What a difference a couple of seats might make!

Greg Morrow’s latest forecast – 126 seats for theHarper Conservatives and 128 for the Liberals and NDP combined — sets up some interesting possibilities. Let’s suppose, as Greg predicdts, that the election gives the Liberals and the NDP more seats than the Tories.

First, Stephen Harper’s failure to significantly improve his party’s position would put his long-term leadership under a cloud. He almost quit in a hissy fit after the 2004 vote. The knives could be out — except that Harper’s kept such a tight grip on his erratic crew that he’s really got no rival at this point.

Second, all the pronouncements of a Liberal wipe-out will have proven vastly overstated. Ninety-two seats isn’t that far off the 95 the Liberals held when Parliament was dissolved. Dion’s performance in the last two weeks of the campaign will have earned him another shot at 24 Sussex.

Third, Jack Layton’s “I’m running for Prime Minister” is taking him down a long road, judging from the miniscule progress he’ll have made (six more seats according to Greg).

What effect will a combined Liberal-NDP edge over the Conservatives have on the next parliament? As I’ve written before, that’s all it took in Ontario in 1985 for David Peterson to oust the front-running Conservatives under Frank Miller.

The Liberals and the NDP also won more seats than the Tories in 2006. But with Paul Martin’s resignation, there was no taste for an accord with the NDP.

Now, with two-thirds of Canadians having voted for a candidate other than a Conservative, Dion and Layton will have a responsibility to consider how their two parties together could best serve Canada in this time of economic crisis.

Both will know full well that even with a free hand, the change in the economy means they’d not be in a position to fulfill their election commitments. This would force Layton to tone down his spending plans, and Dion to reflect on his Green Shift priorities. Factor in these considerations and you have two parties that could work together in a “Crisis Coalition.”

What other choice would Dion have? He cerrtainly wouldn’t want another election right away. How long could he survive by allowing Conservative legislation to go through unchallenged?

In a House of five parties (or four and maybe one Green and a couple of independents), a Liberal-NDP fusion, accord or call it what you want, would still be a minority.

There’s only one issue that greatly separates the Bloc from the Libs and the Dippers — separation. But even Duceppe admits that’s not on the table.

On culture, social justice, Afghanistan, healthcare, economic security — there’s very little difference. Gilles Duceppe wiill have no hunger for another election. He may well have run for the last time.

A Liberal-NDP “Crisis Coalition,” supported by a two-year commitment from the Bloc to let the pair govern, no longer looks as far-fetched as a couple of weeks ago.

What a difference a couple of seats might make!

www.wildaboutwriting.com

It’s a beautiful Thanksgiving weekend and Orillia sparkled as the neat little city it is when Stephane Dion and two busloads of national media drew up to the Farmers’ Market behind the Orillia Opera House for a noontime rally.

I’d come along to see what kind of reception Dion would receive from small town Ontario Saturday shoppers. He got a warm, even enthusiastic welcome, as a horde of Liberal volunteers surrounded him with placards and cheers as he made his way through the crowd.

Stephane Dion with Barrie candidate Rick Jones, left, and Simcoe North candidate Steve Clarke, right, showing appreciation for young musicians

Dion gave a good stump speech. He appealed for the “progressive vote” and told NDP supporters that they and the Liberals share the same social values but only a Liberal vote can stop Stephen Harper. That’s certainly true in this riding, at least.

“Stephen Harper is building his campaign on a lie. He will lose on a lie,” Dion told the audience.

He was referring to the oft-repeated Tory charge that Dion’s Green Plan will hurt Canadians because it includes a carbon tax. The fact the Green Shift includes income tax cuts is never mentioned by the Tories.

Dion threw in a good word for Elizabeth May, expressing the hope she’ll be elected in Central Nova.

Asked about whether the trembling economy would hold up implementation of Liberal promises, Dion said his party has a four-year plan. He committed himself to carrying out all its goals, including child care and a catastrophic drug plan, within that time frame. But there may have to be some delays in the first year or two, he said, depending on economic conditions.

The Liberals know their only chance of forming a minority government is to stop the siphoning off of left-of-center votes. The Greens have probably been the major factor so far in the Liberals having dropped in the polls from their 30 per cent level in the 2006 belection. The Conservatives are down also, but if only one voter in three marks their ballot for a Tory on Tuesday, Harper will have won.

Won what? That’s the question. He’ll have to take more seats than the Liberals and the NDP combined, in order to withstand an immediate test in Parliament.

