet” streets, would also snatch some of Fort Whyte’s current terrain. St. Norbert, with its below-quotient voting population, would also expand into Fort Whyte to ease some of the latter constituency's excess numbers.

North and west Winnipeg

The downtown portion of the old Fort Rouge riding may mean the revival of the old Broadway constituency, if it gets merged with the eastern part of Minto. That would mean Minto would get pushed westward into St. James which, along with Assiniboia, is slightly below quotient. As mentioned above, most inner city constituencies aren’t below quotient and so won’t be so much enlarged as shifted around.

An alternative for north Fort Rouge is to merge into the southern part of Point Douglas, the northern half of which would then get merged into some new redrawn versions of St. Johns, Burrows and Wellington. Wellington would then probably take part of Minto from the north, which would get several blocks of St. James in return. Overall, below-quotient Assiniboia, St. James, St. Johns and Inkster are likely to see some growth to balance the addition of Fort Rouge’s Downtown into its neighbours and the accommodation of over-quotient Kildonan.

Photo: Map of Winnipeg consituencies, from Election Manitoba's 2007 Statement of Votes, with arrows suggesting 2008 boundary movement.

A quick guide to Winnipeg protests

2008-03-30T15:51:00.019-05:00

I'm a regular reader of David Watson's Waverley West and beyond blog and find it engaging, well-written and a valuable addition to the community. Lately, however, I've been following with some amusement his attempt to uncover some grand scheme behind last week's P3/city budget protest, made notorious by one attendee's ignorant attempt, via a sign, to put Mayor Sam Katz on par with Hitler.

Watson seems desperate to find a smoking gun showing that the provincial NDP or some other political organization organized the protest as part of some larger strategy to take on Katz. Is offensive sign holder Steve Mack an "NDP operative," he asks? Is protest spokesperson Mike Lennon an NDP-paid-for "protest leader"? (oops, he's already scratched that one off the list). Is the fringe Canadian Action Party "involved with the Katz defamation"? What if the "agent provocateur was sent by someone else in City Hall?" Watson also wonders, as he seems to struggle with just why Katz would be hiring people to film the protestors, is the plot "why Sam Katz was having the protestors photographed"? The drama has all of the twists and turns of a good conspiracy theory movie and I'm almost disappointed to see each new lead turn up with, well, nothing surprising.

It's been some time since I've attended any sort of political protest and I wasn't at the one at City Hall, but what happened seems pretty straightforward to me -- along the lines of the many hundreds this city has seen before:

1. For obvious reasons, unions and their allies dislike contracting out, P3s, privatization, and right-wing politicians who support such things.

2. Political demonstrations are not all that effective in swaying public opinion. Unions and other organizations organize protests to communicate with the public and with political leaders when other avenues are limited. If you can elect your people to public office with ease or get what you want through negotiation or simply by asking without having to protest publicly, why would you go to all the trouble?

3. The provincial NDP, especially when in power, does not bother to organize demonstrations as a political strategy because they have other, far more effective avenues for getting things done. If the provincial NDP decided that Katz was a thorn in the province's side (which they do not), they'd use their communications machine to back it up or recruit someone sufficiently high-profile to run against him.

4. No political organization or protest organizer with any brains or experience directs people to compare politicians they dislike to Hitler. How much ground did Katz's political opponents gain after the incident? Absolutely zero. If anything, the incident lost them ground. It's obvious that the sign was not the brainchild of any organization seeking to defame Katz.

5. Rallies against political policies are usually open invitation events held in public spaces. As a result, they may attract all sorts of people, including political organizers, members of any number of major or fringe parties, activists who regularly attend protests on any number of issues, people elected to public office, people who want to be elected to public office, people who have lost or who risk losing a job should proposed political changes pass, people whose philosphical or ideological sympathies are consistent with the protest's objectives, people who like crowds, lonely people, smart people, dumb people, people who are there for the free coffee, etc. For this reason, it seems pretty reasonable that lone individuals attending a protest cannot be said to speak for or represent the protest organizers or the entire collective body of protestors.

6. People attending political protests are motivated enough to take time out of their day and hang out for an hour or two regardless of the weather or other committments they may have. It shouldn't be surprising then that many attendees are dedicated political activists who are also avid participants in the political process in numerous other ways to support a range of causes or organizations.

7. Filming or photographing participants of strikes and political protests is nothing new. It's an extremely well-established and often-used technique throughout Canada and the US and elsewhere for (a) making participants feel "watched" and uncomfortable, so that they'll keep a low and non-militant profile and hopefully stay home next time; (b) discourage bad behaviour, by ensuring that photographic evidence will be available if things get out of hand; and (c) provide beautiful opportunities to shift attention away from the policies being protested to the protestors themselves when, for example, some clown shows up with an inappropriate sign.

