The Rock and The Hard Place

I'm not an economist. I have studied a bit about economic crises and their political responses, but I'm by no means an expert. However, I think what we need today is a better sense of the consequences of the actions being proposed to deal with the economic crisis. This isn't a Glen Beck what if the worst case happens thing, it's more of a why is everybody saying "do it my way or else" thing. So in what is probably in oversimplified, layman's explanation, what exactly are people so scared about.

The Rock: The rock here isn't Newfoundland, it's Japan. Specifically the economy of Japan for the last twenty years. In the late 1980's the Japanese economy was overwhelmed by a series of bank failures. The Japanese government responded with piecemeal bailouts and the maintenance of a zero percent interest rate. The result was banks that were too weak and risk averse to lend but not weak enough to fail and be put out of their misery. The term zombie banks is used because they were essentially half-dead. It can fairly easily be argued that Japan never really recovered from that shock. The Nikkei certainly hasn't. GDP growth has been slow when it's grown at all. In the late 90's economists called it the lost decade, it's now more like a lost score (in the Lincolnesque use of the word). The similarities to today are striking and worrying.

The rock is what we know. It is the go to scare tactic for those on the ideological right. It's proof, if one case can be a proof, that simply throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.

Quick side note: The response of some on the left, that there is a similar success story in Sweden is not all its cracked up to be. The Swedish economy which was bulldozed in the early 90;'s recovered but whether that was because Sweden took over banks or because Sweden liberalized labour and trade laws in the early 90's culminating in their accession into the EU, is highly debatable. They both probably played a role, but I don't see comparable liberalizations which could encourage global economic growth today. In other words, the ideal antidote is short term stability and medium term growth but you need both to be effective. Short term stability with no prospects for growth is Japan and growth is simply impossible without some level of stability.

The Hard Place: The hard place we don't really know. It's more ambiguous. There are a few different nightmare scenarios here. I'll paint the one I think most troubling. There's no historical equivalent here. This is the argument against those who oppose anything with any government involvement. In other words, against neo-liberal ideological rejection of government aid: see the House Republicans in the States. The scenario here involves why exactly the financial architecture in New York is so important. There are those who argue that we should just let the weak banks fail and eventually the smaller national banks or the stronger regional banks will fill the void. The problem with this argument is that you have to pray that the world doesn't panic when the banks start falling like dominoes. Markets are as much psychology as they are economics. If Wall Street starts crumbling, what happens to all those investors in East Asia and elsewhere who have the United States and its financial institutions as pillars and safety net of their economies? In other words, what if all that US currency and treasuries held in Asia comes home all at once. A run on the US dollar or US debt would have untold consequences.

The United States has been the economic backbone of the free world for sixty years. First because a bunch of people got together in New Hampshire and designed it that way and then post-1970's because people were so used to operating that way. The entire global economy is built on the premise that the United States will be their as the guarantor of last resort. If the US is not seen as a reliable guarantor, the world changes. It is debatable whether a better financial architecture may be possible at the end of a such a change. What is virtually certain is that the change in between would wreak untold carnage in the global economy. Credit markets would become paralyzed. Business would become almost impossible. That's the hard place.


I don't have the third way. If I did I wouldn't be blogging about it, I'd be advising world leaders. I just think it is important that when you hear ideologues on both the left and the right say that down the other path is certain doom, they aren't crazy. As a society, we can neither be ignorant of the pitfalls nor paralyzed by them. These are not easy decisions and they will have profound consequences. However, some decision must be made.

Yet Another Abandoning?

The European Union is looking less and less like a union these days. There was a sense that after World War II, Western Europe abandoned their Eastern brothers to the iron fist of the Soviet Union. It wasn't like there was much that could have been done, but the feeling of regret stuck. I wonder if that is on anyone's mind as the major Western powers once again go deaf to the concerns of Eastern Europe. I wonder what the currency, stock and bond trading will look like on Monday morning in country's like Hungary and Latvia which are teetering on the edge of complete economic collapse. Western Europe again demonstrates its penchant for supporting any worthy cause unless there's actually a cost involved. Canadian and American troops have learned that lesson in Afghanistan and now the economies of Eastern Europe face the same cold shoulder. What happened to fraternity and solidarity in Europe?

Flaherty Doesn't Want To Talk To Himself

All of a sudden our "this market is a buying opportunity" Conservative government is in an awful rush to spend money. See, Jim Flaherty wants to circumvent the normal process for the spending of government money. Now, traditionally budgets are screened and approved by the Treasury Board. It is possible that the President of the Treasury Board, Vic Toews, has a secret plan to prevent any of this stimulus money from getting out but I doubt it. I really doubt that the Treasury Board is that scary to Mr. Flaherty after all, he's a member. Yes, folks, Jim Flaherty doesn't want the stimulus to be delayed by Jim Flaherty. Who could blame him.

Side Note: The NDP's new source for all their ideas: the United States. Barack Obama is putting up a website to track the stimulus cash. The NDP want one too. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying the Obama-envy is getting a little nauseating even for an Obama fan like myself.

Jim Stanford's Economic Fantasies

The thing about the NDP is that most of the time their wacky left-wing arguments don't get much press time. We don't see them, so we forget how ill-conceived they are. Thankfully, the Globe gives writing space to socialist economist Jim Stanford. Here's the link to today's delusion. Let's start with the premise. Most serious economist that I've heard don't claim that protectionism made the great depression a depression, they claim that it made it great. In other words, they argue that the closing of borders FOLLOWING the crash of 1929 made it nearly impossible for the global economy to recover. That's why most economists are scared half to death about new protectionist measures coming forth in today's recovery plans. Straw men while convenient are a sure sign of fallacious argumentation. Let's move on. Did free trade cause this global meltdown? Well, no or at least not the free trade most union hacks oppose. The trade of goods and services free from tariffs did not cause this problem. What caused this problem was the simultaneous adoption of subprime mortgages with and the securitization of the relevant credit paper. While this was freely traded which in turn has caused problems (like socialist darling Sweden praying that collapsing banks in the Baltics don't crush Swedish banks), that really is a function of banking regulations not trade policy.

Canadian trade relative to GDP fluctuating in between two years when there was free trade is an irrelevant statistic. I don't know the numbers. But, if Mr. Stanford wanted to make this argument he should have made it between 1985 (before the FTA) and today. Of course at least some of the decline in the period Mr. Stanford marks can be attributed to declining trade within the North American auto industry. When a piece of a car can cross the border numerous times in a production process it has a disproportionate impact on trade statistics. When fewer car parts and cars are crossing the border, the number is going to drop. As Mr. Stanford himself points out auto exports have dropped 40%. Frankly, the decline of the American car giants started in the 1980's or earlier. The residual effects depressing trade stats is not a good argument against free trade. Nor is the loss of the American saving instinct. Why Americans kept borrowing and spending amidst economic decline is a complicated question but I don't know how Mr. Stanford can tie that back to trade. There's no clear cause and effect relationship here. Finally, Stanford argues trade deals with Asia killed the big three. Let's separate fact from fiction. What most people in the North American car industry complain about is the lack of FREE access to Asian markets. The problem with the trade deals isn't that they're too free but that they are not free enough. The argument that the Big Three usually give is that if they could sell cars without tariffs in Japan, South Korea, Europe etc. they'd be just fine. I don't think that's the only problem the Big Three has but I wouldn't oppose making our trade relationships in Asia more free.

It's a sign of great arrogance that Mr. Stanford believes Canadians should only be able to buy cars made by American car manufacturers. This argument is a tad perplexing. In point of fact, the North American auto industry is now much larger than just the big three. Japanese auto manufacturers provide good paying manufacturing jobs to Canadians and Americans alike. I have never seen a reason for Canadians to favour a company based in Detroit over one based in Tokyo. They are both companies based in foreign countries with large economies which are friendly to Canada. The should be treated equally. Mr. Stanford is biased and sees the union shops as domestic industry. They're not. Toyota and GM are equally Canadian in that they fundamentally aren't Canadian. GM Canada is as Canadian as Toyota Canada. In both cases, Canada is not the home base for these companies and will not receive preferential treatment in either expansion or contraction. Magna, which is Canadian, provides parts to many car manufacturers from various countries and they perhaps deserve our consideration in terms of government support. What's good for Magna is good for Canada. What's good for GM is still only good for America.

Separated at Birth?

Alleged Fraudster Allen Stanford and Comic Legend John Cleese

Indecision 2009: Oy Gevalt Edition

When I said in my last post that I loved Israeli elections, I wasn't being completely disingenuous in spite of the context. They are absolutely fascinating theater. Being a Jewish-Canadian, I probably follow Israeli politics a little more closely than some other countries but I challenge you to find an election with a wider variety of compelling narratives. Here is a country at war holding free and fair elections. It is a country where Jewish-Israelis and Arab-Israelis vote and hold office. But beyond the general, there are some really fascinating story lines which have resonance beyond the ever-present military issues. You have the possible election of a female Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, in an election defined by military issues. There are a lot of people who would say that this would be an amazing feat in most countries, it's barely an issue in Israel. You have the resurrection of the political career of a man, Benjamin Netanyahu, who last held office ten years ago. Not a lot of leaders can claim to have come back from the political dead after that long out of power. There is also the collapse of the party that used to be Israel's "Natural Governing Party", Labour. Labour couldn't even win in their traditional and spiritual (spiritual, not religious) base of support: the kibbutzim. Kadima matched their support there. The story of a collapsing NGP is not uncommon. Also not uncommon is the rise of a quasi-racist party to prominence. From Denmark to the Netherlands to Switzerland we've seen these nationalist parties gain in support and the third place finish of Mr. Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu is further confirmation of this trend. Finally, the continued power of the religious right is an issue which transcends oceans. In Jerusalem, religious parties finished second and third behind Likud. The secular left, Labour, and right, Yisrael Beitenu, finished in a tie for sixth in Jerusalem. Truly fascinating and a political scientist's wet dream.

