Woops

My seat projection formulae are far from perfect but I thought the Quebec numbers looked off. On closer inspection, they were off. Basically, I had short-changed the Bloc. Call it the statistical equivalent of a Freudian slip. The result is that the balance of power shifts from the Liberals to the Tories. As five formerly projected Grit seats become Bloc seats while only Beauport -- Limoilou separates from the Tory fold. Also, André Arthur is now projected to go down to defeat, although that is difficult to discern from polls that don't ask about independents. New national numbers are at right and below:

CPC 116
LPC 115
BQ 46
NDP 29

The Quebec numbers are now as follows:

BQ 48
LPC 21
CPC 6

This will all be moot within the next couple of weeks when I revise my projections to include new polling data. I'd like at least one more poll before I revise.

Bueller? Bueller?

Once is kind of funny. But twice? Can we fire somebody on the Prime Minister's travel team? Namely the guy that keeps him out of the washroom when he's supposed to be taking pictures with world leaders. You know these other world leaders are going to start to think Harper doesn't like them.

Harper Hands Out Stimulus... For Italy

Five million for earthquake reconstruction in Aquilla. I suppose there's nothing wrong with helping out a community down on its luck. I do find it a little interesting that this is the first time Harper decided to announce the moneys. Apparently, it took a few months and a photo-op for the money to be worth spending. I wonder if the Prime Minister will get his name on a plaque.

Projection Explanation

I just wanted to add a brief explanation to my seat projection below. The way I'm doing this involves looking at the 2004, 2006 and 2008 results at the riding level and comparing those results to the national and provincial results on a party by party basis. This allows me, given access to some decent polling, to produce an estimate of what would happen if those numbers prove accurate on a riding by riding basis. As I said, I have compiled the data for all 308 ridings. However, I just want to show what the data produces for a couple of ridings to give you an idea of what I'm looking at when I make my predictions.

First a riding where there is little debate over what is going to happen: the Liberal stronghold of St. Paul's in downtown Toronto. Given the National and Provincial data available at threehundredeight (and thanks to the folks behind it for saving me the work), my spreadsheet tells me that the expected result in St. Paul's if the election were to happen with those national/provincial results is:

Liberals (presumably the good doctor): 54.03%
Tories: 21.16%
NDP: 11.06%
Greens: 10.27%

I am well aware this does not add up to 100% but neither do most polls including the aggregates from which I'm working. This result, I think, would be in keeping with any objective assessment of the situation on the ground in St. Paul's. Second, let's look at one of the ridings that raised an eyebrow in the comments: Churchill. Once again based on the national and provincial available (I have a formula to determine what a regional "Prairie" number means in Manitoba for each party), the results are predicted to be as follows:

Liberals: 34.95%
Tories: 29.96%
NDP: 22.79%
Greens: 5.04%

Now, I don't necessarily believe the Liberals will win by 5 percentage points in Churchill. However, if they Liberals really are at 23% in the Prairies (up 4 points from 2008) as the polls suggest, the votes are much more likely to turn up in Churchill than they are Battlefords-Lloydminister where I predict just 12.48% for the unlucky Liberal candidate. That's what my spreadsheet is telling me. So, I'm not saying that you can bank on four Liberal seats in Manitoba, I'm saying that it is a distinct possibility if the polls remain the same. Quick side note, two of the other Liberal seats projected in Manitoba have a slimmer margin than Churchill so it could easily just be Anita Neville coming back for the Grits. Finally let's look at a riding that I think is actually poorly served by my models. In 2008, the results in Edmonton-Strathcona were as follows:

NDP 42.6%
Tories: 41.6%
Liberals: 9.1%
Greens: 6.4%

That result represented a 10 point jump in NDP popularity in the riding since 2006 and an amazing 33 point jump since 2004. With the NDP down marginally in popularity both provincially and nationally, my model anticipates the following for a future election:

Tories: 38.51%
NDP: 33.18%
Liberals: 16.59%
Greens: 8.04%

The problem is that the 2004 result for the NDP (around 9% of the vote) ways down their chances of holding on to the riding in my formula. My model places the majority of the weight on the 2008 election, but 2004 does figure into the calculation because it provides more data points which hopefully makes the predictions more accurate. In this case, because of the massive shift in support, it may be undervaluing the popularity of Linda Duncan in Edmonton-Strathcona. For most ridings, the voter intentions are relatively stable and these kinds of problems don't occur. I stand by my numbers but I understand that they aren't and frankly cannot be perfect. Only time will tell how well this model holds up when faced with reality. I think it is probably a more detailed model at the local level than is generally used to do seat projections and that's why I've decided to share it. Much like DemocraticSpace's riding projections, these should be taken with a grain of salt.

Seat Projection

I'm going to start doing a somewhat regular seat projection. I'll use aggregate poll data from here (I don't feel compelled to duplicate good work) but my own methods for predicting results. Briefly, my methodology results in a riding-by-riding projection based on current polling and historical data but I will save a riding-by-riding prediction (it makes for a long and boring post otherwise) for an actual election period. My first projection is at right above the archive. Here's the national and provincial (yes, provincial not regional) breakdown:

National: CPC 118 LPC 121 NDP 29 BQ 39 IND 1

BC: CPC 18 LPC 8 NDP 10
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13 LPC 1
MB: CPC 7 LPC 4 NDP 3
Territories: CPC 1 LPC 1 NDP 1
ON: CPC 37 LPC 58 NDP 11
PQ: CPC 8 LPC 27 BQ 39 IND 1
NB: CPC 3 LPC 6 NDP 1
NS: CPC 3 LPC 6 NDP 2
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6 NDP 1

My finger was only on the scale twice in these projections, both times in favour of the Conservatives. First to hand the seat vacated by Bill Casey to the Tories which I think only makes sense. The second time was to give the Tories Nunavut. It's very hard to do accurate readings on the North for a bunch of reasons and I think that Leona Aglukkaq is stronger than my number's tell me. The Quebec numbers I don't entirely trust (may have to work with my formulae). If I was just taking educated guesses I'd say Mulcair holds on to Outremont and the Tories don't save themselves in 8 seats but the data says otherwise. I was close to giving Mulcair his seat in spite of my data and I may in a future projection.

Long story short is we are in a dead heat at the moment. We shall see what the summer brings.

He's Good Enough, He's Smart Enough and Doggone it, People Like Hi

After eight short months, Minnesota finally will have a new Senator. Yes, Sen. Al Franken. That's 60 Democrats folks.

What A Difference A Year Makes

There's a debate in the blogosphere about Elizabeth May's electoral prospects in the riding of Guelph, ON. A year ago, I would have advised May to run in Guelph. Today, I'd advise against it. Let me explain. Last year, Guelph was entering a by-election. The Liberal incumbent was retiring and the seat was up for grabs. The race attracted a lot of attention from all four parties for different reasons. For the Tories and the NDP, there was a chance to put another nail in Stephane Dion's coffin. If the former Liberal leader couldn't hold Guelph in a by-election with a good candidate like Frank Valeriote, he was doomed. The Tories threw a lot at Valeriote as a result and the NDP perhaps put in a stronger effort than they normally would for a marginally competitive riding like Guelph. The Greens had an opportunity to build on the momentum of a good by-election result for May in London North-Centre. While Guelph is not London, another riding in Southwestern Ontario would have made a lot of sense, particularly if she could have made it into a four way race where 25-30% of the vote would have been enough to win election. Guelph has a well-earned reputation as an environmentally conscious place and there is a base of green support. In short, a pretty target.

