Our Democracy Isn't Broken

I just finished watching the CPAC debate from last night on what to do about our "broken democracy" from last night. The entire premise is absurd. Canadian democracy functions ridiculously well, if not too well. The problem is Canada is a fairly diverse political landscape with fairly disparate views. When you get a Conservative leader from Alberta who would rank as one of the most conservative political leaders in the world and an NDP leader who would fit in with the most left-wing social democratic parties in the world, you may have a problem getting agreement between the two. When you throw in a politically inert separatist party that reliably receives 9-11% of the vote, regardless of how you count the votes, the problem becomes even worse. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. If you look around the world, countries with wide political spectra (Israel, Italy etc.) and countries with large established separatist movements (Belgium), have a hard time finding stable government. That's not a reflection of broken democracy, it's a function of a country with big disagreements. If you took a random person from each of the 308 ridings and put them in parliament, they wouldn't have any luck forming a stable government either.

Ignatieff Promises Intense Navel-Gazing

Sorry. What's the use of being in the peanut gallery if you can't at least throw some peanuts? I don't think our promise to Canadians should be that we will spend your money figuring out how the Conservatives wasted your money. Accountability? Great. How about passing laws about spending millions of government dollars on what is thinly-veiled partisan advertising? Giving money to the Auditor-General should not be the takeaway from an economic speech. Not with unemployment where it is. People need to know that there is a party who will look after them and their family. We'll worry about balancing the budget when people start getting back to work. I didn't hear Ignatieff's speech. The CBC report may be a grave distortion of what he said. I hope it is.

Seat Projection for Mid-September

An updated seat projection for your consideration. Polls are current as of September 17th.

National Picture:

CPC 120
LPC 107 (down 2)
BQ 50 (up 1)
NDP 31 (up 1)

Province-by-Province:

BC: CPC 19, NDP 11, LPC 6
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13, LPC 1
MB: CPC 7, LPC 4, NDP 3
North: CPC 1, LPC 1, NDP 1
ON: LPC 55, CPC 39, NDP 12
QC: BQ 50, LPC 18, CPC 7
NB: LPC 6, CPC 3, NDP 1
NS: LPC 6, CPC 3, NDP 1
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6, NDP 1

Re-Elect Mark Holland

The Tories think they've got a big fish in former ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander. They might have a big fish. The challenge for Mr. Alexander is he isn't running against some boomer backbencher, he's running against Mark Holland. The whole youth angle is less convincing when your opponent is six years your junior. The three time incumbent will not be easy to knock off. I'll run a full projection Sunday or Monday, but I just quickly updated my projection for Ajax-Pickering. Scroll down if you want to know how I get these numbers.

Projected Election Result for Ajax-Pickering based on polling aggregate from Sept. 17, 2009

CPC 34.2
LPC 48.4
NDP 7.57
GPC 9.52

I'm not sure a former ambassador has the name recognition to close that gap. It should be a fun one to watch.

Seat Projection Explanation (The Long Version)

After I started doing seat projections in July, I took a post to try to explain how my model works. However, I keep getting comments questioning my projections. So without to much overlap, I'm going to try again. I'll try to work this through from the beginning of my thought process. Being an avid follower of politics on both sides of the border, I often get envious of the amount of information available to American politics buffs. One of the things that particularly made me envious was Charlie Cook's Partisan Voting Index (PVI). In Canada, when we say a riding is "safe" we don't really have a quantitative measure, in the US, the PVI gives a decent idea. Originally, I set out to recreate a PVI type of model for Canadian politics. A parliamentary system changes the available data so what I decided to do with my non-existent stats background was compare each riding's vote share in the last three elections for the five major parties and other candidates to the results federally and provincially. I chose the last three elections because the parties and ridings are the same which makes things relatively simple. From that comparison, I derived a general positive or negative rating for each party in each riding. I quickly realized that these numbers are relatively meaningless by themselves but are relatively easily translated into a projection given some decent regional polling.

In other words, to generate the ratings I took for each previous election:

Riding Rating (2004)= Party Vote Share in Riding (2004) - (x% of Federal vote share (2004) x y% of Provincial Vote Share (2004))

I then added the three elections together:

Riding Rating = a% of Riding Rating 2004+b% of Riding Rating 2006 + c% of Riding Rating 2008
(where a%+b%+c% = 100%)

When I fell upon threehundredeight, it gave me a decent way of having a reliable polling aggregate without having to botch one together myself. The numbers I generate are a mixture of the federal and provincial polling added to that negative or positive rating I mentioned above.

In other words I manipulated the formula above to solve for riding vote share:

Party Share in Riding Today = Riding Rating + (x% of Federal Vote Share (Today) + y% of provincial Vote Share (Today))

Other projections use different methods to come to their conclusions. A lot of seat projections don't go riding by riding and just use regional and federal polling to estimate the number of seats a party is going to pick up based on previous experience. When there is a riding-by-riding component, it is usually based on non-polling data. For instance, when Lindsay Duncan defeated Rahim Jaffer in Edmonton-Strathcona, some projections predicted that result which would only be discernible from the facts on the ground or a local poll commissioned because of the local events. Since I have no ambition to keep tabs on 308 races or access to local polling, I pretty much put my numbers out without any changes. I can't tell sitting in Toronto whether a star candidate will be successful (see Thomas Mulcair) or a failure (see Glen Murray), therefore I don't try to guess. The projections that I've put out so far have only two changes from what my numbers tell me. I've noted them before. First, in Cumberland--Colchester--Musqodobolt Valley where Bill Casey's retirement makes my projection of 40.44% for an independent candidate look silly. Second, in Nunavut where there is no regional polling and there was a massive change in voter preference last time out.

