MIller Is Not Beyond Criticism

The Globe and Mail is defending Mayor Miller against his critics. First, in an editorial yesterday and today Marcus Gee joined the act. The argument is that since the critics agree with Miller that the unions deserve tough love, that they should get behind the Mayor. This is somewhat absurd. The Globe and Gee are quick to point out that much of the criticism of the mayor is related to the upcoming 2010 election. Ridiculously, they ignore the fact that the mayor's own sudden commitment to fiscal prudence is directly related to that same election. Miller's policy in his first six years as Mayor has been to make concessions a plenty to unions and anyone else looking for money and then pay for that largess through higher taxes and fees. Now faced with declining popularity and a public perception that he's in bed with the unions, he's decided to go to war. To criticize this deathbed conversion is not at all unfair. Nor is it surprising that his long-time critics are slightly incredulous when asked for comment.

The council pay hikes are the only contracts that council can change easily and that's why they are the target of criticism. If the right on council could rollback the concessions made to other municipal employees, they would. However, that is not possible at this point, so they harp on the one thing they can change. Politics, as the old saying goes, is the art of the possible.

Stand Up For Canadian Health Care

In 2006, Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister under the slogan "Stand Up for Canada." How cutting the GST or even fighting corruption was "standing up for Canada," I've never really understood but we'll forget about that for now. Canadian health care isn't just a source of national pride, it is a major selling point for companies looking to locate in Canada as opposed to the United States. Companies know that if they locate in Canada their employees will receive top quality medical care and neither the company nor their employees will have to worry about rising health care costs strangling the life out of their business or putting them into personal bankruptcy. That reputation, crucial to Canada's financial future, is under daily attack in the American media. Lies and half-truths are allowed to sit in the eyes of Americans without any response from Ottawa. The Prime Minister is not afraid to talk about Canada's banks on American television and spends government money extolling the benefit of government programs to Canadians. Why is it, that when the topic of Canadian health care comes up, he's no longer interested in talking to Fox News? This government has done perilously little as the economy has nosedived. If companies choose to locate outside of this country because our government failed to counter the negative spin, those jobs will be added to the growing mountain on this Prime Minister's head. He doesn't need that. More importantly, the country doesn't need that. So Mr. Prime Minister, please make good on your election slogan and stand up for Canadian health care.

The More the Merrier

The message emerging from the Harper government seems to be goods, yes; people no. I think it is philosophically strange, if not inconsistent, to have a free trade deal with a country, say Mexico, and require a visa for their citizens to visit. We're happy to trade with you as long as you don't deliver the goods yourself? My default position on immigration is to throw the gates wide. After all, this country would be a lot easier to govern and do business in if there were more people in it. Therefore, to my mind, the problem here isn't that are refugee system is inefficient and slightly defective but that our regular immigration system isn't keeping up with demand. If people in the Czech Republic or Mexico thought they could get in as regular immigrants without having to wait around for years, they'd be less likely to be trying to use the refugee system as a backdoor. A wider front door might make it easier to figure out who's at the back door without requiring a visa of some of our closest allies. We are spending billions more than we have, and none of it can go to fix the backlog at immigration? This is a situation where more money for more immigration officers and more integration programs in Canada (ESL, credential issues etc.) will mean fewer problems in the long run.

However that is not the only issue at play here. There is the possibility, a strong one in my view, that there are legitimate Roma refugee claimants from the Czech Republic. Likewise, given the unfortunate spike in drug-related violence in Mexico, there may be Mexican citizens who fear for their lives if they stay in Mexico. No one understands that better than the Mexican government. We've angered our allies by telling them that we don't trust them enough to come here on vacation. I suspect we would have angered them less by saying yes, in spite of your best efforts, there are people in your country who have legitimate refugee claims and we're going to let them in.

