Rhetoricking with Myself

Garth-gate

2006-02-10T11:09:00.000-05:00

So I have (again) been away from the world of blogging for quite some time. This issue of Emerson has dragged me back though.

During the election campaign I was telling pretty much everyone I could that Garth Turner's election blog was by far my favourite. He regularly gave in-depth and compelling accounts of his time spent on the campaign trail. No matter how exhausted I was from the nine to twelve hours I had spent working my own local campaign I usually tried to find time to read it and I wish that more candidates would have gove to a similiar effort.

Sometimes this sort of Garth-dorsement was met with comments like "you mean you like Nortel Turner"? I must admit that I had forgotten (or never really knew) about Garth Turner's alleged role in pumping-and-dumping Nortel stock Frankly, I still don't know all the details and in the end that is quite separate from what I think of his blog and more relevantly his comments on David Emerson.

I must say that I have spent the last couple of days considering the Emerson fiasco rather closely and have commented over at Cherniak's blog once or twice (including here). You know what, Garth is right this was and remains a major screw-up. It looks hypocritical, cynical and totally unnecessary. There was no reason to entice David Emerson across the floor especially considering the lacklustre political skills that the Minister has displayed over the last week

As for whether or not Garth should have aired the dirty laundry on his blog--I'm not sure. Short term track records seem to disagree, as we have a successful candidate who did better than many of his fellow Conservative candidates in neighbouring ridings pitted against Harper's team that ran what was pretty universally lauded as a very tight campaign. I suppose the balance has to fall with Mr. Turner because this sort of thing seems to be directly in keeping with what he did right before election day (working hard for his constituents and speaking his mind) whereas I don't know where the PM was coming from. The end result will probably be that we will unfortunately see a lot more pressure for MPs to stay away from blogging.

Income trust announcement

2005-12-07T12:39:00.000-05:00

Kinsella's post today on this growing fiasco emanating from the profits people made before Ralph Goodale announced that the government would not be changing the tax rules for income trusts and would be decreasing taxes on dividends. As I see it there could be three explanations for the pre-announcement trading:

1. Investors found out about the news conference and correctly guessed what was going to be said.

2. Someone other than Liberal politicians, who rightfully had this information before the press conference began (either through carelessness or design) the chain of communication that disseminated this information.

3. Liberal politicians began (either through carelessness or design) the chain of communication that disseminated this information.

Please note that I am specific about placing the responsibility on the person who was first to "leak" this information. As I understand the law, only a person who has a fiduciary duty to keep information confidential is prevented from communicating or trading on that information. So, if someone trades on a piece of information that they cannot be reasonably expected to think is "insider" information they have done nothing wrong.

Case number one looked like the most innocent and probable explanation at first (and with proto-scandals this is usually the safe bet). It's hard to believe that the Minister of Finance could get a room full of cameras and reporters together for an announcement at 5 PM without someone knowing that it was happening before 4:30PM. Problem is that the CTV news story states that "skuttlebutt" (as some illiterate chat room poster put it) had begun circulating by 11:14 AM. Also, if investors only knew that there would be some announcement and even if they knew it would on income trusts there is no reason for them to know it was positive. Even if this was a fore-gone conclusion the news should already have been priced into the market. Also, this doesn't account for the movement in dividend-rich stocks.

Case number two has a staffer, civil servant, private consultant, whomever who knew about the content of the announcement as the culprit for starting the communication. Right now this seems like the most likely explanation but by no means absolves Goodale or other Liberals involved. They must have known the sensitivity of this announcement and therefore should have taken exceptional steps to prevent any leaks. Furthermore, the feet-dragging in terms of a public response is quite disheartening.

Case three has, as Kinsella implies, someone Liberal and elected whispering the good news to friends who then traded on the information. The obvious first objection here is that the potential loss for Goodale et al seems much greater than the gain. Why would they share such information when they know the likelihood is, at least, greater than zero of being caught? Well, for one they depend on the donations of friends to run campaigns, and what do you know we're in a campaign right now. Also, if politicians always made reasonable cost-benefit analyses in situations like this we wouldn't need the word "scandal". Perhaps the information was shared with someone who they knew to be discreet (and was) enough to take a small profit only for themselves but this sharing expanded the number of people in the second category (secretaries, spouses, brokers, drivers, etc.).

Whatever the explanation this definitely is dangerous for the Liberals. Slow developing scandals like this can easily derail an otherwise winning campaign. This scandal would probably have been less dangerous twenty years ago before the average voter understood (or cared) about insider trading. The Liberals, though, can thank Martha Stewart for bringing everyone up to speed on it. If nothing else this story will definitely increase the volatility of the campaign going into the first debate.

Lower GST

2005-12-01T12:10:00.000-05:00

Cherniak has a post today on why lowering the GST will win the Tories points but is bad policy. He even concedes that this policy move might give the Tories the first half of the election. Unfortunately this is followed by a flawed argument about why retailers will raise prices to fill the entire gap created by the tax cut. Here is my comment to him on why I disagree:

1. Seriously, this is first year economics. A good is currently being sold for $100 with 15% tax for a total of $115. Theoretically say that the retailer is paying total costs of $80 to sell this and therefore makes $20 profit. Sales taxes are decreased to 13% and all other things remain the same. There is now a gap between what was previously being paid and what you think prices will increase to of about $1.85. This gap will be SHARED by consumers and retailers. If one retailer chooses to take all of it his competitors will take advantage of him by taking less. This is obviously possible because the retailers were will to operate at the $20 profit level and therefore will be willing to compete with each to the point where the market clears. No good, save maybe cocaine is totally inelastic. If dealers are charging tax they will be able to adjust prices accordingly.