8. As much as City Councillor Lazarenko is right to be shocked and offended at the sign one protestor chose to bring, trying to ban or limit protests isn't going to solve anything. Lazarenko, who according to the CBC, feels the city may have grown too lenient over the years in terms of what it will tolerate in a demonstration, is quoted as saying, "It gets to be like a mini-riot. It comes to a point where we lose control. The courtyard is for a peaceful demonstration."

Settle down, councillor; it was a peaceful protest, like one of many that happen in Winnipeg all the time.

Photo: A less-recent protest at City Hall. Depicted is a crowd gathered outside old City Hall, at Main Street and William Avenue, during the Winnipeg general Strike. Visible on the left are the Union Bank of Canada building and Leland Hotel.

The devious Mr. Katz

2008-03-24T23:30:00.010-05:00

The mayor's office has released its detailed Service Based View of the budget. The document, which is available here, outlines a range of cuts to city services.

Shockingly, it was released just before the long weekend and a mere six days before the budget vote on the council floor. Its release also comes days after a public meeting in which citizens were invited to express their views on the budget. The Free Press covers the story here.

Can it all be coincidence that the mayor's office has released the bad news with virtually no time for the public to digest it, let alone debate it? Or, more likely, was this a sly attempt by our mayor to sneak some nasty cuts past the council floor when no one in the public is really paying attention? If the latter, it's more than just the usual lack of vision or fear of open debate; it's a wilful abuse of power.

Policyfrog has a great post on our mayor of "none" here. I'm personally keenly interested to see how each of our city councillors reacts to this one -- kudos to Councillor Gerbasi for drawing attention to the issue quickly.

Photo: Winnipeg's modernist City Hall (aka Civic Centre), completed and opened in 1964.

A punditry-inspiring week

2008-03-06T23:47:00.012-06:00

What a week. While being buried in my work life, I've seen about 50 blog-worthy topics pass me by. See here for a small sampling of the utter ridiculousness. I've commented on a few items that provoked some thoughts.

---

Quite a new low for the Liberals this week -- they're actually introducing a motion in the House of Commons blaming the NDP and Bloc for voting to defeat them in 2005. To quote Warren Kinsella: "Lord God Almighty, the Liberal Party of Canada needs help."

Mr. Dion and friends seem to be under the impression that their fellow parties are to blame for ending the long Liberal reign in Ottawa. Do they forget the voters who booted them out in the election that followed their defeat? Rather than pointing the finger for alleged wrongs committed by everyone else, can they not take some responsibility for the corruption and bad decisions that appeared endemic to their own party? Does the Liberal Party not look in the mirror and wonder if the source of their own troubles is staring right back at them?

It's more of the unspeakable arrogance we've seen before. Sounds like they're badly in need of some reflection time, of exactly the sort that comes with lounging in opposition for a long, long time.

---

Speaking of Kinsella, he's calling the US Presidential race for McCain in the wake of the seemingly endless Democratic nomination race. I wouldn't go so far as to call it yet, but he's right - I'm worried about the Democrats' chances. The added months of publicity, fundraising, and organizing time that the Republicans have while the Democrats scrap it up can't be underestimated. When the dust settles in the Democratic nomination and the winner emerges, expect the Republicans to be well-prepared, waiting with boats of money and a battalion of attack ads.

It's a damn shame.

---

A lot of people were shocked at the Alberta election results, particularly by the huge increase in Conservative seats at the expense of all three other parties that were represented in the Legislature. That came despite a whole lot of talk about voters being in a mood for change.

The result can be chalked up entirely to the Tory increase in Edmonton, which is the only part of the province where the opposition parties have a large concentration of seats. Tory increases in the opposition heartland, combined with slippage in parts of the province where it doesn't really make a difference (e.g., Calgary) equals a big increase in the majority.

At a glance, the overall popular vote didn't shift by a massive amount -- the Conservatives went up from 47% in 2004 to 53% in 2008, while the Liberals dropped three points to 26% and the NDP dropped one point to 9%. That's not a cataclysmic shift. For all the talk about the new Wildrose Alliance on the right, their 7% this time is below the 9% their 2004 counterpart earned. The Greens crept up from 3% to 5%, mostly as a result of two high-profile candidates who did well, but didn't come close to winning.

In Edmonton, though, the Tories soared from 31% to 43%, while the Liberals dropped from 41% to 33%. The NDP lost three points to land at 18%, which was enough to cost the two of their four seats, sadly including that of former leader Ray Martin. I wonder if Edmonton Liberal popularity in the Klein years was driven to some degree by Ralph Klein himself. The former Premier was a high-profile and not uncontroversial Calgarian, something that might not have entirely endeared him to voters in rival city Edmonton. Remove the Klein and see the Liberal balloon deflate, despite what most pundits agree was a better-run campaign by the party.