From the looks of the campaign in Simcoe North, one of those close Ontario battleground seats, it’s going to be a squeaker between Clarke and Tory incumbent Bruce Stanton. The 1,200-vote edge by which Stanton won in 2006 (out of 60,000 votes) is no assurance the Conservatives can hold this seat. That’s why Dion was here today.

I saw Green party candidate Valerie Powell hanging around the edges of the rally. She managed to snag an interview with a couple of the national media. Powell could be the king-maker in Simcoe North on Tuesday, depending on how many people are resistent to Dion’s plea for a united “progressive” vote.

“I’ll be the greenest prime minister Canada ever had,” Dion likes to tell his rallies. He repeated that claim here today. Will it be good enough for those tempted to vote Green?

We’ll know Tuesday night. Clarke is a popular local businessman. He runs the Brewery Bay cafe on Orillia’s main street. Stanton’s case for re-election rests in part on the funding he says he’s been able to bring into the riding for public works. A good example of old fashioned stump politics. But as of right now, I’m calling Simcoe North to switch to the Liberal column when the votes are counted.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

I thought I’d have a day away from politics when I booked three seats on the SS Segwun for a cruise of Lake Muskoka today (October 8th). I wanted my cousins from Australia to see what Cottage Country looks like.

But when I heard on the news this morning that Britain was pouring $200 billion into taking over its biggest banks, and that central banks around the world were cutting interest rates, it was clear that no matter where I went, I wouldn’t escape the turmoil.

We boarded the Segwun at Gravenhurst just before noon, with a slight drizzle in the air. You couldn’t avoid hearing the election being discussed. Complimentary copies of the Toronto Star were being handed out:

Once on board, I chatted up a local man who was showing a German visitor the beauty of the Muskoka district. On the financial crisis, he had a comment of considerable wisdom: “Nobody knows what’s really going on.”

Gravenhurst is in the Parry Sound riding that Health Minister Tony Clement won by a razor thin margin in 2006. We had come up from Lagoon City, in the adjoining Simcoe North riding, where Tory Bruce Stanton is fighting to hold the seat against a strong challenge from Liberal Steve Clark.

As an indication of how winnable the Liberals think Simcoe North is, Stephane Dion has scheduled a visit to Orillia for Saturday morning.

A few tourists filled out the on-board complement on the Segwun. Here’s one:

On our return to Lagoon City, the news was all about Stephane Dion’s speech in Toronto today. His best line, apparently, was:  “We need to change course, we need to change the captain, we need to change the whole crew.”

Globe and Mail editorialist Adam Radwanski, blogging Dion’s speech, had this verdict: “The right speech to give right now.”

With the polls so volatile, it’s beginning to look like we’ll watch the election results from the edges of our chairs.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

We’re into a tumultuous week in Canadian politics. Seven days to go in the campaign, and we’re looking at:

• A market meltdown, a looming recession, and — at last — a hurriedly rewritten Conservative party platform
• Tightening of the polls, crippling the Tory surge that once made a Harper majority likely
• The real possibility of a fractured Parliament that could see the birth of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Monday night, after much criticism from the Opposition parties, the blogosphere and talk show radio from coast to coast, the PM finally blinked. He admitted “significant storm clouds” are gathering over Canada, but used the alarm to suggest the Liberal party’s Green Shift would only make things worse. “We have other plans, other proposals,’ he declared, seeking to reassure worried voters.

“Too little, too late,” Stephan Dion said of the Conservative leader’s pronouncement. And the PM’s “do nothing” policy “isn’t going to do anything to protect your jobs or your savings or your pensions or the home you live in,” chimed in Jack Layton.

Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe moved the yardsticks a bit further. He wants an urgent recall of Parliament as soon as possible after the election. “We need concrete measures as soon as possible.”

Duceppe may have touched a nerve. If the Conservatives fail to win a majority but emerge with the most seats, they’d likely try to delay meeting Parliament, perhaps until into the New Year.

The polls now show Conservative support at 32 to 35 per cent – a point or two below what they gained in 2006. At this rate, they could end up with a bare third of the vote.Â

Because Liberal support is also down — now between 25 and 30 per cent, say the pollsters (it was 30 per cent in the last election), it’s hardly likely they will win more seats than the Tories.Â

With the NDP now hovering at 20 per cent, the Bloc at 10 or 11 and the Greens over 10, we may end up with a “House of Minorities” like nothing we’ve ever seen before.

Coalition talk heats up

Last week, I passed on Judy Rebick’s idea for a Liberal-NDP coalition, with Bloc support. It could happen. When my blog was posted on Democratic Space, several readers gave the idea their backing.

