Chris Warkentin, the incumbent MP for Peace River, was never the local Conservative party’s first pick for MP, even if he was former MP Charlie Penson’s pick.  At least, as I’ve mentioned before, his nomination raised enough ire within the party that in the last election, Grande Prairie town councillor Bill Given took him on as an independent, in large part because he didn’t get a chance to try for the nomination himself.  Given’s Conservative support helped him come in second in the last election, Warkentin’s closest competition by far with around 9800 votes.  Of course, compared to Warkentin’s almost 28,000 votes it wasn’t a close race whatsover.  (Incidentally, this election Given says he’s voting Green, an interesting choice since the Greens received only 2% of the vote last time, and have a very small, if dedicated, core group running their campaign.  Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun, however, has done well at forums and is both well-spoken and upbeat, and will likely get a boost from the popularity of leader Elizabeth May.) But what will happen to all of those disaffected and largely Conservative voters who voted for Given?  That’s 9800 voters who already broke with a long tradition of voting Conservative in the Peace River riding once in the past.  Will they mark their “x” by Warkentin’s name now, despite their dissatisfaction with him, out of party loyalty?  Or will they seek another alternative in this election?  Perhaps like Given, those voters will turn to the Greens, with their fiscal conservatism.  Or might they even turn to the NDP, third place after Given in the last election?

There are some other factors to consider too.  The nuclear issue continues to polarize the riding.  In Valleyview, a Conservative bastion where in my experience to be progressive was almost to be spit upon in the past, audience members at the recent forum stood up and called out to Warkentin to “take a stand, take a stand” on the proposed nuclear power plant, frustrated with his continued waffling (Warkentin has stead-fastedly refused to take a position on nuclear, saying either that it’s a provincial issue or that he has no personal opinion, and carefully saying nothing about his party’s support for nuclear energy in general).  If Warkentin said he supported nuclear, there are any number of people who would agree.  There are also those who would refuse to vote for him as a result.  But trying to straddle the fence doesn’t seems to be earning Warkentin any points, if the Valleyview forum was any indication.

 Another factor is Warkentin’s group of core supporters at the Peace River Bible Institute in Sexsmith.  They were out in force at the 2006 election forum in Grande Prairie, having travelled out together in several identical white vans to ask questions of candidates like why the government allowed nudity in art.  Yet they were conspiciously absent at the most Grande Prairie forum in this election (while nuclear protestors were there and asking questions).  It could be that the Bible College crowd doesn’t feel Warkentin needs any more extra help, now that he’s an incumbent and sure to win. Or could it be that they are upset with Warkentin for not doing more on their key issues, abortion and gay marriage? After all, it has been tough lately for Warkentin to walk this line as well.  His religious beliefs clearly include a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and if you press him personally, as I did after the Peace River forum, he will admit to having personal views to that effect.  But he hasn’t said so flat out while campaigning, and his religious supporters expect him to do actually something about it.

 It’s not that Warkentin hasn’t tried.  He has raised the issues in the House of Commons, memorably trying to focus on the alleged damage gay marriage does to children (his cries of “what about the children” were subsequently dubbed “the Lovejoy factor” by the Upper Canadian blog), and supporting a crime bill, C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Act), that might have reopened the abortion debate by giving special status to the life of an unborn child as a victim.  Which seems like a good point to note that Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada today for his role in making abortion legal in Canada, an award Warkentin also opposed.

 But Warkentin was dealt a blow when the Conservative Justice Minister dropped C-484 in August, right before the election.  The cynical, or the realistic, might say that the Harper government was afraid of being called anti-abortion during the election, a dangerous political position when polls consistently show Canadians remain supportive of legal abortion.  Warkentin was one of the few MPs who vowed to carry forward the bill despite his own government’s refusal to support it.  But with Harper and his spokesperson continuing to say another Conservative government will not support private members bills on abortion, does Warkentin really have a chance?  And will his statements in the House be enough for his religious supporters, or are they becoming frustrated with what, to them, may seem like a lot of talk and very little action, and a lack of support from Harper?

 There is one last change in the riding since the last election, and that is the introduction of candidates for two parties that have never had a presence before, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the Libertarians.  The votes they will draw will likely be small, but there is no question Peace River residents have more choice than ever before on their ballots.

 All of this may add up to a more interesting election result than expected, or it may amount to nothing more than a little more mild grumbling as people obediently mark their “x” for the Conservatives as they always have.  Fortunately, we’re only one long weekend away from finding out.