2. Even if we are sent through some sort of economic vortex and what you theorise happens that will still mean more profits for retailers. Which means either more dividends for shareholders or increased investment. Both good things for the economy, I'd say.

3. The reason that you shouldn't save this for an economic rainy day is that that's when the government needs more money. Don't you see how that would make your argument circular? You did after all, start by saying that this tax was introduced during a recession.

4. Speaking of which I'll take up that challenge if you'll define "worst". Longest? Highest unemployment? Aggregate GDP shrinkage? Frankly I'd pick the third measure.

Point 3 counters his statement that this cut should be saved for an economic rainy day. Point 4 deals with his claim that the early 90s had the worst recession in Canadian history since the Depression. I haven't looked at the unemployment data yet but I know that 82 was worse for GDP growth and 45-46 was just as long.

Some commenters on his site have stated the psychological barrier of prices that end in .99 as a reason why retailers won't increase prices by 2% (actually it's more like 1.85%). I'm not sure about this. Walmart markets their prices as being fairer because they don't do the .99 thing so there would no problem for them and Walmart is unfortunately where most people who would be helped most by this cut shop. Also, if retailers want to increase prices without seeming like they are they can just offer fewer sales or reduce prices less steeply when goods do go on sale. But, again, basic economic theory states that retailers will only take part of this cut. The proportion taken will depend on the elasticity of the demand for the good and the level of competitiveness in the particular market.

It's starting to look a lot like...a campaign

2005-11-30T15:27:00.000-05:00

I was riding the Finch bus last night around midnight and saw the first tangible evidence that an election campaign has started. One of my fellow passengers, a young lady who couldn't have been older than 21 (I like those demographics, maybe I should publish a face-painting poll), had a Conservative "C" painted on her face. If you happen to be one of the thirty-or-so people who read this post, my apologies for staring but your "C" was backwards. Obviously we need to get it so that supporters don't have to paint their own faces, at home, in front of a mirror.

And they're off

2005-11-28T22:07:00.000-05:00

By tomorrow we'll be into an election, timidly mind you, but an election. I watched the confidence vote tonight with two people who profess to generally dislike politics. Particular attention was paid to the caucus speeches that Martin and Harper gave. The feeling was the Martin made us uncomfortable with his attempts to seem youthful when trying to quiet his caucus. Delivery-wise his effectiveness is there, but limited--his emotion (and voice) only seems to have one volume. The report on Harper was similarly neutral. Hard to relate to but getting better on the anger thing--keep talking about hope, Steve, votes can't get enough of that.

I hope no one missed the shrewd tactic the CBC used to make sure no one saw anyone but Martin and Layton speak. Unlike CTV they were sure to get all but the die-hard flacks, hacks, and already decideds to switch the channel after Martin spoke by airing several minutes of Mansbridge and Boag (not this one) chit-chatting before going to a delayed Harper.

I was out of the room when Peter mentioned it so I'm not sure if I heard right but it sounds like the CBC intends to respect the sanctity of the season by not commissioning polls or reporting on them (unless they're newsmaking of course) until January. Well, here's a deal for you Peter, if you follow through on that I'll agree not to watch you guys (except hockey, of course) until...oh...you get off the public trough.

Face-licking and Heart Disease

2005-11-22T11:13:00.000-05:00

I read an interesesting mini article in this month's Esquire about a theory on why African-Americans suffer a markedly higher rate of heart disease than African-Africans. The details were found boring by my test audience but suffice it to say that the qualities that make survival more possible on the Middle Passage make longevity less possible in modern America. If you want more check out the magazine.

New Maclean's

2005-11-17T17:48:00.000-05:00

I'm trying to avoid becoming too crotchety before my time and accept change but the new format for Maclean's just pisses me off.

The cover at first glance looks to have been generated by the type of web site where fourth graders can type in headlines about how their friends are nosepickers and their teachers smell. Coloured boxes for the highlighted stories? All of them with different border and text formats? Ugh, I have a headache.

Speaking of which those annoying in-story headlines that are intended to a. keep you from moving on before finishing the next story and b. help the production staff stretch out the physical size of an article (mainly b. though, trust me) are taken to a new height of absurdity. I suppose they are designed to look trendy like those in British tabloids but they only made the otherwise interesting feature on obtaining cell phone records over the internet, nearly unreadable. I mean seriously each word seems to be in a different size and colour.

A couple measly points must be granted though for giving the page numbers of articles on the cover. I hate having to flip through eighteen pages of Ralph Lauren ads to find the table of contents in most magazines.

What really cheeses me though is that Paul Wells is gone from the back page and the replacement is (though quite tragic) abysmal. Instead of Well's erudite and witty commentary--that follows in the tradition of Alan Fortheringham (who originally got me hooked on Macleans)--we get an obituary for a gentleman who died when he was swept out to sea while brazenly ignoring "Danger" signs and walking on Cape Spear. Seriously, I'm quite sorry for the loss his family suffered (his second wife, by the way, calls him "Daddy" we're told) but if this is the sort of human interest stories that they're going to put on my beloved backpage I'm done with Maclean's.

Forbes on Blogs

2005-11-16T19:24:00.000-05:00

I saw the most recent issue of Forbes magazine today. They have a ridiculous--I mean head-in-the-sand laugh-out-loud--article about blogs (it's pay, sorry).

Basically the argument was:
1. The number of blogs is growing exponentially;
2. Some blogs are used to attack businesses;
3. Blogs are bad.

Apparently some bloggers who, for instance, install Lotus Notes by day got pissed off at some analyst that (rightfully) trashed Notes and used their blogs to rally support behind a campaign of extreme nuisance against said analyst. Obviously this is not the sort of activity that the medium was designed for but these people are in the vast vast minority--a distinction the article paid only very bried lip service to.