Flanagan Sees Part of the Picture

My problem with conservatives is that they quite often only see half the picture on things. The recent flap about Barack Obama looking at a young woman's posterior/helping a young woman down the steps illustrates the point visually. However, Tom Flanagan's piece in the Globe yesterday demonstrates it equally well. Flanagan points out that negative political campaigning is as old as politics itself and on this point he is quite right. However, he misses not just half but two-thirds of the picture on this. The first is a farily straightforward corollary to his argument: since the time of Pericles, politicians have feigned offense at being attacked. The most vivid recent example may be Hillary "3 AM" Clinton getting worked up over a nasty pamphlet the Obama campaign put out. Was she offended? Maybe but probably not. She definitely thought that she could fling the mud back at Obama for political gain (see Dalton McGuinty v. Ernie Eves and the reptillian kitten eater). The other part of the equation is why people are upset about the Conservative ads.

First, in many cases, they cross some lines. Saying your opponents support pedophiles (anti-Bloc leaflets) is a tad harsh even in historical context. Most of the time, however, what is being deplored is not the fact that the Tories are going negative per se, but that there going negative well outside of any election period. Liberals aren't still stinging about the attack ads the Tories ran during the last election. It was the ads they ran 18 months before the last election that rancoured them. Likewise, I don't think Liberals are necessarily surprised that Iggy is being criticized for his prolonged absence from the country. Sure, they are trying to turn it on the Tories by saying its an attack on any Canadian who has spent time abroad including foreign born Canadians. That shouldn't surprise an old hand like Flanagan. The similarly deplorable thing about the Ignatieff and Dion ads is not their content but rather the creation of a permanent campaign mentality in Ottawa. That is new. The idea that the campaign never stops is not something that has always been true. It is mildy disturbing especially when we are confronted by a seeming perpetual state of minority/coalition governments.

Japan Votes 2009

Finally, Taro Aso has decided to take his country to the polls. The LDP which has been the first, second, third, fourth parties of Japanese politics for fifty years looks like it will be defeated. There could be an earthquake in Japanese politics. Then again, since much of the opposition DPJ is disgruntled former LDPers, I'm not sure that a shift in governing parties would be a seismic shift in policy. This is all very frustrating for many in Japan who have been stuck in an economic slump for the last twenty years. That slump is now a full blown catastrophe in the wake of the economic collapse of the past year, with a significant number of people actually being unemployed in Japan; something that is not supposed to happen in the land of lifetime employment. Look for the increasingly old Asian power to continue to stumble no matter who wins the upcoming election.

Woops

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

CPC 116
LPC 115
BQ 46
NDP 29

The Quebec numbers are now as follows:

BQ 48
LPC 21
CPC 6

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

Bueller? Bueller?

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

Harper Hands Out Stimulus... For Italy

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

Projection Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seat Projection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What A Difference A Year Makes

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

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

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

Issue Search 2009: The Economy (Domestic)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic suggestions are more than welcome.

Quick Hits Before the Weekend

Some quick thoughts before the weekend:

• The suspense is killing me. Okay, not killing me but I am mildly interested to know who the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is going to be. Too bad we have to wait until Saturday.
• I love that "hiking the Appalachian Trail" is now a sexual euphemism. Seriously, cross Gov. Sanford off the 2012 list. Was I the only one both awed and confused by his explanation of what sin is and how the bible helps us to not sin. I didn't realize selfishness was the deadliest sin of all.
• We should take a minute to remember the service that Romeo LeBlanc gave to this country. Canada lost a giant this week.
• The Liberal poll numbers are down again. Um... yeah, this is why you don't jump to the polls every time your numbers go up a point. Seriously, I need help finding us enough seats to form government right about now. We need a seismic shift in Ontario and I don't see it before the next election.
• NDP Mayor of Toronto + Conservative Federal Government = One botched streetcar project. Somebody needs to tell David Miller the one about putting all his eggs in one basket. Somebody needs to tell John Baird to watch his tongue.
• Speaking of Miller, I just love that our Mayor has decided to play politics with the garbage strike. Miller needs to prove himself a centrist by standing up to the big bad garbagemen, so the city gets to stink for a few weeks. I guess the Mayor's political prospects are more important than making the city look decent for Toronto's summer festivals which begin in earnest this weekend with the Pride parade. Hey your worship, I've got yet another ad campaign for you: "Come to Toronto: The Stinkiest Place on Earth." We need a mayor that puts the city and its industries ahead of political gamesmanship.
• The greatest hypocrisy in the whole thing is one of the main reasons the garbage collectors are so reviled in Toronto is because of the big shift in garbage collection that Toronto just endured. That shift of course was initiated by Miller in his continuing futile attempt to avoid incineration. So people are angry about garbage because of Miller's garbage plan so he tries to channel that anger by pitting himself in a war against the garbage collectors. This is just too rich.
  