As I've mentioned previously, my model seems to work best when riding results are fairly consistent with federal and provincial trends. If a party massively gains or loses fortune, it becomes more difficult to assess. This is more true if the change was between 2006 and 2008 than it is if it was between 2004 and 2006 because of the heavy weight I give to the 2008 result. Thus, there's probably ten or so ridings where I don't really trust my numbers. Outremont and Edmonton--Strathcona spring to mind. Whether or not my model will be proven accurate on election day is not yet tested. After the next election, I'll put out an accuracy measure. Well, probably two accuracy measures. One will be based on my last projection before the election which will rely on pre-election polling. The other one that I'd like to do is insert the election result federally and provincially into my model and see what that would have produced compared to the actual result. While that may be a little bit of revisionist history it does more accurately isolate my model as opposed to the combined accuracy or our various public polling firms. Until I can test the model with an election, you'll just have to take my projections for what they are. Finally if you're interested (and if you've read this far you might be), here's the data for the Conservative held riding of Pontiac (QC) from my most recent projection as a random example:

Riding Rating:
CPC + 2.98
LPC - 1.59
NDP -0.42
GPC -0.06
BQ -12.57

Federal Poll (from threehundredeight):
CPC 33.2
LPC 32.1
NDP 15.8
GPC 9.3
BQ 9.2

Quebec Poll (from threehundredeight):
CPC 16.1
LPC 30
NDP 10.9
GPC 6
BQ 36.8

Projection:
CPC 25.92
LPC 29.25 *
NDP 12.44
GPC 7.26
BQ 24.23

* Projected winner

I hope that clarifies for everyone. I'll try to get a new projection out in the next few days (assuming Eric at threehundredeight updates Thursday or Friday). No promises between the by-election tomorrow and the holiday this weekend.

By-Election Madness

With a federal election off the table for the moment thanks to "socialists and separatists," we can turn our attentions to a couple of provincial by-elections. In Alberta, there was a shocker in Calgary. The Wild Rose Alliance (they make Harper look centrist) has won the riding from, well, the Tories. Calgary Grit has excellent analysis and some prognostications. I tend to agree with Dan on the possibility, however unlikely, of the Wild Rose Alliance forming the next government in Alberta. The ALP's track record of failure is not inspiring and Alberta tends to go right when they do change political preference. However, Alberta being Alberta, the most likely scenario is PC government from now until the end of time. If you want to talk electoral reform, the place to talk about it is in Alberta.

In Ontario, St. Paul's will be up for grabs tomorrow. I still think Dr. Hoskins will prevail. That said, between Michael Bryant's legal trouble, the HST and general by-election madness, you never know.

Seat Projection: PR Edition

Andrew Coyne was on the At Issue Panel claiming once again that world peace would break out if only we had a proportional system of election. Okay, he only claimed that parliament would be more functional. The only semi-rational argument here is that the incentive to seek a majority is removed, encouraging stronger levels of cooperation. Coyne of course ignores the fact that no matter what electoral system is in place, a relatively even level of support between the two major parties combined with around 10% of the electorate electing a politically inert separatist party is going to cause parliamentary difficulties. Belgium which uses a form of PR (albeit a complicated one), has suffered political crises of a similar nature because of the strong support for a Flemish separatist party. However, I will indulge Mr. Coyne's fantasy and present a seat projection for the current polling. I have assumed that the Constitutional provisions for provincial-based seats has meant a province by province PR division. I've left the North as is.

Here's the federal picture:

CPC 103
LPC 100
NDP 51
BQ 28
GPC 26

Now isn't that refreshingly stable. There's no chance the Liberals would want to bring down a parliament with a commanding 3 seat Conservative plurality. Oh and look, natural coalition partners for the Tories have magically emerged. Yes, PR has solved all of our problems. Thanks, Andrew Coyne.

Red-Blue Coalitions

There's a lot of talk about coalitions these days. Stephen Harper wants to use the NDP and the Bloc as doppelgangers of a possible Liberal government. The argument appears to be give me my majority or the separatists win. That's to be expected after last winter, but I doubt there's a lot of non-Tories out there worrying themselves about future parliamentary coalitions. Increasingly I've been thinking of a different coalition. I know it's probably blasphemy but hear me out. Canada needs a grand coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives. It's the only way parliament can actually work. Assuming there's an election in the near future, the house that returns is probably going to be less functional than the one we have now. Check out my latest projection for an idea of the possible chaos. The odds of a Tory majority are slim. The odds of a Liberal majority are slimmer. Election 2009 would represent the fourth in five years. A fifth election would drive Canadians into a furor that could result in God only knows what. The only way for a sustainable government to emerge out of the next election is if the Liberals and Conservatives work together. Whoever wins the election gets to be Prime Minister. The rest is up for negotiation.

Locally, the city of Toronto's long standing red-blue coalition appears to be in the middle of a behind-the-scenes primary between former Progressive Conservative leader John Tory and Liberal Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman for the right to oppose David Miller in November 2010. The NDP are the only functioning political party in Toronto politics and the centre-right has long had to work together if they want to win. The choice to my mind is obvious. John Tory has had his chances. He has lost too many times. He has already lost to David Miller once. While Tory is no more right wing than twice elected Mel Lastman, the argument that you need a right winger to knock off an NDP Mayor is curious. Why Smitherman who has a reputation as a tough and competent manager couldn't beat the weak and incompetent Miller is beyond me. The electorate in Toronto is basically centre-left. It was a mix of NDP and Liberal voters that gave Miller his two mandates. If Smitherman can choke off support from centre-left Liberals, Miller will run out of political real estate. Smitherman is also no stranger to fundraising from the centre-right. He had done so, and done so remarkably throughout his tenure as MPP for Toronto Centre. If George Smitherman wants to run, and most people seem to think he does, he would make a great mayor.

Post-Labour Day Seat Projection

With a whole bunch of new polls out, I thought it would be useful to update the seat projection. For those who may have missed my summertime projections, the model is based on current national and regional polling aggregates (taken from Eric over at threehundredeight) and the results of the last three federal elections. The model is designed to provide a projection for each of the 308 ridings. The seat projection is thus just an adding up of the riding projections. Since last time out, the Tories have made a bit of a move while Liberal fortunes have sagged.

National:

CPC 120
LPC 109
NDP 30
BQ 49

Province by Province:

BC: CPC 19, NDP 10, LPC 7
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13, LPC 1
MB: CPC 7, LPC 4, NDP 3
ON:LPC 55, CPC 39, NDP 12
QC: BQ 49, LPC 19, CPC 7
NB: LPC 6, CPC 3, NDP 1
NS: LPC 6, CPC 3, NDP 2
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6, NDP 1

An advantage to communicating the "always oppose" strategy know, is that some of the poll hit from causing another election may happen now as opposed to when the house actually falls.