One response: “I would fully support a NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition, and I totally disagree with the premise that the Bloc wouldn’t support it; it’s there to work with the federal system for Quebec’s interests until Quebec decides otherwise.”

If the Conservatives win the most seats, Mr. Harper will be entitled to go back in, But he’ll be obligated to meet Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Which is what Mr. Duceppe was really saying.

What would it take to defeat a Harper government in Parliament?

1. A formal agreement between the Liberals and the NDP for a “crisis coalition” to meet the the dire economic circumstances threatening to befall Canada
2. AÂ commitment on the part of the Bloc to let such a coalition govern for a reasonable time — say, two years.

It’s almost a certainty that if Mr. Dion could craft such an arrangement, the Harper government would be toppled on a Throne Speech confidence vote. The Governor-General would have no option but to give him a chance to form the government.

It would take some convoluted, as well as tough, bargaining. Mr. Layton would be in line for Deputy Prime Minister. And perhaps to balance things out, Mr. Dion would call in his friend Elizabeth May as Minister of the Environment. If she’s not elected, there would be pressure for a Liberal in a safe riding to step down for a by-election. She’d be a cinch to win it.

As far-fetched as this scenario may sound, it’s clear that as many as two-thirds of Canadians don’t want Mr. Harper as Prime Minister. Let the market drop another thousand points, and watch the banks begin to scream for fresh capital to keep the wheels of credit turning. Nothing Mr. Harper has done so far would indicate he’s equipped to cope with such a situation.

And give a thought to this twist: If vote splitting is carried to its extreme, it’s not impossible the Bloc could end up as the Official Opposition. All the more reason for a Liberal-NDP coalition.

One thing’s sure: If the country emerges divided from the polling booths next Tuesday, get ready for the “Mother of all political battles” on the floor of Parliament.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

The Economics Club of Toronto attracts the heavyweight speakers from politics and business, and so when I heard Gilles Duceppe would be speaking there, I was glad to go along to yesterday’s luncheon.

I had a chance to chat with Mr. Duceppe after his talk. He was warm, persuasive, and friendly. I joked that if he were a federalist, we’d all want to vote for him. His response: “Maybe I should open a franchise in Ontario.”

About 250 people were  at the Sheraton Centre to hear him. He said he hadn’t come to tell Canadians how to vote, but then made it clear that he was preaching to both Quebeckers and other Canadians that the Bloc represents the best opportunity to prevent Stephen Harper from getting a majority.

Our outstanding lady of letters, Margaret Atwood, was a guest at the head table and afterwards, told reporters that if she lived in Quebec she’d vote for the Bloc.

 “I’m here because Mr. Duceppe understands the contribution that culture makes to our economy. He understands $84-billion, and he understands 1.1 million jobs,” she said.

Duceppe received standing ovations both before and after he spoke, although a few remained in their seats at the end of his talk.

“Quebec is the only place in Canada that can still stop Stephen Harper,” Duceppe declared.

He stressed that the election wasn’t about sovereignty, but added:

“One day or another this problem must be solved. I’m more confident than ever that sovereignty is the best answer for Quebec and for Canada. Then, we’ll be able to go forward as two countries together.”

Duceppe reminded us of Pierre Trudeau’s declaration in 1976 that “separatism is dead.” Two months later, the PQ won its first term of office.

Duceppe talked a lot about culture, recognizing Margaret Atwood’s presence in the room.

“Not only is culture tremendously important to our national identity, but also a huge part of our economy — it’s worth $84 billion to Canada and gives jobs to a million people.” He slammed Stephen Harper’s recent remarks that “ordinary Canadians” aren’t interested in the arts.

“I’m here to defend both Quebec and Canadian cultures,” he said. “We don’t want to live on Planet Hollywood.”

I saw a few notables aorund the room, and had a chance to visit a bit with Judy Rebick, the left-wing activist and feminist who has a new book coming out soon.

In the event that the Conservatives are returned with another minority, she’d like to see an NDP-Liberal-Bloc accord that would keep Harper from forming a government. She points to the NDP-Liberal accord engineered between Bob Rae and David Peterson in Ontario in 1985 that let the Liberals govern even though the Conservatives had won the most seats in that election.

This may sound like grasping at straws, but Mackenzie King used the same tactic once federally. He governed successfully with Progressive party support when the Tories had won the most seats.