Crossposted to Bow. James Bow.

Last but not least in my riding-by-riding profile of Waterloo Region is Cambridge. The riding of Cambridge takes in the city of Cambridge and the rural township of North Dumfries.

Cambridge has always been a world apart from Waterloo Region. Although it exists in the same same county as Kitchener and Waterloo, it was a reluctant partner in the creation of the region, and Highway 401 acts as an effective psychological barrier between it and Kitchener. Its own identity has been somewhat mixed up, as it is an amalgamation of three distinct towns with three distinct characters (Galt, Preston and Hespelar). The city has a large manufacturing base, but is also a growing bedroom community for Toronto, thanks to its proximity to the highway.

Although the NDP finished second here as late as 1988 (as well as in 1984, 1980 and 1979), the riding has shown a more conservative bent. From 1979 to 1993 it was held by the Progressive Conservatives and although the Liberals held the riding from 1993 to 2004, their primary competition has been either the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance.

Gary Goodyear beat Liberal MP Janko Peric in 2004 by just over 200 votes, after which he was named the Ontario chair of the Conservative Party caucus. Goodyear increased that margin to almost 6000 votes in the 2006 rematch against Peric. In that election, he received endorsements from Vote Marriage Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress.

Goodyear is currently embroiled in a minor controversy surrounding the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. Originally selected to chair this committee, the opposition majority on committee voted him out in a motion of non-confidence, choosing Conservative MP Joe Preston instead. The work of the committee, which includes investigating the so-called “In and Out scandal”, was suspended on March 6, and the Conservatives refuse to allow it to continue until Goodyear is restored as chairman.

Goodyear returns this election, and faces off against newcomer Gord Zeilstra for the Liberals. Zeilstra has his own controversies to overcome. His nomination as candidate for the riding was hard fought, with some members of the riding association accusing his campaign of using improperly obtained membership lists. The central office investigated and, although it found an “unintentional breach” of the rules, “there is no evidence that Mr. Zeilstra obtained a numeric or tactical advantage through the use of riding membership forms.” He received a minor fine, but bad feelings remained. By and large, however, neither Goodyear nor Zeilstra’s controversies have been highlighted during this campaign.

Of the two remaining candidates, Max Lombardi is competing for the New Democrats, and Scott Cosman for the Greens.

Here’s the full list:

Gary Goodyear, 50, (Conservatives): Gary Goodyear has an MP website which is separate from his campaign website, which tells us a bit more about the man and the riding; certainly more than what we’ve received from Peter Braid and Stephen Woodworth’s campaign sites.

Goodyear was born in Cambridge and educated at the University of Waterloo, majoring in Biomechanics and Psychology, becoming a doctor of chiropractic medicine. He developed his practise up to 2004 when he gave it up to run for office. He has also maintained connections with the immigrant community, working to get the Canadian government to formally recognize the Armenian genocide, chairing hte Canada-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group and acting as an executive member of the Canada-Portuguese Group.

Recently, Goodyear has promised to become one of the first Members of Parliament to go carbon neutral, with the carbon emissions of his Cambridge and Ottawa offices offset through the planting of trees through Cambridge and North Dumfries.

Gord Zeilstra, 36, (Liberal): With the departure of Janko Peric, the Liberals have turned to a young businessman working in Waterloo Region’s tech sector. He is one of the founding employees of the job-finding site Monster.ca and is currently a regional vice president of Vurv Technology, a company which finds qualified new hires for high tech companies. Outside of his work, Zeilstra calls himself “a participant in many campaigns”. His degree is a Bachelor of Arts in communications and political science. He’s young, energetic, but inexperienced. Conservative party supporter Greg Staples said of him during a recent all-candidates’ debate: “he was a bit unsteady in his answers, being a rookie, but the Liberals should not be embarrassed with him as their flag bearer. Once he grows into the role he will be a tough opponent next time around.”

Zeilstra is married to his wife of fourteen years and has two young daughters.

Max Lombardi, 40, (New Democrats): It’s proven hard to get detailed information about Max Lombardi and his contributions to the political life of Cambridge. The NDP website barely calls him more than “a long-time Cambridge resident”. He currently works as an Information technologist for NEBS Payroll Service Limited. The bulk of his campaign has been about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario, which should get a receptive ear from the large manufacturing sector in Cambridge.