A big disappointment is that the voter turnout has dropped yet again, this time to a mere 41%. It's no coincidence that the lowest voter turnout in Canada happens to be in the province that's our closest thing to one-party state. There's not much point in voting when the outcome's pre-determined, so why bother? The Tories now have won a mandate based on 53% of 41% or about 22% of the electorate. How low does it have to get -- in Alberta or in any voting jurisdiction --before people start to question the government's very legitimacy? What then?

---

Ed Schreyer, Manitoba's resident loose cannon ex-Premier, sure had something to say recently. Can you blame him? Did the boosters of Waverley West not do any research on the technical requirements associated with installing geothermal energy before announcing the project? Sounds to me like "geothermal" was a nice-sounding term some folks decided to slap in their PowerPoint presentations when it came time to do the dirty job of selling sprawl. It's more than a little disappointing.

The Rise and Sprawl has a some good comments on the topic.

Photo: Downtown Edmonton. The city shifted quite dramatically toward the Alberta Conservatives this week.

Polling mysticism

2008-02-21T18:47:00.030-06:00

So today's poll has the Tories "flirting with a majority." Now wait... didn't yesterday's poll have them in "a dogfight" with the Liberals?

Apparently, yesterday's competitive Liberals are now suddenly today's underdogs fighting even to stay above historic party lows (of which their reported 27% would certainly be). The NDP, whose 12% in today's poll put them well below their 2006 support levels, were just two weeks ago at 19% and apparently well-positioned to make gains. Back then, the Greens found themselves at 7%, a standing barely above their 2006 election result and far short of their apparent rapid ascendance to 13% in the latest poll.

As political observers, we all ooh and ahh at each new horse race figure that's printed in the papers, trying to read into the numbers some sort of truth about who's ahead and who's behind and who's going to be sorry and who's going to be rewarded. The art of poll watching has taken on an almost mystical quality, with its high priests quick to ascribe some dramatic trend or, in some cases, validate the various notions and myths their particular political tribe feels a need to hold on to (which includes partisan false bravado).

For political junkies, prognosticating election results after every poll makes for fun exercise, but it's fairly pointless, for a number of reasons:

First, most of us who read about polls regularly know some of the reasons that poll numbers jump around: sampling (± a certain percentage, 19 times out of 20) and various sorts of non-sampling errors, and the way survey questions are asked (debates continue about what question wording best replicates how voters are likely to respond upon arriving at the polling booth, something that Blackberry Addicts were never exactly shy about raising).

Second, polls taken in between elections are often more about party brands than they are about the true competitive standing of each party relative to one another. It's what I often call a "parking lot" effect, in which poll respondents instinctively "park" their vote in between elections. Asked by a pollster who they'll vote for and they'll tend to blurt out whatever party brand they roughly associate with or that happens to be top of mind. The Liberals and Greens tend to be beneficiaries of this tendency in most parts of Canada.

Third, pre-election campaign polls don't take into account party organization, finances, gaffes or infighting, strategic positioning, the name recognition of incumbent "star" candidates, media exposure, and party messaging, all of which play a huge role in that complex game of chess that plays itself out in each election campaign.

For these reasons, the hype that follows most polls tends to be pretty hollow. A better analysis might take into account some of the above factors.

The Greens, currently buoyant in most polls, have considerably less ground organization, campaign experience, cash resources, star candidates, or media exposure than the other three national parties and will almost surely sink when the next election campaign goes live. Nik Nanos, of SES Research, suggests that the Greens typically drop 1/3 of their vote from the last poll to the actual election. That's after the deflation of the Green balloon that's likely to occur during the campaign itself.

The Liberals, in their current state of endless infighting, fundraising difficulties, mass retirement of MPs and loss of valuable potential candidates, to name just a few of their problems, had best shape up and fast if they expect to hold the 27% to 35% the polls currently peg them at.

Worse for the party is the unenviable position they keep backing themselves into: critiquing the government but then doing all they can to make sure it isn't defeated. For them, voting to defeat the government in a confidence motion means risking catastrophic losses in an election (for some of the reasons noted above), yet supporting the government or abstaining from confidence motions means branding themselves as a "weak" opposition that has little alternative agenda to that of the government.

A weak, indistinct, vision-less Liberal Party is one that's going to find itself wedged in an election between the Conservatives and the NDP when centre-right Liberals find they have no reason to vote for a "me too" Liberal rather than a Tory and when centre-left Liberals find that the alternative vision they're looking for lies only with the NDP. Is it any wonder, then, that the Tories and NDP are literally trying to goad the Liberals into an election, while the Liberals are finding ever new and interesting ways to contort themselves in an attempt to avoid just that?

We live in very interesting times.

Photo: a map of the 2006 federal election results.

New software does not an urban vision make

2008-02-10T23:28:00.000-06:00

I was at the Winnipeg Chamber function on Friday for our Worship's annual State of the City address. About 1,000 folks were in attendance, which is a pretty spectacular turnout, I think.