I’ll ponder Judy’s idea and maybe write about it next week.

www.wildaboutwriting.com

It was a helluva debate — and far more spontaneous, lively and revealing than that dull, scripted, teleprompter-type discourse that dominated the Biden-Palin debate south of the border.

I watched 90 per cent of the debate from Ottawa, and only a couple of minutes of the farce from St. Louis. It was enough. After that, I monitored online to keep track of the U.S. debate while watching our leaders.

The Canadian debate had everybody wondering whether Stephane Dion would be able to follow up his first-class performance last night in French. He didn’t, although he did manage to shake off that nerd look he’s often struggled with. Looked younger, almost eager.

Mr. Dion struggled with English in answering moderator Steve Paikin’s first question, outlining the 30-day action plan he introduced in the French debate. Stephen Harper struck back, accusing Dion of panicking by suddenly coming out with a new platform in the middle of the debate.

“We have not been following the same policies as the United States,” he added in response to remarks by Jack Layton. “Their policies have been irresponsible … we are still creating jobs … ”

“Yours is the only party that hasn’t put forth any platform to deal with the economy,” Elizabeth May charged.

“Your either don’t care or you’re incompetent,” Layton told the PM.

May kept hammering away at the PM. “You’re out of touch … your tax package cut the wrong taxes …”

Then it was Layton’s turn again. “How can you say people don’t worry about being thrown out of their jobs?” he asked the PM. “Take some responsibity here and don’t try to paper over what’s happening in people’s lives.”

The PM’s response: “We should recognize the strength of our economy. We brought in tax incentives for machinery and production equipment. ”

Gilles Duceppe threw a few haymakers, too. “I don’t know how you can say you’re helping the economy by cutting taxes on companies that aren’t making any profit, they’re not paying tax.”

As the debate went on, Mr. Harper appeared to become more defensive, although he recovered fairly strongly at the end.

The PM was harshly criticized for denying that people are suffering from job losses. “There’s a kind of cold-hearted attitude that we’re going to let everybody sink or swim,” Mr. Layton charged.

“We need to cut taxes on our savings and income and shift it (taxes) to pollution,” Mr. Dion said.

May a bright spot

Elizabeth May was at the top of her form. She demanded policies to reduce the Canadian dollar, and bring back jobs in pulp and paper, forestry, and the auto sector.

Mr. Dion’s English got better as the debate went on, but faltered toward the end, as he apparently tired.

(more…)

I’m at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto, listening to a discussion on the federal election led by two Maclean’s magazine writers, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells. It’s the night of the French language leaders’ debate in Ottawa.

Andrew is his usual erudite self, while Paul continues to zip off amusing one-liners, as irascible as ever.

But what I find really interesting is how both are frustrated, and maybe feeling a little bitter, at how poorly the media are covering this election.

“We in the media are once again disgracing ourselves,” Andrew says. “We’re materially affecting the outcome, and we shouldn’t be doing that. We’re blowing it.”

Coyne goes on to discuss the need to radically change the way elections are run in Canada. “Tory demagoguery has been shameless. They hit the Liberal Green Plan but they don’t talk about their own plan.”

He says there’s no real difference in the cost of Dion’s Green Plan and the Tory Cap and Trade program.

Nobody understands either, because the Conservatives don’t want to talk about their scheme. Prime Minister Harper, Coyne adds, has no hidden agenda because he doesn’t have an agenda, period.

Paul rings in with a couple of zingers. He asserts that the quality of questions asked at an all-candidate meeting he attended “are way above what we ask at scrums.”

“The questions are policy-based, and the people feel strongly about the issues.” The journalists, Paul seems to be saying, don’t give a damn about the issues and merely want to ask “gotcha” questions that will stir up a meaningless headline.

The audience here is mostly university post-graduate PolSci students. They listen respectfully, and ask good questions.

Coyne makes the point that there’s little difference in the spending programs of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

“Over the next four years, total projected program spending by the Conservatives is $930 billion; by the Liberals $940 billion.”

Watching the Debate

I hurry out to catch the leaders’ debate on TV.

Harper goes out of his way to stress the different economic situation between the U.S. and Canada.

“The big challenge is to stay on the right track,” Harpert says in response to the first question, “lower our taxes and target our spending in the interests of most Canadians.”

Elizabeth May rings in with a strong denunciation of the PM’s financial management. Gilles Duceppe says we should re-orient the economy. Jack Layton says we need a government that understands the need to protect our jobs, savings and pensions. “The policies of Mr. Harper haven’t done that.”

Pretty good bunkum, no?

Harper concedes Canada is coming into an economic slowdown because of the situation in the U.S. “We’ve taken measures to ensure stability. In the U.S., people are losing their homes.”