Michael Ignatieff's Green Screen Challenge

The Liberal party of Canada does not have a great recent track record in political advertising. In the post-Chretien era the ads have been anywhere from over-the-top to well... do you remember the clapping Dion ad? The tradition continues with Michael Ignatieff's Green Screen Challenge. I once heard Warren Kinsella, who is supposed to be an expert, say that you should judge an ad by how it plays on mute. The logic being that nobody actually listens to commercials anymore. The new Ignatieff ads seem to fail Kinesella's test. The only thing you get from the Liberal ads is Iggy talking in front of a green screen and then the new Liberal slogan and logo. Do we deserve better than the Liberal Party of Canada? The French ads are particularly odd because they are basically attack ads that consist of letting Michael Ignatieff attack. Normally, attack ads feature dark images of your opposition followed if necessary by a brief sunny shot of your guy. The key thing is that the mud that gets slung is not seen leaving your guy's hand. Pick any famous attack ad in the last fifty years, that's the pattern. The only other departure that comes to mind are the Harper talk show ads in '04 but he still had 'average' Canadians sling the mud, he just concurred and offered his 'vision'. There are two paradoxical truths about attack ads: 1. Everybody hates them and 2. They work. One of the reasons the paradox holds is that in spite the fact that everybody hates them, they don't necessarily make the connection to the party or politician that made them.

Idle Election Speculation

The stage is increasingly set for a fall election. I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at what has changed to make this so and what the major players are thinking heading into the new parliamentary session. First, the big decision which I blew off in my last post by Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff's decision is not made in isolation or even simply looking forward: it's looking back. The LPC and in particular those inside the Queensway (or those who act like they live inside the Queensway) are fed up with supporting the Tories. The media has the memory of a goldfish, so they haven't been talking about the fact that the Liberals haven't voted against the Tories on a confidence motion in the three and a half years of Tory government. That's a lot of abstaining and pride-swallowing from a lot of Liberal MP's. The party has twice threatened to bring down the government: in the run-up to the 2008 election and the coalition crisis last winter. Neither time, however, did the Liberal caucus get to rise in opposition. For a party which struggles to define itself clearly in opposition, not being able to oppose can create an identity crisis. The public not only doesn't know what the LPC stands for, but it doesn't even know what it stands against. I don't think Ignatieff looked at what are mediocre poll numbers and decided to oppose, I think he felt he had to given the last three and a half years.

For the Tories, the problem is and has always been finding a useful partner to make deals with. The Conservative Party is held together by a lot of things. The strongest glue is their mutual hatred of the LPC. The problem is that the LPC is the only party remotely close to them ideologically. The NDP and the Conservatives can agree on almost nothing outside their hatred of the LPC and that is not enough for the Tories to start spending billions more on public housing or the NDP to start supporting corporate tax cuts. The NDP is broke, it is probably circling around its seat-ceiling and will probably only lose seats in a future election. Those factors don't make it any easier for Jack Layton to find common ground with Stephen Harper. While the Bloc started it's political life under the leadership of a former Mulroney Minister of the Environment, it is now nowhere near the Tories politically. The political centre in Québec is decidedly left of where it is in the rest of the country and Harper has seemingly given up his pursuit of francophone voters. Even if there were similarities, the optics for Harper and Duceppe would be disastrous. The Tories have no desire to associate with separatists and the Bloc has no desire to work with the Tories or any federalist (I use the term loosely with Harper) federal government. If you add Stephen Harper's seeming inability to compromise, what you are left with is an unworkable government. That to me means election whether we want one or not. Politics may make strange bedfellows, but you still need a bed.

In Other News, Duck Vows to Quack

Yes, the Leader of the Opposition has vowed to oppose. Some more tea leaves with regard to policy to read from Ignatieff's remarks. I love buzz words like "knowledge society," don't you? In all seriousness, expanded trade and relations with China and India get a thumbs up from me.

Japan Elects Someone Else

I am not sure that Prime Minister-elect Yukio Hatoyama can fulfill the ambitions of the Japanese people. Japan's problems are deeply rooted and will not be able to fix. Fixing them may cause ever more pain in the short term: something no Prime Minister up to now has been willing to do. Yes, the LDP is out and the DPJ is in. That is monumental news in a country that has lacked for democratic competition. Unfortunately, the differences between the LDP and DPJ are more personality than policy. The substantive problems of an aging society with limited resources and stifling economic practices were never issues in this election. Instead, the parties quarrelled about consumption taxes and political scandals. The world needs Japan back on track. The world needs a strong Japan. The world has waited twenty years for Japan to emerge from its slump, it may have to wait a few more.

Seat Projection Update

The static polls (crazy Ipsos-Reid outliers aside) mean fairly static seat projections. Only three ridings have changed since last time around. Saanich -- Gulf Islands, which will be completely unpredictable with Elizabeth May in the race, is now in the Liberal column. The Tories take back Halton and Newmarket -- Aurora. Thanks again to threehundredeight for providing the polling numbers on which these projections are based.

National Seat Projection:

CPC 118
LPC 113
BQ 48
NDP 29

Province by Province

BC: CPC 18; LPC 11; NDP 9
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13; LPC 1
MB: CPC 7; LPC 4; NDP 3
North: CPC 1; LPC 1; NDP 1
ON: LPC 56; CPC 39; NDP 11
QC: BQ 48; LPC 21; CPC 6
NB: LPC 6; CPC 3; NDP 1
NS: LPC 6; CPC 3; NDP 2
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6; NDP 1

Once again deviations from my models have been made in Nunavut and Colchester -- Cumberland -- Musqodobolt Valley (can I please start calling it CCMV or something?). In both cases the Conservatives gain the seat.

120 Metres

That's the distance from the foot of Bathurst St. in Toronto to the Island Airport. That's the distance a bridge would have spanned before it was killed by Mayor Miller in 2003. That's the distance a pedestrian tunnel will span if all goes according to plan. Who is negatively effected by this? The residents of Ward's Island. All 262 households. Well, at least theoretically negatively effected. Ironically, six years after Mayor Miller thought he had killed the island airport by killing the fixed link, Porter airlines is flourishing and adding flights, seemingly daily. How much more successful Porter would have been with a bridge or will be with the pedestrian tunnel remains up for debate. There is a reason nothing gets done at City Hall; 262 households can hold up progress for an entire city. The Island Airport is good for business, good for reducing traffic and good for the environment. It may negatively impact 262 households. Give me a break.

