Federal Election

Liberal Election Platform - Where is the Green Shift?

Greg Farries — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:30:39 -0600

NDP Leader Layton talks about Coalition Government with Liberals

Greg Farries — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:06:03 -0600

According to the Hamilton Spectator, New Democratic Party Leader, Jack Layton, is not ruling out a coalition government with the Stéphane Dion's Liberal Party of Canada.

NDP Leader Jack Layton is refusing to rule out a coalition government with Stéphane Dion's Liberals if that's what it takes to oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Whenever I hear people talk about the possibility of a coalition government in Canada, I usually have to remind them that coalition governments are so rare they shouldn't even be considered a reasonable alternative to a minority or majority government. However, in this case, Layton should know that the likelihood of a formal Liberal/NDP coalition in the House of Commons (with members of both parties sitting in the cabinet) is close to nil.

To get an idea of how rare - and implausible in this particular age - coalition governments are in Canada, make sure to read our in-depth feature, Coalition Governments in Canada.

The Choice that Saskatchewan voters make will matter...

David McGrane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:39:06 -0600

This article appears as "Choice by voters in Sask. Will hold significant sway", Saskatoon StarPhoenix, September 18th, 2008, A11.
When the Prime Minister called the federal election, the response of many people in Saskatchewan was undoubtedly: "What! Another election!" With two federal elections and one provincial election during last four years, a little voter fatigue is understandable. Nonetheless, we should not let our weariness allow us to fall prey to old, cynical arguments that we should not bother to vote because ‘all politicians are the same' and ‘your vote doesn't make a difference anyway.' The votes cast in Saskatchewan on October 14th will be very important for the future of province and our country. The choice we make will make a difference.
With the probability that the Conservatives will pick up another 20 seats in Quebec, voters in Saskatchewan should start from the premise that the Conservatives are in striking distance of a majority government. However, even with their extra seats in Quebec, the Conservatives will still need to retain all their seats in English Canada and add a few more to attain what will be a razor-thin majority. Therefore, it is paramount for the Conservatives to sweep Saskatchewan once again. If voters reject the Conservatives in a number of key ridings in Saskatchewan, that could be the difference between a majority and minority government. Indeed, the power is in our hands and the choice that we are about to make is an important one.
If you chose to vote Conservative, you must assume that you are contributing towards the election of a majority Harper government. Putting all of that power into Stephen Harper's hands has a number of significant consequences for Saskatchewan. Harper would continue to spend heavily on the military, aggressively reduce the debt, and enact tax cuts targeted to his potential supporters in Saskatchewan such as small business owners and our province's truckers and farmers who use are heavy users of diesel. He would continue to a ‘go slow' approach on climate change would not throw Saskatchewan's oil and gas industry off balance. However, the Conservative's approach to climate change probably mean that Saskatchewan would continue to have per-capita greenhouse gas emissions that are three times higher than all other Canadian provinces with the exception of Alberta. With his axing of the Kelowna Accord, elimination of the universal daycare scheme, reduction of funding to women's programs, and cuts to arts funding, it hard to see Harper making large investments in social policy in Saskatchewan communities over the course of the next four years. Rather, Harper would probably run a lean government concentrated on maintaining Saskatchewan's current economic strength in the context of an economic slowdown in other parts of North America.
For Saskatchewan voters who reject the Harper agenda, they have three choices: Liberal, NDP, or Green. There is a small chance of a Liberal minority government or the Liberal official opposition to a Conservative minority government so it important to look at the effect of their policies on Saskatchewan. The Liberals have bold carbon tax plan based on the lofty principle that the ‘polluter pays' and that we need to change consumer behaviour to truly combat climate change. Some observers, like Janice MacKinnon and Premier Brad Wall, have argued that Dion's Greenshift could adversely affect Saskatchewan through handicapping our resource-based economy and forcing us to cut the emissions while Eastern Canada gets the lion's share of the personal income tax and corporate tax cuts design to offset the impact of the new carbon taxes. So far, Dion has put all of his eggs into one basket in terms of Saskatchewan. Outside of their environmental plan, the Liberals have yet to announce other policies that would have a significant effect on Saskatchewan and announced policies, like banning semi-automatic assault rifles or investing in the modernization of the fishing industry, that are targeted at other parts of the country.
With Dion's uninspiring leadership during the first couple of weeks of the campaign, even the Conservatives are admitting that Jack Layton is looking like the real leader of the opposition. With the NDP having the best chance to beat the Conservatives in most Saskatchewan ridings, many Saskatchewan voters may be considering voting NDP as the best way to deny Harper a majority government and provide a spirited opposition to Harper in Ottawa. With a large opposition caucus, the NDP would surely attempt to force Harper to pay more attention to social policy issues, like daycare, and call on the government pay attention to consumer issues like high ATM fees and price-gouging at the gas pumps. The NDP, who opposes carbon taxes on consumers, would also push a Conservative government to create a ‘cap and trade system' that would force large corporate polluters to either reduce emissions or pay heavy fines. Certainly, like the Liberals' Greenshift, the NDP's scheme would necessitate considerable adjustment on the part of companies in Saskatchewan's oil patch.
Finally, some Saskatchewan voters may be tempted to vote for the Green Party as a way to send a message to the established parties that are not happy with current state of Canadian politics and that they consider the environment to be the defining political issue of our times. As laudable as these intentions may be, Saskatchewan voters must also face the reality that a vote for the Greens will not elect the Green candidate in their riding and may end up taking away votes from Liberal or NDP candidates therefore allowing the Conservatives to win. Potential Green voters in Saskatchewan must ask themselves if sending a message to Canada's established federal parties is worth the risk of contributing to the election of a Conservative candidate whose party is the least likely to take dramatic action on environmental issues.
On October 14th, voters in Saskatchewan have an important choice to make that will affect their own personal lives and the future of their province and country. We should all analyze the current political situation and seize this power to vote in the way that we believe is best for Saskatchewan and Canada. Your vote matters, use it!