Forbes offers such ridiculous suggestions as companies paying bloggers to pump their company in any attempt to pre-empt negative bloggage. Seriously. No wonder Fortune kicks ass.

Jarhead

2005-11-09T15:40:00.000-05:00

Saw it last night in a surprisingly full theatre. I was, quite frankly, disappointed.

The creators of this movie took on an uphill task by producing another film whose message is: “Once you create these killing machines you have to do something with them.” This is of course in the same vein as those great Vietnam movies Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Good Morning Vietnam. Definitely stiff competition. Blaming the fact that wars post-Vietnam all seem to suck (movie-wise) was a somewhat convincing defense until Blackhawk Down firmly changed that pattern.

The movie’s structural similarity to Full Metal Jacket (edgy, funny first half and surreal in-country second half) created a comparison that Jarhead could not hope to win.

Other than Jamie Foxx the acting is tinny or over-the-top and there is a total lack of plot. Jarhead is neither exciting nor compelling.

In other news, stay the hell away from The Pilot (a pub/sports bar on Cumberland just west of Yonge). We went there for a post-movie beer and found the place almost totally empty despite the Leafs game on just about every wall in the joint. I know it was Tuesday but other bars like the Duke or Hemingway’s have been pretty full on similar nights. Just as I was speculating on why this place could be so very unpopular one of my companions points to the ground with a look on his face that I know all too well. Sure enough ten metres away there was a vile, pestilent mouse.

The Game

2005-09-09T09:04:00.000-04:00

Well, I have been away for quite some time and I'm not sure this is the best way to make a comeback but what the heck.

The last two issues of Esquire have played up Neil Strauss's new book The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists and because the early lead I got on the Freakonomics craze from here I have decided to try this book out. Once I finish the book I may devote a separate post to the content of the book (for those already champing at the bit the author does make an early effort to cast his exploits in a mature, moral light--jury's still out though) but for now the bizarre experience of buying this book will have to suffice.

Last night I walk into my local Chapters and take a look at the New Release wall--no luck. I head upstairs and query the useful computer terminal and it tells me to look in Community and Culture--Men's Studies. Some sort of pre-congition tells me that this section will be far from monstrous so I ask a staffperson (more on him later) to point the way. As confirmation of my earlier suspicion I find that the Men's Studies section, supposedly located between "Black Studies" and "Women's Studies" is about two books in breadth--both of which, judging from titles akin to Being a Black Man in Contemporary America may have belonged to the former neighbouring section. I guess seeing my confused expression and empty hands the aforementioned staffperson suddenly appears. This gentleman was more than helpful throughout this escape but I kid you not he looked like a normal-sized version of Hagrid from Harry Potter--shaggy hair, posture, beard, the whole nine yards.

So, I tell Hagrid what I'm looking for and he grumbles something about muggles looking for newly-released books and trundles off to the "Staff Only" stockroom. A couple minutes and a phone call later he has determined where the book is and very specifically directs me to the "New Release" wall that I checked on my way in. While I'm patiently re-scanning this display my shaggy new friend re-appears (and for someone of his stature he definitely has a knack for popping out of thin air) and adds his two beady eyes to the search. It turns out that the book was shelved in a different "New Releases" section--way to go Chapters, thanks Hagrid.

I have to say that the publishers have done a good job of producing something that looks like a manual for a secret society. We're talking black (fake) leather covers, embossed gold type on the spine and front, gilded page edges and a crimson ribbon for a bookmark. If nothing else, this book at least looks cool and seems well-suited for some subway reading.

Summer Hours

2005-07-19T18:05:00.000-04:00

Between the nice weather and work I have found increasingly less time to post recently.

This may change, it may not. We'll see.

For anyone really in need of a deep political debate take a look at what Cherniak has to say about first-past-the-post and electoral reform.

The at least once list

2005-07-05T16:06:00.000-04:00

With summer now in full-on hot mode I'm sure everyone is thinking about anything but politics. Seems like a good enough idea to me.

In the part of my life free of blogs and politics (well mostly) I have a couple of friends who maintain that one has not truly lived life to its fullest without, at least once, being totally and inexcusably hammered. They're talking about the kind of drunk where it seems perfectly reasonable to try and continue a conversation with a potential (longshot) bedmate after having vomitted down the front of one's tuxedo shirt or the sort of inebriation that leads rather normal individuals to pass-out face first into the birthday cakes of total strangers. This is not just the wearing of silly hats and dancing to Mexican music drunk.

In general this argument has a sort of appeal to me in a ying-yang way of not appreciating the good (being pleasantly under the gentle control of a few glasses of wine) without having seen the bad (see tuxedo story above). What I really want to explore though is: What else should be on the list of must-dos?

Candidates must be rather non-specific (i.e. "kissing a Roman brunette on the Spanish Steppes in May" would not make the cut) and as universal as possible. Over the next couple of weeks I'll consider this: What experiences are necessary, or at least desirable, to be able to say you have lead a rich life?

Rona Ambrose on Childcare

2005-06-29T14:34:00.000-04:00

Macleans has this article on childcare that I'm sure most people have (like me) gone to from Paul Wells's page.

I'm waiting to see how the plan would accomplish directing more help to lower income families but so far it looks like an excellent idea. At first I thought that this debate was dividing along the tired lines of city vs. country with each of the two major parties playing to their respective strongholds. The Liberal plan would give a better programme to those living in centres with populations big enough to support centralised care while the Tory plan would allow for more flexibility for rural Canadians. Ms. Ambrose makes the interesting points that families from ethnic minorities (more likely to live in cities) seem to choose relatives as caregivers and therefore would benefit more from the Tory plan. Seems pretty accurate.

I'm wary about this idea of emphasising workplace daycare because I feel, quite strongly, that when very necessary auxillary benefits like childcare, and health benefits are attached to employment we see economic distortions because people are forced to hold onto their current job for dear life. It also makes retraining and continuing education more difficult.