Whither Afghan Democracy?

The first election of Afghanistan was an inspiration. The second is a disaster. The first round of voting is rife with accusations of fraud. The Economist lays out one story of likely fraud. The second round, which it appears will be constitutionally necessary, may not happen. In fact, many are urging Pres. Karzai and Mr. Abdullah to agree to some sort of power-sharing arrangement to avoid a head-to-head vote. Article 61 of the Afghan Constitution is clear that "if in the first round none of the candidates gets more than fifty percent of the vote, elections for the second round shall be held within two weeks from the date the results are proclaimed..." Pretty cut and dry. There is no provision for any power-sharing agreement. If democracy is tested in trying times, Afghanistan is failing that test.

Future Battlegrounds: Atlantic Canada

Final stop on our West to East trip is Atlantic Canada. The fights are concentrated in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

New Brunswick:

Saint John 4.01 LPC - CPC
Fredriction 4.41 LPC - CPC
Miramichi 9.08 LPC - CPC

PEI:

NONE (LPC Gain in Egmont)

Nova Scotia:

South Shore -- Saint Margaret's 2.13 CPC - NDP
West Nova 4.63 LPC - CPC
Halifax 8.1 NDP - LPC
Dartmouth -- Cole Harbour 8.92 LPC - NDP

Newfoundland and Labrador:

Avalon 7.74 LPC - CPC

Bill Casey's retirement in Cumberland -- Colchester -- Musquodobolt Valley throws the riding into a projection equivalent of no man's land. I don't anticipate an independent to win by 20 points as my projections would indicate. I'd say CPC Favoured would be a good rating. Egmont is probably within 10 points. It might actually be a Tory lead but the sudden change in the last election is hard to evaluate. All NL projections are subject to the whims of Danny Williams. This concludes my national tour. I'm not ignoring the North. I just don't trust my numbers there due to the lack of regional polling. A quick provincial breakdown of competitive ridings shows the following:

BC: 12/36 33.3%
AB: 1/28 3.6%
SK: 1/14 7.1%
MB: 4/14 28.6%
ON: 37/106 34.9%
QC: 19/75 25.3%
NB: 3/10 30%
PE: 0/4 0%
NS: 4/11 36.4%
NL: 1/7 14.4%

Of course, all of this will be kind of moot when I update my projections which should happen either later this week or next. The ridings in play probably won't change a whole lot (maybe a couple ridings will go over the 10% threshold), but the margins will.

Future Battlegrounds: Québec

Quebec is the next stop in my continuing tour of ridings that look to be competitive in the next election. For all the talk about Quebec as a battleground, it has only 19 competitive ridings (out of 75) by my count. By comparison, Ontario has 37 competitive ridings (out of 106). So here we go again, same format as before:

Charlesbourg-- Haute Sainte Charles 0.45 BQ - CPC
Brome - Missisquoi 0.58 LPC - BQ
Gatineau 0.82 LPC - BQ
Portneuf -- Jacques Cartier 0.99 BQ - IND
Haute Gaspésie -- La Mitis -- Matane -- Matapedia 1.79 LPC - BQ
Saint-Lambert 2.42 BQ - LPC
Beauport -- Limollou 2.48 BQ - CPC - LPC
Laval 2.7 BQ - LPC
Gaspésie -- Îles-de-la-Madeleine 3.12 BQ - LPC
Jeanne - Le Ber 3.36 LPC - BQ
Alfred Pellan 3.8 BQ - LPC
Mégantic -- L'Érable 5.36 CPC - BQ
Pontiac 5.79 LPC - CPC - BQ
Brossard -- La Prairie 5.96 BQ - LPC
Vaudreuil -- Soulanges 6.16 BQ - LPC
Louis Hébert 7.05 BQ - LPC
Roberval -- Lac Saint Jean 7.88 BQ - CPC
Ahuntsic 7.92 LPC - BQ
Shefford 8.46 BQ - LPC

How important the Bloc has become in Canadian elections is clear from the fact that they are involved in every competitive race in Québec. Notably off this list is Outremont, which I rate as a Liberal gain by the numbers (it's not particularly close at 14.02 percentage points) but would place my money on Thomas Mulcair winning re-election. As I've explained before, my model has difficulty projected accurately ridings with violent swings in support. Particularly when a party, like the NDP in Outremont, goes from nowhere to competitive. I stand by the model for probably 300 of the 308 ridings. Outremont is not one of the 300.

Future Battlegrounds: Rest Of Ontario

Having dispensed with the GTA and Northern Ontario, we continue our cross-country tour with the rest of Ontario from Windsor to Ottawa. It's a big list but I want to get into Québec. This is still based on my early August projections. If you haven't figured out the format by now, scroll down a bit:

London -- Fanshawe 0.04 NDP-LPC
Ottawa West -- Nepean 1.15 CPC-LPC
Glengarry -- Prescott -- Russell 1.64 CPC-LPC
Hamilton East -- Stoney Creek 1.66 NDP-LPC
Brant 1.72 LPC-CPC
Huron -- Bruce 2.27 LPC-CPC
Essex 2.44 LPC-CPC
Peterborough 2.54 CPC -LPC
Ottawa -- Orléans 2.63 LPC-CPC
Haldimand -- Norfolk 2.96 CPC-LPC
St. Catharines 3.54 CPC-LPC
Burlington 4.17 CPC-LPC
Ottawa -- Centre 5.34 NDP-LPC
Ancaster -- Dundas -- Flamborough -- Westdale 5.95 CPC-LPC
Welland 6.05 LPC-NDP-CPC
London West 6.17 LPC-NDP
Simcoe North 6.79 CPC-LPC
Northumberland -- Quinte West 7.2 CPC-LPC
Niagara Falls 7.53 CPC-LPC
Kitchener -- Conestoga 8.21 CPC-LPC
Chatham - Kent -- Essex 8.36 CPC-LPC
Hamilton Mountain 8.89 NDP-LPC

Not included in this list are projected Liberal gains in Kitchener Centre (11.32 point margin) and Kitchener - Waterloo (13.35 point margin).