How to Elect A Government Under PR

Step 1: Vote
Step 2: Count
Step 3: Six weeks of backroom deals.

I love Israeli elections.

STV Debate: Some Basics

The debate over electoral systems is an interesting one. It is also a frustrating debate to engage in, principally because of some logical leaps made by proponents of various forms of change. I believe I've made this argument before, but it bears repeating. When discussing an electoral system it is useful to measure it on what it promises to do and the reasons for its introduction. In the case of First Past The Post, the system is designed to provide a means of finding the most popular candidate in a given area to represent those people in a legislature. That's it. Parties and national vote totals are not a consideration. So when people complain about the popular vote not being reflected in parliament or in a provincial legislature, there's a good reason for that: the popular vote is not a determinant in electing MP's or MPP's or MLA's as the case may be. In fact, the province-wide or national popular vote is as relevant as voter turnout in determining the shape of the legislature. FPTP is a system of bringing people from various areas together in a congress (if you'll excuse the term) to make decisions. In Canada, this was a salient system in a country blessed with great amounts of land and few people. That's why we have FPTP in Canada. It is organic. Usually, electoral systems are devised with a certain goal in mind based on the existing political system. Generally, they are introduced to fix some problem.

In BC, the problem that the Campbell government originally wanted fixed was the lopsided 2001 provincial election where the government won a overwhelming majority, leaving little in the way of an opposition. Also, the 1996 election where the NDP retained power in spite of garnering fewer votes than the Liberal opposition. If that is the problem that needs fixing, the obvious answer is some system where there is province-wide proportionality guaranteed to political parties namely the Liberals, NDP and Greens. As I understand it, the Citizens' Assembly in BC rejected PR systems like the one recently defeated in Ontario and PEI because they disliked with the idea of party lists. Instead they proposed STV. The only problem is that STV doesn't remedy the problem that was at the crux of the matter. STV is designed to provide a voice to minorities (e.g. Protestants in Ireland). Thus, while it is nearly impossible to generate the results seen in the 2001 election under STV, there is no guarantee of proportionality. Furthermore, the 1996 BC Election which got Premier Campbell on the electoral reform path in the first place, could easily happen under STV. I'd argue it's not even that much less likely to happen under STV than FPTP. If the goal was to eliminate the possibility of a repeat of the 1996 BC Election, this is not the system to fulfill that goal. This is the problem with STV that I've never heard explained away. If BCers want an electoral system which will ensure that party preference is reflected in the legislature, they should reject STV and look at PR. If the idea of a party list is as repulsive to them as it was to voters in Ontario and PEI, than they should stick with the system they have.

Cartoons Can Be Deceiving

Back on the anti-STV trail. Because I'm feeling generous I'll let my opponents define their system as they would see fit. Here's the vid:



Think the video has all the answers? Pop Quiz!

1. In the beginning of the video, it states that a person may choose to vote for only one candidate, in that case what happens when that vote needs to be redistributed?

2. How does BC-STV guarantee proportionality, province wide?

3. The video says every vote counts, how does the 4th place candidate (whose votes are never redistributed) have his votes counted any more than they would under FPTP?

4. What is the formula to determine the transfer value for votes transferred a second time?

5. How many times was a vote for the first place candidate counted? How many times was the votes for the 4th place candidate counted?

6. Should voting be this complicated?

Don't have the answers? Maybe switching voting systems isn't child's play after all.


We learned this fall that Canadians don't understand their parliamentary system as well as we'd all like. If you are going to vote in the upcoming referendum in BC, get informed, know what you are voting for.



Answers to Pop Quiz:

1. They don't get redistributed, because that's not possible. As I understand it, ballots that can no longer be counted are discarded and the threshold is recalculated excluding those ballots. So let's say 10,000 people vote in a riding with 3 MLA's the original threshold would be:

(10000/(3+1))+1=2501.

Let's say that after the first candidate is elected/dropped there are 200 ballots with no further preferences, the threshold would be recalculated as

(9800/(3+1))+1=2451.

In other words, the bar is constantly moving.

2. It doesn't. This is damn close to an out and out lie. In Ireland, where this system is used, results are nowhere near proportional. In the last election Fianna Fáil lost seats while increasing their share of the popular vote, something that shouldn't happen in a proportional system.

3. It's exactly the same as FPTP the votes are, in Fair Vote lingo, "wasted".

4. Well the original transfer value is calculated at

Transfer Value 1 = (Total Votes-Threshold)/Total votes

so the new value would be as follows:

Transfer Value 2 = TV1*((Total Votes for second candiate-threshold)/total votes for second candidate)

5. To avoid another formula with no values in it. Let's put it this way. The first candidate's voters got to have their opinion heard three times (albeit at different values), the fourth place candidate's voters got their opinion heard once.

6. No.

It's A Hiring Opportunity, Right Mr. Harper?

129,000 jobs. More people lost their jobs in January than live in the city of Kingston, Ontario. 9.09% more Canadians are looking for work now then they were on New Year's Eve as the unemployment rate jumped from 6.6% to 7.2%. Mr. Harper you have failed this country. I agree that you cannot let a bad job reports stand in the way of an economic recovery program. However, Mr. Prime Minister you don't have one. We need a plan for Canada's economy today and tomorrow, you provide yesterday's answers. There is enough steak amid the sizzle of the budget to make it impossible for reasonable people to reject. We could not afford to wait for an election and a new budget process. You have thus been granted a lease on power, use it well. The country needs you to be the intelligent man you are capable of being. The country needs you to lead, sir. If you don't, there is an eminently qualified gentlemen at Stornoway who is ready to lead and has a team of bright men and women ready to govern. History will record your actions in the coming weeks, Prime Minister. Do yourself and your country proud.

Budget Voting

I'm a little surprised by the uproar in certain quarters over the dissent by the Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador caucus on the budget. I think that when the outcome of a vote is not in doubt, there is no reason an MP shouldn't be able to vote their conscience or their constituents will as the case may be. You can't advocate for more power for backbench MP's and then cry foul when MP's exercise their power. At the end of the day these people are accountable to their electorate first and their party second. It isn't the first time that regional dissent has occurred within a party's caucus, it won't be the last. People called Stephen Harper a control-freak when he kicked Bill Casey out of caucus for a similar decision. I think the reaction to this has as much to do with Danny Williams as anything else. I am a strong federalist. I don't like the way Williams has used his popularity to blackmail the federal government into giving up their constitutionally mandated powers. However, I don't think it matters why this budget was toxic to the MP's from Newfoundland and Labrador. What matters is that it was, and for that reason they voted against their party. They should be applauded for their courage and principle not condemned as threats to national unity. There are plenty of problems associated with the Williams government in St. John's, but to heap blame upon the Newfoundland caucus for the political situation that they find themselves in is inappropriate. It is frankly refreshing to see any part of the country paying enough attention to their national politics so that a single vote in parliament becomes an electability issue back home. There are plenty of cases in our history where parliamentarians have voted against their constituents best interest and not been punished for failing to do their job as representatives of said constituents. The provinces may be getting too powerful but this vote is not the forum for that debate.

On the OYL

I wasn't in Ottawa this weekend. I had personal reasons for skipping the AGM unrelated to the Liberal Party or the OYL. I will not comment on the current incident generating such controversy at the moment because I don't have any information to provide. I don't know what happened. I think that is true of 99% of the OYL. Hopefully, the details will come out in the coming weeks and this too shall pass. I will say briefly that I have known Jason Easton and Denise Brundson to be persons of incredible integrity and honesty. They are two of the hardest working, most dedicated Liberals I know in a party filled with hard working, dedicated people.

What I want to focus on is the culture of the OYL. In particular, the culture that has made it possible for anyone in the organization to even contemplate the type of shenanigans that are alleged to have taken place this weekend. We have in the Ontario Young Liberals a deeply divided commission. A large percentage of OYLers came to the party during Liberal leadership races (2003, 2006, 2009 (abortive)). When you consider that no one in this organization is over 25, you realize that they have spent most of their time in the party either in the middle of a leadership or some sort of election. These are battle weary veterans of hard fought and divisive campaigns. It should not be surprising that they have brought the dirty tactics they have seen at nomination battles and leadership races to the Young Liberals. I don't mean to paint my fellow OYLers as impressionable juveniles. I only mean to say that they know what it means to win at all costs and they aren't afraid to use the full arsenal at the OYL. This doesn't excuse cheating. Nothing excuses cheating, ever. However, in campaigns with no discernable spending limits, with perilously few rules in general, it is not entirely surprising to see things get out of hand.

