Thirty-seven days and about $300 million later, Canadians awake to a “new” government in Ottawa. The Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper have built on their previous minority position and added a substantial number of seats, just a tad short of a majority. The Liberals, meanwhile, have seen the biggest decline in support in at least twenty years, placing Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s head squarely and firmly on the chopping block. The Greens have failed yet again to elect a single MP, which will shut them out of the televised leaders’ debates no matter how loudly leader Elizabeth May screams to push her way in again. The NDP has gained a good number of seats, but despite party leader Jack Layton’s determination to replace Mr. Harper, it is quite obvious now that there is a ceiling to how far the federal NDP can go in Canada.

While the election may have produced a result that is only slightly different from the last parliament, there have been some interesting developments at riding level. Trudeau scion Justin won his seat in Montréal under the Liberal banner, and is already being traded on the rumour mill as a potential leadership candidate to follow in his famous father’s footsteps. Garth Turner, a former Conservative, then Liberal, MP, has been defeated in his Ontario riding – too bad for his constituents, but certainly a boon for the fans of his blog, as Mr. Turner will now be a free agent who can speak his mind without any fetters imposed by party discipline.
(more…)

I predict the following electoral outcomes in northeastern Ontario tonight:

1 Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing: This will be one of the closest races in the region. Carol Hughes of the NDP by a nose.

2 Nickel Belt: Another close race but the NDP’s Claude Gravelle will take it at the end of a long night.

3 Nipissing-Timiskaming:  An easy win for Anthony Rota with Conservative Sinicrope a relatively distant second.

4 Parry Sound-Muskoka:  The closest race in the country last time should see Conservative Tony Clement waltz to victory.

5 Sault Ste. Marie:  Tony Martin of the NDP appears to be a shoe-in in the Sault although not without a challenge.

6 Sudbury:  Diane Marleau of the Liberals is likely to hold this seat but it will be a lot tighter than an incumbent should have to face.

7 Timmins-James Bay:  An easy win for Charlie Angus who appears to be making this into an NDP stronghold.

Totals:  CPC: 1 seat; LPC: 2 seats; NDP: 4 seats; GPC: 0 seats

It is widely believed that all 28 ridings in Alberta will go to the Conservatives, but there are two ridings that might switch to a different couleur.

The first one is Calgary Northeast. This riding, which used to belong to Art Hanger, who is retiring from politics, is the scene of conservative infighting between the official Conservative candidate, Devinder Shory, and an independent conservative contender, Roger Richard. The battle between them has been anything but benign, with injunctions and other legal threats being traded liberally.

This could result in the same split of the vote on the right in this riding that was also instrumental in allowing the Liberals three majority governments under Jean Chrétien when the right was divided into Tories and Reform.

It’s a story as old as time: when two are engaged in battle like this, it is usually a third that comes up the middle and takes the prize – in this case, Liberal candidate Sanam Kang, for example. But the riding may also go to the Green Party candidate or the NDP. The only thing that the two conservative candidates have going for them is that the candidates of the other parties don’t seem too capable or promising, which may limit voters’ choices to Shory and Richard.

The other riding that warrants close attention is Edmonton-Strathcona. Here, the Tory incumbent is facing off against a strong NDP candidate, Linda Duncan. Duncan has enjoyed great momentum, as documented by Liberals4Linda, a blog of Liberals who have decided to endorse and vote for Duncan.

There is no real threat to Conservatives in any of the other 26 ridings, which will be won by the Conservatives by five-digit margins – as usual – including, unfortunately, Calgary West, where the always-absent and abrasive Conservative incumbent should have been removed from office a long time ago. So, in Calgary West, people’s hopes are that Jennifer Pollock can pull it off and restore democracy in the riding at long last.

I’ll stay out of the predictions game outside of my province. So since everyone and their Mom is posting on this, lets cut to the chase:

Battleford-Llyodminster:
Winner: Gerry Ritz (CON)

Blackstrap:
Winner: Lynne Yelich (CON)

Cypress Hills-Grassland:
Winner: David Anderson (CON)

Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River:
Winner: Rob Clarke (CON)

Palliser:
Winner: Ray Boughen (CON)

Prince Albert:
Winner: Randy Hoback (CON)

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre:
Winner: Tom Lukiwski (CON)

Regina-Qu’Appelle:
Winner: Janice Bernier (NDP)

Saskatoon-Humboldt:
Winner: Brad Trost (CON)

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar:
Winner: Nettie Wiebe (NDP)

Saskatoon-Wanuskewin:
Winner: Maurice Vellacott (CON)

Souris-Moose Mountain:
Winner: Ed Komarnicki (CON)

Wascana:
Winner: Ralph Goodale (LIB)

Yorkton-Melville:
Winner: Garry Breitkreuz (CON)

The squeakers will be in Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle, and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. Given the strength of the New Democrat candidates in all three ridings (all of whom have been on the hustings since early 2007) and the upswing in NDP support province-wide, I don’t think I’m going out on too far of a limb in calling for victories in 2 of the 3 ridings.