Scott Cosman, 55, (Green): Cosman has lived in Waterloo Region since 1955, graduating from Wilfred Laurier University with a business administration degree. He has worked for thirty years in sales and marketing for such firms as Neilson’s Ltd, Carnation Inc, and Bell Mobility. His most recent work has been for Miser Lighting, a company dedicated to selling high efficiency lightbulbs to businesses.

Given Gary Goodyear’s advantage of incumbency, and the riding’s conservative character of late, I expect that this one will remain in the Conservatives’ column this election.

• Greg Staples reviews the Cambridge all-candidates’ debate.

I returned home from a night out to find a voice mail on my phone. It starts out quite simply (translated):

“Hello. This is a recorded message.”

It turns out it is a recorded message from Pierre Ducasse, the NDP candidate for Hull-Aylmer. He says that if we want nothing to do with the Conservatives, are sick of being taken for granted by the Liberals, and are tired of the old arguments (from the Bloc), we should vote for change and the NDP.

Pierre, I’m glad you called, but you aren’t going to win with recorded messages. You know how many volunteers you need to make a recorded message and send it out to a few hundred people? None. Just Pierre Ducasse and a computer.

I’ve already been called twice for the Bloc Québécois personally by Dr. Gilles Aubé, former and current candidate for the provincial Parti Québécois in Hull (who did well in the last by-election).

That’s how you win elections.

—

Cross-posted to Sovereignty en Anglais.

Predicted winner – Liberal

Liberal Dominic Leblanc has managed to up the number of votes he receives in every election he’s fought. In 2006, he outpolled Conservative Omer Léger by 7000 votes. Léger is giving it another go this election and while he’ll probably close the gap, it won’t be enough.

X-Factor – Stephane Dion, particularly in the small Anglophone portion of the riding but not enough to matter.

Spink About It

I went to North Vancouver’s all candidates meeting on Wednesday night and was left with a few impressions (side note: there’s a prediction on the winner of this – and several other – ridings at the end).

 1. Compared to the 2006 debate at the same venue, the crowd was incredibly respectful. Despite being marginally pro-Saxton (though from my vantage point I may not have been able to gauge audience reaction entirely accurately), there was only one moment of heckling, which was over before the debate was 5 minutes old.

2. Don Bell knows what plays and what doesn’t in the riding. Bell is an old pro, probably running his last campaign, who is putting up a heck of a fight in a right leaning riding. He can come off as awkward from time to time double checking his policy notes and stumbling over his words. However, the answers he does provide (including the best joke of the night) show an inherent knowledge of North Vancouver’s electorate. Don Bell knows North Vancouver and North Vancouver knows Don Bell.

3. All the subtleties that Don Bell knows about North Vancouver, Andrew Saxton doesn’t. He’s a new comer, it shows and North Vancouver doesn’t like newcomers – just ask Warren Kinsella. He was awkward, caught in contradictions once or twice and really fell off the wagon towards the end of the night as his jokes fell flat and his short, pointed answers, turned into meandering forays into a party platform he wasn’t entirely familiar with and a defensive answer about missing debates and failing to fill out questionnaires. Saxton has the potential to do well. He may win this election, but in a few more years he’ll be a much better candidate with a much better understanding of North Vancouver’s fussy electorate. Let’s hope that the local Conservatives don’t eat their own and give Mr. Saxton a second chance should he require one.

4. Jim Stephenson was not nearly as good as he was in 2006, but was still a pleasure to watch. A great understanding of his party’s platform and a very engaging style proved him to be the most likable candidate on stage. Perhaps resigned to a third place finish, the most interesting moments of the night were the little bones he kept throwing the Liberals.

5. I’m looking very much forward to the NDP candidates next film – he fought the good fight. He had nothing to lose and it showed, still good for him to show up. In 2006 the NDP candidate missed this debate because she was recovering from exhaustion in hospital. The Libertarian candidate, well, she sure didn’t hold back (and good on the audience for respecting her for that).

 6. This debate reminded me of why Don Bell won this riding in 2004 and 2006, and why he’s going to be the victor on October 14th, that’s right I’m calling it. Don Bell, North Vancouver – Liberal HOLD, but not by much.