In the opening moments, I chatted with a few people at my table about the issues or debates Katz would likely raise in his speech. I thought he might touch on some of the big debates going on now, such as Asper's proposal for a new football stadium, the Upper Fort Garry heritage park plan, or Katz's own water park pet project.

I thought Sam might even take a leap forward and provide us with some vision of what our city could be: a glimpse of a new, more environmentally conscious city, perhaps; a proposal for rehabilitating our declining transit system into something many of us could use and be proud of; some vision of Winnipeg as a centre of urban Aboriginal culture and pride; or even his seemingly forgotten promise of enhancing our network of neighbourhood community centres so that kids everywhere can take part in recreational and sporting opportunities. I was to be sorrily disappointed.

Katz's ~~entirely-memorized~~ teleprompted and very slow-spoken address began with a whole lot of name dropping, thanking each city councillor by name, as well as the new police chief, Keith McCaskill, and a host of other folks. He later again thanked each councillor at least two or three times, perhaps trying to emphasize that city council is all one happy family these days.

While I wasn't really expecting to be moved one way or the other by the mayor's speech, I was completely flabbergasted by the huge amount of time he spent yakking about CrimeStat, the city's one-year old software program for monitoring crime trends by neighbourhood. The audience was treated to explanations of how the system works, PowerPoint slides showing real crime statistics for the St. James neighbourhood, and scenarios of how such data might allow for quicker police responses to crime trends.

It's fine to mention the new techniques for monitoring crime, but I'm astonished with the amount of hot air that was spent on what amounts to a software purchase and a cool website page. I have no problem with a system that allows police to better monitor crime trends -- it is, in fact, part of their job to do just that. But should it be such astonishing mayoral speech-level news that the police are given an upgrade on the tools they use to do their job? What's going to be the highlight of next year's address: how Excel formulas helped improve the city's accounting workload? How city vehicles slid around less after being installed with winter tires?

The problem with Winnipeg's political leadership continues to be one of narrow vision. While other cities guide their projects with visions of what their urban space should look and feel like, Winnipeg confuses one-off projects with vision by continuing to tinker with the accessories: a park or a downtown shopping mall or a redesigned bus shelter or a software program don't equal a vision. These are things that should be guided by vision. Where is Sam's vision? Where does Sam see us in ten years? In twenty? What will or should life be like for Winnipeggers? How will or should non-Winnipeggers view our city? Sam? Hello, Sam?

The real crime is that of hopes and opportunities lost: what might this city look like had we had fewer vision-less mayors? What kind of Winnipeg might yet be possible?

Photo: Portage Avenue, near Hargrave Street, in 1920.

Environmental double-speak

2008-01-29T23:17:00.000-06:00

Alberta premier Ed Stelmach, who bowed out of this week's

climate change summit of premiers, need not feel so defensive about his province's environmental record now that building roads has become a cornerstone of green policy.

Yes, you read that correctly. Forget about investing in transit or bike paths: according to this article, the federal and BC provincial governments are spending $790,000 of money earmarked for "greening" communities to expand a road in Nanaimo, BC. The news release states that the road expansion will reduce traffic congestion and idling, thereby helping to save the environment.

The argument is a laughably nice try, as even the idea that building roads automatically reduces congestion doesn't work: curiously, as soon as you build more and bigger roads to reduce congestion on an older road, the tendency is for the new roads to become as congested as the old almost as soon as they're opened to traffic. It's what author Anthony Downs refers to as "triple convergence" in his quite excellent 1995 book, New Visions for Metropolitan America.

Downs's argument follows the principle that there is a sort of marketplace associated with the use of roads. Where/when the demand for a given road space is high relative to its supply, users find alternatives to taking the congested road by travelling at different times (e.g., leave early to beat rush hour), taking alternate routes that are less congested, and using alternative means of transportation (e.g., biking or walking or rapid transit). Build a new road or expand an old one to increase the supply and there's suddenly less incentive for people to use any of the three alternatives, hence Downs's "triple convergence" of extra traffic to the new, suddenly congested roadway.

The rush for everyone to brand themselves as "green" has reached a feverish pitch, and we can expect pals and enemies of the environment alike to start touting their good work. In some cases, some of those jumping on this "green" bandwagon are under the impression that rest of us have fallen off the turnip truck.

Photo: rush hour traffic in Maryland.

Welcome back...

2008-01-25T12:35:00.000-06:00

Welcome back, Sausage Factory (sorry to disappoint anyone who expected to see a posting about Gabe Kaplan here). Many of us bloggers hadn't given up hope that Dan Lett's blog would return, as is evident by the long-standing, for-a-time-dead links on the sidebars of our blogs. Dan Lett is one the Free Press's best critical thinkers writers and it's good to see him posting again.

May's Greens: rising tide?