Stephane Dion tells the Prime Minister: “You inherited the best economic situation of any Prime Minister. You don’t believe in the government playing a role in the economy.”

My impression is that all the leaders did pretty well. I’m not sure any voters were changed. Harper held his own against the rest; El;izabeth May shmowed well in her first outing. Duceppe, as always, is a forceful and effective advocate.

Dion has done well. He’s produced the only real headline of the debate: If he takes office, a Liberal government will launch a 30-day action plan to protect Canada’s economy from the crisis affecting the financial sector in the United States.

It’s said voters are more influenced by what they read and hear about a debate, than from actually watching it. An overnight Ipsos-Reid poll has Dion the clear winner, chosen by 40 per cent. Duceppe got the nod from 24% (I’m surprised it wasn’t higher), Harper 16%, Layton 11%, and Elizabeth May just one per cent.

The real test for Dion comes Thursday night, in the English debate. But I also want to watch Palin and Biden go at it!

Infrastructure is a big word, and it is, or should be, a big issue in Canada’s federal election. All the parties are offering solutions of one form or another. The Liberals would work with municipalities and the provinces to implement new funding programs. The Greens want to put the GST back up to six per cent to fund new infrastructure. The cities want a penny from the gasoline tax.

Meanwhile, Toronto’s public transit debacle continues to unfold. The latest misfiring comes from Metrolinx, the public agency charged with finding solutions to traffic gridlock in the Toronto-Hamilton area.

It issued a blue-sky report yesterday promising a 25-year plan, but without saying a word on how to cover its $50 billion cost.

Metrolinx chairman Rob MacIsaac offered this take-it or leave-it choice: “The cost of not proceeding with this plan would be higher than the cost of proceeding with it. We cannot be scared away from this challenge.” Sounds a bit like what the U.S. Congress is being told about the Wall Street bail-out.

MacIsaac’s report raised the usual anti-tax chant from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

“We’re pleased to see that taxpayers have been saved from the prospect of new taxes, new tolls, road fees and congestion charges,” says Kevin Gaudet.

I wonder who he expects will pay for new subways, new streetcars, new roads?

Against this background, the Toronto Transit Commission continues to blunder along, trying to put together its $1.25 billion project to buy new streetcars.

The TTC was going to award the contract to Bombardier after two competitors pulled out, expressing concern about a questionable tendering process. Then it suddenly decided that Bombardier’s cars wouldn’t be able to handle the curves and hills on Toronto routes, so presto, their bid becomes “non-compliant.”

(more…)

Canvassing voters door to door is the essence of the political process. That’s why I looked forward to joining Steve Clarke, the Liberal federal election candidate in Simcoe North, as he made the rounds of Lagoon City Monday evening.

The calls we made reminded me that Canadians are always (well, almost always) polite at the doorstep.

The canvass also reminded me that you don’t get much of a real discussion of the issues during these calls. Candidates of all parties can’t afford the time to get into detailed debate about their party’s platform, or the shortcomings of the other guy’s. The idea is to meet and greet, shake the hand, pledge that you’ll work hard if you’re elected, and then get on to the next house.

A couple of things impressed me about Steve Clarke when we made the rounds.

 Steve Clarke, Liberal, Simcoe North (Ontario)

The first was his obvious commitment to being a good “constituency man.” In Canadian politics, that’s usually where it’s at. He invited people to phone him with any problems and committed to getting action for them.

Steve’s Conservative opponent, the incumbent Bruce Stanton, has “worked” the riding hard since his election two years ago. He’s had the benefit of incumbency (householder mailings, making government announcements, etc) and has a good chance of re-election.

But Simcoe North is a swing riding. It was a Liberal seat for years and in 2006 Stanton took it by fewer than 1,200 votes out of 60,000 cast.

That brings me to the other thing that impressed me about Clarke. He’s got a firm grasp of the issues, and nails hard any point that a voter brings up, whether it’s for or against his party.

Lagoon City is largely a retirement community and he made a good case for the tax reductions and the increased social benefits that seniors are promised in the Liberal Green Shift. The Liberal promise to drop the tax on income trust earnings is also popular with seniors who had bought these funds when the Conservatives were promising to allow the trusts to operate as usual. Then, bam, less than a year after being elected, the Conservatives put a draconian tax load on the trusts on the grounds that they’d enjoyed preferential tax treatment. Maybe, but still, a broken promise is a broken promise.