St. Paul's

In case you missed it, a provincial by-election is underway in the Toronto riding of St. Paul's. There are some in the media who want you to believe this race will be close. Don't listen to them. First and foremost, the Liberals have a great candidate in Eric Hoskins, the founder of War Child Canada. This is the first hurdle for incumbent parties in by-elections (see Tory, John). The second hurdle is making sure the party is actually behind the candidate (see Tory, John). While there may be dissenters out there (it was a contested nomination), the Toronto machine seems to be in full gear behind Hoskins.

Then there's the opposition. The Tories have fantasies about St. Paul's. They have for years. They run high profile candidates they think will sweep tony areas like North Toronto off their feet. In fact, if you drive around St. Paul's at election (provincial or federal) time, you will see a lot of Tory signs. Then something very strange happens: they lose by twenty or thirty points. The reason is that while the people in the beautiful old houses might be split Tory/Liberal, the people in the dense apartment buildings are strongly Liberal. Okay, it's a slight oversimplification, but it's basically true. The Tories also have not won a seat in Toronto provincially since 1999. They've gone 0-fer in two straight elections and in all by-elections. With a new leader who is supported by, and compared to Mike Harris, a Tory breakthrough in Toronto seems remote. The party that has had success knocking off Grits in the Big Smoke is the NDP. The Dippers have won by-elections in Toronto-Danforth (hold), Parkdale-High Park (Gain) and York South Weston (Gain). St. Paul's is just not NDP territory. In 2007, they hit a high watermark of just under 16%. They also don't have a candidate yet. One will be chosen Monday according to Wikipedia. In a short election campaign, the NDP is running out of time to create a York South - Weston type swing in St. Paul's. The Greens are currently leaderless and are undoubtedly more concerned about choosing a replacement for Frank de Jong than fighting a pointless fight in St. Paul's.

The conclusion for me is that the Liberals must work hard to be safe, but really shouldn't have to worry about St. Paul's. By-elections are weird little things, but I'm not sold this one is going to be weird enough to be competitive.

Is That A Policy I See Before Me?

There are trial balloons, or at least trial balloons for trial balloons, going up about an actual policy of the Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of Michael Ignatieff. I'm a bit of a sucker for infrastructure, so I like the high-speed rail idea (admittedly getting it cheap enough to be usable is an issue). There's also a fair degree of agreement in Quebec City and Queen's Park that this is a good idea which is nice although it shouldn't really matter since railways are federal jurisdiction. It is about time for Michael Ignatieff to start articulating policy. After all, when this is the list of your writings readily available just online, your opponents don't need politically questionable policy to hit you on. Just a quick random example: I'm guessing someone could make hay from the idea of the United States sending troops to Israel and the Palestinian Territories to enforce a peace. I'd really love an election to be about the future, instead of what my leader said ten years ago. Stephen Harper has no vision for this country and therefore will never articulate substantive policy. Mr. Ignatieff has a vision for this country, albeit an incredibly vague one. It's time for a little bit of concrete or railway ties as the case may be.

A Suggestion

Get David Axelrod out of the White House. Don't get me wrong. I like David Axelrod as a strategist. Heck, what I'm attributing to him might not be his fault. I just have this feeling that after two years spent campaigning for the Presidency, Barack Obama can't get out of campaign mode. He's allergic to fights. Now, he's doing a Western tour through states that will likely be battlegrounds in the next election. The Obama campaign coveted Montana last time around and made what should have been a Republican landslide a tight race. Colorado is key in any re-election bid and Arizona is finally open for political business post-McCain. So I get the trip in the 2012 sense. I don't see how the West is a centre of the health care debate. Like many progressives on both sides of the border I'd like Obama to start kicking some ass and taking some names, particularly in the Democratic caucus. I want the guy that hired Rahm Emmanuel, not the guy who's afraid to stand by a public option for health care. Let 2012 worry about itself. The Republicans have no obvious or even not so obvious candidate. Obama needs to be running on his record in 2012, not have a record of running.

Geography Isn't the Problem

There's an interesting piece by Eric Reguly in Monday's Globe on the shift in Canadian development aid from Africa to Latin America. Reguly reasons that recent thinking on the problem of aid dependence is responsible for the shift in aid. That makes very little sense. The problems with aid dependence are present whether you're digging a well in Ethiopia or El Salvador. That doesn't change. Stephen Harper may have a case to make as far as focusing our foreign aid to our neighbours with whom their is greater possibility for trade down the road. He should make that case. Aid dependence, while a real issue in modern development programs, is a red herring.

Future Battlegrounds: Northern Ontario

Northern Ontario is a region with an uncertain political future. All three major parties have positives and negatives in the region. This region also features a ridiculous number of competitive ridings (8/10) being projected within 10 points. For a reference point go check out the numbers I posted in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Once again, the list of ridings projected to be within a ten point margin in Northern Ontario. Format remains riding name, margin in percentage points and competitive parties in order of projected finish.

Algoma -- Manitoulin -- Kapuskasing 0.82 LPC-NDP
Kenora 3.37 LPC -CPC
Thunder Bay -- Rainy River 3.4 LPC-NDP
Thunder Bay -- Superior North 3.42 LPC-NDP
Nickel Belt 3.46 NDP-LPC
Sault Ste Marie 7.38 NDP-CPC-LPC
Sudbury 7.93 LPC -NDP
Parry Sound -- Muskoka 7.95 CPC-LPC

Sports Break: EPL Predictions

The beautiful game is back in Britain this weekend with the kickoff of the English Premiership. Without further ado, my predictions:

1. Liverpool: This team was almost good enough to win last year. Stephen Gerrard is probably the best player in England. Yes, Alonso's a big loss but I think the Reds bring home the trophy this year.
2. Manchester United: The Red Devils are going to have a devil of a time replacing Cristiano Ronaldo. That said, this is the deepest team in England and should be able to finish top two. Wayne Rooney will have start scoring goals at an elite level.
3. Arsenal: Arsène Wengar may be the most underrated manager in football. Arsenal rebuilt last year, suffered injuries to their three best players at various points in the season, had way too many draws at home and still finished fourth. Yes, they lose Adebayor and Touré. As long as Cesc Fabregas stays in London, this team will create lots of chances and Andrei Arshavin has shown himself more than capable of finishing.
4. Chelsea: A lot of people think this team could win it all. I'm not convinced. This team is old and getting older by the day. Combine that with their fifth, yes FIFTH, manager in four years and I'm wondering about that old dogs, new tricks adage. The Blues are due for a fall.
5. Everton: With all the talk about Man City people forget about the little engine that could that was Everton last season. Consistency led them to an FA cup final and fifth in the league. They have the best young manager in the game in David Moyes. If Arteta comes back healthy, watch out.
6. Tottenham: Tottenham earned exactly two points in their first 8 league matches last year. They earned 49 in their last thirty after Harry Redknapp toook the helm. As long as Luka Modric is at Tottenham, this team will be competitive. Modric may be my favourite player in the EPL.
7. Manchester City: I know they spent like drunken sailors and got everybody that didn't go to Real Madrid. However, this team had a lot of holes to fill. Robinho still has to figure out how to play on the road in England. They'll get European football for their money but it won't be Champions League.
8. Fulham: Europa League play may tear through this thin squad like a hot knife through butter. If they are knocked out of Europe early or can find some depth, they could compete to get back to Europe next year. No one liked playing at Craven Cottage last year and I expect that won't change.
9. West Ham: The middle of the table is a crapshoot for me. I think West Ham is thoroughly mediocre. 9th sounds about right.
10. Wigan: Wigan does nothing but defy expectations and get results. I think they sneak into the top ten.
11. Aston Villa: Villa was awful down the stretch last year. The heart of the midfield is gone. I think the real Villa is the late season Villa. A slide is in order.
12. Bolton: A mediocre team that should be good enough to avoid a relegation fight.
13. Wolverhampton: Wolves ran away and hid from the Championship last year. I expect they will have some adjustments to make coming into top level football but they should stay up.
14. Blackburn: They flirted with the drop last year. They may do so again. Then again, they could be good enough to be a top half of the table team.
    
15. Birmingham: The second team from the Championship will benefit from a glut of bad teams below them.
16. Sunderland: Some people are high on the Black Cats. I see a team that barely avoided the drop last year and isn't significantly better this year.
17. Stoke City: How Stoke stayed up last year is anyone's guess. I'm not sure how they'll do it this year. I just think they're a little better than the three teams below them.
18. Portsmouth: I'm not sure who will play in front of David James this year in the south of England. An ownership issue meant that the team was looted for parts over the summer. Eighteen months ago Pompey won the FA cup, how long ago that must seem now.
19. Hull City: The Tigers bought themselves an extra season in the Premiership with their fast start last year. Like Villa, I think the later season Hull is the real Hull. Bye-bye to the amber and black.
20. Burnley: I admit some ignorance about Burnley. However, nobody think this team has a shot so I'll go with the crowd. Watch... they'll finish 8th.

Enjoy the footy!

It May Work...

... but it probably won't. Elizabeth May is apparently running in Saanich -- Gulf Islands. The riding has been a reliably decent green riding but I simply don't see the growth potential. There are some positives here. I encouraged Elizabeth May to find a riding where she could become the de facto anti-Tory candidate. I can see how Ms. May might think that could happen in Saanich -- Gulf Islands. I just don't agree with the reasoning. The 2008 results for the riding have to be almost thrown out the window because the NDP were forced to kick out their candidate. May's reasoning is that with the NDP brand weakened locally, and the Liberals not looking like world beaters out West, that she might be able to rally the centre-left vote around herself. The reality I believe is very different. NDP votes that might have easily gone Green in 2008 did not. Instead they appeared to go Liberal. I would be shocked if Michael Ignatieff makes the deal Stephane Dion did with Elizabeth May, especially consdiering there's already a nomination meeting scheduled in the riding. In order to win, she would need to peel off three quarters of the Liberal vote and a few more from the Tories. All that assumes the NDP will take as few votes as they did last time when they didn't have an active candidate.

There are no easy wins for Elizabeth May out there. I tend to think southwestern Ontario (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound would have still been my choice) would have made more sense. To me, Saanich -- Gulf Islands looks like a mirage. She would need 40% plus to win there. I don't see her getting more than 25-30. The Green Party gets less than 15% all things being equal in my projections right now with the NDP seriously undervalued. I don't see her tripling that total to win.

Can We, Please?

Can we start calling Stephen Harper and the Conservatives the "blame Canada first crowd?" It's one of my favourite bs Repubican labels. In all seriousness, Prime Minister, you and your colleagues are the government of Canada. If there's a problem, fix it or at least put forward a proposal to fix it. Stop blaming hardworking bureaucrats and "the system." You don't just get to sit and whine about things anymore. You aren't the Leader of the Opposition anymore. Although if you want the job back, that can be arranged.

Future Battlegrounds: GTA

Ontario has a lot of competitive ridings. As such I've arbitrarily decided to split the province into sections. I'll start with the GTA. The GTA is defined here as all ridings within the boundaries of the city of Toronto or within the regions of Halton, Peel, York and or Durham. Same format as before:

Halton 0.11 LPC - CPC
Newmarket -- Aurora 0.48 LPC - CPC
Trintiy -- Spadina 1.59 LPC - NDP
Oakville 2.95 LPC - CPC
Oshawa 5.68 CPC - NDP
Toronto -- Danforth 7.22 NDP - LPC
Thornhill 8.18 LPC - CPC
Whitby -- Oshawa 9.03 CPC - LPC

Of note, Mississauga -- Erindale which will undoubtedly receive a lot of attention in the next election is projected to be taken by the Liberals by a little more than 10 points. That makes 5 pick ups for the Grits from the Tories in the GTA. It was one of many mind-numbing losses for the Grits last time out and my projections assume that barring another disastrous Ontario campaign, it should return to the fold. Oh, and there is absolutely no finger on the scales in Toronto -- Danforth. It actually is the second most competitive riding in Toronto. Parkdale -- High Park is next at just over 10.5 points if you're interested. The Tories best chance in Toronto remains Eglinton -- Lawrence and its unique MP, Joe Volpe. However, best chance in this case is still over 13 points off the Liberal lead. A big hill to climb.