That being said on balance this plan is much better than the piecemeal, government controlled idea that the Liberals have been driving for the last decade or so. As it is the public education system (especially at younger levels) is saddled with a desire to be (unsuccessfully) consistent instead of effective. Children (and their parents) have enough pressure to meet the social desires of government through education; there is no good reason to force them into similarly socialist society-building roles at an earlier age. Leave parents with a choice before this becomes another out-dated sacred cow that no one is ever allowed to consider changing.

This is one policy area where I quite wholeheartedly support the CPC position.

P.S. I tend to agree that Ms. Ambrose is a bright light in the party. I don't mean to objectify but she looked particularly fetching during QP yesterday when she was grilling the Liberal goalie on this issue.

Economic History Tidbit

2005-06-25T10:22:00.000-04:00

Burkean Canuck has a very interesting article here on what could have developed, in 1995, into quite the crisis for the Canadian dollar.

I take two things from his article: The bonds of Commonwealth may have saved us from an economic disaster; and I'm not quite sure I'd give all the credit for the political pressure to the Reform Party.

Update: Note the "not" that has been inserted above.

Things you can't say in Canada

2005-06-22T20:37:00.000-04:00

Things have been pretty slow around here lately so it must be shocking to have two posts in one day, oh well.

Margaret Wente had a particularly good article in the Canadian Reader's Digest about Canada's own sacred cows. (HT: Daifallah)

As I posted in Adam's comment section my addition is that I really really prefer fake maple syrup to the real stuff.

Right-wing Echo Chamber

2005-06-22T16:42:00.000-04:00

When I start to feel too confident about Tory chances in the next election or forget why I never joined the Reform Party I turn to one website: Freedominion.ca.

The amount of vitriol and naked hatred expressed on the various forums of that site are truly unequalled. Before I get into further details I should note that there are a number of intelligent, tolerant posters and results of many forum polls indicate that there is a quieter more moderate faction of visitors--definitely a minority though.

First some general impressions:
1. The term "red Tory" to many fd posters means "communist spy in the Conservative Party". I kid you not--many of these people are still fighting the Cold War in their minds and the sneer when they so much as type the word "red" is palpable even through an online message board.

2. Almost without exception these people love those childish nicknames for their political enemies. You know: Fiberals, LIEberals, Libranos (or alternately with a "$"), etc. Frankly, I have a strict policy of ignoring any argument that resorts to such churlishness.

3. Victimisation and inferiority complexes flow like water on a flooded Alberta farm field (sorry bad choice of metaphor). If, like me, you thought that the existence of western separatists had the same logical support as the existence of the Easter bunny take a look at these forums (well, more for the existence than the logical support). A large number of the site;s visitors strongly feel that the western provinces would be better off on their own.

4. A curious contradiction: Jounalists and pundits who speculate about a hidden so-con CPC agenda are bigots; politicians from Ontario and eastwards are, by nature, corrupt.

Now some specific examples (I'm not sure how permanent these addresses so my apologies if links fail):

1. Racism: Some guy named Lenny says:

I think Morgantaler and his kind should go live in the third world. He could be busy 24/7 with abortions over there, where they truly need it.

Morgantaler would be doing them a favour...

2. Sexuality Intolerance: A couple of weeks ago a thread entitled "I'm a Homophobe" appeared and lasted for quite some time. This thread essentially comprised of people discussing both why they don't want to have any contact with homosexuals and why this isn't in fact a fear (phobia) but rather simple intolerance.

Now a thread called "Happy Pride" is drawing attention from the more reactionary posters. A snippet from ABC:

And the freak show continues. These are supposed to be well-balanced and mentally stable. Yeah, sure.

3. Anti-Quebec sentiment: in a thread called "One Nation, One Language" a poster named brianwalsh (a particularly offensive creature, btw) said:

Yes, english should be the official language of Canada.

Quebec should be allowed to do what they want and Ottawa has to deal with Quebec in French when needed.

I rarely can tolerate more than ten minutes worth of reading the dreck that spews from these forums without feeling sick. I am quite disappointed that bloggingtories.ca choses to feature a box that links to recent topics on their frontpage. Just another reason not to join that particular blogroll.

Light Summer Reading

2005-06-17T09:23:00.000-04:00

I'm reading A Killing Joke by Mark Daniel right now and loving it. It's a mystery/thriller type book that is doing an excellent job of filling my books-that-don't-make-you-think quota for the summer.

The combination of unpredictable action and quirky English characters has, so far, made this the most entertaining book I've read in a long time. I never fail to be amazed at how much better the English (and the fictional characters they create) are at using the language we and the Americans share with them.

The Longest Yard

2005-06-15T10:54:00.000-04:00

Saw the newest Adam Sandler movie last night. I admit that going in I wasn't expecting much. Maybe just the usual sacchrine sports movie mixed with some of Sandler's usual bathroom humour. Unfortunately this movie was totally, unabashedly horrible.

The Longest Yard had a headstart with me because I have become, for the most part, desensitized to the usual failings of the amateur sports genre. I spent many rainy summer days of childhood at the cottage watching such classics as The Sandlot, Angels in the Outfield, Little Giants, and The Mighty Ducks. (What was it about the early nineties that made these movies so popular?) I'm also a fan of the more adult-oriented sports movies like Rudy, Bull Durham, Tin Cup, and Field of Dreams. That all being said I simply hated The Longest Yard.