What do Farmers Want this Election?

Melanee Thomas — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:11:09 -0600

How about a Minister who isn't incompetent?
Admittedly, when I relayed the "death by a thousand cold cuts" idiocy to my roommate this morning, he almost spat out his coffee for laughing. What really irks me as a farm kid is that farmers get stuck with moronic Ministers of Agriculture who, among other things, don't know when to tell, or not tell, gross jokes. It seems to me that avoiding such quips on a conference call with non-political, non-partisan staff would be a no brainer.
I'm not sure how to take the I-hope-the-PEI-death-is-my-shadow-Cabinet-counterpart. That's not even funny, no matter how hard it's spun.
During the 1990s, farmers had to deal with Lyle VanClief, who wouldn't come out to see a Prairie drought for years, and then when he did said something to the effect of, "oh. well, it looks bad, but we're not going to do anything about it."
Paul Martin had the decency to at least come and see the BSE crisis for himself, but that was more about launching Ken Nicol's campaign in the Lethbridge constituency than it was about doing something about the border closure.
With Harper's team, farmers have had to deal with constant attacks on the Canadian Wheat Board. Here's what most people either forget or don't know: if Western Canadian farmers wanted to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board, they would simply elect anti-CWB directors to the Board, who would then terminate the CWB in it's entirety. Farmers, however, consistently elect pro-CWB directors, and the obvious reason seems to be that they actually find the CWB to a useful tool to compete in the global market that's chock full of American and European subsidies.
The other thing Harper himself clearly seems to conveniently forget is that barley farmers can sell their product to a number of places already, including the CWB AND/OR to a malter (for beer) AND/OR to a feeder (for those fantastic Alberta steaks). These farmers already have choice!
But I digress.
After watching Harper throw a temper tantrum when the Supreme Court said his gag order on the CWB was unconstitutional (again, a no-brainer) saying he'd "railroad" anyone who stood in his way on getting rid of the CWB, after learning that under Harper that Farm Credit Canada is shilling with Cargill (a big American multi-national) to offer Canadian farmers better "cash-flow" (read: debt. The parents just got the advertising letter this week), I learn that, once again, the current Minister of Agriculture is a fool.
Are farmers happy with these policies, or with the orientation of successive governments towards them? No, they sure aren't. Will they keep voting Conservative? You bet, because they say to their elected representatives, "you know that policy we told you last time we didn't like? Well, you went ahead and implemented it and it didn't work like we told you it wouldn't. Now you talking about doing XYZ, and we dont' like that either. What we want you do to instead is ABC. So, we're going to vote for you, now that we've asked for ABC even though you're saying you're going to to XYZ. So do ABC. OK?"
I watched more than one farmer stand up at a BSE meeting in 2004 and say pretty much that. It was one of the most depressing things I've ever witnessed.
Back to Gerry Ritz ... should he resign the porfolio? Please, for the love all that is good and farmer-like, RESIGN! There's no shortage of less-than-competent people in Harper's caucus to take his place, and if their heads started to roll when they did something profoundly foolish and stupid, they all might start to learn.
In case anyone is wondering, swathing is going well, though the air conditioning is busted in the swather, making Dad rather cranky when he comes in from the field. Thanks for asking. :)