Today, the only thing left for Elizabeth May is that latent base of green support. The numbers from last time are a little inflated by the length of the campaign providing better name recognition to Green candidate Mike Nagy. Put simply, its easier for a small campaign to get their message out if they have more time; there should be a levelling effect in terms of campaign strength. Still, I have no doubt that May could get 20-25% in Guelph. I don't think that's enough to win. The Tories in a general election are not going to make Guelph the priority they did in the by-election. Even if they feel, that they are in a position to attack Liberal incumbents, there are ridings in the 905 (Brampton-Springdale, Brampton-West) that are better targets for them. Frankly, I think they're going to be playing defense in Ontario and their attentions in that part of the province should be in holding their two very close pick-ups in Kitchener-Waterloo and Kitchener-Centre. That puts Guelph as a less likely target for Conservative cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister. Frank Valeriote will get a boost from the incumbency as most politicians do. May wouldn't have a significant name recognition advantage over a sitting MP. Valeriote should also benefit from a leader like Michael Ignatieff pulling back some of the centre and centre-right Liberal vote that Stephane Dion lost last time around. The NDP, particularly if Elizabeth May jumps in, have no incentive to target Guelph. The last thing the NDP wants is the Green Party leader in the house and splitting votes from the Liberals there would not be in their interests. Like the Tories, they have other fish to fry in Ontario and the NDP is known for directing their resources to a small number of ridings which I can't believe will include Guelph. In other words, anyone looking to knock off Valeriote is going to need closer to 40% of the vote than 30% of the vote. I think that's a bridge too far for Elizabeth May.

Dan's got a pretty good list in terms of other potential targets. I might add Dufferin-Caledon to that list. Even though the Tories won easily there in 2008(David Tilson got a majority of the vote), I think the best chance for May is to get herself in a two way race with a Tory incumbent where she becomes the anti-government vote. Central Nova was a bad choice to try do that in, but without the benefit of a non-compete agreement with the Grits, she needs to find a riding where the Liberals are weak and the NDP weaker. Dufferin-Caledon fits that bill. It's also in that swath of Central and Western Ontario that seems to like the Green Party for whatever reason.

Issue Search 2009: The Economy (Domestic)

If you missed my introduction to this series of posts, scroll down or click here. The first two issues on my list are vaguely put, the future of the Canadian economy. With a couple of possible exceptions, I'm trying to look at issues that will be with us not only today but for the medium to long term as well. Today, I am going to go through some of the issues confronting the Canadian economy at home. I put domestic in parenthesis in the title because I want to differentiate this post from a discussion of trade which will follow at some point in the future. I'm going to try to set up a basic form for these posts here. I'll try to follow it as much as possible. The plan is to delineate the challenges first, the potential solutions second and then if there's a need the political implications or limitations. Without further ado...

The Challenge: The challenge to the Canadian economy put simply is that we are heavily dependent on a series of industries with poor medium to long term prospects. The current decline in demand for Canadian exports simply exxagerrates this problem. Whether that's forestry in British Columbia, the automotive sector in Ontario and, yes, the commercial fishery out east. The underlying issues here diverge although cheaper foreign competition is a theme. The fishery is being hurt by declines in fish stocks. The forestry industry is being hurt by decline in global demand and foreign competition. Finally, the automotive industry which for so long served as major parts of the Ontarian heart of the Canadian economy is suffering from low global demand for cars and an historical relationship with the struggling big three auto makers. The challenge in all cases is to find new industries to replace the old.

A secondary challenge is the so-called productivity gap which Jeffery Simpson harps about endlessly. I'll discuss that briefly. Basically, the amount of money generated in relationship number of hours Canadians put in is shrinking. Put simply, Canadians are generating less GDP per hour. Economists this is a bad thing.

The Solution: There is a fair amount of debate as to whether or not government can really lead the way on the economic transformation that may be necessary in certain areas. There are two overlapping directions which are generally considered as "the way forward": go green or go tech. Tech has the stronger roots in this country. The failure of Nortel's management should not disguise its success for many years as a world leader. Research In Motion is the new big kid on the block and regardless of whether co-founder Jim Balsillie ever gets himself a hockey team, Balsillie and his partner Mike Laziridis have led a tech boom in Southwestern Ontario. They're beating Bay St. and Wall St. estimates even in the teeth of this recession. What makes RIM such a positive story is the amount that they've given back to the community of Kitchener-Waterloo in funding for the University of Waterloo and other major projects. Tech makes some sense as a way forward in Ontario. Ontario has a network of high quality, tech savvy universities and colleges within close proximity. In other words, there is the intellectual density to make this work. Governments can really only help push the train forward. The traditional government remedy is research grants which have shown some results in producing good research. Exactly what is needed to turn research into entrepreneurship in the tech sector is less clear but programs to support entrepreneurs and small business generally, certainly can't hurt.