It managed to fail on all possible counts. It got the football part wrong. For instance, you'd think that with Michael Irving--a celebrated NFL receiver--starring in the movie he might have mentioned that so long as a play starts before the clock runs out it gets to be completed. The self-effacing humour (e.g. Burt Reynolds as the grizzled coach who ends up putting himself in for that big play) falls flat. Worst of all, Sandler more often plays the dopey, downtrodden chords of his repertoire (like we saw from him in Spanglish) than the over-the-top funny we got in The Wedding Singer, Happy Gilmore, or Big Daddy.

I hope that Michael Irving and Chris Berman both are razzing for their wooden performances as much as possible by their broadcast colleagues once football season starts.

Private Healthcare

2005-06-13T15:02:00.000-04:00

I admit it, I'm a Canadian who considers himself well-informed on the topic of Canadian politics and yet I don't have a well-defined rapturously held view on the future of our healthcare system.

Here are the rather disconnected pieces of a conclusion that may at some point lead me to a more solidified opinion:

1. If someone can pay for healthcare and is willing to do so elsewhere (i.e. the US) than they should not be denied the opportunity to do so in Canada.

2. In the States it seems that, other than the insurance fiasco, quality of care is the biggest disparity between the services given to those who pay top dollar and those whose bill is footed by the government. The best way to avoid this is not by caring about who the payor is but by paying attention to who the payee is. In other words if the government maintains it's monopoly on healthcare infrastructure there will be no future situation where those unable to pay for healthcare will be able to look to the shiny, efficient, private clinics with justified indignation while they fend off drug dealers and hookers in the waiting rooms of public hospitals.

3. Directly connected to point (2) is my feeling that I care much more about protecting the (constitutional) right of citizens to be healthy than the potential right of potential private providers to make a profit. I know that it's fashionable to suspect governments and their employees of gross inefficiencies that can be solved by privatisation but I don't think this applies here. The public good will not be served by allowing private companies to offer the same health services now offered for free.

4. Instead the government should fill any and all excess capacity (I know there isn't much) with patients willing to pay for certain services. The profits from this should be immediately invested in increasing capacity. Also, the federal government should be given jurisdiction to coordinate this effort. It is better that someone in Winnipeg who is willing to pay for their MRI be sent to Calgary than to Cleveland.

I've Been Tagged

2005-06-06T08:07:00.000-04:00

1. Number of books I Own

Probably somewhere between 300 and 400. As a kid I collected an entire (unfortunately for its value, slightly mismatched) set of the original Hardy Boy books. I've since added a wide variety of fiction and non-fiction to my library.

2. Last Book I Bought

I recently bought William Kaplan's second book that deals with the Airbus scandals: A Secret Trial, Brian Mulroney, Stevie Cameron And The Public Trust. I'm reading it right now and I definitely am finding it quite illuminating. I haven't read either Stevie Cameron's book or Kaplan's first book that is basically a response to Cameron. I understand though that in Secret Trial Kaplan takes a more balanced approach to the scandal.

3. Last Book I Read

I'm ashamed to admit that I decided to take a break from intelligence and read one of John Grisham's books--Runaway Jury. Oh God, it was absolutely horrible. I foolishly remembered Grisham's novels (like The Firm, Pelican Brief, and The Chamber) to be exciting, compelling, or suprising--if not challenging or enlightening. Runaway Jury was just boring and basically uneventful. I hear that the movie is even worse.

4. Five books that mean a lot to me

No Surrender; Reflections of a Happy Warrior in the Tory Crusade by Hugh Segal
More than any other book this inspired my current political affiliation. Segal is one of the biggest name politcians that I have had the opportunity to meet and talk to for more than a quick exchange of pleasantries. He's compelling both in person and through this book.

Rebel Angels by Roberston Davies opens my eyes to the bright side of CanLit. Throughout school no matter how hard I tried I just couldn't swallow the novels we were forced to read by the likes of Atwood, Munro, and Mowat. Either the male characters were total one-dimensional tools, everyone raised silver foxes, or there were more animals as characters than people and while this may constitute life in Canada for some I just couldn't believe that no one was writing about the vast number of interesting experience going on around me in a Canadian city. I suppose Fifth Business and The Manticore are better examples of Davies at his best but Rebel Angels earns bonus points because the first edition cover featured Trinity College's Episkopon Tower.

I have read almost everything Richler has published but Barney's Version is by far my favorite. I suppose I'm drawn to the fatalistic mischief that all of Richler's characters--no matter what their age--exude. Also, I can identify with the Jewish/WASP romantic entanglements with which Richler seems obsessed.

At one point in my life I could not get enough of historical accounts of First and Second World War battles. I read many of the the best such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Rise and FAll of the Third Reich, and A Bridge Too Far but the one that reasonates most with me is The Guns of Normandy by George Blackburn. This exhaustive account of the Canadian artillery as they valiantly supported the Allied push through northern France is unequalled. Well, maybe only by The Guns of Victory which is Blackburn's account of the rest of the road through France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany for those brave Canadians.

One of my deepest interests, that I don't blog nearly enough about, is cooking. I'm fascinated by how a little effort and scientific thinking can so dramatically change the food we eat every day. The bible as far as scientific cooking goes has to be On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee. No one more completely dissects the principles of biology, chemistry, and physics at work in the kitchen.

Exclusive: Transcipts of Unedited Grewal Tapes

2005-06-03T08:59:00.000-04:00

That's right folks I have a transcript of the unedited Grewal tapes. I got this, like, oh, two weeks ago but it was on a Mac disk and I was too lazy to convert it until now. I swear I have not in any way altered it and I think it would be best if I release what I have in ridiculously unrepresentative small portions.

I have taken the liberty of bolding the sections that seem to have been re-arranged to produce parts of the tapes released by Grewal.

UD: Well, Gurmant I thought I should have you over so that we can discuss how there is no offer on the table, never has been an offer, and never will be an offer.

GG: Uh, okay. Hey, Ujjal do you like my tie pin?