Smells Like A New Mayor

Toronto's garbage workers are on strike. There are some, namely Marcus Gee, think this is an opportunity for Mayor Miller to guarantee his re-election next year. I beg to differ. The problem for the Mayor and Marcus Gee's theory is that he can't win this strike. There are really only two potential outcomes here. The first is that the Mayor caves to the union's demands which would be politically disastrous. The second is that after the residents of Toronto begin investing in nose plugs, Dalton McGuinty takes the same step Ernie Eves made in 2002 and orders the garbage workers back to work and both sides to binding arbitration. I can't believe there's a length of time that would see the union's strike fund depleted enough to force the union's hand but would not require the premier to act to forestall a public health crisis. Public sentiment may not be with the union, but Miller is not going to be able to walk away from a negotiating table in victory. At best, he'll get a somewhat favourable ruling from an arbitrator but even that may be unlikely. As Kinsella and The Toronto Star note, the Mayor's bargaining position is undermined by Toronto city council's recent pay hike in this same wintry economic climate. At any rate, when's the last time there was significant media coverage of an arbitrator's decision weeks after a strike ended?

The Agony of Distance

The images from the streets of Tehran are increasingly heart-wrenching. We are witnessing a desperate government exercise its monopoly of force upon its own citizens. I don't think there are many people in the West who are not cringing at the seemingly hopeless struggle of the brave protesters on Tehran's increasingly bloody streets. We continue to watch and pray because we can do little else. For all the miracles of communication that have allowed images, video and tweets to escape the iron grasp of the Iranian police, we can give nothing but moral support. There are those in this world on both the left and the right who would like to see the world get more involved in the domestic affairs of other countries. However, no foreign soldiers whether fighting under the flag of the United Nations nor the flag of the United States could resolve this conflict in the manner that so many want it to. No amount of aggresive diplomacy is likely to influence events in Iran either.

The United Nations is, as it is all too often, useless to help. While the West watches the bloodshed with horror, I doubt that horror is felt the same way in the halls of power in Beijing. People power is not popular in the People's Republic. There is little hope of China turning down oil shipments from Iran in order to punish the Iranian government for putting down an increasingly powerful protest. Without China, no sanctions or other action of meaning will get through the United Nations. So New York watches with interest but not with an interest to act.

In Washington, Barack Obama sits helplessly. Even if his army were not hamstrung by wars on Iran's eastern and northwestern borders, he knows that the only thing that could immediately reconcile the protesters in the streets to their government is American intervention. It is true that Iranians have a generally favourable view of the United States. They also have a very strong sense of national pride which, much as it does in Canada, tends to have an adverse reaction to foreign governments trying to dictate their domestic affairs. Obama's trepidation to speak more forcefully may befuddle his critics on the American right and the Iranian left, but he carries the baggage of previous sins of commission in Iranian politics made by previous American Presidents. So he, like so many others, watches and hopes and speaks softly when at all.

At Issue Issues

As is done elsewhere this time of year, I will provide my answers to the questions posed to the at issue panel last night.

Most Underrated Politician: Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath

Okay, loyal readers know my distaste of the NDP knows few bounds, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Horwath may never be Premier of Ontario but she is clearly more of a politician than people give her credit for. First, she won a leadership that was supposed to be Peter Tabuns' to lose. Since then she's been a competent leader in the house. It may not be high standards, but the bar is so low for Horwath after Hampton and Rae that she's leapt over it.

Most Overrated Politician: Elizabeth May

Who? You remember the lady nobody talked to in the debates? Yes, the Green leader has fallen off the face of the earth. So much for the breath of fresh air everyone was raving about a few months back.