2008-01-21T22:25:00.000-06:00

Globe columnist Lawrence Martin's latest piece on Elizabeth May and the federal Green Party was quite interesting. As many know, May is fighting to participate in the leader's debate and hoping to knock off Peter MacKay and win the first seat for her party. It won't be an easy task, but the Greens are feeling boosted by recent polls showing her party as high as 13% nationally and as high as 17% in Toronto's "guilt-ridden" 905 belt.

The big question is whether May can hold on to her poll numbers and translate them into votes at election time. It's likely that the Greens will be far outspent and outorganized by the three national parties, all of whom will be spending the maximum amount, and likely the Bloc too. Electoral history is filled with stories of overly optimistic parties driven by buoyant but ultimately ephemeral support levels.

A lot of folks assume that if the Greens do gain support that it'll be at the expense of Layton's NDP. According to the Martin article, some Greens even talk about merging with the NDP to create a new GDP (apparently that's short for "Green Democratic Party" and not "Gross Domestic Product"). However, Green gain at NDP expense isn't entirely certain. If it were, how might we explain the fact that the GP's greatest strength, when looking at all 500,000+ sized urban areas, lies in Calgary (9% in 2006, on average) and the 905 belt (17%, according to some poll numbers). These are hardly traditional areas of support for the NDP, which, at 10%, came in barely ahead of the Greens in Calgary and, outside of Oshawa, Hamilton and the Niagara region, struggles for votes in the 905 area that surrounds Toronto. Meanwhile, the NDP's two strongest cities, Vancouver (27% in 2006) and Winnipeg (28%) are actually two of the GP's weakest (5% and 4%, respectively).

My hypothesis right now is that the Greens are emerging as a or perhaps even the protest party of choice in regions where the NDP is relatively absent. Apart from a few BC ridings, wherever the NDP has a strong, well-managed campaign, the Green vote tends to be a non-factor, staying in the 2% to 6% range.

For the Greens, it certainly doesn't hurt that their message is more palatable for some suburban voters who feel a need to support a platform they see being ecologically-conscious, but who may be uncomfortable with the NDP’s traditionally pro-labour, redistributive policies (which the Greens tend either not to share or to keep awfully quiet about). If that's the case, the Greens may well be usurping more Liberal vote than NDP. Is that the reason behind the Dion/May hug-a-Green/hug-a-Liberal strategy? It's unlikely that, over the long run, they're both going to emerge victors from their quasi-alliance.

The Internet, being the ever-glorious provider of election study and polling numbers that it is, has given me quite a bit of interesting data to play with. That's one source of the tables I have above, which are simply summed riding-by-riding totals for each region. I've also found that the 2006 Canadian Election Study data files are freely available; that study consisted of interviews with thousands of Canadians before and after the election to gauge such things as party momentum, preferred second choices, and reactions to party platforms, campaign announcements and party leaders. In the lead up to the next federal election, I hope to share of the interesting findings from this data.

---

At least one fellow Manitoba blogger, upon noticing my recent profile change (which states I've been a blogger since only January of this year), has concluded that my entire 2007 blogging history must have been written and posted all this month. It sort of conjures up the image of some wretched, hunched-over character in a dark, grungy basement cackling madly in between fits of wild typing to produce mass amounts of blog content (if only I was that prolific...). No harm done, but lest others make the same assumption, I thought I'd make it known that I merely changed the Gmail account I associate with the blog to a new one. For those using a Gmail address with blogger.com, it's easily done, as the instructions here, here, and here all attest. Of course, given the new profile date that'll appear by your name, you should be prepared to have any and all past election predictions challenged! Don't say I didn't warn you...

The endorsement game

2008-01-12T00:48:00.000-06:00

For some reason, I found the Friday Globe and Mail's list of celebrity endorsements received by each presidential nomination candidate to be extremely amusing.

For example, did you know that Bob Vila, the televised fix-it guy from 25 or more years ago, has endorsed Clinton? To borrow a pun from Sir John A. MacDonald, Vila might just be useful should a President Hillary Clinton need to put together a cabinet.

Chevy Chase has also lined up behind Clinton, as has trash TV king Jerry Springer, and musicians Madonna and Janet Jackson.

While Clinton boasts some impressive celebrity backing, if you're an American voter wanting some rock and roll at your political rallies, you'd be best advised to stay clear of her campaign, which is also endorsed by singers Barry Manilow and Barbara Streisand. Hopefully, they won't be singing during the rest of the primaries when Clinton's worker bees will need something a little more upbeat to keep the blood flowing. Anyone, quick, has Chuck D endorsed a candidate yet?

We all know that Oprah has endorsed Obama (potential O Magazine partner, perhaps?), but I had no idea that a huge cast of actors were also behind him. If the Obama campaign starts to run a little short of dough, maybe endorsers George Clooney, Matt Damon and Brad Pitt can crack into the Clinton campaign machine war chest safe (laser-protected, no doubt). Will Smith, Halle Berry, and Ben Affleck are also among the notable cast of Obama supporters.