The great irony of this weekend was that it was supposed to be an exercise in party unity. With the call of the leadership convention in the fall, it is my understanding that the decision was made to have a unity slate to bring together the warring factions that fought in Hamilton. It was designed to keep leadership politics out of the OYL as much as humanly possible. The election of two independent candidates this weekend puts those who would lead the OYL in a difficult spot. After the chaos of Hamilton, a lot of people viewed a unity slate as a godsend. With none of the sitting management board seeking election, there was a real possibility that we could have a celebration in Ottawa instead of internal fighting. However, any slate dreamt up in private will leave people feeling excluded. It will leave good candidates off for trivial reasons or because the people making up the slate didn't know they wanted to run. This is the negative side of slate politics. Refreshingly, two candidates took it upon themselves to challenge the slate. Unexpectedly for many in the OYL, they were both successful. (In the interest of full disclosure, I endorsed Alex Crombie's opponent in the race for VP Federal, Andrea Micieli. I did so because I thought she would be an excellent choice for that job having had the opportunity to campaign with her on a few different campaigns over the past couple years. I don't know Alex personally, but I am sure that he will do a good job as well.) We ended up with the worst of both worlds: a terribly divisive and even possibly ruinous AGM and acclaimed candidates for most of the important positions. It may prove necessary to rethink the way we run elections in the OYL. The OYL Constitution is an abysmal document on most counts and the conduct of internal elections is no exception. It leaves far too much to interpretation, simply to be made up as we go along, or just never thought about. We will not heal the OYL overnight, nor will we end the culture of division. However, it is time to start thinking about major revisions to the OYL Constitution to try to improve what has become an annual embarassment. A low spending limit would be a good first step. A rule regarding slates and their conduct during an election may be something to debate as well. I think that Jon Tsao who was acclaimed as Executive VP last weekend should assemble a constitutional ASAP so that the commission as a whole can figure out how to solve this problem, if it is solvable. At very least, we can get a better Constitution than the one we have now. While responsibility should be taken for any wrongdoing this weekend, it is more important for the OYL to look forward to try to stop this from happening on a yearly basis.

Fix It First, Oppose It If Necessary

As we await the first budget deficit in a decade, the country is forced to watch the awkward Liberal dance on how to oppose the government while still passing the stimulus the country so desperately needs. Kady O'Malley had the answer for Mr. Ignatieff on CBC's At Issue panel last week. She argued quite reasonably that given the opposition's majority in the house and therefore on the relevant committees, they have the power to ammend the budget when it goes to comittee between second and third readings. Parliamentary committtees are rarely used for anything other than grandstanding and publishing reports no one reads, but this is a golden opportunity. The Liberals can make changes to the budget so that it will meet Mr. Ignatieff's criteria and avoid the election that nobody wants. Yes, coalition nuts it would be an election. I don't think there's any evidence Mme. Jean would ask the opposition to form a government. If Mr. Harper tries to block the efforts of the committee (my knowledge of parliamentary rules is on the rough side I concede), then Mr. Ignatieff still has the ability to defeat the budget at third reading or introduce a vote of no-confidence to bring down the government. In other words, it would be really nice with thousands of Canadians desperate for work it would be really nice for parliamentarians to do their jobs. Enough partisan grandstanding. Let's get a budget that will help Canadians.

Do the NDP Have A Rae Problem?

I put a question mark here because this is based on out of writ polling which is notoriously unreliable and not worth the paper it's printed on. Worse, his analysis is also based on internals from out of writ polls which just have almost no validity. However, two polls now show the NDP well below 15% in Ontario. The Angus Reid poll dated January 17th shows Ontario as follows:

Tories: 42
Grits: 40
NDP: 12
Green: 5

The Ekos poll dated January 21st shows Ontario:

Tories: 38.8
Grits: 40.9
NDP: 10.5
Green: 9.7

Now, between the two polls the sample gets larger, so we start to be able to take this seriously. To give you an idea, the NDP got over 18% in Ontario last time out and over 19% in Ontario in 2006. That's a 33% drop at minimum if these number are correct. That's a game changer electorally. It's not a game changer necessarily because the NDP shed strong seats (although Olivia Chow can't be pleased), but because it makes the Liberals more likely to win some of those tight ridings they lost to the Tories in the last election. One of the reasons I take this seriously, aside from personal satisfaction, is that Ontarians take a not so favourable view of the NDP's ability to manage an economy in recession dating back to the Rae government of the early 90's. It would make some sense, that Ontarians would be less and less comfortable electing NDPers as the economy sags. The Ekos poll is bad for the NDP everywhere, the Angus Reid poll shows some strength out west where NDP governments are more common. Once again just something I've picked up on, I'm not saying it will carry into a future election. I mean the Ekos poll shows the Greens being strongest in Quebec where they've been traditionally very weak. Huge bowl full of salt on this one.

Sen. Gillibrand

I'm not overly surprised that Gov. David Patterson (D-NY) went a little off the board with his appointment to the senate. Formerly Congresswomen Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is a proven campaigner, defeating an incumbent congressmen is never easy even if it is beating a Republican in New York in 2006. She will likely face a primary challenge in 2010. How strong that primary challenge may depend on her ability to seem like a tougher fight than the man who appointed her. The man to watch is apparently New York AG Andrew Cuomo. However, Cuomo will have to make up his mind as to whether he wants to try to be governor or senator. Frankly, junior senators are not all that powerful in the senate. If they have a profile like Secy. Clinton or Pres. Obama did when they were in the senate, it can be useful as a stepping stone. However, for relative unknown Gillibrand, her appointment may be the last you hear from her until 2010 unless you're watching a lot of C-SPAN. There was speculation before Clinton's appointment to Foggy Bottom that she might have been mulling a run at the governor's mansion precisely because she had no interest in waiting for New York's senior senator, the relatively youthful and powerful Chuck Shumer, to retire before she could get real power in the senate. The choice of Gillibrand should eliminate any charges of sexism against Kennedy. Gillibrand is clearly more qualified for the job than Kennedy, despite her low profile. It will also be nice to have someone not eligible for social security in the senate (Gillibrand's only 42). Gillibrand's appointment does open up a seat in congress in a red part (Cook says R+3) of New York. This is the kind of special election - winnable district in the northeast - the GOP is going to have to win if they're going to stage a comeback in the near future. Republicans hold no seats in the house north of New York state and have been reduced to just three seats in New York. Just like it was panic time when Democrats were getting swept out of Senate seats in the south a few years back, the big blue swath that is New England will need to change if the GOP wants to be a national party again.

Can The Budget Be Defeated?

I'm not sure. I have to agree with my leader (interim) about tax cuts being fundamentally an unwise approach to stimulating the economy. However, I assume that even Harper, Flaherty et al. will be including something other than tax cuts in the budget. There will be money for infrastructure both desperately needed to bolster our sinking economy and start to fix our infrastructure deficit in this country. So, the question becomes can the opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Party of Canada, justify defeating the budget even if a good chunk of the so-called stimulus package is tax cuts? I don't know. I think it may be difficult. Frankly, I don't want an election and that would guide my decision making as much as the nitty-gritty of the budget.

Obama Victory Analysis: Pre-Inauguration Edition Part 2

It became clear in last winter in South Carolina that African-Americans were going to support Barack Obama in ways that they hadn't supported previous candidates. So, how did this support manifest itself on election day? Let's see how African-Americans helped elect the first African-American president. Let's start in one of Obama's more impressive victories, Virginia. A lot was made of the new residents of Northern Virginia or "fake" Virginia in Republican parlance. However, Obama's appeal to African-Americans helped him win in "real" Virginia as well. Especially, in its capital of Richmond. Like last time 2004, 2008 results followed by increase in voter turnout.

Year Democrat Republican
2004 52,167 21,637
2008 73,180 18,472

County Increase in Democratic Turnout: 40.28%
Statewide Increase in Democratic Vote: 34.61%

It is impressive that even in Richmond, which is not growing like Northern Virgnia, Obama exceeded his statewide increases in support. Twenty thousand new voters in a city which is 57% Black is, in all likelihood, largely attributable to increases in African-American turnout. Richmond was not the only city to see a spike in turnout. Many analysts argue that the race was over when John McCain decided to pull out of Michigan. Michigan is a fairly reliably Democratic state. However, in recent years Republicans have been competitive enough to draw Democratic resources to the state. Bush lost by only 4 points in 2004 for instance. Wayne county, which is principally the city of Detroit, is a major reason that John McCain decided he couldn't compete in the state. Here's the tale of the tape:


Year Democrat Republican
2004 600,047 257,700
2008 656,303 216,880

County Increase in Democratic Turnout: 9.37%
Statewide Increase in Democratic Vote: 15.6%

Here the numbers may not seem all that impressive. However, the margin in Wayne County is key to Democratic victory in Michigan. In 2004, Bush won the rest of the state. While Obama did better outside of Detroit, there was no way McCain was going to make up a 440,000 vote deficit in Detroit. As soon as McCain's people figured out that Detroiters were going to show up, they walked. Wayne County is 42% African-American. If McCain could have kept Obama on the defensive in states like Michigan, Obama would have had to give up on states like Indiana and North Carolina. African-American turnout in Wayne County, MI and elsewhere made it possible for Obama to keep on the offensive red states.

Obama Victory Analysis: Pre-Inauguration Edition Part 1

With the inauguration around the corner, I figured now was about as good a time as any to look at how Barack Obama got the job he will take over on Tuesday. After the election I posted on how he picked up electoral college votes everywhere. I know want to talk about how that happened. I'm going to look at how three voting blocks put Obama over the top: young voters, Blacks, and Latinos. I'll look at the youth vote in this post.