7. While I’m here, I’ll also make a few more calls: West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast -STSC, oh the anticipation….John Weston, Conservative PICKUP by a country mile, but not a majority. Vancouver Centre…Hedy Fry Liberal HOLD, with a reasonable plurality – 2-4th may be seperated by no more than a point.

 If anything comes up in the next few days I’ll be back…

After the Liberals were defeated in the federal election of January 2006, there was a sense of renewal in the air. Both Liberals, who had grown tired of the old ways after thirteen years in government under Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin, and non-Liberals saw a golden opportunity in defeat to give the party a new sense of direction and purpose, to transform it into a party that would reflect small-l liberal values and be well-positioned as one of the main parties in 21st-century Canada.

In those heady days the Liberal Party attracted a considerable number of people who had never been members of the party, or even voted for it, before. I was one of them. In Alberta, building a new movement or political party from scratch is in our blood. The Reform Party, for example, was a product of this passion so typical of Albertans. For me, therefore, it was a great opportunity to be part of a process that would breathe new life into an old and stale party that had long forgotten its roots.

Albertans are often erroneously labelled as conservatives when, in fact, they are small-l liberals in the traditional sense: protecting people’s freedoms and ensuring that every individual can unfold his or her full potential, while keeping government and its reach to a reasonable level and cracking down on those whose excesses of freedom, such as criminal activity, make it impossible for others to enjoy their freedoms. In that sense, and in that sense only, I am a liberal. As far as I am concerned, a party that uses the word “liberal” in its name must live up to those principles.
(more…)

Look at these numbers:

Nationally, however, the party appears to have stopped its week-long slide and come to rest with between 33 and 35 per cent support from decided voters – a shade below the 36 per cent of the vote it won in 2006, allowing it to form a minority government.

What does all this really mean? Very little, to tell the truth. First of all, polls are never accurate. To achieve any real representative accuracy or significance, polling companies would have to poll at least 3,500 people for each poll, rather than only 1,200, 1,000 or 800-900. Given the sample sizes in Canadian polls, all of them are for the birds.

Second, there is the issue of Canada’s undemocratic and antiquated first-past-the-post system – i.e., the winner takes all, as they say. Even if the polling numbers are accurate, which they are not, and we assume that the Tories will get, say, 34%, they can still form a majority government. All they have to do is win by at least one vote in 155 ridings, and the majority is in place. Or to put it in more drastic terms, if they obtained as little as 10% of the votes in 155 ridings, and 10% happens to be the highest count for any of the candidates in the ridings, they would also win a majority.

Always keep in mind what happened in the provincial election in Alberta this March: with only 22% of the electorate supporting them, the Alberta Tories formed a majority government, holding 72 of 83 seats (!).

Finally, the above numbers may not be all that accurate, as I said:

University of B.C. political scientist Fred Cutler, a voting specialist, warned that polling numbers early in a campaign can be suspect and that the decline in support is probably exaggerated.

It is for this reason that it will be a long time before any of the mainstream parties will ever agree to change to a system of proportional representation. As they surely see it: Why fix it if it ain’t broke?

Fait étonnant, c’est un Gilles Duceppe visiblement agacé des attaques que subit Stéphane Dion à propos de la qualité de son anglais, qui s’est porté à la défense de ce dernier. Qualifiant la sortie de Stephen Haper à l’endroit du chef du Parti libéral de « coup bas », M. Duceppe est d’avis que les commentaires du genre n’ont pas leur place en campagne électorale. Selon le chef du Bloc québécois, plusieurs leaders politiques éprouvent des difficultés à s’exprimer dans les deux langues officielles.

Bonjour my friend, how are you mon ami ?

Il faut avouer que le bilinguisme des chefs des cinq principaux partis politiques varie énormément d’un à l’autre. Et si le français de Jack Layton est de loin supérieur à celui d’Elizabeth May, il est permis de s’étonner des propos de Stephen Harper dont le français est relativement du même calibre que l’anglais de Stéphane Dion.

Toujours selon Gilles Duceppe, « M. Dion fait des efforts pour parler en anglais et je pense qu’il a progressé. On demande beaucoup plus aux francophones de bien parler anglais qu’aux anglophones de bien parler français. Il y a deux poids, deux mesures. »

À ce propos, il est indéniable que le bilinguisme canadien n’existe que sur papier. En effet, selon Statistique Canada (chiffres de 2007), seulement 17% des Canadiens sont bilingues. Or, cette donnée masque le véritable écart qui existe entre le Québec et le ROC. En effet, si l’on fait exception du Nouveau-Brunswick où il atteint 33,4% – principalement en raison de la population acadienne –, le taux de bilinguisme est beaucoup moins reluisant dans le ROC, où il varie de 4 à 12%, qu’au Québec où il atteint 40,6%.