The good lefty folks, including actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, consumer activist Ralph Nader and economist James K. Galbraith are endorsing Edwards, who can also count on Kevin Bacon, Harry Belafonte, and John Mellencamp to back him up. Now, if only Michael Moore would join them, they could all get together after the campaign and create a dramatic documentary (complete with accompanying musical score) on the scandalous cost of farm equipment for rural African-Americans.

Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris, gun-friendly men's men of yesterday, have both endorsed Huckabee. No surprise here that they didn't join feminist author Gloria Steinem in supporting Hillary Clinton.

Not to be outdone by Huckabee's scouring of 1978 for endorsements, Mitt Romney has recruited Donny and Marie Osmond and actor Rick Schroeder. Oh yeah, wait... I guess Ricky did eventually grow up and get that stint on NYPD Blue...

Never ones to miss a good war, Henry Kissinger and ex-Republican-in-Democratic-clothing Joe Lieberman both feel that war supporter and veteran John McCain is their candidate. Pat Sajak, meanwhile, is fully behind F_ED TH_MPS_N.

Adam Sandler begs to differ -- he's punch drunk love for Giuli. The 9/11-era Mayor of New York City also has Pat Robertson, Kelsey Grammer and Donald Trump behind him. No word yet on whether Trump plans to share any styling tips with Giuli.

Photo: Comedian and actor Adam Sandler, who is supporting Rudy Giuliani.

Local blogs

2008-01-11T22:50:00.000-06:00

I recently discovered a couple of punchy local blogs more than worth adding to my blogroll.

PolicyFrog is an interesting read. See for example this

post on what I see as the Free Press's maddeningly simplistic and analytically-poor editorial efforts (in a world of exploding online content, the Free Press still seems to think its competitors are limited to the Sun and the local TV stations - the grey pap it tries to feed us in editorial form just doesn't measure up against the quality news and editorial material I can access within seconds from elswhere, including from other major Canadian dailies). While PolicyFrog's flavour is overall a little to the right of Prairie Topiary's, it's certainly worth a regular read.

The Rise and Sprawl is a pretty fantastic, well-researched, urban-focused blog. I love the fantastic photographs of Winnipeg past and present and the great research on the city's history and architecture. I love too the cogent and biting critique of our urban space's management, which is sadly characterized more often than not by its lack of vision, ignorance of planning basics, and discarding of urban history. The world could use more blogs of this calibre.

Photo: "Drawing for a Typewriter, 06/23/1868," a printed patent drawing for a typewriter invented by Sholes, Glidden, and Soule.

The more things change...

2008-01-09T19:12:00.000-06:00

"Change" seems to be the popular word among American presidential nomination candidates and watchers alike, but I wonder how much change we're really going to see no matter what happens over the next ten or so months.

On the Republican side, we see an interesting cast of characters led by Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. There's not much to say about -- to be blunt -- America's party of thugs and zealots: its record over the last eight years speaks louder than any of those seeking to be its standard bearer. Frankly, none of the leading candidates stand far enough removed from the party's legacy to count as much in way of "change."

On the Democratic side, we see Barack Obama chasing front-runner Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards in third place. The winner of this contest will likely inherent the mantle of a party that has the U.S. presidency firmly within its sights. While the U.S. is far overdue in selecting a bright, talented woman or an energetic, inspiring African-American to lead it, can we really expect a significant shift in policy?

Clinton is on record as being strongly and consistently behind the country's plundering of Iraq, at least until very recently when that position became a political liability, while Obama has already started to flash his cowboy-esque diplomacy skills in proposing to bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power. Of course, we can't blame these Democrats entirely as it seems that no aspiring U.S. leader gets taken seriously without promising to "get tough" by tapping the country's vast arsenal when needed.

If anything changes during their reign, it certainly won't be the U.S. war machine, which some estimate to account for $1.3 billion or 51% of the country's 2008 federal budget. As Jeffrey Simpson suggests in today's Globe, the "change" we're hearing all about is really about persona rather than policy.

Third-place candidate Edwards has probably been the most exciting proponent of policy change for some of the reasons mentioned here, but he looks to be too far behind either Clinton or Obama to have a chance of winning. The best we may be able to hope for is that he plays an important role in putting important policy issues on the agenda.

---

For those curious about my predictions, I'm not one of those who jumped on the "Obama will win" bandwagon last week, after Clinton lost in Iowa. I thought then that Clinton remained ahead of the pack with her well-funded superior organization and experience. No surprise, I'm still predicting a win for this second Clinton "comeback kid." Obama will be well-placed for a future run at the presidency and could even wind up on the Democratic ticket as candidate for Vice-President.

The Republican side is much more of a toss-up. My sense is that loose cannon-types Huckabee and McCain will eventually flounder and that Romney, despite his current struggles, will go on to win the nomination as the anyone-but-Guiliani candidate.