A lot of pundits were skeptical of Obama's ability to actually get young voters to the polls, however, the evidence is fairly clear. He did it. Let's look at some key counties in some key states, starting with Alachua County, Florida home of the University of Florida. Alachua is a great county to look at because it is in essence a college county dominated by the college town of Gainesville. Here are the results for 2004 and 2008 side by side followed by the increase in Democratic support from 2004 in the couny and in the state as a whole:

DEM REP
2004 62,504 47,762
2008 73,134 47,025

County Increase in Democratic support: 17.01%
Statewide Increase in Democratic Support: 15.63%


What is interesting is that the Republican doesn't go down. It remains flat. What Obama did was find 10,500 new Democratic voters. Given the fact that 18-24 year olds make up almost a quarter of Alachua County's population (a higher percentage of its voting population), we can safely assume that most of this increase is from students. Given the massive turnout efforts in other parts of the state, the fact that Alachua County outperformed the state, is impressive. If we look at Johnson County, Iowa home of the University of Iowa, we can discount the idea of African-Americans accounting for the difference Alachua. Same comparison:

DEM REP
2004 41,847 22,715
2008 50,708 20,639

County Increase in Democratic support: 21.17%
Statewide Increase in Democratic Support: 10.29%

While there is a slightly larger drop in Republican support, the increase in Democratic numbers is still impressive, in this University dominated county which is only 2.9% Black. Here the difference between the county and the state is huge. For a more dramatic result let's take a look at Monroe County, Indiana home of Indiana University. Indiana was probably Obama's most impressive turn around victory. Monroe county was a large part of that. Once again 2004 v. 2008:

DEM REP
2004 26,965 (54%) 22,834 (45%)
2008 41,332 (66%) 21,083 (33%)

County Increase in Democratic support: 53.28%
Statewide Increase in Democratic Support: 41.12%

A lot of people attribute Obama's victory to massive turnout among African-Americans in Indianapolis and in the suburbs of Chicago in the Northern part of the state. However, Monroe County which is all of 3% African-American delivered a 20,000 vote margin for Obama. Obama won Indiana by less than 26,000 votes.

In all three cases the counties with major universities saw massive increases in Democratic voters while Republican support snak only marginally. Obama had these kinds of results in university towns across the country and it is a big reason why he will be President of the United States this time next week.

It's Cold... Time For A Hockey Post

With mere months now remaining before the start of the Vancouver Olympics, it is time to start the idle speculation as to who will be chosen to represent Canada on our Men's Hockey Team. Here are my choices for a twenty-three man roster (which is what I think the Olympics is).

Goalie: Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, Carey Price

On the cusp: Steve Mason

Fairly easy pickings. Brodeur and Luongo are no-brainers. The third goalie won't see much ice-time.

Defensemen: Jay Bouwmeester, Shea Weber, Chris Pronger, Dion Phaneuf, Brian Campbell, Duncan Keith, Scott Niedermayer

On the Cusp: Mike Green, Dan Boyle, Brent Seabrook, Sheldon Souray, Patrice Brisebois, Dennis Wiedeman

Lots to choose from. This group may be a little offenisve minded. However, most of these guys are effective both ways.

Forwards: I'll actually set lines here. Canada is going to need to play some centres on the wing if they are going to bring the top talent to this tournament. A lot of these guys have played on the wing for Canada before or do so on the power play.

Sidney Crosby --- Jeff Carter --- Ryan Getzlaf "Top Line"
Ryan Smyth --- Mike Richards --- Vincent Lecavalier "Second Line"
Rick Nash --- Joe Thornton --- Jerome Iginla "Checking Line"
Patrick Marleau --- Marc Savard --- Shane Doan "Energy Line"
Jonathan Toews

On the Cusp: Eric Staal, Corey Perry, Martin St. Louis, Patrick Sharp, Mike Cammalleri, Brad Richards, Simon Gagne, Jordan Staal, Kris Versteeg, Patrice Bergeron, Devin Setoguchi, John Tavares.

I think between the second and third lines you can avoid putting pure checking players on this team. All four lines can put the puck in the net. Most of these guys can punish the opposition on the small ice. Crosby will excel with pure goal scorers like Jeff Carter and Ryan Getzlaf with him. I know Nash-Thornton-Iginla looks like a scoring line not a checking line, but what do you want a checking line to do? Hit? They can do that. Keep the puck away from the opposition? They can do that as well. Why Jonathan Toews as a thirteenth forward? Two words: Nagano, Leksand. Do your research if you don't know what I mean.

STV Is Not PR

I may have to repeat this every day between now and the day of the BC election. I know the system is called PR-STV sometimes. That's false advertising. This is a system where a party's vote count can go down and the party can gain seats. A party's vote count can go up and they can lose seats. That's not proportional representation. It just isn't. If you want PR, don't vote for STV. Proponents will argue that because results more closely resemble PR than FPTP does, that it is proportional. That's bunk. Proportional Representation requires some method of guaranteeing proportionality. STV does not have any proportional mechanisms. That's why the Green Party of BC opposed it last time. I'll post on the flaws of STV as we get closer to the vote. I just wanted to get the basics out of the way.

Keeping An Eye Accross the Pond

If you think things are bad in North America right now, you're right. However, it could always be worse, just ask Europe. I think Germany has won the race for first major bank to be partly nationalized in 2009, the honour goes to Commerzbank. Elsewhere, the Celtic tiger continues to bleed profusely. This time it's Dell kicking the Irish when they're already down. If you think North Americans are the only ones losing auto jobs, think again. Nissan's cutting jobs in the UK. Finally, Spain's economic woes continue with unemployment over 13%. I've said it before, but the next big shock in this economic crisis is coming from Europe.

All Wars Were Not Created Equal

I love media coverage of wars that they actually know something about. You see, the Western media cares about the Middle East. So when hundreds of civilians die in a war, the coverage is appropriately hysterical. However, the ongoing war in Sri Lanka, which bares some similarities to the one in the middle east, has not received the same coverage in spite of the much higher death toll. Sri Lanka is yet another intractable conflict caused by poor post-colonial planning. The ethnic division in Sri Lanka, to make a very long story, very short, resulted in a terrorist organization (the Tamil Tigers) providing a pseudo-government to a large swath of territory not controlled or cared for by the government. The government has now decided to wipe out the Tigers. Are you starting to see the parallels?

I think it is important that every time we get hysterical over a war in the Middle East, we remember there are wars all around the world, that we just don't hear about. So yes, the conflict in Gaza is tragic. It's not more tragic than a half a dozen other conflicts in the world today. A little bit perspective may be necessary in order for everyone to stop the angry protests and accusations of racism. I am beyond tired of the conflict in the Middle East defining politics in other quarters of the world.

Harper Can Protect the Sanctity of Marriage

He's going to be so excited. I'm not talking about same-sex marriage. I'm talking about polygamy. There's a reasonable chance that the courts could strike down Canada's anti-polygamy laws. While conservatives will no doubt rant about activist judges, the Canadian Constitution has the answer: The Notwithstanding Clause. Yes, the scariest clause in the constitution which allows a government to violate the rights of Canadians if they feel like it. As long as they renew every few years, they can get away with it. Now, the clause has never been exercised by the federal government. The only famous use of the notwithstanding clause is by Quebec in defense of its draconian language laws. However, if the courts were to say that polygamy is okay, Harper (or realistically a successor by the time this gets through the appeals process) would be well within his powers to strike down such a ruling.

2009 Projections

So, we have a new year. For whatever that is worth. So having done enough to honour the backward looking head of Janus, the Roman deity whose name graces this month, let's look forward to the year ahead. What can we expect?

• The war in Gaza will not end before Obama is innaugurated. I expect the Israelis would like this thing to end before January 20th. I don't see it at this point. If they don't want a repeat of Lebanon 2006, they will need more time to finish their gruesome task.
• The Liberals will support Harper's budget. Flaherty has started throwing up test balloons already. The Tories want this thing to pass and new interim leader or not, the Liberals are still broke. Also, it is fairly easy for Czar Michael the Grit to claim that the Canadian economy needs the money too much for partisanship to get in the way.
  
• We will have yet another election. It won't be on the budget, but the last fall campaign was so much fun, why not do it again? Seriously, this would make four elections in five years. That's crazy. We need one of those frequent customers things from Elections Canada... have four elections and the fifth one's free!
• John Tory will survive as PC leader. All evidence is against this. I'm probably wrong. But my gut tells me that unless the Tories throw him under the bus and run him over repeatedly, he will be the leader of the PC's come 2011.
• Andrea Horwath will be elected leader of the Ontario NDP. Once again, I'm probably money. Smart money is on my MPP Peter Tabuns. However, I have to think that Tabuns and Prue are going after too many of the same people. They represent neighbouring ridings in Eastern Toronto and while Prue is considered more centrist and Tabuns more environmentalist, they will have to deal with anti-Toronto sentiment from outside the big smoke. A leader from Hamilton would make a lot of sense for the Ontario NDP, particularly if they want to make manufacturing their issue in 2011.
• Team Canada will leave John Tavares off their 2010 Olympic Men's Hockey Team. I won't say whether or not this will be a good idea or not (see Crosby, 2006 for an example of a bad decision). However, with the camp being in August before Tavares plays a game in the NHL, he will be passed over when the decision is made in the fall. At some point I'm going to put together my picks for the 2010 roster.
  
• Nothing significant or helpful will come of the climate change talks in Copenhagen.
• Gordon Campbell will be re-elected in British Columbia. Carbon tax or no carbon tax. I just can't see the NDP pulling it off.
  
• STV will fail by a wider margin than it did last time around. This may be wishful thinking on my part.
• Gordon Brown will not be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by December 31st.
• A pro-Russian candidate will be elected President in Ukraine. A lot of these projections are not things I want, but things I think are likely. This would be one of them.
• Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud will win a narrow victory in Israel. The coalition will be Likud-Kadima.
• It will be months more before Belgians find a Prime Minister who can last.