Baignant dans une Amérique en grande majorité anglophone, il est généralement admis que les Québécois d’origine francophone ont tout à gagner à maîtriser l’anglais.

Cela dit, en ce qui a trait au « bilinguisme canadien », ces derniers n’ont pas de leçons à recevoir de CTV, de Stephen Harper, ni même de l’ensemble ROC.

We finally have our first election poll for Saskatchewan (no longer just “the west”). I’m not generally one to go by individual poll results, so take these with a grain of salt. However, since they are all we have, lets look at them a little closer. The poll, conducted by News Talk 650/Angus Reid, questioned 800 voters from across the province. The results (+/- 3.5%, 19 out 20 times):

Conservatives: 40%
NDP: 35%
Liberals: 17%
Greens: 7%
Undecided: 28%

Interestingly, in opposite fashion to the national trends of the past week, Dion’s approval ratings are extremely low in the province, even lower than Elizabeth May. Stephen Harper is thought to make the best PM of the bunch, with Jack Layton having the highest approal rating. In 2006 the split was 49/25, the Liberal 2006 total was not reported but was higher than the current 17%.

A little speculation, again with a huge grain of salt. The NDP are serious challengers in 3 ridings, Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. In 2006, the Conservatives enjoyed  leads of 6.5%/9%/10% over the New Democrats in SRB, R-Q, and Palliser. Assuming that these provincial trends breakdown evenly amongst these ridings it suggests that Nettie Wiebe in SRB has a decent chance of overcoming her 1,919 vote deficeit from 2006. It also means that Janice Bernier might be closer than expected for the New Democrats in Regina Qu’Appelle and that Liberal support may collapse enough to give Don Mitchell a chance in a relatively tight three-way race in Palliser.

Additionally, these numbers suggest that in most of the ridings with a major urban portion (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Blackstrap, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, and Prince Albert), where the NDP finished second or a close third, that the New Democrat campaigns could enjoy significant gains on the Tory incumbents while pulling away from the Liberals.

For the Liberals, I don’t think this means Goodale is in trouble in Wascana, as his closest competitor is a Conservative candidate and King Ralph has consistently bucked provincial trends. A poll conducted by the Regina-Leader Post in Wascana, conducted between Oct 3 and 7th and interviewing 801 voters (3.4%, 19 out 20 times), gives the following breakdown of decided voters:

Goodale (Lib): 51.4
Hunter (Con): 34.3
Moore (NDP): 11.1
Wooldridge (GP): 3.2

If these number hold true, it would suggest that my analyses of Wascana and Ralph bucking the provincial trends (yet again) were not far off the mark. Some further analyses by Murray Mandryk. However, in DMCR it could mean that despite having a strong organizer like Orchard running, the Liberals may not have enough to overcome Conservative incumbent Rob Clarke, with some support swinging to the NDP instead

Anyhow, as a politics addict I couldn’t resist a little speculation on a one-off poll. So take it with a grain of salt, disagree if you want, I am always open to different interpretations of the numbers.

_________

cross-posted on my blog.

I just watched the unedited video of Stéphane Dion having troubling understanding a question from CTV’s Steve Murphy.

The Conservatives have responded by more or less making fun of Dion’s inability to understand the question, as if it was because he’s an idiot or doesn’t know what to say.

Having watched the video, I can’t help but strongly sympathise with Dion. Having francophone relatives with difficulties speaking English, I completely understand having to repeat a question. Dion honestly doesn’t understand the premise of the question, and rather than have it repeated during the interview he asks to start over, which is sensible. Why waste air time on Dion being unable to grasp the exact meaning of the question because English is his second language? His issue here is clearly not with the question itself, he simply doesn’t want to answer a question other than the one he is being asked. This is no political dodging, it is merely a language issue.

That the Conservatives are attacking this actually really upsets me. As English is my first language, I have had trouble understanding questions that have been posed to me in French before. And you know the unilingual members of the Conservative Party who are nevertheless trotted out as bilingual (including the Prime Minister) have just as much trouble understanding a question posed to them in French, but we Quebecers, used to having the French language butchered, let it pass, if we don’t find it endearing.