Photo: Democrats rally on "the Green" at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire.

New Winnipeg stadium: city boon or public bilk?

2007-12-29T18:26:00.000-06:00

Photo: Montreal's Olympic Stadium

Quite interesting is the recently reported poll on whether Manitobans would support public funding for a new Winnipeg Blue Bombers stadium.

The proposal, as it now stands, calls for the provincial and federal governments together to put up $40 million, which would match the $40 million being put up by private investors. According to the Probe/Jory Capital poll reported in today’s Free Press, 50% oppose (32% strongly, 18% somewhat) while 43% support (20% strongly, 23% somewhat) the use of government monies for the new stadium.

The poll comes only days after yet more evidence questioning the value that public funding of such projects have for the city in which they are built. Academics Dennis Coates and Brad R. Humphreys report in their recent article (kudos to Richard Florida for his blog's link and discussion) that, “in stark contrast to the results claimed by most prospective economic impact studies commissioned by teams or stadium advocates, the consensus in the academic literature has been that the overall sports environment has no measurable effect on the level of real income in metropolitan areas. Our own research suggests that professional sports may be a drain on local economies rather than an engine of economic growth.”

An economic impact study of the Winnipeg stadium project apparently projects $17 million dollars in tax revenue for the province from the construction alone. Being no stranger to economic impact studies, I find that figure to be suspiciously high for an $80 million project. Coates and Humphreys would probably agree: they note in their article that “the results of these studies invariably reflect the desires of those who commission them, and advocates of stadiums and franchises typically produce impact studies that find large economic impacts, translated as benefits, from building a stadium or enticing a team to enter the city.” They go on to describe a number of flaws typically associated with such studies.

The debate is similar to the one that followed the demise of the Winnipeg Jets team and the subsequent True North/MTS Centre arena construction. Some of this is chronicled in Thin Ice, a book by Jim Silver, who took the position that no public money should go to fund luxuries such as professional sports when our society faces far more pressing needs. Personally, I think the MTS Centre is a beautiful, amazing and highly successful arena, though I wonder whether the economic and civic pride spin-offs of that project even come close to balancing against the $40.5 million contributed by taxpayers.

In the case of the current proposed stadium project, it will of course be incumbent upon the promoters of the stadium to prove that the project is worth the input of public funds. We should be open to an investment of public money into an asset that will be cherished and used by the province’s citizens, but certainly not to corporate welfare for the Asper clan. In other words, let’s not rely on a questionable economic impact study funded by the very folks who stand to gain from the development.

There should certainly also be a cap on the public’s contribution, a lesson learned most harshly by Montreal in the construction of their Olympic Stadium: built for the 1972 Olympics for a projected public contribution of $120 million, the project was finally only fully paid for in 2006, for a total tab of $1.47 billion.

The public debate over this project should be far more than just about the money invested, too. As our Premier noted in his response to the poll, a critical piece of the public debate is about whether the provincial government should enter into a public-private partnership with Asper, an issue the poll questions didn’t even touch upon. We certainly don’t want an arrangement whereby the private owners who run the stadium reap the bulk of the project’s rewards while the public sector bears the bulk of the project’s risks.

Shades of McCarthyism?

2007-11-22T19:11:00.000-06:00

Photo (two peas in a pod?): U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay

Today's Globe and Mail reports Defence Minister Peter MacKay calling MP Denis Coderre "un-Canadian" for accusing the Canadian government of allowing the transfer of juvenile prisoners in Afghanistan to local authorities known for torturing suspects.

Okay, let me see if I've got Peter MacKay right: allegations that Canadian military personnel are handing over Afghan children to apparent torturers shouldn't be an issue brought before the House of Commons? Worse, it's "un-Canadian" simply to report the occurrence and demand an explanation? Maybe the correct response on MacKay's part should have been that he had no such evidence, but that he'd investigate and make damn sure that Canadians weren't out there facilitating torture.

Those paying attention to MacKay's response might of course find his "un-Canadian" label vaguely familiar. It sounds rather like "un-American," a term widely used in the United States from the 1930s through the 1960s to discredit anyone considered by establishment types as subversive. Senator Joe McCarthy, the source of the term "McCarthyism," was the leading figure of the 1950s witch hunts that were successful in literally ruining many of the lives and careers of those even perceived to be sympathetic to the political left.

MacKay's use of the term "un-Canadian" is really a subtle un-democratic message to us all: try to debate what we think is the best military or foreign policy, no matter how brutal the outcome, and we will shut you up by branding you "un-Canadian" or, worse, "in league with the enemy."

If my Canada is one of healthy democracy and respect for human rights and liberties, MacKay's cold sanction of what might well be Canadian complicity in human rights violations, combined with his eagerness to shut down democratic debate in the House is about the most un-Canadian thing I can personally recall hearing in a long time.

Veiled intolerance?