So, nobody check this post twelve months from now, okay?

Natural Governing Parties

This post isn't about Canada, believe it or not. I watch the ongoing bloodshed in the middle east with dismay. As someone who thinks of himself as pro-peace rather than pro-one side in this conflict, any escalation of violence is a definite step backward. The question I think that bears asking is how did we get here? The answer I've come to is that the natural governing parties in both countries have collapsed. In Israel that would be Labour, in the Palestinian Territories that would be Fatah. In both cases, these parties had great electoral success in the past and have recently been overwhelmed by more more adversarial parties.

Let's start with Fatah. The demise of Fatah which began in earnest with the death of Arafat and continued with the election of Hamas in parliamentary elections signaled the end of an era in Palestinian politics. Fatah had become an ineffective, corrupt organization which was out of touch with the people it claimed to represent. Hamas, whether helped or hindered by their violent foreign policy, did a much better job creating a functioning political party, providing social services to the Palestinian people and actually bothered to run a campaign in the election. No surprise, Hamas won. Unfortunately, the Presidential system meant that a Hamas Prime Minister had to some how share power with President Abbas of Fatah. This was never going to be easy. It soon became impossible. The loose connection of kinship and common cause which had united the Gaza Strip and the West Bank snapped in a bloody civil war. Since then, Fatah from its base of control in the West Bank has attempted to negotiate or at least start negotiations on behalf of all Palestinians. Hamas and the resident of the Gaza Strip have been left to stew by the world, starting, if we are to be fair, with their own President in Ramallah. Fatah's failure to understand that they were no longer the voice of the people in the occupied territories in large part led to the crisis we have today. Hamas cast out by the world, has been less willing, if that's possible, to restrain their more violent tendencies. What role Israel and the world in general had in precipitating that crisis can and should be debated. The picture remains of a desperate party clinging to power no longer has with disastrous consequences.

In Israel, the fall of Labour over the last decade also influenced the crisis we have today. The failure of the Camp David process at the end of the Clinton administration was the last nail in the coffin of the Labour Party. The country is simply no longer the communitarian nation of its founding. Labour has not come to grips with this and the political sands have shifted under their unmoving feet. Ariel Sharon's split with Likud and formation of Kadima near the end of his Prime Ministership has not marginalized Likud as may have been expected. Instead right-wing Likud appears to be the principle opposition to a centrist Kadima in the upcoming Israeli elections. Labour found their many of their pro-peace policies taken by Kadima and has suffered under the leadership of Ehud Barak to find any contrast with its governing partners to the right. Kadima having elected a woman with limited national security credentials for a country where almost everyone's served in the army, now must prove to Israelis that it has what it takes to deal with Hamas. Every rocket which lands on Israeli soil impugns the withdrawal startegy which was started by Prime Minister Sharon and continued by PM Olmert. While the scandals surrounding the outgoing Prime Minister may have more to do with any Likud victory in upcoming elections than anything else, Kadima certainly needs something reinforce its national security credibility with the Israeli people with Sharon's instant credibility gone with his stroke. The familiar hand of Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, may provide Israelis more comfort in these uncertain times if Kadima does not change its public image. The pretense for the military action, and it is little more than a pretense, is the rockets being fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip. The reality on the ground is that rocket attacks have posed an intermittent threat to Israelis for years. This does not make the threat less deadly, however, it does beg the questions why now and why on this scale? A smaller scale retaliatory strike would have made just as much strategic sense if not more. I simply cannot believe that if Ms. Livni's opposition was on the left and not the right, from Labour and not Likud, that the Kadima government would have taken this action. Labour's fall from dominance is in my view intrinsically linked to this conflict. Thus with the old actors weakened, new actors are trying their hands with deadly results.

Lessons From 2008 Part 4: Europe

How is Europe a lesson? Well, okay I couldn't think of a folksy trite phrase to sum up the year across the pond but really what happens in Europe isn't staying in Europe these days so here's a quick recap. Things are going wrong and fast.

7. Europe: Yappa's got a nice piece here on the impending doom and gloom. Here's the deal (and by deal I mean massive oversimplification). While the economic collapse seemed to start on Wall Street and the United States housing market, the dirty little secret is that good old left leaning inteventionist Europe bought this subprime stuff hook, line and sinker. This is particularly true in the UK where Europe's problems began. British banks started failing along with Bear Stearns back in March. Simultaneously, the seriously overheated British housing market froze on the spot. Now, in and of itself this is bad news for the global economy. For Iceland, this meant that all the money Icelandic banks had been raking in trading asset backed credit paper (ABCP) all of a sudden disappeared. The Icelandic economy basically went off a cliff. One down. Ireland's economy hit the skids hard as well, as the Celtic tiger was declawed by the subprime mess.

In Eastern Europe the crisis hit hard as well. In particular, booming Latvia was hit hard. The IMF has now bailed out the Baltic republic. Yes, Virginia, the IMF bailed out a member of the European Union. There was a time not long ago when Latvia was being talked about as one of the next countries to join the European Monetary Union (also known as the Eurozone). Now... not so much. If Latvian banks fail expect ripples to spread through the other Baltic republics as well as much of Scandanavia (where the Swedish and Danish crowns have already been hit hard). Hungary too has imploded and also received IMF help. Make that two EU members on the IMF dole. Ukraine (not EU) is also facing tough times as the heirs of the Orange Revolution prepare to tear each other apart in elections and the Russians once again threaten to turn off the gas. The less said about former Western darling Georgia (site of the Rose Revolution), the better. The only good news right now is that the oil prices that were threatening to choke off cheap air travel between and Eastern Europe and Western Europe have fallen, allowing all those Eastern Europeans doing work in the UK and Ireland to keep their jobs in the West and homes in the East.

Politically, well... the Lisbon Treaty died when the Irish government was forced to actually consult the people. Damn voters always get in the way of democratic progress! Seriously, the EU is about as democratic as the Liberal Party of Canada. Sure, the measures are there, but they'd rather not use them. Oh and then there's Belgium. The good news: the Belgians found a Prime Minister in March after nine months of separatist related wrangling. The bad news: he didn't last the year. Every time someone says we should do more to weaken the federal government in order to appease Quebec separatists, take a long hard look at Belgium. It will soon be the Republic of Flanders and the Kingdom of Wallonia if current trends continue.

So what's the lesson. I guess it's this. Everytime a leftwing politician tells you they do such and such better in Europe, smile and thank the powers that be that you live in Canada.

World Junior Day

Good win by Canada today to open the annual World Junior's. A dominating 8-1 (should have been 8-2) win over the Czech Republic. The tourney pretty much went to seed today with the US, Russia and Sweden all posting victories. While Canada was impressive in winning so easily over a usually decent Czech team, Russia has to be concerned winning only 4-1 over Latvia. Russia usually overwhelms with firepower. A 4-1 victory over a far weaker Latvian team has to disappointing. The American and Swedish score lines were more to form. US pounding Germany 8-2 and Sweden getting past the pesky Finns 3-1.

Lessons From 2008 Part 3: Keep 'em Laughing

Onward with my rules from the political year past.

8. Keep 'Em Laughing: Sometimes a little levity is more useful than the most vicious attack ad. Just ask Sarah Palin. Sure, her fortunes were floundering after a couple of bad interviews but it was Tina Fey's imitations of the Alaska Governor that drove the point home. Fey, often by doing direct quotes from the Governor, got Americans to understand just how absurd her candidacy really was. John McCain had his own run-ins with late night comedy. Most notably his snubbing of David Letterman when he "suspended his campaign" in September. Unfortunately, the plane to Washington turned into an interview with Katie Couric down the street. McCain's campaign suspension died with his no-show on the Late Show.

In Canada, Rick Mercer did not provide any death blows as he delivered to Stockwell Day all those years ago. However, one could argue that Stephane Dion's youtube style response to Stephen Harper's national message was its own kind of humour.

Europe Still Has An Identity Crisis

Riots in Sweden's third largest city, Malmö. Having lived just outside of Malmö for almost a year, I can't say I'm surprised by this. In the course of my education in Lund, I had the opportunity to hear a presentation on immigrant integration from a city planner in Malmö. She talked about the need to find away to integrate the immigrant population with the rest of the city. Rosengård, where these riots are taking place, is a great example of why governments can't do everything. It was built as a kind of state-of-the-art public housing and quickly turned into an immigrant ghetto. The city of Malmö did interesting studies on people's daily travels and found that people living in Rosengård rarely left that part of the city, with the possible exception of going to and from work. The chance for meaningful interactions with native Swedes is remote. This kind of isolation can only spell trouble. It doesn't justify the criminal behaviour. However, I don't see these kinds of riots ending in Europe until Europeans reconcile themselves to immigration in a real way. Sweden has been rightly lauded as having one of the most progressive systems for new immigrants who live in the country. However, this has not translated into integrated immigrant communities. This goes to the very core of European nationalist identity politics and it may take a couple of generations before these kinds of riots are a thing of the past.

Lessons from 2008 Part 2: Know Thyself

I continue with my year in review with the lesson learned hardest by the Liberal Party of Canada and the GOP down south.