UD: Yeah sure, it's hella cool.

GG: Great, would you mind talking clearly and directly into it?

UD: Uhhhh, sure...

UD: Oh that must be the pizza, excuse me.

UD: Oh wow, it looks like the pizza delivery boy is Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. What are you doing delivery pizza, Tim.

TM: Oh, hi, Ujjal, I'm just trying to pick up some extra cash on the side. That is a nice doormat you have there. It is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it.

UD: Yes, thank you. I'm sure rewards are there at some point, right. No one can forget such gestures but they require certain degree of deniability. Right, you understand things.

TM: Yes...deniability. Please don't tell the PM that I am moonlighting. The big guy would demand free pizza and you know how mad Sheila would be if she found out I was helping him cheat on his diet.

UD: Hey Tim, why don't you join us for some pizza. I was just talking to Gurmant here about how we can make absolutely no deals for him to cross the floor. [whispers] He seems to have reached a zen acceptance of this and seems to enjoy shooting the shit so what the hell, right?

TM: Yeah, sure.

[Eating noises heard in background]

UD: This is good pizza. You know who really likes pizza? Joe Volpe, Belinda Stronach, and Scott Brison.

GG: Hahaha...what a rascal Joe is. It is good that I don't think he libelled me with those accusations and I definitely will not be suing him.

TM: Yeah, it would definitely be inappropriate for us to ask the Ethics Commissioner to issue an interim report on your behalf, Gurmant. Well, I should get back to work now.

[to be continued...]

Polling: Updated Numbers

2005-05-31T15:46:00.000-04:00

It has been about two weeks since I first posted moving averages of the national polls that have been released. I want to post now an update of the two moving averagers (7 poll and 15 poll) because things have changed quite significantly from my last post. These tables and charts are based on the polling data posted on Nodice.ca up to and including the poll for May 28, 2005 from Decima. For a more complete explanation of methodology please see my first post on this topic.

Date	Lib 7MA	CPC 7MA	NDP 7MA	BQ 7MA
April 11, 2005	35.86	30.03	17.36	11.23
April 12, 2005 (3rd)	31.57	31.6	18.07	11.66
April 23, 2005 (2nd)	29.23	34.7	17.99	12.28
May 3, 2005 (2nd)	31.36	31.5	17.43	13.14
May 11, 2005 (2nd)	32.51	30.71	18.27	13.31
May 17, 2005 (2nd)	30.71	31.14	19.14	12.57
May 19, 2005(1st)	29.72	32.43	19.2	12.51
May 28, 2005	33.96	29.9	18.77	12.37

Note: The ordinals (e.g. 1st) listed above distinguish between two polls listed on Nodice.ca with the same date. Lower ordinals are further down the page.

And the 15-poll moving average:

Date	Lib 15MA	CPC 15MA	NDP 15MA	BQ 15MA
April 20, 2005	32.24	32.14	17.69	11.69
April 29, 2005	29.31	33.47	18.03	12.43
May 17, 2005 (2nd)	31.37	31.2	18.26	12.81
May 28, 2005	32.52	30.32	18.75	12.79

Note: The ordinals (e.g. 1st) listed above distinguish between two polls listed on Nodice.ca with the same date. Lower ordinals are further down the page.

As promised for those who are graphically minded here are illustrations (click the images for larger versions):

Graph of seven poll moving averages.

And the longer term representation:

Graph of 15 poll moving averages.

Conclusions:
1. For both averages the Liberals have pulled ahead. In both cases their lead is not yet as significant as the Tory lead was at its height in April.
2. This point very well could be a turning point. If the Liberals solidify their lead and manage to break the 40 point barrier in an individual poll they will definitely have the momentum solidly behind them. Conversely if they cannot maintain their lead for more than four or five polls (the Tories led in 13 consecutive polls in April) the situation will remain volatile (both tactically and strategically) and the impetus for the CPC to force an election will not have been lifted.
3. I imagine that the summer recess will cause a sharp drop in polling frequency and unless an election call again becomes imminent (not likely) we will not have enough data to assess the permanence of this Liberal break-out until well into September or October.

Polling: My (Further) Analysis

2005-05-31T10:18:00.000-04:00

It seems that my earlier post on polling in federal politics has attracted the attention of a commentor who apparently is Glen P. Robbins of ROBBINS SCE RESEARCH. In the comment section for that post he made some comments that have made me think some more about polling and my analysis. I will be posting, sometime today, an update of the moving averages I posted earlier along with some nifty graphs.

Mr. Robbins makes two points that I would like to deal with in this post. First he says:

We think the snapshot in time idea has outlived its usefullness, and often serves to be as much an apology as anything else. "Nailing" the numbers is important because we are measuring the relative values of art and science in a poll. The science is of course the statistics which can be as complex as one wants it to be. The art is understanding, or getting a sense of what is happening over a particular time in history.

I have to agree that in some cases the "snapshot in time" characterisation is what he claims--apologism for inaccuracy, or worse. The problem is that when a company like his conducts a poll before an election has even been called they can't possibly expect that poll's results to hold for an indefinite period of time. Perhaps, the compromise that I see is that as polls are conducted closer to the election day they should move (quite naturally) from being useful as a "snapshot in time" to a predicted outcome. I'm not really sure what he means in the last sentence where he talks about the art of polling. I view polls as a tool that represent themselves as scientific. If he is saying that they should be an end onto themselves and that hard data should be re-interpreted by either changing the methodology of asking the questions or of presenting the results I would have to strongly disagree. I may be confused as to what his point here is though.

His other interesting argument is:

One thing that has to be considered, and I present this as a critic of the current polling culture, is the relationship between the establishment, including government, and the media.

...