Clarke got a better reception at the door than I’d expected. Quite a few people asked for signs. He got berated by only one person who expressed a visceral dislike of the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion.

According to today’s polls, the Liberals have bottomed out and are starting to recover some support. It’s said this may be the result of voter fear of a Stephen Harper majority. Interesting that Dion says he’ll have no truck with the NDP in an anti-Harper coalition.

If enough Liberals and NDPers are elected that together they can form a majority, I suspect he’ll sing a different tune! Remember the NDP-Liberal accord in Ontario that allowed the Liberals to form a government when the provincial Tories had won the most seats? It could happen again.

Ray Argyle

www.wildaboutwriting.com

The clock is running down on the election campaigns in both Canada and the U.S. And now only one issue really counts – the economic crisis, what the U.S. government is doing about it, and what Canada can do to stay out of the mess.

Senator Obama has edged into a narrow lead in the U.S. polls, while in Canada the Conservative party ends the second week of the campaign with what appears to be a double digit margin over the Liberals.

Canadians may fret over Conservatives gaffes while they try to figure out what the Liberal Green Shift could cost them. But these things are inconsequential compared to the financial armageddon that the U.S. is flirting with.

Don’t think the rescue package announced by George Bush is the end of the problem. Worry about the American dollar collapsing in its wake. Fret about the probabilility of hyperinflation, followed by a depression as bad as anything the world went through in the 1930s.

Yet, the same old malarky is still being spouted by the mainstream media, especially the Wall Street Journal. Take this beauty from today’s online edition:

“The point of this intervention is to stop a global panic caused both by government mistakes and private excess. The goal isn’t to control markets but to revive them.”

Totally wrong. In announcing the U.S. government’s $700 billion dollar rescue effort, President Bush described the action as “a big package because it was a big problem.”

Lack of Regulation the real problem

The big problem, in fact, has been the dominance in the U.S. of a political and economic philosphy that has encouraged manipulation of the economy by a relatively unregulated and unscrupulous financial services industry that has sucked up billions of dollars in return for worthless scraps of paper.

The problem had its origins, a reader has reminded me, in decisions by the U.S. government under Presidents Clinton and Bush to promote home ownership among low income families. It became extreme when the Bush administration decreed that 56 per cent of Federal Housing mortgages should go to this sector. Conveniently, this created a vast new market for an animal called ”subprime mortgages” – 100% financing and $500 down. The story is well told in this Village Voice article.

These worthless mortgages, wrapped into arcane financial packages no one really understands, were peddled to American and Canadian banks. When buyers began defaulting as higher interest rates clicked in, financial institutions around the world found themselves holding a trillion dollars of questionable investments.

The crisis has hit the UK as wellas the U.S. Canada has avoided the meltdown so far due to its more cautious lending practices and stricter mortgage regulations.

The result is a mass of angry and embittered voters in the U.S., and a bewildered Canadian electorate.

It is almost pathetic to watch the once honorable John McCain rail at Barack Obama for supposedly being a prime cause of the current panic. After all, Obama’s been in Washington four years, compared to McCain’s 22 years. And McCain has always opposed close regulation of the financial industry.

McCain was one of the “Keating Five,” the five American senators involved with savings mogul Kenneth Keating in the great savings and loan scandal that almost ripped apart the American economy under President Reagan — all because of lack of regulation.

American voters will have to decide whether they wish to support a candidate attacking the record of his own party that has been in control of the White House for the past eight years and of the Congress for most of the past twenty.

Canadian voters should tell the party leaders that it’s time to drop the pointless “poopin’ puffin”-type attack ads and lay out a real plan to insulate Canada — at least to the extent that we can — against the kind of economic piracy that’s become endemic to the American way of life.

Ray Argyle

www.wildaboutwriting.com

With today’s polls indicating some slippage in Conservative Party support in Ontario and Quebec, Prime Minister Harper finds himself with another gaffe in his face. Will he be able to shrug this one aside as easily as those that bedevilled the Tories in the first week of the campaign?

Last night, when it came to light that his agriculture minister, Gerry Ritz, had made tasteless remarks about the deaths of Canadians from the listeriosis outbreak, it was obvious that Harper had been handed another hot potato.

In comments in Quebec today, the PM said he accepted the apology Ritz had offered, and rationalized his minister’s bizarre behavior by noting he had been under a lot of stress at the time:

“I think this story is obviously very embarrassing for him, very unfortunate, but should not detract from the good work he has done to get on top and understand this matter.”