Run On Who You Are: The Grits forgot themselves in a few ways this year. First, the party forgot its base. The Liberals sealed their electoral fate when they failed to vote down changes to the Immigration Act despised by many new Canadians. This inaction on a core issue of strength for the Liberal Party signaled the beginning of the end for Stephane Dion. The rest was completed by the launch of The Green Shift weeks later. Liberals forgot that we are a party of incrementalism and pragmatism. I cannot name the Liberal leader last elected on radical policy shifts. While the Red Book was a sharp departure from Conservative policies of the day, it represented in its opposition to the GST and free trade a return to old principles. While Chretien pragmatically backed away from these promises, the Red Book, like successful Liberal platforms of years past promised a steady hand and good government that would work for Canadians best interests. Often in words not more expansive than that. Stephane Dion's great miscalculation in The Green Shift was that the Liberal Party is a small-c conservative party, at least on the campaign trail. Few of the major policies brought in by the party have been platform items (repatriation of the Constitution being an obvious exception). Particularly in the most recent era of Liberal government, Liberals succeded by being the party Canadians trusted not to screw up the country; in other words keep things pretty much on the same course. It may be boring, but it works. The Liberals forgot that boring is beautiful in 2008. They lost as a result.

To a lesser extent, the Republican party forgot itself in 2008. First, they nominated John McCain. McCain is not a modern Republican. He just isn't. He never was the guy who was going to excite the all-important Republican base. The Republican party since Reagan's election in 1980 has been a party of national defense and national morality. McCain fulfilled the defense criterion, he failed to get the Moral Majority. McCain never spoke the language of evangelicals and he has put his party in perilous danger of losing them as a voting block. Now, I don't criticize McCain for not being a radical social conservative, I criticize Republican Party for failing to recognize the key to their successes. All credit should go to Barack Obama for his campaign, but this election was I think less satisfying for some on the left because Obama didn't defeat the GOP of 1994 or 2004 but a withered shell of its former self. I don't know that the Republicans could nominated a better candidate, but they never had a chance with John McCain. Much as Democrats need to talk about the economy to win, Republicans need to talk about social issues.

Rep by Pop to Come to Ontario?

Harper appears to have backed down on yet another issue. Originally Harper's plans for redistribution would have seen Alberta and BC get equal representation to Quebec while Ontario got the shaft. Now there appears to be a thaw, and Ontario will get 21 more seats according to McGuinty. Aside from the very un-conservative idea of expanding government in a time of so-called belt tightening in other departments, this is a long time coming. It would mean the elimination of 170,000 person ridings like Brampton West. So, you ask, how would this break down within the province? Well, that depends. Northern Ontario currently has 10 seats but even under the new formula would only really need nine. However, there will be significant upset in Northern Ontario if they get the redistribution shaft so there may yet be maneouvring on that count. Here's my calculations based on rep by pop (current seat totals in brackets):

Cottage Country (basically Parry Sound to Peterborough): 11 (9)
Eastern Ontario (not National Capital Region): 8 (7)
905 (limited to Durham, Halton, Peel and York (southern) regions: 29 (20.5)
Northern Ontario: 9 (10)
NCR: 8 (7)
Southcentral (Hamilton to Niagara): 15 (12)
Southwest: 21 (17)
Toronto: 26 (22.5)

The half riding in the current total for Toronto and the 905 is Pickering-Scarborough East which would be an obvious target redistribution. Clearly, the big winner is the 905. However, Liberals should be extremely worried about the prospect of 7 additional seats south and west of the GTA. That part of the country has become increasingly infertile land for the party in the last couple of elections. Toronto is likely to be the biggest headache for the mapmakers. The tendency has been to separate the old boroughs of Etobicoke and Scarborough from the rest of the city. Maintaining this tradition could prove difficult. The natural rivers and ravines which dot the city also provide challenges for the mapmakers.

Side Note: This will also provide the basis for an expansion of the Ontario Legislature. As the Tories under Harris bound electoral districts outside of Northern Ontario to Elections Canada boundaries. The City of Toronto could also see a redistribution as council seats and school board seats are, for the most part, based on federal riding boundaries.

Lessons from 2008: Part 1: Know The Rules

As the political news goes mostly underground this time of year, I figure it's not too early to start on my 2008 recap. As was the case last year, I will do it in the form of ten things we should have learned this year. Starting with number 10.

10. Know the Rules of the Game: This one comes to us from the American primaries for the most part. Particularly, the once overwhelming favourites from New York, Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Start with Rudy. Giuliani ran perhaps the stupidest campaign in American history. Why was it so stupid? He lost without ever really competing. And not in the Fred Thompson "I can't be bothered to campaign" way of not really competing. Giuliani thought he could wait out the traditional early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. Problem is, that while Iowa and New Hampshire do not send an overwhelming number of delegates to the Republican National Convention every four years, they do dictate the rest of the race. Giuliani went from front runner to invisible when he refused to engage in retail politics in the snows of Davenport and Concord. Giuliani had lost so much momentum by the time the race he had chosen as his launching pad came around, he got beaten badly in the winner take all Florida primary. Not only is Florida not a traditional early primary state, the sunshine state had been penalized by both the GOP and the Democrats for moving up their primary dates. This meant that the far more fascinating Democratic race was not in Florida at all, while the GOP competed half-heartedly for half delegates. Rudy lost because of a strategic blunder before he could lose for being an essentially liberal Republican with questionable personal issues.

Hillary lost in equally stupid fashion. While the histories of the primaries seem to focus on Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, March 4th and Pennsylvania, Hillary lost the race outside of these key dates. Yes, she finished third in Iowa which ended any talk of a Clinton corronation, but she won New Hampshire and earned a draw on Super Tuesday. It was between Super Tuesday and March 4th that she lost the Democratic nomination. See, Hillary's advisers failed to read the rules and believed that the Democrats allocated delegates based on a winner-take-all system. Of course, Dems use PR which made her victory in California on Super Tuesday little more than symbolism. Symbolism was not enough to get Obama out of the race, and as the race continued, Obama, who was prepared for a long fight, won 11 straight contests, opening an insurmountable lead in the contest. Hillary's fire walls of Ohio and Texas merely served to postpone the inevitable as she lurched from desperate "3 am" tactics in Ohio to desperate "kitchen sink" tactics in Pennsylvania. In reality, she lost the Democratic primary in Virginia and Louisiana and Washington state and the eight other races that Obama won by huge margins. Obama understood that a big win in Idaho on Super Tuesday could overwhelm a narrower Clinton victory in New Jersey the same night. Clinton didn't understand the rules and she lost.

On this side of the border, the criticism can be levelled at the Green Party of Canada. The Greens still don't seem to get how to win seats in a First Past the Post system. Outside of some positive results in a band in Ontario stretching from the Muskokas to Lake Huron, and the Liberal gift in Nova Scotia, the Greens really didn't compete for seats in most of the country. Will they get more money from the per vote subsidy as long it survives? Sure. Will it ever translate into seats? Not without a change in philosophy. A fight everywhere philosophy makes sense for established parties, it doesn't for a fringe party looking for credibility. Oh, and who's brilliant idea were the 4am campaign rallies? If the Greens bothered to follow the rules and acted like most small parties have in Canada, they would have seats in the Canadian parliament. The potential is clearly there in rural Ontario for a breakthrough, but it may involve sacrificing a couple of fifth place Quebec candidates.

Crisis! Crisis! Crisis!... oh nevermind

Word today that as has been expected since Harper prorogued parliament, the Liberals will find enough to like in the budget to not vote it down. I suppose only Michael Ignatieff could have engineered this compromise. I mean, otherwise there would be no justification in short circuiting the leadership process. Isn't it remarkable how things turn out so well for Mr. Ignatieff. It's like he planned it all along. Tous Ensemble and all that jazz.

Cost Savings - Tory Edition

Anyone else find it strange that things that don't fit the government's given ideology are the first to go in this time of belt tightening. First we had the deficit inducing millions that they wanted to take away from their political opponents. Also, on that chopping block, the whole messy system associated with allowing women to grieve when they are underpaid. Now, we get a scientist cut from an environmental meeting. This is starting to constitute a pattern. I know, why don't we cut the Supreme Court? Harper's hated those evil liberal judges for years. I think Harper is taking the whole crisis/opportunity cliche a little far.

Ways For Harper to Avoid Looking Like A Partisan Hypocrite

This may be difficult. After all, Harper does have a long track record of looking like a partisan hypocrite. However, I have two suggestions for him on senate appointments:

1. Ask the Premiers. I realize that the majority of the premiers don't really care for Stephen Harper. However, it would avoid having the appearance of cronyism and would allow a premier that wanted to hold a Senate election, say Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, to do just that. Harper would retain the right to veto any reccomendation as he retains the constitutional power to appoint all senators. This is basically what Harper said he would do in 2006 and there's no reason to deviate from his plans. However, if he doesn't want to give Danny Williams and Dalton McGuinty a say in the Senate, he does have another more sinister venue.
2. Appoint Liberals and/or NDPers. Stephen Harper sits twelve seats short of a majority government. He has eighteen senate appointments. This could be a great time to reduce the size of his opposition. This has the insidious beauty of allowing Harper to look non-partisan while seizing the majority he's always wanted. For instance, do you think the Liberals could hold Wascana without Ralph Goodale? Yukon without Larry Bagnell? The answer is definitely maybe. Harper would get a mini-election in battleground ridings to try to get to 155. Or conversely he could just drag the puck on the by-elections for the maximum amount of time, at which point he may be willing to go a general election. So the senate would be stacked against him, it wouldn't matter if he could just keep sending bills back to the senate ad nauseam. Appointing MP's to the senate would have the added benefit of having them be "elected". If he were to name Bagnell to the Yukon vacancy, Bagnell would be representing the same jurisdiction he represents today. I realize this would be a major gamble with the definite risk of people seeing through the bipartisan cover of this tactic. I personally hope he doesn't do it because it would be the best shot he'd have getting a majority and that prospect scares me to no end.
   