Accordingly, it is our contention that there are more pollsters who have had historical relationships with Liberal governments and if polls are inclined to lean towards one party over another, it would be the Liberals (the establishment party), than the Conservatives, or the N.D.P.

Between these two main points of the argument he makes specific claims about the biased nature of the media and the polls they comission. If you like, see the comment section of the post linked to above for his argument in toto.

Frankly, this argument that Conservatives (and others outside of government) have made popular is growing very tiresome. There may be a media bias against the CPC. Some reporters and commentators definitely display a flagrant bias. Polling companies may be complicit. The problem is that it is a foolish argument to make because it is not at all testable. I firmly believe that some reporters or commentators or even entire media outlets have a definite bias. The argument depends on a convulated, and circular path that goes something like this: 1. When in government the Liberals reward their friends (put aside the obvious Adscam corruption style of reward for now) in media; 2. This media helps the Liberals stay in power by pumping them while dumping the opposition; 3. The voting public, for whatever reason, does not perceive or is not critical of these biases; 4. This uncritical voting public re-elects Liberals and the cycle perpetuates. The counter is: 1. People generally agree with Liberal policies; 2. Media is just trying to sell more product by giving people what they want; 3. Governments are only trying to use the best tools available to communicate with the population about important programmes. This boils done to an unresolvable chicken or the egg problem. Which came first: People agreeing with Liberal policy or Liberals pre-disposing people to like their policy?

Furthermore, no one is willing to recognise that biases go both ways. For every right-winger who accuses the Toronto Star of bias there is a left-winger who says the same about the National Post. They are both wasting their time and energy arguing unproveable arguments.

It just seems like people making these sort of conspiracy arguments are refusing to "play by the rules". Whenever they lose an argument by being presented with data like an opinion poll they claim that data is biased. And then they claim that these biased polls create biased election results. My point is that both sides will cheat and it seems like people are more or less equally divided in their opinion between the Liberals and Tories and therefore the resources for cheating will be equally distributed. And that's why I feel that the averaged result of these polls will provide a clearer picture of where public opinion really lies.

Vast Christian Conspiracy

2005-05-27T15:42:00.000-04:00

From CalgaryGrit and Kinsella I read that the Globe and Mail has its front-page knickers in a knot today about the fact that...gasp...Christians have won the Conservative nomination in several ridings. Okay, I realise that in many cases these are rather evangelical, somewhat fundamentalist Christians but still, why is this such a big deal?

First and foremost, if one looks at the list here of these supposedly scary candidates the realisation quickly sets in that many, if not most, of them are lame ducks who happened to beat out slightly less popular, but more moderate choices to be a lame duck. For instance, there is no way that Alexa McDonough is going to be unseated by this Andrew House gentleman or that Hon. Diane Marleau will be upset by Kevin Serviss. In fact of the eleven listed over at Buckets of Grewal only David Sweet and Ron Cannan really seem to have a decent chance of winning.

I don't mean to add to the cacaphony of broken records pointing to the thirty-plus Liberal MPs who are firmly anti-SSM, but, well, I will. Isn't it pretty much expected that every party will have its fair share of nut-job, lame duck candidates? Also, where is the attention being given to the ridings like Kingston and the Islands or Ottawa West Napean where the moderate candidates took the CPC nomination?

Stephen Harper's Leadership

2005-05-26T09:57:00.000-04:00

After his party's defeat on the budget vote of a week ago the calls for Stephen Harper to step down have been coming from many unexpected corners.

I considered writing a full-length post on why I think Harper should stick around for another election but in the interim this excellent post showed up at Tilting At Windmills--a superb blog, by the way--that pretty much encapsulates what I was going to say. In summary: now is definitely not the time to switch horses, Harper may not be ideal but he is better than any other option and keeping him is much better than the internal division a leadership fight would cause.

Update: An excellent article on what Harper should do between now and an election (hat tip: Daifallah). I would add that Harper should not only act prime-ministerial but the important MPs around him should start acting more ministerial. For instance Monte Solberg (now finance critic and a leading contender to take on that ministry should the CPC win) should start talking about the Tories' fiscal plans as if he is already the Minister of Finance. Also, Harper should consider spending a significant portion of the summer living, with his family, in either southern Ontario or Quebec. The delayed election date means that a majority victory is not impossible (for either party) and to accomplish this a personal connection with some of the areas where improvement is needed can't hurt.

Plan B

2005-05-24T09:45:00.000-04:00

So, it looks like Cadman bought into this "wait for Gomery" idea enough for him to vote with the government. Where does the Opposition go from here? I posted on this before the last two weeks of shenanigans but here it is again with significant clarification.

There are four options for when an election could be held:

1. Keep trying for early summer or very early September.
This seems the least attractive of all options. If the Tories somehow manage a non-confidence vote at the end of the June session they may be able to force Martin into calling a summer election campaign that would, like 1984, have an election date in the first week of September. People, so we're told, don't like summer elections but how do they feel about summer campaigns? Judging by the intensity of the last month probably not very positively.

2. Fall, before the first Gomery report.
The problem is that the closer we get to the Gomery reports the more justification the "wait for Gomery" argument holds. If we were able to wait this long what difference is another two months going to make? Doors should not be closed on this option because unexpected circumstances may make it more attractive but this should not be what Harper is aiming for.

3. When Martin wants it, in January or February.
The only example of a federal election in January or February that I could find after 1965 was when Joe Clark went down in flames during the 1980 election. This election date has to be avoided at all costs. There is little doubt in my mind that now that the Gomery reports may be delayed by the re-scheduling of the fraud trials waiting this long for an election will give the Liberals time to release another budget that is fiscally conservative and introduces what little tax cuts are still possible after all the recent spending. The only way an election, under these conditions, is winnable for the Tories is if some white knight arrives in the interim to replace Harper. Unlikely at best.