Goodale will easily retain his seat in Wascana, but I just don’t see Orchard pulling it out up in DMCR.

The NDP will finish a strong second in Palliser, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Blackstrap, and Prince Albert, putting some distance between themselves and the Liberal candidates.

The Conservative support is rock solid outside of the main urban centres, and while they might see a slight drop in their overall percentages, they will still win handily over their competitors.

The final tally: CON 11, NDP 2, LIB 1.

Nationally, I’ll deal in generalities:
- The Conservatives will win an increased minority government
- The Liberals will win seats numbering in the low 90s
- The New Democrats will break 40 seats increase their seat total (35-40)
- The BQ will take 1 or 2 of the existing Conservative seats in Quebec
- The Green Party will not win a seat
- All the leaders will win their seats, except Elizabeth May who will finish a close 3rd.

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

The Calgary Herald has been tracking opinion through one of its online forums:

Of the 17 people who firmed up how they’re going to vote in the last week of the campaign, 41 per cent picked the Greens, 24 per cent are headed to the NDP, and 18 per cent plan to back the Conservatives. The Greens are also the top choice for 34 voters who haven’t yet made up their minds. Stephane Dion’s Liberals, however, trail all parties among the survey’s decided and undecided voters.

That poll, of course is anything but scientific and representative, but it’s quite interesting all the same. It may, however, reveal traces of a very general trend. Then again, it’s not really news that Liberals finish dead last in Alberta, particularly in Calgary.

Nothing has happened in my own riding of Prince Edward hastings to change the Outcome I predicted back in the beginning. Daryl Kramp will continue to be the MP on the other side of 9:00 tomorrow night.

On the national scale, I have worked up a riding by riding set of predictions that I have based on several sources: National trends past and present, individual candidates, other prediction sites, anticipated veter turnouts and information I have received from people on the ground.

I am, at this point, going to predict a Tory minority government, but will say that a majority is not out of reach though unlikely.

The seat breakdown looks something like this:

Conservative: 147
Liberal: 87
Bloc (Grrr..) 44
NDP: 28
Ind 2 (Andre Arthur in Portneuf-jacques cartier, and Bill Casey in Colchester-Cumberland)

For full riding by riding breakdown, please visit http://libertystorch.blogspot.com . I may make some further updates as the final poll dumps come in.

If I’m off, I think it might be in Quebec where my own personal bias against the Bloc Quebecois whom I loathe with every fibre of my being has probably crept in , causing me to mix in my hope that the Tories will hold the ridings they have, and that the Libs will take back some they lost with as much objectvity as I could muster. Hoping for low Bloquiste turnout.

[This being my last post here before the election, let me take this opportunity to offer kudos to Greg Morrow for making this wide-ranging debate possible. His efforts are more than appreciated.]

[If anonymous editorialists can get away with this stuff, my last-minute endorsement is just as authoritative and probably will be just as effective --DD]

The only serious choice for electors on Tuesday is Jack Layton’s NDP. We (that’s the royal “we”: my co-blogger Marie Ève is on her own here) say this after considerable soul-searching and a critical examination of what each party has to offer. Given that we’re smarter than the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail, more principled than the Toronto Star, and a lot nicer than the National Post, we expect that our endorsement will have a serious reception.

It’s not that we believe that Jack Layton is the perfect leader. He sometimes appears too interested in scoring debating points, and at other times the “light and lively” label might, with some reason, be applied. But knowing Jack as we do, we would indeed buy a used car from this man, and drive it with confidence down the highway of the future.

True, he has not been tested with the responsibilities of government, except at the municipal level. But we can think of another candidate in another election campaign in another country who has similar experience, and is considered to be a serious contender for the second and even the top office in the land. Lack of government experience should never–repeat, never–be a bar to high office. Indeed, such experience can be a positive disadvantage: the wiles and tricks of governmental back-room dealings have poisoned the political culture of the established parties in Canada, and, when allowed to erupt into public consciousness, have offended the nation.