As most will know, Mr. Ritz, a Saskatchewan MP, had characterized the crisis as causing the government to suffer death by a thousand cuts, “or should I say cold cuts.” He then went on to add that he hoped the death reported in Prince Edward Island was that of the Liberal agricultural critic, Wayne Easter. Mr. Easter has graciously accepted a personal apology from Mr. Ritz.

It is not uncommon for people in stressful situations to make intemperate comments. However, some will argue that it would have been more forgivable if Mr. Ritz had belabored the executives or the workers of Maple Leaf Foods, or even his own food inspectors for not having caught the outbreak sooner. “I’ll horse-whip those blankety-blank so-and-so’s,” or words to that effect might have been excusable under the circumstances.

But to joke about “cold cuts” and the hoped-for death of a political rival? Some may see this as less a sign of stress and more an indication of an intellectual vacuum in the head of the minister.

Predictably, the Liberals and the NDP have demanded Mr. Ritz resign, or that the PM fire him. Depending on how strong the public uproar becomes, Mr. Harper (or Mr. Ritz) might be forced to re-think their positions.

 Gerry Ritz, MP

The Conservatives had to issue yet another apology today over the remarks of a riding assistant for Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon. The individual had suggested a native protestor had a drinking problem. The apology noted that the comments “do not reflect the views of the Government of Canada.”

Of course, not only the Conservative party has had trouble of this type. Two Liberal candidates, and one each of the NDP and the Greens, have been dropped for things they have said, either during the campaign or in years past.

There seems to be a difference of pattern, however. Last week, the Conservative party communications director was fired for suggesting the comments of a grieving father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan should be seen in light of the fact he was a Liberal supporter. Then there was the “poopin’ puffin” Internet bird dropping excrement on Liberal chieftain Stephane Dion.

Does all this indicate an underlying sense of meanness deep within the heart of the Conservative party? According to surveys, up to a half of all Canadians are worried about what a Harper government might do if it had a majority.

Things like Mr. Ritz’s innate utterings add a further dimension to this apprehension. The more often such incidents come to light, the more likely it is that Danny Williams’ ”Anybody But Conservative” campaign will begin to look like a rational choice.

Some thoughts on the U.S. presidential election:

John McCain’s ordeal as a prisoner in Vietnam has become a motif of the 2008 Presidential campaign. His five years of torment, from 1967 to 1973, have been put forth as unquestioned evidence of his courage and patriotism.

McCain missed the 1968 U.S. presidential election in which Richard Nixon defeated Lyndon Johnson’s vice-president, Hubert Humphrey. Had Robert F. Kennedy – RFK – survived his campaign for the Democratic nomination that year, the outcome of the election, and the temper of American politics ever since, might have been substantially different.

I’m reminded of this is reading the new book, The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days That Inspired America, by Thurston Clarke (Henry Holt & Co.).

It almost takes your breath away to compare the circumstances that prevailed in 1968 with those of today, forty years later.

In a chilling observation about Vietnam which arguably could be applied to Iraq, Kennedy told a Face the Nation broadcast on November 26, 1967:

“Do we have the right here in the United States to say that we’re going to kill tens of thousands, make millions of people, as we have, refugees, kill women and children, as we have?”

Even before announcing his candidacy, and having apologized for his role in the early decision-making that entangled the U.S. in Vietnam – Kennedy said in a speech in Kansas:

“I am concerned – as I believe most Americans are concerned – that we are acting as if no other nations existed, against the judgment and desires of neutrals and our historic allies alike.”

Kennedy’s campaign focused on the crisis of the poor – poor whites, but especially blacks, Hispanics and native Americans.

He is widely remembered for his commitment to civil rights and the cause of blacks and Hispanics. But he was equally dedicated to improving the lives of the white poor and of American Indians.

My Canadian readers who are well aware of the high suicide rate among young First Nations people (as Indian groups are known in Canada) should not be surprised that Kennedy detected the same blight on American reserves in the 1960s.

He spoke of “Indians living on their bare and meager reservations … with so little hope for the future that for young men and women in their teens the greatest cause of death is suicide.” He was as concerned about them as he was of “children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation.”

The enormous love and loyalty that Bobby Kennedy commanded in 1968 – as well as the hate – has not since been seen in American public life.

In a postscript to The Last Campaign, Clarke recounts an incident in 1992 when President Clinton cut food stamps to poor children as part of his reform of welfare. Kennedy had campaigned for more aid to the poor, but Clinton’s action did not prevent him from quoting RFK in his signing ceremony.