The Senate

Well, it must be the holidays or some other political silly season, we're talking about the Canadian Senate. There are three schools of thought on the senate as far as I can tell. The first, like Mr. Harper was until about a week ago, believe the senate needs desperate reform. The second, like Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, believe it is a waste of time and should be abolished. The third and by far the largest group does its very best to not think about the Senate gets upset when it is brought up in any context and then promptly thinks of England and moves on. Is it unbelievably cynical for a man who claimed he wouldn't appoint senators to appoint 18 of them (that makes 19 appointed and one "elected" appointment by Harper by my count), absolutely? Is it cronyism? Kind of, but every Prime Minister in history has done it given the chance. Does the Liberal Party have a position on the senate? Not that I've heard expressed by any federal politician. I assume Czar Michael the Grit (I swear, I'm trying to get over it... Tous Ensemble and all that jazz) has a position on the Senate, I've just never heard it. I don't expect that or any other constitutional issue (yes Mr. Prime Minister, it is a constitutional issue) will be a subject of discussion in the next election. It's still the economy stupid. Whether there are 87 or 105 senators, the economy is still in recession. That's what Canadians care about.

Moving On

I am not someone who is easily dissuaded of his convictions. I do not bend readily with the political wind. Yesterday's events do not change one iota my opinion of Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Rae. It is true that the man I thought was best suited to lead my party backed Mr. Ignatieff and encouraged his supporters to do the same. It is also true that the man I supported two years ago today backed Mr. Rae and made a similar case for his candidate. While I respect Dominic LeBlanc and Gerard Kennedy immensely and generally trust their judgment, I do not feel that their endorsements today make either of our two remaining leadership candidates more palatable. Politics, at this level, is not a personal business for me. Who supports a given candidate has never been my determining factor. I do not hold a personal grudge against either man. Nor do I believe that either of them do not earnestly think that what they are trying to do what is in the best interest of this party and our beloved country. I simply cannot, in good faith, support either man to lead the Liberal Party of Canada. I have explained the roots of my antipathy in previous posts. I suggest you look through the archives if you want my thoughts at the beginning of this race. My feelings towards the two men have not changed.

Mr. Rae remains a man in my estimation who is trying to atone for past sins. The Prime Ministership should not be a vessel of personal redemption. I am sorry that Bob Rae was not more successful as Premier of Ontario. I am sorry that he chose to abandon the Liberal Party for the NDP all those years ago. However, no amount of action on his part today will obliterate those mistakes in his own mind, or more consequentially, in the minds of the voters. While I respect Mr. Rae's decision to keep this as a competitive and contested leadership, I simply cannot see a path to victory that would not do further damage to the Liberal Party. At this point, Mr. Rae has to hope for Ignatieff to make an error so agregious as to offend his supporters or that he lose an election as interim leader so badly that the Prime Minister receives a majority mandate. Both of these paths would further cripple the Liberal Party of Canada and I cannot support a candidate whose hopes rest on outcomes so disastrous to my party.

Mr. Ignatieff continues to show himself parodoxically politically deft and deaf. It is clear, in spite of the protestations of his supporters, that the abbreviation of this leadership race is Mr. Ignatieff or his lieutenants doing. There was and is no valid reason why the party couldn't have chosen a neutral interim leader, provided support for Mr. Harper on confidence matters from now until early May and at that point make a decision as to whether or not to inflict upon Canadians the indignity of a fourth election in five years. While Mr. Harper was reckless and arrogant in his so-called fiscal update, it was equally reckless and arrogant for M. Dion to presume that Mr. Harper's mistakes justified the overturning of an election result barely fully settled in some ridings. Mr. Ignatieff' has been somewhere between obtuse and invisible during this affair. First he pledged his support for the coalition while quietly questioning its underlying strategy. Now, he has taken a "wait and see" approach, which while not unjustified, does seem a stark contrast to the rhetoric Mr. Ignatieff endorsed mere days ago. Mr. Ignatieff has used this engineered crisis, irrespective of its engineer, to justify his ascension to leadership without the due process of a leadership race. I would have given Mr. Ignatieff good odds of winning that race had it been run to its proper conclusion. Now, he is a lock to win a further tarnished crown. In the midst of World War II, Democrats and Republicans in the United Staate held normal political conventions in order to choose their leadership for the elections. Democrats after much acrimony selected Harry Truman to be their Vice Presidential nominee 1944. Republicans nominated Thomas Dewey for President the same year. The crisis that the country faced did not curtail the democratic process. Our commitment to democracy is not tested when times are good and it is easy to allow for the slow gears of our system to turn; it is tested in times of crisis, times like these for the Liberal Party of Canada. We are dangerously close to failing that test. Mr. Ignatieff, by his inaction in his role as the frontrunner in this race if nothing else, bears an especial blame for that failure.

If, as is expected, the national caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada reccomends Michael Ignatieff for the position of interim leader on Wednesday, it will send a clear message to the Liberal party rank and file. A message louder and clearer than any words uttered Mr. Ignatieff or his surrogates. The message will be "This is our party, not yours." The members of the Liberal Party of Canada are not another consultative body available to its leaders. The membership is the Liberal Party. Mr. Ignatieff may believe that like a long-time occupying army gaining the trust of the native people, his leadership may eventually be welcomed by those that oppose him now. He is wrong. I do not intend to prove him wrong myself, but nothing in the history of the Liberal Party leads me to believe that people will forget this insult.

I will continue to support the Liberal Party of Canada. I joined the party in the run-up to the 2004 election not because I particularly liked the leader but because I believed that the party as a whole was best suited to govern this country in good times or bad. I worked tirelessly in the last election for the party under M. Dion not because I agreed with the central plank of his platform or because I believed him to be anything more than a competent manager but because I still believed in the essential pragmatism and common sense of the party. So moving forward, I can only hope that Mr. Ignatieff (or on the off-chance Mr. Rae) proves me wrong. Regardless, I will work for the election of a Liberal government because I believe in the promise of this party and its membership. I still believe the people of Toronto-Danforth deserve better than an absentee MP who has more respect for conspiracy theorists than employers. I still believe that Canada deserves better than a Prime Minister who does not believe in the federal government both because it is a government and because it is federal. In sum, I may not be inspired by my leader but I still have faith in the membership of the Liberal Party of Canada and I still support the party that they constitute. Therefore, I can do nothing else but wish Mr. Ignatieff luck and work dilligently for his success.

My membership in this party expires December 31st and, to be honest, there were times in the last 48 hours where I considered letting it lapse. For about 15 of those hours the only words I could say on the matter were "coup" and "P.U.M.A." I have calmed down enough to realize that no matter the errors, this is still my party. I watched with great sadness and profound gratitude the repatriation ceremony for Cpl. Mark McLaren, Pte. Demetrios Diplaros and Warrant Officer Robert Wilson. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are heroes. That cannot be overstated. Watching the ceremony with its stark contrast of military discipline and formality and raw unfetered human emotion is profoundly moving no matter what your political philosophy. It is moments like these that remind me that for all the pettiness, for all the inanity, politics is more than a game. It is a matter, in many cases, of life and death. It is too important to simply back away from when something you don't like takes place. Thus, I will continue to contribute to our political process because I believe it is the duty of each and everyone of us as citizens of this great country. I wrote this post as much for myself as for anyone else and if it seems melodramatic or condescending, I apologize. I needed to vent and figured this was as good a forum as any.

Could Someone Please Read the LPC Constitution?

There is talk about moving up the date of the leadership vote and scrapping the convention format in favour of some sort of full membership vote. I won't get into the argument of whether or not this is a good idea. It doesn't matter. It's unconstitutional. Let's start with the idea of changing the process. According to section 56 (1) of the LPC constitution:

"The Leader is elected at a National Leadership Convention with the delegates to that convention being elected in proportion to the popular direct vote received by each leadership contestant..."

If you wanted to change that, you would have AMEND the constitution. To do that according to section 76 (1) of the LPC Constitution:

"The Constitution may be amended... by a Special Resolution of the members of the party at a convention."

There is some talk of the riding association presidents being able to change this. I don't see how. While it is true that the the Council of Presidents has the power to interpret the constitution, that power is limited as prescribed in Section 77 (2) (a) to interpret the constitution in such a way that:

"is consistent with this Constitution over an interpretation that conflicts with this Constitution"

Clearly, removing the whole delegated part of the Leadership process would be an interpretation which conflicts with the Constitution. We are a party of rules. Delegates voted in Montreal as to whether or not to change the rules regarding leadership. That amendment failed, albeit narrowly. There is no body outside of a convention with the power in the Liberal Party to change the leadership rules. Not the caucus, not the executive council, not the council of presidents.

In terms of acceleration, there is little that can be done. The Delegate Selection Meetings have to be held no less than 34 days before the convention and proper notice must be given to all members of the DSM's prior to their taking place, pushing the date a few weeks further out. This means that there is little to no way to move the convention up to before a budget vote. This does not even take into account the membership cut-off date which is prescribed as 41 days before the DSM. Realistically, because of membership renewals and single year members that join for leadership races that date has to be in the same year as the convention i.e. 2009. Theoretically, January 1 but more likely something like the fifteenth of January would be the earliest the membership cut-off could be. With a membership cut-off date of January 15th instead of early February, the race could be moved up to the beginning of April. However, the logistical challenge of booking a venue a month earlier would negate any political gains from the expedience. If we want to change the constitution in the future so that a leadership race could be rushed in a crisis someone should propose a constitutional amendment to be voted on in Vancouver.