Jack brings a seasoned career as an MP to the table, and candidates who, by and large, are no worse than the candidates of other parties. For every slur about alleged “Islamists” or “truthers” flung at individual NDP candidates, too often without any foundation at all, the NDP could point to the extremist connections of, for example, Conservative hopeful Peter Kent and the far-right Coalition for Canadian Democracies, in which he holds executive office. Provincially, NDP governments have ruled responsibly, and–with the notable exception of a certain now-Liberal candidate–have handled the financial side of the job with prudence, without tearing up labour union contracts to do so.

More importantly, however, the NDP has a human face, and it isn’t ashamed to show it. The Conservative Party tries to appeal to the inner stockbroker; the Greens court small entrepreneurs who want a different type of conservatism. The Bloc makes its pitch to narrow regional interests that the québécois themselves have long outgrown, and the Liberals chat up anyone who’s listening. Only the NDP actually stands consistently for people–ordinary, working people and their families.

Whether this includes bolstering health care by hiring more doctors and nurses and investing in cancer research, or offering a Child Benefit and a children’s nutritional plan to hard-pressed working households, or investing in social housing, or protecting the environment with measures that are easily understandable and will work, the NDP has a detailed, well-thought-out platform.

The NDP stands foursquare against so-called “social conservatism” and the smoldering bigotry in some Canadian backwaters that has been fanned into flame by the Harper conservatives. The latter want small, non-intrusive government–unless it comes to women’s reproductive choice and people with a non-heterosexual orientation. They want everyone who comes to live in Canada to be just like them–a frankly horrifying prospect. The NDP recognizes the importance and the desirability of immigration and diversity, and believes that every citizen of this country, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity, is a first-class citizen.

The NDP will also put some substance behind Harper’s empty and self-serving “apology” to our First Nations, with a comprehensive plan to invest in aboriginal and Métis education, health, and skills training. And it will put an end to Canada’s shame on the international stage by signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In foreign policy, Canada will chart an independent course, not merely wait for signals from the White House. In the Middle East, the NDP will work for solutions, rather than turning Canada into a blind adherent for one side of that many-sided conflict. As for our foreign military adventures, which even Stephen Harper has by now thought better about, the NDP will return our military to peacekeeping roles and defending our sovereignty in the Arctic.

But more important than any of these specifics is vision. The NDP is only party that looks forward–not backward like the Conservatives and the Bloc, not nervously everywhere like the Liberals, and not merely with a focus on the environment, as important as that is, like the Greens.

It’s not that the NDP has a completely unclouded view of what is to come–but that’s to be welcomed. We have had our fill of blueprints and grand schemes over the past century. Nor, if the NDP comes to power, can we be certain that it, too, will avoid opportunistic betrayals of people and principles, as the Bob Rae government in Ontario so amply demonstrated. Rather, the NDP offers us hope–possibilities for ordinary citizens to be heard, be involved and be effective.

The NDP will modernize our electoral system so that every vote counts. It will abolish that expensive house of patronage known as the Senate. It will implement legislation to force would-be floor-crossers in the House of Commons to resign first and run in a by-election. It will look for a non-confrontational, cooperative partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

The NDP will also make government more accountable–by strengthening the Access to Information Act, enforcing the abandoned provisions of the Accountability Act, and establishing rules and guidelines for ethical behaviour by government, parties and politicians.

In a time of economic crisis and a worsening democratic deficit, we do not need more of what we’ve had for two years–autocratic micromanaging, secrecy, attacks on independent government watchdogs, and an ideological agenda borrowed from the extremist wing of the US Republican Party. Nor do we need the “what do we do now?” approach of the Liberals, never seeking solutions on behalf of Canadians as a whole, but looking only and always for advantage and power for itself. The NDP has a more workable and effective environmental platform than the Green Party, and a more inclusive view of Canada than the insular and out-of-date Bloc Québécois.

The NDP is not all things to all people, and it does not offer either a perfect leader or perfect policies. But Jack Layton and his team can be trusted to get the big things right. In the midst of current global uncertainty we need not only strong and thoughtful leadership, but the ability to empathize with the Canadian public–and to listen. We need, in other words, a humane approach as well as a hard-headed one. Only the NDP offers both of these qualities to an alienated electorate. Tomorrow, vote not just for change, but for change that could make a difference.

[Crossposted from Dawg's Blawg.]

As the politicians make their final pleas for our votes, let’s remember that no matter who wins tomorrow life goes on. Canada will still be the greatest country in the world as long as we vote with conviction for our candidate and party of choice. Happy Thanksgiving! 

Below is my final chart of how the democraticSPACE projected vote totals in Edmonton-Strathcona have changed over time (between September 25th and October 12th). The graph displays averages of democraticSPACE’s projected ranges.  According to these averages, the Conservatives are currently projected as one point ahead of the NDP, but the democraticSPACE projection model doesn’t take potential strategic voting into account.