Hollywood Would Be Impressed

As someone who loves to read, I find it extraordinarily amusing when life provides its own perfect symbolism. Case and point: Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL). Sen. Martinez announced his resignation from the senate on Friday. We don't know why. We do know that one of his last acts as senator was to vote in favour of the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor against the majority in his party. Sen. Martinez is a Cuban-American who came to the US in the early 1960's as a child in the wake of the ascension of Fidel Castro and the Communist Party in Cuba. Mr. Martinez is one of many Cuban-Americans who found a natural home in the tough on communism, tough on Cuba Republican party. Cuban-Americans were a reliably Republican voting bloc for Republicans in Florida. In 2008, many younger Cuban-Americans turned to Barack Obama and the Republican ties to the Cuban-American coummnity seemed to weaken. Mr. Martinez since announced that he would not seek re-election in 2010. Friday, after the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor, he resigned. The only (unless I'm forgetting someone) Hispanic Republican Senator resigns as the Republican party seems to give up the fight for the Hispanic vote. Sometimes the truth isn't stranger than fiction, it's better written.

GOP's Reverse LBJ Moment

When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law he notoriously worried that he was condemning his party, the Democratic Party, into the political wilderness in the Southern US. LBJ hoped that a coalition of liberals, women and minorities (in other words the Obama coalition) could eventually be electorally successful. He was both correct in his gloom and vindicated in his hopes for history. I somehow doubt the Republicans who voted against Justice Sonia Sotomayor today will be somehow vindicated in their decisions. It is not that Hispanic-Americans are so politically shallow that they would take the Republican rejection of Sotomayor as reason to not vote Republican. It is that this vote for many Hispanics will only confirm what they've been thinking ever since George W. Bush's immigration amnesty died under Republican pressure: the Republican Party has no interest in courting Hispanic voters. The vote today is not all that important in the lives of most Americans. The replacing of one left-leaning justice with another will not fundamentally change the nature of the Supreme Court. The symbolism of 31 Republican senators saying that the first Latina nominee for Supreme Court was somehow unqualified to serve is much more significant. LBJ could take solace in the fact that he was doing the right thing, the political consequences be damned. What are the Republicans taking solace in today?

What's In A Name?

A NDP by any other name would be as socialist. I don't think the awkward nature of the name make it harder for the NDP to garner votes. If they are going to change I think the Social Democratic Party would make a lot more sense than the Democratic Party. Regardless of what they do, I think I'll call them the party formerly known as the NDP.

Future Battlegrounds: Prairie Edition

Continuing my look at future battlegrounds, today I look at the ridings which will be most hotly contested in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I lump Alberta into this category because I don't feel like doing a post entirely on Edmonton-Strathcona. This is once again based on the same projection I'm using for my seat projection below. Same format as last time: riding name followed by margin followed by parties within 10 points in order of projected finish. Here we go:

Alberta:

Edmonton -- Strathcona 5.72 CPC-NDP

Saskatchewan:

Saskatoon -- Rosetown -- Biggar 4.57 CPC-NDP

Manitoba:

Winnipeg South 1.16 LPC-CPC
Saint Boniface 1.21 LPC-CPC
Churchill 4.16 LPC-CPC
Elmwood -- Transcona 4.76 NDP-CPC
Winnipeg South Centre 4.82 LPC-CPC


What should be clear from this is just how close the Tories are to holding on to their seats in Manitoba. Also 7/56 (12.5%) competitive ridings is a fairly low percentage for the region. Although with only 1/28 in Alberta that is to be expected. For Alberta Libs wondering if there is hope in say Edmonton -- Centre, the projected Tory margin of victory in Anne McLellan old riding is 16.61 percentage points. It is the closest race outside of Edmonton -- Strathcona in the province.

Seat Projection Expansion

The seat projection for the end of July is below. Since the results (and the polling) is ridiculously static, I thought I'd take a look how strong each party's hold is on the seats that they lead in. For this purpose I'm defining any riding with a lead between 0.01 and 10 points as a "Lean"; any riding between 10.01 and 15 points as "Favoured"; and any riding with a lead of over 15 points as "Safe". I only put the lean category out to 10 points because we are in the summer, outside of the writ period. As we get closer the lean category will drop to 5 and the favoured category will go from 5.01 to 10. For now I've put the ridings within 5 points in parentheses beside each lean total. Without further ado the ratings:

Conservatives (117):
Lean: 25 (11 within 5 points)
Favoured: 13
Safe: 79

Liberals (114):
Lean: 35 (25 within 5 points)
Favoured: 19
Safe: 60

Bloc (48):
Lean: 11 (7 within 5 points)
Favoured: 8
Safe: 29

NDP (29):
Lean: 13 (5 within 5 points)
Favoured: 4
Safe: 12

This means there are 128 ridings that could conceivable change between now and election day including 48 that are projected to be within 5 points. Remember that these totals include ridings that would be considered pick-ups from the 2008 result.

We Are Officially Going Nowhere

A new month, a new seat projection, almost the same result.

Tories pick up 1 seat nationally.

CPC 117
LPC 114
BQ 48
NDP 29

Province by Province:

BC: CPC 19; NDP 10; LPC 7
AB: CPC 28
SK: CPC 13; LPC 1
MB: CPC 7; LPC 4; NDP 3
North: CPC 1; LPC 1; NDP 1
ON: LPC 58; CPC 37; NDP 11
QC: BQ 48; LPC 21; CPC 6
NB: LPC 6; CPC 3; NDP 1
NS: LPC 6; CPC 3; NDP 2
PE: LPC 4
NL: LPC 6; NDP 1

Like last time revisions in the Tories' favour in both Nunavut and Cumberland -- Colchester -- Musquodobolt Valley (why can't be a short riding name). Otherwise it is based on current polling as per threehundredeight and the results of the last three elections. I will post the races to watch in other provinces soon.

Future Battlegrounds: British Columbia

I said about a month ago that I would do semi-regular seat projections. Well, since then the polling on which my seat projections are based has been flatter than Stephen Harper's affect. As a result, my projections are basically unchanged from virtual deadheat. So, while I finish an actual update during some down time this weekend, I thought I'd take a look at some key ridings to focus on in the upcoming election. If you want historical competitiveness, CalgaryGrit recently did a nice piece analyzing the historically most competitive elections over the last three cycles. That isn't necessarily going to be reflected here. For instance, hypothetically, if there was a riding in Québec where the Tories were neck and neck in previous elections, my projections would not include it as a likely future battleground based on week Tory polling in the province. For starters, I thought I'd look at where the fur is likely to fly in British Columbia.