He's Got To Screw Up Soon...

But not on this one. President-Elect Obama is reportedly (and that tends to mean intentionally leaked) tapping Fmr. Gen. Eric Shinseki to head up the VA. You may remember Shinseki telling Congress in the run-up to the Iraq war that a successful occupation would require more troops, more time and more money than the Bush administration was letting on. Shinseki retired from the army soon after. Obama's plans for the VA (like most of his plans) are ambitious. He wants to give Iraq and Afghan War vets the same treatment as World War II vets. He campaigned on fixing military hospitals and providing better assistance to soldiers and their families upon leaving the forces. Shinseki is unlikely to downplay the problems that face the VA; that is exactly what Obama will need if he is going to extract funding from a bankrupt (almost literally) Congress. The base will love seeing the guy who stood up to Bush in office. The right won't be able to a former army chief of staff in the job. While there are questions surrounding his picks at Treasury (Bailout), Justice (Clinton pardons) and State (Billary redux?), Obama's cabinet is shaping up to be a tour de force. There are no weak links in this chain.

Weekend Reading

I've been hearing from a lot of Liberals that they don't know enough about Dominic LeBlanc. Fair enough. Hopefully some of those questions will be answered by his upcoming campaign and website launches. Until then, Maclean's has done a nice little bio piece on him. It may not be long on policy proposals, but it does give you some insight into the substance of the man.

Harper, Jean Set Canada Back 175 Years

The Prime Minister and the Governor General may have done irreparable damage to Canadian democracy. This may seem like hyperbole but it is the reality. By proroguing parliament the PM and the GG have said that Canada no longer believes in responsible government. Responsible government means that the executive is accountable to the legislature. By suspending parliament, the Prime Minister has circumvented the right of parliament to express its non-confidence in the government.

Too often we forget that this principle of responsible government is not something we have always had in this country. 171 years ago, people took up arms in what was then called Upper and Lower Canada now known as Ontario and Quebec to fight for responsible government. While the rebellions were put down (almost comically so in Ontario), the response of the British government was to grant their wish for responsible government. We have held that principle to be sacrosanct in this country since that bloody winter. It guided Baldwin and Lafontaine, it guided Macdonald and Cartier, in short, it built this country. Today, the Prime Minister and the Governor General have said that the principle of responsible government is no longer important in this country. For a man who once called himself a Reformer, he has insulted the legacy of William Lyon Mackenzie and the original Reform Party. For shame.

Saxby Chambliss and Tea Leaves

Senator Saxby Chambliss won easily in the run-off election yesterday in Georgia. Nate Silver, among others, views this as an ominous warning about the 2010 mid-term elections. I don't see it that way. Let's look at what happened yesterday and what's going to happen two years from now. First yesterday's run-off. Start by taking a look at this page from CNN. If you flip back and forth from Nov. 4 result to the run-off election, you'll notice that the county map didn't change all that much. What that indicates is that Martin's collapse comes primarily from lack of turnout a predictable result. Let's look at this race objectively. Chambliss had a whole host of advantages:

1. He is the incumbent. There are few countries where the incumbency means more than it does in the United States. Martin was always climbing uphill on this one.
2. Georgia is a red state. While I wouldn't be surprised if Obama puts Georgia in his early crosshairs in 2012, the state still voted for McCain in 2008. Martin got almost the same number of votes as Obama did on Nov. 4. (both were around 46%). Chambliss had McCain's support split off by a third party candidate putting him...
3. Chambliss was just a few votes shy of 50% the first time around. This was not a reversal of election day or even a dramatic change in fortunes. Chambliss would have won the race on election day in many states. This isn't like Minnesota where the difference may end up being just a couple hundred votes.
4. The Republican base was energized, the Democrats were not. The Republican base was spurred on by the threat of fillibuster-proof senate. The Democrats rely in Georgia, as they do in many southern states, on the turnout of the African-American community to boost their fortunes. With Barack Obama on the ballot Nov. 4th the Democrats had an easy sell among African-Americans. All across the US African-Americans voted in record numbers this time around. They weren't going to do that for Jim Martin, particularly when Obama wasn't campaigning on Martin's behalf.

So, what can we take out of this for 2010? That in states where a Republican incumbent is running for re-election in a red state where Barack Obama does not show up to support the Democrat, the Republicans may have an easy time of it. I don't think those are the races on the top of the target list for either party. I would expect Obama to be on the stump in 2010. That should energize the base for the Democrats. Two of the most competitive races will be Republican held seats in now blue Florida and New Hampshire. However, if the Republicans are going to make noise in 2010 they are going to have to knock off Democratic incumbents. That is not going to be an easy task. Chambliss victory provides no guidelines for knocking off an incumbent Democratic senator, something I believe the GOP hasn't done since 2004. Only if the GOP goal is to stem their losses is the Chambliss victory at all noteworthy.

Side Note: Do not credit Sarah Palin with this one either. I heard the normally astute David Gergen making this comment yesterday. Yes, she drew some crowds and media attention for Chambliss. However, crowds, like lawn signs, don't vote. Remember Obama's massive crowd under the arch in St. Louis? He lost the state of Missouri on election night.

A Plague O'Both Your Houses

Okay, so I've switched from Yeats to Shakespeare, this stuff is better than fiction. We've got honest to goodness polling data on this thing at last. With the normal caveats about a poll taken outside of a writ, here's it is. I think my title is the best way to describe the voters on this. Either that or voters don't care and this is just a repeat of the election results. I think the first option is more likely. What does this mean going forward? Well, good news and bad news for both sides.

For the coalition, the good news is that people aren't preparing torches. They aren't about to carry Stephen Harper back into 24 Sussex on their shoulders either. The bad news is that there is no real anger demonstrable in this poll about the whole lack of an economic plan. This may be that while there is a slow down in the country we are not in the crisis that most of the world is facing yet. "Yet" is the operative word, Tories. For the Tories the good news is that people aren't calling for Harper's heads. On the other hand they aren't all that upset about the "evil separatist supported coalition".

Where do we go from here? Well, if Harper dares to prorogue parliament (still a major risk for him and the country in my view), he will take this as a signal to continue the media assault begun today. For the opposition, if they can take down Harper now, avoid an election, and form government, the people may not punish them for it eighteen months hence. I think this should take some of the inside Queensway panic out of this crisis. Then again, it probably won't. The parties have a vested interest in making this as big as possible now. The Tories need this to be big in order to justify the highly undemocratic move of proroguing parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote. The Coalition needing this to be big in order to justify unseating a government six weeks after an election. As is usually the case in politics, there are no angels here.

Coalition Coalesced

We are definitely witnessing history here. A couple quick comments on this afternoon's coalition signing etc.

First and foremost, I love that it has a degree of permanence to it. I wrote earlier that I feared the public's wrath on this one. I think if we have a government that lasts anywhere from 18-30 months, the majority of which under a Prime Minister not named Stephane Dion, the coalition partners may get away with it electorally. The thinking seems to be that if the government can outlast the economic downturn (or at least the worst of it), it can then frame itself as having saved the Canadian economy from the incompetent Tories. That is a viable strategy if the economy turns around that quickly. I wouldn't better the farm on the economy though.

If Stephen Harper prorogues parliament he's finished. He may be finished if he doesn't but he would be signing his own death certificate if he prorogues. Let's be clear, Harper's won because he has been seen as a tough and prudent manager. Running away from the opposition would make him look weak and ineffectual. He would need a miracle to win an election if he pulled that stunt.

Leadership

There are two new leadership questions to consider in the run-up to the vote on December 8th. The first is who will lead the new coalition if and when it takes office? The second is whether or not Stephen Harper can retain control of the Conservative Party. Each in turn.

Traditionally in coalition governments, the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the leader of the coalition and therefore the government. This is true in European states when they choose governments by coalition and one would assume that this would be true here. So the question of leadership in the coalition is really a question of leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. According to the
LPC constitution there are five ways a leader ceases to be a leader:

1. The leader resigns
2. The leader fails a leadership review
3. The leader dies
4. The leader is no longer recognized by the GG as leader to due to incapacity (not clear on the circumstances; maybe leader's in a coma or something)
5. Leader is found by the national executive to not meet the minimum requirements for leadership (e.g. not a member of the party or qualified to hold office).

That's it. The only way anyone other than Stephane Dion becomes leader of the Liberal Party before the leadership convention is if Dion resigns. I doubt that would happen. The caucus does not have the power to unelect M. Dion. Thus, I think the speculation surrounding this question is fairly idle. If M. Dion were to resign, an interim leader would be chosen but that would almost certainly not be Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae or Mr. LeBlanc. Whoever takes over is likely to be a historical footnote anyway with the Prime Minister people remember being the guy who takes over after the leadership convention.

On to the second question: does Harper survive at the CPC? I really don't know. I obviously don't have insider knowledge of the CPC. I don't know whether the membership blames Harper for this mess or thinks that "those damn Liberals screwed them again." I can't believe there won't be questions. Apparently there are already draft movements afoot for various cabinet members. Some of these movements seem legitimate feeler campaigns (Prentice) some of them are a little far-fetched (Baird). I have a hard time seeing Stephen Harper in opposition for two and a half years. I don't think he can be righteously indignant for that long. The plan seems to be to make this government last so long that a) the economy turns around and b) people forget they voted for the Tories in 2008. That would limit Harper's ability to copy the King model and win a majority after being turfed by a minority parliament.