I’m glad I’m not in the position–as the real masterminds behind democraticSPACE are–of having to make a prediction about this race. It’s simply not possible this time. I admit to having access to a bit more data than democraticSPACE has, but even so, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. I will say that I can foresee anything from a rather more marginal win than usual for Conservative candidate Rahim Jaffer (if the progressive strategic vote for NDP candidate Linda Duncan turns out to be weak or non-existent) to a comfortable win for Duncan (if the Liberal vote collapses into the single digits). Both of those scenarios are possible. More likely than either one, though, is one of the various nail-biter scenarios in between. At this point it all comes down to three factors: 1) how well the Tories are able to get out their vote, 2) how well the NDP is able to get out its vote, and the most important and yet least controllable factor: 3) just how strong the Anybody But the Conservatives movement is in the riding–i.e., how willing the Liberal and Green voters are to switch their votes to oust a Tory.

It’s already been said by the Ottawa Citizen, the CBC, the Calgary Herald, and the National Post, but to say that this is a riding to watch is a massive understatement. And for all those denizens of the riding who are sick of your vote not counting, well, just consider this election a rare gift.  Because oh boy does it count this time.

Further reading:
Edmonton-Strathcona: a snapshot
Winners and losers in Edmonton-Strathcona
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Conservatives
Edmonton-Strathcona: the New Democrats
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Liberals
Edmonton-Strathcona: the Greens

Quoi de mieux pour Jack Layton qu’un passage à l’émission « Tout le monde en parle » pour bien conclure sa campagne au Québec. Troisième et dernier chef à se présenter à l’émission après Gilles Duceppe et Stéphane Dion (Stephen Harper a quant à lui décliné l’invitation à cinq reprises) M. Layton en a profité pour souligner quelques-unes des propositions de son parti. Le retrait des troupes canadiennes de l’Afghanistan, l’abolition des baisses d’impôt aux entreprises et son projet de bourse du carbone – servant à taxer les grands pollueurs plutôt que les familles comme le proposent les libéraux, selon lui – furent les principales propositions qu’il a développées.

Présente sur le plateau, la journaliste politique Emmanuelle Latraverse en a profité pour lui demander s’il était ouvert à former un gouvernement de coalition avec Stéphane Dion. Le chef du NPD a déclaré qu’il préférait attendre les résultats de l’élection. En réponse à la journaliste qui lui a alors fait remarquer qu’il lui faudrait multiplier les sièges pour remplacer le premier ministre actuel, M. Layton a alors ajouté « Tout le monde dit aux gens qu’on ne peut pas faire les choses. J’ai écouté ça pendant toute ma vie. C’est une attitude défaitiste et moi je n’accepte pas cette approche de la vie. » Il s’agit effectivement d’une mauvaise attitude dont les Canadiens devront se défaire s’ils veulent mettre fin bipartisme et ne plus être condamnés à choisir le moindre de deux maux.

Questionnée à son tour par Guy A. Lepage sur la course, Emmanuelle Latraverse a affirmé qu’elle croyait que les conservateurs ont perdu tout espoir de faire des gains au Québec et qu’ils pourraient également perdre plusieurs circonscriptions dans la province.

Un peu plus tôt dans la journée, le chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique a maintenu que son caucus québécois pourrait compter des membres de plus suite aux élections du 14 octobre. À Montréal entre autres, les candidats Daniel Breton, dans Jeanne-Le Ber, et Anne Lagacé-Dowson, dans Westmount-Ville-Marie, ont selon lui « de bonnes chances de remporter leur circonscription. »  Accompagnant son chef au Marché Atwater, cette dernière a soutenu pour sa part qu’elle sentait que l’électorat penchait désormais en faveur des néo-démocrates. « Les gens savent que nous sommes le seul parti à tenir un véritable discours progressiste. »

Dans un rassemblement au Club Soda plus tard en soirée, le chef du NPD a dit qu’il privilégiait un fédéralisme flexible et asymétrique qui respecterait les champs de compétence du gouvernement québécois. Il s’en est pris par la suite aux chefs des autres partis de l’opposition en les accusant de s’opposer à M. Harper au Québec tout en le soutenant au Parlement. « Gilles Duceppe a voté pour deux budgets de Stephen Harper qui ont laissé les familles de côté en donnant des milliards aux banques et aux pétrolières On ne peut pas se présenter contre Stephen Harper au Québec et le soutenir à Ottawa. », a-t-il lancé à l’endroit du chef bloquiste. M. Layton a rappelé du même souffle que le Stéphane Dion avait lui aussi appuyé Stephen Harper pas moins de 43 fois (sic) au Parlement. « Si vous ne pouvez pas faire votre travail comme chef de l’opposition, vous ne pouvez certainement pas faire le travail d’un premier ministre. », a-t-il conclu.