Crisis Within the Bloc

Melanee Thomas — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:19 -0600

Even with new media reports nearly every day in Quebec of separatist politicians taking a swipe at the Bloc, I was reluctant to believe there was a real problem within the party. Rather, I thought some separatists might be more inclined to sway voters to a different party (odd as that might sound).
I'm beginning to realise, however, that it's both: colleagues of mine much closer to the Bloc suggest there is a "genuine crisis" and it centres around the idea that right-wing viewpoints and ideas are no longer welcome within the party.
Because of this perception that conservative views are no longer welcome within the Bloc, right-wing separatists appear to be coming out of the woodwork, attacking the Bloc effectively by suggesting it is irrelevant because it no longer places the sovereignty question in the centre of its platform. Yesterday, five former Bloc MPs wrote an open letter in Le Devoir to this effect, countered by a letter with the opposing viewpoint (that the Bloc remains relevant) from nine Bloc MPs in La Presse. The Bloc's Montreal coverage (or what I get of it, anyway) is dominated by this question of their relevance instead of their issue positions, candidates, or the campaign.
These attacks on the Bloc clearly serve the interest of the Conservative Party of Canada. Quebeckers are still very much looking for an "independentist" option, as a friend put it, but are beginning to think the Bloc isn't it. Outside Montreal, where more conservative views dominate (as evidenced by the Conservatives' 10 seats in 2006 and the strength of the Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ) in the last provincial election), the Conservatives look to pick up a significant number of seats.
Thomas Mulcair, the only NDP MP in Quebec, echos this idea that the Bloc is in a tailspin (albeit in campus media. I was bored at the registraur's office and was a bit taken aback by his interview). With the Liberals in disorganised disarray and the Bloc fighting for it's own relevance, the NDP likely could do well in Montreal, holding Outremont and potentially picking up Westmount-Ville Marie.
These attacks on the Bloc's relevance, however, seem so coordinated and are so recent (we didn't hear anything of it in the lead up to the by-elections or the current election), that I can't shake the idea that these attacks are organised by competing political interests. These interests clearly are on the right of the political spectrum, and the obvious beneficiary is the Conservatives. I would not be surprised if this is part of their Quebec strategy. It's too slick just to be a bunch of malcontents, and it's working.
After the election, I wouldn't be surprised if prominent separatists to start working with Harper, provided the Conservatives win, and/or the beginnings of talk of a new separatists party at the federal level in the next few years.

Why we should be skeptical of how the media reports polls.