Francophones in Quebec, once they grasp this English Canadian issue, will be angered. Dion is a francophone who doesn’t speak English well, and this he shares with millions of Quebecers. The Conservatives are making fun of them when they mock him. Immigrants who speak something other than English should be insulted as well.

I think this is despicable.

Cross-posted to Sovereignty en Anglais.

Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.

Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?

We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.

The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)       3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating  and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.

The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

It was a pleasure, I’ll confess, to wake up this morning to the flensing of Mike Duffy for his disgraceful, boorish, unethical behaviour last night. And it was a relief to see that one solid Canadian value–fairness–is still so vigorously in effect.

In a way, the treatment of Stephane Dion by CTV sums up the election campaign as a whole: its peculiar nastiness, a rotten import from the south that the Tories, since the day they mocked Jean Chretien’s facial disfigurement, still imagine will play well up here. And maybe in little jerkwater hamlets like Delisle it does, but not among civil Canadians.

The Conservatives are all over this soft lob from Duffy, of course. Earth to the CPC: we aren’t buying it. Decency still counts for something, even during an election campaign. Dion is starting to look positively magisterial compared to the cold-eyed autocrat you want us to support for his “leadership” qualities. The awkward, gangling, nerdy fellow from Quebec might even have a shot at being the next Prime Minister. And this, despite the last-ditch smarmy interventions of oh-so-wise journalistic talking heads whose corporate groupthink has helped to paralyze the body politic for decades.

What a desperate, contemptible move by a party whose fortunes have waned so rapidly over the past few days. And don’t blame all of the latter on the incredible shrinking economy. Canadians are rightly worried: indeed, in the words of one financial commentator today, “Even panic is starting to look like a realistic response.” But in such times we want reassurance–not bizarre suggestions that we spend money on stock bargains. We are looking for a sympathetic connection and a comprehensible plan.

Instead, when a man is asked an ambiguous question that would pose a challenge to most of us even in our first language, we’re treated to petty, slimy personal insults. If Dion in now in sight of a minority victory, this shameful little episode might just push him past the finish line. And if that happens, while I shall never vote Liberal in my life, I’ll be cheering.

Andrew Krystal, perhaps the most straightforward talk-radio host in Atlantic Canada, spent this morning taking Steve Murphy and the ATV newsroom to task for their airing of Stephane Dion’s fumbling of an economic question during a taped interview.

Krystal’s criticism? That leaders fumble all the time in interviews, and many reporters (keen to have lucid answers) will give the politician the chance to call a mulligan. Harper himself had to use a mulligan when conducting an interview with Krystal over Iraq a few years back – because the interview was taped, the talk radio gave the conservative leader a chance to do a do-over.

Murphy gave Dion this chance, but then decided that having a leader stumble over the verb tense in a single question was more news-worthy than having a lucid discussion on economic matters. This shows either poor news judgement on Murphy’s part, or an implicit conservative bias (in his memoirs, Murphy regales in telling the reader how hard he was on John Turner during the 1988 election campaign).

Let’s be clear. Dion’s fumble is in no way an indication of his ability to handle the current economic crisis. This was not at all like Sarah Palin’s incomprehension over the Bush doctrine, or suggestions that close proximity to Russia made here an expert in Foreign Policy. It was a linguistic fumble, and offered no glimpse as to the Liberal leader’s economic thinking. Perhaps Dion would have satisfied Murphy if he took a page from Harper’s playbook and simply stated, “If I were Prime Minister today, I would tell all Canadians to buy Nortel. It’s a bargain!”

Alas, Dion didn’t choose to play stockpicker. And in turn, the ATV newsroom didn’t choose to be impartial.

After giving 50 billion dollars in corporate tax cuts. Conservatives and liberals let us spend 18 billion on a war that a majority of Canadians do not want to fight.

Who said there was no money for social justice and middle class families ? It seems there’s plenty of it, it just depends on your priorities.

As I wrote when the news of the afghan mission cost came out in the middle of September, the numbers will come out and give munitions to the only pacifist party in Canada, Jack Layton’s NDP. Kevin Page’s report says the Canadian afghan war machine could reach 18 billion dollars. But he also noted he could not have access to all the numbers. The conservatives hide some numbers and so have the liberals in the past. There is a major lack of transparency on those numbers, told Layton.