I spent a good part of today and yesterday running errands in my downtown neighbourhood. On both occasions the only canvassing I saw was for the Greens. In both instances it was a pair of Green supporters. It’s all rather low key.

And low key is the way I would capture this entire campaign. Dunno what it’s like elsewhere in Soviet Canuckistan, but out here there’s alot of election fatigue. Going back to 2004

• 2004 Federal election
• 2004 Municipal election
• 2005 Provincial election
• 2006 Federal election
• 2008 Federal election (Oct)
• 2008 Provincial by-election (Oct)
• 2008 Municipal election (Nov)
• 2009 Provincial election (May)

So here in Vancouver’s West End that’ll be 8 elections in 5 years–and 3 in a period of about 6 weeks this year. Even for us political nerds it’s hard to get too enervated by it all.

At the ballot box those sentiments could pan out in a number of ways. Many fence sitters might decide to stay home instead. Some will snark vote: either vote for the Tories to give someone a majority and to get some peace, or do the Anything But Harper schtick and try to support the local candidate best positioned to keep the Cons out. And there’s always the FYou vote, which in BC was NDP for a long time, then Reform/Alliance, but now seems splintered between the Dippers and Greens. Though I expect a lot of Greens will split towards the Liberal or New Democrat who can win in their consituency.

Vancouver Centre–OK I’ll call it. Michael Byers squeaks out a <1, 000 vote plurality over Hedy.

Unless she romps it again….

Faisant campagne au Québec en fin de semaine, Stephen Harper a déclaré aux journalistes qu’il n’avait rien de nouveau à dire aux Québécois, mais qu’il allait plutôt insister sur l’importance du choix que ces derniers auront à faire mardi prochain. En moins de 100 mots, M. Harper résume de façon très concrète la situation au Québec, mais du même souffle, nous permet également de déceler ce qui cloche avec sa propre vision. Décortiquons :

« Il y a trois choix au Québec, mais cela revient comme ailleurs à deux choix véritables. Le Bloc va continuer à être un critique efficace, mais à la fin il ne pourra rien changer. »

Harper aura beau marteler ce clou aussi souvent qu’il le veut, les Québécois se souviennent que l’élection de 74 députés libéraux fédéraux au Québec en 1980 n’a pas empêché le rapatriement de la Constitution. Ils se souviennent également qu’aux dernières élections, ils ont dû être représentés par Michael Fortier, alors que ce celui-ci n’avait même pas été élu. Deux faits parmi tant d’autres qui justifient l’appui inconditionnel de nombreux Québécois au Bloc.

« Or, les Québécois, qui sont des gens pragmatiques, devront choisir entre mon parti qui leur offre un fédéralisme conforme à leurs aspirations et le fédéralisme centralisateur de Stéphane Dion. »

Voilà où le bât blesse. Le fédéralisme offert par les conservateurs n’est justement pas conforme aux aspirations des Québécois. Certes, il s’en approche – et il ne faut surtout pas minimiser ce pas dans la bonne direction –, mais cette prétention révèle à quel point Stephen Harper, malgré toute sa compétence et sa sincère volonté à comprendre le Québec, est victime d’avoir avoir de mauvaises antennes chez nous.

« Les Québécois ne veulent pas de la conception du fédéralisme de Stéphane Dion. »

C’est un fait que la vision extrêmement centralisatrice de Stéphane Dion va à l’encontre de la volonté de la grande majorité des Québécois. Hormis le 5% des fédéralistes dont le cœur bat à la vue du portrait de la reine sur le billet de 20$ et le 20% des souverainistes qui n’auraient pas été satisfaits par Meech, le Québec compte environ 75% de nationalistes qui souhaitent simplement que le Québec puisse avancer sans les entraves fédérales habituelles; soit via une souveraineté en partenariat avec le Canada ou soit un fédéralisme le plus asymétrique possible.

Le jour où un parti politique fédéral comprendra cela, il remportera facilement une majorité de sièges au Québec; ce qui ne s’est pas produit depuis la fondation du Bloc québécois.

Reste que Stephen Harper a raison sur le point le plus important : les Québécois sont des gens pragmatiques et ne demandent qu’à faire un choix. Encore faut-il qu’on leur fasse une offre à la hauteur de leurs aspirations.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.