Melanee Thomas — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:33 -0600

Many things irritate me about mainstream media, and their inaccurate reporting of public opinion polls is rather close to the top of the list. While this article by the CBC's online team is not bad (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/12/elxn-poll.html), there is crucial information that should be included but isn't.
Readers are asked to compare a poll by Harris/Decima to one by EKOS without knowing which questions were asked in both surveys. Invariably, if different questions were asked, people will respond differently. If this is the case, comparing the response categories (i.e. political parties) of the questions would be inappropriate. The Harris/Decima question wording is (sort of) included, but the EKOS is not. As a result, we don't know if the comparison that's a significant part of the article is appropriate.
This particular article does better than some, as does this article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/full-poll.html). The second article is particularly interesting as it *actually* includes the margins of error for the regional breakdowns used in the analysis of the poll. These changes in regional accuracy matter: while this particular poll has a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points nationally, the margin of error jumps to +/- 7.9 percentage points for the Prairies. Any analysis of differences, say, between parties on the Prairies that were not greater than 8 percentage points would be inaccurate. Most polls reported in the media DO NOT include these breakdowns nor does the analysis take the increased regional margins of error into account.
So when a Canada-wide poll of 1000 Canadians includes analysis of BC's lower mainland, we should be suspicious. Similarly, most analysis of the last Quebec provincial election was suspect as the differences between all three political parties was smaller than the margin of error. Technically, then, the parties were in a statistical dead heat, but the news media reported nothing but how one party was gaining or losing compared to the others. Such coverage is often inaccurate at best and grossly misleading at worst.
The bottom line is that the media needs to be more upfront about the national and regional margins of error for any given poll they report, and they (and the polling firms that produce the polls) need to own up when the differences between parties (or issues or whatever) are not satistically significant.

Has Harper violated the fixed election law? Will it mattter?

Tom Bateman — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:45:01 -0600

Have the Conseratives violated the fixed election date law passed by Parliament in 2007?
No. The Canadian Constitution requires that the Governor General retain the prerogative to dissolve Parliament at her pleasure. Yes, she takes advice on this from the Prime Minister, but the decision is still hers. Any law depriving the Governor General of the legal capacity to dissolve Parliament would be unconstitutional. Patrick Monahan in the Globe and Mail on Saturday August 30 was very good on this point.
The fixed election date law does allow the Governor General to exercise this reserve power. So no legal problem with the election call.
Is there a political problem? Have the Conservatives violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law by calling the election only two and a half years into their term of government? Generally, yes. The Conservatives did violate the spirit of the law, in my opinion, and some will criticize them for it. It is generally understood that the point of the law was to remove from the Prime Minister's basket of powers the capacity to dictate the timing of elections. This is what Mr. Harper criticized in Mr. Chretien's cynical moves. But things look different when one crosses the aisle, apparently.
The Conservatives argue that the opposition parties signalled their willingness to pull the plug on the government this fall. So the end was imminent. Also, Mr. Harper argued that Parliament has been dysfunctional and will continue to be so until the next election.
Both arguments are relatively weak. The Liberals have ducked confidence votes consistently. They are still in poor financial shape and Mr. Dion still has miles to go to improve his image in the country. Can Mr. Harper be so sure the end was nigh? In the alternative, if an election is coming why flout the spirit of the election date law to hasten what is coming anyway?
As for the second argument, there is ample evidence that the Tories were running the table for the last couple of years. Now they must manage a contradiction: "We did a lot for Canadians in the last two years; on the other hand, Parliament is impossible and we cannot get anything done."
Will the Conservatives' desire for an early election matter? Not too much. If someone says an election is unnecessary, then that person must mean things are going pretty well in the country at the moment under the CPC's stewardship. So no need to punish the Tories at the polling booth. If someone says we need an election to boot the Tories out, that person can hardly complain that an election is being held now and not later.
And no party leader can complain about an election campaign, no matter how conflicted he or she may be in private.
So the Conservatives will take some heat for violating the spirit of their own fixed election date law, but not much. They may be punished for other things they have done, but not this one.
So why did they do it? Likely to get re-elected before unpalatable events unfold later this year and next, and to take advantage of weaknesses in other parties' ranks. Politics done the old way.

Liberals Paint Stephan Harper as Evil

Greg Farries — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0600

Roller Coaster Federal Election of 2004

Greg Farries — Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 -0600

A Divided Liberal Party of Canada

Greg Farries — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:35:16 -0600