The green solution is less evident in the current landscape. My problem with "green jobs" is they seem self-limiting. I'll explain. Most businesses which sell a product rely on that product either breaking down or becoming obsolete in some fashion be it technologically or just style. If you're selling windmills and solar panels, where do you go after everyone has a solar panel on their roof. While I generally agree that there is a large boom in the offing, I wonder how quickly that would be followed by a large bust. Solar panels are sold as long term investments that will pay off over time. Even if there's an advance I don't see people taking an old functioning solar panel down to replace it with the latest model. I'm not sure you can sustain an industry on something someone buys maybe once every twenty years if not less. Solar panels are probably the most sustainable of the green energy technologies. Things like wind mills are really only built once and require too few people to maintain them to be considered a significant industry. If we're talking about an industry that will keep Canadians working fifty from years from now, I'm not sure green is the answer.

The other solutions are less dramatic and perhaps less effective. The growing percentage of Ontario auto jobs that rely on non-big three auto companies is a positive sign. Magna's purchase of Opel may provide some jobs down the road. I'm not sure you can get the auto industry back to where it was on the strength of Magna, Toyota and Honda but it may be a way to keep something alive. There are a whole host of new uses such as wood based ethanol and it is possible that some of the failing pulp and paper mills in the country could retrofitted to new purposes.

It isn't entirely clear that the Canadian government can play a major role in shaping the ecnomic future of this country. This means to me, that there won't be a lot of contentious domestic economic plans as such in the next election. Tax cuts versus spending on research and development may be the extent of the debate. Productivity is not really the problem people think it is. Canadians aren't lazier than they were or even less efficient. More of them are working in less value-added industries. In other words, you're going to have higher productivity in manufacturing than you do in primary industries like energy extraction or in the majority of the service sector. As the Canadian economy has shed manufacturing jobs and added primary industry jobs, productivity has declined. I'd say its symptom and not a disease.

Political Implications: As I noted above, this isn't really an issue that political strategists are going to excited about. There just aren't enough wedges to drive here. It's a major almost existential question but it makes poor politics. Don't expect these kinds of questions to consume question period any time soon. Thus, the market will proabably decide the fate of the Canadian economy whether we want it to or not.

Issue Search 2009: Because We're All Policy Wonks At Heart

With this being Canada Day Weekend 1 (of 2) this year, I'd say we are well into summer. With the news cycle likely to be lighter (Honduran coups notwithstanding), I figure I'd delve into summer series of posts. I've been noticing over the last few months of breathless election speculation that there are no big issues on the Canadian political landscape, at least nothing tangible. I mean the economy is a mess and Canadians would like to see it improve but the stimulus package is generally popular and there's not enough day light between two major parties on the economy to kill a vampire. So, what I want to explore over the next few posts (with the news of the day in between when appropriate), is what are the major issues facing Canada today and tomorrow? What are the problems? What are the possible solutions? If we are going to drag Canadians to the polls in the next year we should probably figure out some reasons for doing so. Hopefully, I can offer some possibilities. So, for a start here are some of the issues I'm going to discuss in no particular order:

1. The Death of Canadian Manufacturing and the Future of the Canadian Economy
   
2. The What and Where of Canadian Trade
3. The Role of the Federal Government and Canada as a United Country
4. The Looming Demographic Health Care Crisis
5. The Climate Crisis and Canada's Role in its Resolution
6. The Role of the Canadian Military After Afghanistan/2011
7. Childcare
8. East-West Infrastructure
9. The Role of Cities in Contemporary Canada
10. Civic Engagement in the 21st Century
    

Topic suggestions are more than welcome.