BC is always viewed as a tight three way race. This is both true and false. It's true that all three parties have bases of support in the province, its false that there are a ton of ridings where more than two parties are competitive. I'm defining competitive this far away from an actual election as any party within ten percentage points of the leader in the riding. The only riding where more than one party is within 10 points in BC is Burnaby-Douglas. My projection has the NDP incumbent (Bill Siksay) leading the Tories by 7.55 points and the Grits by 8.68 points. However, Burnaby-Douglas is not the only competitive or the most competitive riding in BC. What follows is a list with the riding name, the margin between first and second (in percentage points) and the competitive parties with the leader first (incumbents in bold).

Saanich -- Gulf Islands 0.01 CPC - LPC*
Vancouver Island North 1.29 NDP - CPC
North Vancouver 1.84 LPC - CPC
Vancouver Kingsway 2.47 LPC - NDP
West Vancouver -- Sunshine Coast -- Sea-t0-Sky Country 2.85 CPC - LPC
Richmond 4.45 CPC - LPC
Fleetwood -- Port Kells 5.6 CPC - LPC
Kamloops - Thompson - Caribou 6.62 CPC - NDP
New Westminster - Coquitlam 7.01 NDP -CPC (Vacant)
Burnaby -- Douglas 7.55 NDP - CPC - LPC
Surrey North 8.13 NDP - CPC
Nanaimo - Alberni 8.44 CPC - NDP

What is immediately clear is that the Tories have a lot of vulnerable incumbents in BC if history is any judge. Nine of these twelve ridings are held by the Tories. The Surrey North numbers still have some lingering Cadman effect in them (even though 2004 doesn't get much weight in my projections) but I think they'd be on the short end of the stick in North Vancouver and Vancouver Island North at very least if elections were held today.

*briefly, this result is skewed due to the NDP candidate troubles here in 2008; the Tories should be fine if the NDP siphons off Liberal votes

Survey Says...

I got the "annual" Liberal Party member's survey today in the mail. I put annual in quotation marks because I don't ever remember getting one before. Maybe I just threw them out without really looking at it like most of my LPC mail in previous years (I don't have any money for them and that's usually what there after). Anyway, since Ignatieff has been vague to opaque on his policy ideas up to now, I thought it might be interesting to see what they're asking questions about. Here were the areas:

• Canadian Culture
• Knowledge and Innovation
• Health Care
• Feelings About the Liberal Party

The more I think about it, the more I think this survey isn't for policy-making but rather for fundraising. The idea being find the issue that members are most passionate about and ask for money to protect it/accomplish it. Otherwise, if this is actually policy oriented, we could be running an election campaign without talking about the economy, the war in Afghanistan or the environment to name but a few major issues. I really hope this is from the fundraising side. Although the response deadline of September 30th (right around the time a writ would be theoretically dropped and consequentially a platform finalized) is a little concerning. There is one disheartening thing regardless of what this is being used for. There was no way (unless you offered it) to tell who filled out the survey, meaning the information is not being put into a fancy database to compete with the Tories.

EU-28?

Iceland seems like it will be next into the European Union. This is in spite of the fact that many with in the EU think the EU has expanded too far too fast. Iceland's application is no doubt helped by the fact that it is a long-time democracy with a high standard of living. It is also absurdly tiny in terms of population making it no threat should the EU ever become democratic (see reason 5093 that Turkey's application is on ice for comparison). The fact that Iceland's economy has collapsed seems to be less worrisome to the EU. Economic stability used to be a key component of accession, apparently not so much anymore. Indeed according to Wikipedia, the Copenhagen Criteria (the basic criteria for accession) specifically include a country's "ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union." Iceland's ability to cope with economic pressures is, to put it kindly, a point for debate. However, in EU politics some democracy-loving Scandinavians are unlikely to offend anyone. Bets on Croatia being 29? Or are the Slovenes going to go Cypriot on them (reason 2340 that Turkey's application is on ice)?

Hey Mr. Miller...

There's some city data, I'd like open access to. What exactly did the city get for over five weeks of stench and disruption?

The Continuing Follies of the EU

The EU has decided to ban Canadian seal products on the grounds that well, seals are really cute. It is depressing that the largest trading bloc on the planet makes decisions in this manner. Then again, this shouldn't be surprising from an organization which has an ongoing policy of banning things that might someday be considered unsafe. I won't even get into the unbelievable hypocrisy being exercised by countries like Spain whose dubious/illegal fishing practices make the commercial seal hunt a virtual necessity. Screw economics, seals are cute. Minister Day, don't you dare sign a free trade agreement with the EU until this absurd ban is lifted.







Won't Somebody Save the Sea-Kitten?

Ouch

The Constitutional Court in Germany came down with a ruling last month that may change the future of our planet, at very least the EU. There was a lot of hype surrounding the latest European Parliamentary elections last month. Many EU advocates hoped that it would be the start of true democracy in the European Union. The constitutional court disagrees. The court told the German government that it had a responsibility to check the power of the European Union. That in and of itself is a damning statement coming from the heart of the European Union. However, part of the rationale given is a dagger to the Union's heart. The court said according to The Economist that “'no uniform European people' could 'express its majority will in a politically effective manner.'” In other words, it confirmed a sentiment common among many Europeans: the European Parliament is a joke.

We're mere weeks away from the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. For those not following the absurdity, the Lisbon Treaty is the "ends justify the means" treaty. After a more robust EU constitution failed in the first referenda it was put before, the Lisbon Treaty was watered down to be a) acceptable to as many people as possible and b) require as few countries as possible to actually have a referendum on it. The message on that was loud and clear: we can't let the people get involved or this thing will die. Unfortunately, Ireland requires referenda for a lot more things than most countries so the Irish had to vote to approve Lisbon. The first vote failed over sovereignty concerns (some real, some imagined). Now, Lisbon has been further dilluted to try to get Irish approval. If it succeeds, the EU could be more managable. I really, really don't like direct democracy most of the time. However, watching EU politicians finesse their way around the will of the people makes me sick.

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.