2007-09-15T14:01:00.000-05:00

Women wearing the niqab in Turkey, a longtime stable and democratic country. 99% of Turkey's population is Muslim.

Elections Canada has decided to allow women who wear the niqab or burqa to vote in federal elections without first showing their face to Elections Canada personnel. In response, politicians from the four major federal parties criticized the move and banded together to demand that the decision be reversed. In the end, a motion supported by all parties in the House was passed urging Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand to "adapt" the act to force all voters "to show their faces before being permitted to vote."

Does no one else see the double-standard inherent in our elected leaders' response?

First of all, forcing prospective voters to show their faces before being allowed to vote is only useful so far as a representative of Elections Canada is there to compare each person's facial features with those on their photo identification. Otherwise, of what use is looking at a person's face? Interestingly, of the many times I've voted in a federal election, never once did I have to present ID in order to vote.

The big hole in the critique of Election Canada's decision is that some voters vote by mail. Why are Muslim women who wear the niqab or burqa being targeted for not showing their faces when mail-in voters are not? And are we to expect that prospective voters who show up at the polling booth wearing dark sunglasses, facial bandages, or concealing hats will also be subject to the same scrutiny? I certainly doubt it. Finally, if a prospective voter's appearance is somewhat different from that shown on their photo ID, will they be turned away? Are the politicians arguing that a process be established to outline the minimum degree of congruence between a person's appearance and their photo ID that is needed before a ballot is issued?

This isn't the first time that Canadians have had to consider what their increasingly multicultural make-up means for their traditonal practices -- in 1990, an often ugly debate occurred over whether the RCMP should allow its Sikh officers to wear a turban. In the end, our Charter prevailed and the country moved on.

So, what about this case? The double-standard is glaring. Are our politicians simply pandering to intolerance or fear? Here's what I think:

First off, if you're Stephen Harper, inflaming the controversy provided a perfect opportunity to distract Canadians from allegations of illegally exceeding election spending limits. So much for "Canada's new government."

Other than Harper, many of those on the right of the political spectrum fear facing security issues of the level seen in the U.S. and Israel and, furthermore, fear moving away from our largely Judeo-Christian-based traditions and institutions. Rules are rules and traditions are traditions and these should not be negotiable. For conservatives, then, a stand against voting by veiled Muslim women is really a knee-jerk proxy for their rejection of terrorism, Islamic orthodoxy and institutional change.

Meanwhile, many of those on the left of the political spectrum fear seeing more women in patriarchal, oppressive relationships and, related to that, fear seeing our largely secular society embrace the sort of religious orthodoxy that seems to conflict with open-mindedness, egalitarian and communitarian values, and acceptance of others. Progress has been achieved in our society through decades of hard-fought battles and defending many of these gains has dominated the left's efforts for the past twenty or so years. For the left, then, a stand against voting by veiled Muslim women is again a knee-jerk proxy, this time for the rejection of patriarchy and oppression and parochialism.

I'm making generalities of course, but I think they go to the heart of why people appear so quick to oppose voting by veiled women. Putting aside our fears and considering the practicality and fairness of the situation, however, means accepting that sky will not fall when burqa- and niqab-wearing citizens cast their ballots, as is their right.

Canada's shameful day at the UN

2007-06-09T15:08:00.000-05:00

Canada's morally dubious accomplishment this week was to withdraw its support for the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples.

Largely prompted by Australia's right-wing, GOP-esque government, which opposes the declaration along with the United States, Canada did a flip-flop and withdrew its previous strong support for the declaration. This is despite two decades of negotiation that went into developing the document, the urging of organizations like Amnesty International and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) to support it, and Canada's previous active role in encouraging other countries to sign on.

The irony is that Canada's move to oppose the declaration comes just as First Nations people are organizing one of the largest national days of action (June 29, 2007) in recent history to draw attention to the continued injustices and poverty that face aboriginal people. That a nation of people within Canada continue to be faced with third world conditions in many of their own communities at a time of unprecedented economic prosperity should give us pause for thought.

From the AFN's information site:

The NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION is an opportunity for First Nations and Canadians to stand together in a spirit of unity to support a better life for all First Nations peoples. Let us stand together to put an end to First Nations poverty as the greatest social injustice in Canada. Together, we can demonstrate that the relationship between First Nations and Canadians is based on principles of RESPECT, DIGNITY and FAIRNESS.

Our federal government should be condemned for the shameful way in which they've moved backward on social and economic development for First Nations: their opposition to the UN Declaration; the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord; the absence of any action on life-threatening drinking water issues; and no move on the recommendations of the Report of the Ministerial Representative: Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves.

Regardless of the opinions of the ministers that form the present government, every day of their inaction on First Nations economic development represents a wasted opportunity.

I look forward to June 29, when Canadians and First Nations people will join hand in hand to, first, rightfully condemn our federal government for their record to date and, second, make clear that positive change can and must begin now.