Clarke writes that this incident so enraged Bobby Kennedy’s daughter Rory (who had not yet been born in 1968) that she accused Clinton of “bastardizing” her father’s name and legacy.

RFK’s last campaign put the condition of African-Americans atop the American political agenda. His legacy remains alive and bears much credit, I believe, for the ascendancy of Barack Obama as the first black candidate for president. The little incident mentioned above may have something to do with why Caroline Kennedy chose to support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton.

– Ray Argyle (read me at www.wildaboutwriting.com)

We’re beginning to see more signs that the polls in this election, as well as the economy, are pretty fragile. I’ve already pointed out some of the inconsistencies in the polling figures we’re being given. Now, Harris/Decima is beginning to backtrack on the big lead they gave the Tories last week.

After a week of rolling polls by H/D that gave the Conservatives a growing lead, they now say the Tory edge has been cut by three points, down from 41 to 38 per cent. Liberals are up from 24 to 27 per cent, and the NDP is up  one point, to 16. The Greens and the Bloc are flat at nine and eight, respectively.

This is more in line with what Nik Nanos (the most accurate pollster, for my money) had been saying. He’s got the Tories up by six points, 37 to 31 per cent.

It’ll be interesting to see if a series of tough Liberal ad attack ads like this one, will help Dion cut further into the reported Conservative lead.

Elizabeth May got a lot of media exposure over the weekend, so we should look for an uptick in Green figures in coming days.

Her “green shift” would put a $50 a ton carbon tax on pollution, compared to the $10 proposed by Stephane Dion. But she’s impressively articulate in pointing out that the Green scheme would mean $50 billion in tax reductions for ordinary Canadians, with the loss made up by increased taxes on greenhouse gas-emitting companies.

Today, all the party leaders were roiled a bit by the alarming financial news out of the States. More evidence that the laissez faire open market approach favored by the Republicans (and the Conservatives) inevitably brings on excess and collapse. Lehman Brothers and Merill Lynch are the latest casualties of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and the Toronto market dropped another 488 points today.

Prime Minister Harper tried to put a brave face on it. But he didn’t sound all that optimistic: ““I don’t think the atmosphere should turn to one of complete doom and gloom. I wouldn’t throw in the towel on any of this quite yet.”

If the election turns into a battle of the economy, who’ll come off looking the best able to handle tough times?

There’s an old Liberal war cry — “Tory times are tough times.” I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Liberals and the Dippers play some variation of this theme in the days ahead.

Question of the Week: No serious damages from Hurricane Ike to the Gulf refineries. Oil is down another $5 a barrel. When can we expect gasoline prices to drop?

Stephen Harper’s hopes for a Conservative majority will be tested in ridings like Simcoe North, a sprawling seat north of Lake Simcoe that switched to the Tories in 2006, but by fewer than 1,200 out of nearly 60,000 votes.

I’ll be tracking the campaign in this pivotal central Ontario riding, likely to be a bellweather of the dozens of potential swing seats across the province.

It’s a very traditional riding — 93 per cent white and 90 per cent English, nudged against the Muskoka resort country, its small towns dependent largely on public service jobs plus whatever the tourist industry can bring in during the summers. This past summer was not agood one for the riding’s resort keepers.

No one knows that better than the Conservative incumbent, Bruce Stanton, who runs The Cottages at Port Stanton. It’s been in his family for five generations.

Stanton took the seat away from the Liberals in 2006, defeating a feisty woman opponent, Karen Graham. By local measures, Stanton’s done well as a “constituency man” in his first, truncated term.

This time, the Liberals have nominated Steve Clarke, who’s also tourism-related as the owner of the Brewery Bay Food Company, a popular restaurant on Orillia’s main street. He’s well known in the largest town in the riding, and looks to be running a strong campaign.

A sidelight to Clarke’s campaign is that he’s a strong advocate of preferential voting, which he calls “instant run-off.” Rather than plumping with an X, voters would mark their ballots in order of their preference. It’s not new — B.C. tried it back in 1951.

When I dropped into the Clarke campaign office, I was told they’re getting a great response to Clarke, but that Stephane Dion is arousing mixed feelings. A couple of hundred people turned out last Thursday midday for a visit by Michael Ignatieff, the deputy Liberal leader.

The NDP’s not a factor in this riding, nor are the Greens likely to be. They’ve put up a credible candidate, Valerie Powell, a gerontologist. She could pick up votes on the coattails of Elizabeth May if her leader does well in the TV debates.

I’ll be doing some mainstreeting and will pass on what I hear.

Ray Argyle

www.wildaboutwriting.com