Honourable Mention: I know the rules say one, but what the heck happened to the once bright electoral prospects of BC NDP leader in Carole James?

Most Underreported News Story: Free Trade With The EU

This has the potential to signal a shift Canadian trade policy and were entrusting it to be managed by Stockwell Day with no discussion? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free trade with Europe, but can we talk about it? Anyone?

Political Play of the Year: Iggy Takes Charge

I agree with Rex on this one. Taking over the Liberal Party of Canada without a fight may be the political play of the century.

Political Misplay of the Year: The YLC Amendment to OMOV

This may seem harsh but I'll explain. A lot of the other nominees (Harper in Quebec; Iggy's quasi-ultimatum) in this category rely on future events punishing their stupidity which is impossible to predict. This one is in the books. The YLC made itself less relevant while failing to stop OMOV from passing as is. It is yet another reminder of how pointless it can be for an organization to act when its membership isn't fully behind it.
Honourable Mention: Fair Vote Canada and the Vote STV folks for turning almost sixty percent to almost thirty percent in only four years.

Most Shamelessly Exploited News Story: Barack Obama's Visit

Both Harper and Ignatieff are guilty. Although bonus marks to Iggy for the advertising in Times Square.

Next Election: Fall 2009, E-Day November 16

Hey, pointless prognostication is useless unless it's impossibly specific. Seriously, I don't buy that either the NDP or the Bloc see their political fortunes in serious jeopardy. The Bloc should be able to hold on to most of its seats as should the Dippers save maybe one or two. I also don't see Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe saving the government just to save Canadians the indignity of yet another election.

Fascist? Maybe not. Racist and Nationalist? Definitely

Paul Wells and Mark Steyn have warring columns over at Macleans. Steyn is a tad worried about the success of far-right racist parties in the recent European elections. Wells sees it as a meaningless blip. I think the two are both right and both wrong. Mr. Steyn is right to be concerned about the rise of the these parties. Wells is right that the problem is not exactly unmanageably large as yet. A couple of small points of disagreement with Wells. If he's going to accuse Steyn of stretching the numbers, he shouldn't do it himself. Wells argues that "fascist" parties won only 26 or 3.5% of the 736 seats available. While technically true, it is a distorted picture. One must remember that the largest electoral prize in Europe, Germany, is off-limits to such parties for obvious historical reasons. If you count how these parties did in the rest of Europe, the number rises to 4%. Of course, I'm not sure why either writer limits themselves to just non-aligned parties. This limited view of things ignores parties that are technically more "mainstream" but often equally as xenophobic parties such as Italy's Northern League and Denmark's Danish People's party (11 seats between the two). Those two parties alone raise the total of radical right wing MEP's to 5% of the total and 5.8% outside of Germany. Of course, this does not represent the toal vote for these parties as many, such as Sweden's Swedish Democrats, fell short of winning seats. In otherwords, while we are probably not witnessing the rise of the next Franco or Mussolini, one shouldn't understate the rise of the far-right in European politics.

The World Watches Iran

A friend of mine once commented that it seems ingrained in the French psyche that every thirty years or so they have to go out and build barricades in the streets of Paris. It's just part of the political culture. Well, apparently the Iranians have taken a page from the French playbook. In all seriousness, thirty years after the Shah was expelled, Iranians are back in the streets. Will it be a full scale revolution? Probably not, for the reason that all potential revolutions are unlikely: the power lies with the people, well, in power. You can look at anything from the Rebellions of 1837 in Canada to the riots in the streets of Paris a few years back that had people pondering the birth of a new French Republic for historical comparisons. Here's what's clear. The election was highly irregular. Check out Nate Silver's analysis if you have any doubts. There is significant popular anger over these irregularities. It is also evident that Pres. Ahmadinejad has a base of support. Mousavi's supporters were always thinking that there was enough support for Ahmadinejad to make for a close election. There also appears to be broad support for Ayatollah Khamanei. What does this add up to? I don't know. The Iranian people will come to some sort of resolution.

Side Note: We aren't going to the polls this summer? You mean bringing down a government less than nine months after it was elected in the middle of a major recession didn't make sense?