Media helping Dion to grasp the leftist votes

The media are backing a Dion-Harper duel as it serves them well since both are friends with corporations and establishment and they won’t try and push for real change. On the other hand, they’re scared of Layton who wants to bully the banks so that they stop taking advantage of working families and low income Canadians. Every election is the same, the media toss aside the left when the final round comes.

The liberals are only progressive during election time. Don’t waste your left vote on them, you will just carry on the same old right wing economic ideas that lead us to recession. It’s time for change. Only the NDP will benefit a majority of Canadians, the major parties favour the high income minorities.

La chroniqueuse politique Chantal Hébert affirmait hier sur son blogue que « Pour la première fois, l’hypothèse d’une victoire de Stéphane Dion la semaine prochaine n’est plus une idée complètement abstraite. (…) Le dénouement du scrutin est désormais largement entre les mains de l’électorat ontarien, peut-être le groupe d’électeurs le plus volatile et le moins prévisible au Canada. Tous les sondages indiquent que l’état de l’opinion dans cette province est encore très fluide. »

C’est un fait que certains sondages effectués en Ontario ces derniers jours indiquent que les libéraux ont repris le dessus (32% selon Harris/Decima et 39% selon Nanos) sur les conservateurs (28% selon les deux firmes). Résultat : les conservateurs n’auraient désormais plus au pays qu’une avance de quatre ou cinq pour cent sur les libéraux. Qu’il s’agisse d’un vote prolibéral ou anticonservateur, un fait demeure : Stéphane Dion, celui-là même dont on annonçait la fin de la carrière politique il y a deux semaines à peine, a désormais des chances – si minimes soient-elles – de devenir le premier ministre du Canada.

Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it

Mais qui dit premier ministre du Canada, dit aussi premier ministre de tous les citoyens, les Québécois y compris. Or, pour ces derniers, le père de la loi sur la clarté référendaire (C-20) – celle-là même qui a été rejetée du revers de la main par les trois principaux partis au Québec – représente une menace réelle pour la paix constitutionnelle. Mise de côté depuis la dernière élection au Québec, la souveraineté n’a en effet besoin que d’une simple étincelle pour enflammer à nouveau l’électorat québécois. On peut compter sur le PQ et le Bloc québécois à ce sujet pour faire leurs choux gras des positions constitutionnelles de Stéphane Dion s’il devait un jour être élu premier ministre.

Des positions qui pourraient aussi entrer en conflit avec les demandes à saveur nationalistes récemment formulées par Jean Charest. Si Gilles Duceppe appuie ces dernières avec vigueur, pour Stéphane Dion, elles donnent lieu à une fin de non-recevoir.

Stephen Harper reconnaît de son côté qu’il ne peut satisfaire toutes les demandes du Québec, mais il continue à marteler que sa vision du fédéralisme asymétrique demeure la meilleure approche pour le Québec.

Jack Layton a quant à lui affirmé durant le débat des chefs qu’il était ouvert à discuter de ces questions, notamment de la souveraineté culturelle du Québec, avec le gouvernement Charest et à cet égard, il demeure de loin le chef le plus ouvert des trois partis fédéralistes.

De Layton, Harper et Dion, ce dernier est au final le seul des trois qui risque de jeter de l’huile sur le feu souverainiste. Le seul qui a le pouvoir de garantir la présence du Bloc à Ottawa pour les années à venir. Et possiblement le seul qui soit en mesure de ramener l’échéance référendaire au calendrier des Québécois. Une évidence que le ROC semble avoir perdu de vue à force de prôner, « Anything but conservative ».

Comme quoi le mieux est souvent l’ennemi du bien.

Predicted winner – Conservative

In 2006 Conservative Jean-Pierre Ouellet came within a 1000 votes of current Liberal MP Jean Claude D’Amours. Ouellet and D’Amours are going to battle it out again but this time Ouellet should come out on top. The NDP have picked up more than 20% the last two elections and even though they’re running a new candidate this time around, they should do at least that well. The Greens will also pick up more votes and all of this is at the expense of the Liberals. The vote split and strong Conservative vote from the Madawaska part of the riding should push Ouellet over the top.

X-Factor – Ouellet might win it but it’s still going to be a close one. Voter apathy may just result in people staying home. If that happens though it will probably cause more harm to D’Amours. Conservatives tend to get out and vote more particularly since it’s their Party in power.

Crossposted – Spink About It