4. Plan B: After the first Gomery report.
I have blogged before that I think Canadians will be quite disappointed if they expect some bombshell--or even decisiveness--from the Gomery report. There is some group of Canadians convinced that the Liberals are corrupt. Another group convinced that Martin is innocent and the corruption was very isolated. Neither of these care what the report says, their opinion will not be changed by it. That leaves those calling for us to "wait for Gomery". I suppose the question is how many of these are voters who will vote Liberal no matter what but need to hear a judge say that there is no evidence specifically implicating the Martin government and how many feel the opposite but want to be seen supporting due process?

The Liberals seem to have made the mistake of putting all of their eggs in the Gomery basket. In my opinion there are only three possible outcomes of Justice Gomery's report: A clear and decisive exoneration of Martin and all his allies; A clear and decisive indicment of Martin or at least a significant portion of the LPC-Q; or a conclusion that rests uncomfortably between the two. Obviously, if the second option occurs and Gomery implicates the Martin team, Martin is screwed and the NDP will be unable to continue their support. This is not entirely impossible considering Justice Gomery's unpredictable, independent streak. And the first option is not entirely impossible, in which case Harper would have to run on only policy. The problem, for the Liberals, I think is that the third option--inconclusiveness on the extent of the corruption and Martin's proximity to it--is the most likely option. I don't for a moment believe in the "Paragraph K" conspiracy theories but I think that a lot of the voters who would consider voting CPC but want to hear the report will be disappointed with the result of the report. Gomery cannot wave a magic wand that will separate fact from allegation and divine what actually happened any better than someone paying relatively close attention to the trial.

The problem for the CPC is that this dissatisfaction with the first, fact-finding report will be short-lived. Forty-five days are scheduled between its release and the publication of the final report that will only deal with recommendations for improvement. Martin has scheduled another thirty days for him to call an election that will have a campaign of thirty-six days or more. There is no way that this amount of time can pass and Canadians will still remember how disappointed they felt at having to wait for the inconclusive Gomery report.

The CPC can benefit most by planning to force an election as soon after the first report as possible. I believe Canadians can easily be convinced that it is that report that matters and that it should be another party in office to implement Gomery's changes. After the first report the due process, innocent until proven guilty, wait for Gomery argument will have evaporated. Objectively an election campaign held between the two reports will also force both parties to top each other by promising reforms even more stringent than what they expect from the second report. IMHO, the best part of this plan is that Liberals who truly believe they are innocent, and think that Gomery will say just that, have little reason to oppose this idea.

Empire Day

2005-05-21T07:55:00.000-04:00

Happy Empire Day! I hope everyone will be consuming twenty-four of their beverage of choice this weekend.

Question Period May 19

2005-05-19T15:03:00.000-04:00

The trust fund: Tory and Bloc MPs seem to be a little out of control on this matter. I think though that the Liberals should have stuck to the previous strategy. Now that they have established a trust fund they have opened the door to continuous complaints that it is not enough.

Murphygate: I guess it should be a warning signal that the only questions on this issue came from the Bloc and the NDP. On the other hand Martin did evade denying that it was Murphy's voice on the tape.

Stronach: Good to see that she's picked up the ability to repeat the same exact line four times over two questions. Also good to see her sitting in the Rogue's Gallery with Dryden and Brison.

Does it matter anymore?

2005-05-19T09:16:00.000-04:00

It seems to be fashionable today for (moderate) Tories to link to Kinsella (by the way, Mr. Kinsella if you're going to (rightfully) criticise Mr. Spector for his low-tech site you should at least institute permalinks on your own) as a pointer for how we're feeling about the Grewal story.

The Liberal apologism begins here, or at the very least it's careful prevarication until the story is forgotten. See the comments section on that post for some vaguely intelligent questions on Grewal's story.

The fact is that I don't think it matters. I don't care if Grewal approached them I don't care if Dosanjh says he told Grewal to cross the floor. I don't care how carefully Tim Murphy chose his words. I don't care if Murphy refused to offer a Senate seat until after the vote. I don't even care if there are no legal ramifications for Murphy and Dosanjh.

The tape makes it clear that the PMO was open to doing a deal to have Grewal change his vote. The fact that Murphy tells Grewal that an abstention is better than crossing the floor shows that he doesn't want Grewal to represent the democratic will of his constituents, he just wants to make sure that today's vote goes the right way. Our legal system, or at very least our system of ethical government, must surely hold as its purpose to separate those who act unlawfully with that intention from those who don't. Not to separate those who choose their words carefully and talk in hypotheticals from those who don't.

The Grewals

2005-05-18T21:06:00.000-04:00

In past I've shied away from blogging about breaking events--often because I usually don't watch enough tv to know about anything while it's still "breaking"--and I don't want to get too excited about this because the story definitely has two sides...But Gurmant Grewal is alleging that he was offered consideration in the form of appointments for him and/or his wife if he would change his vote or abstain tomorrow.

It's clear from the tape that the deal Tim Murphy was proposing to Grewal was: if you abstain on Thursday we'll talk turkey after that. No outright "go to hell, the Prime Minister wouldn't sully this country by making those sort of deals," no "act on your principles," no "this meeting is over."

Grewal's name has been in the media this week because of a leak from Volpe (or someone with access to information that they shouldn't have) that Grewal and another Tory MP are being investigated over two separate immigration issues. Now, obviously this accusation muddies the waters significantly. On one hand if it's legitimate it gives Grewal a motive for entrapping the Liberals. Look at the allegation though and compare it to the admittedly shaky ones made against Judy Sgro. Clearly, Grewal is closer to innocent than Sgro was. On the other hand if negotiations with Grewal were breaking down Volpe has a motive to sully his name and leak the information to the press.

The big problem is that at the end of the portion that Mike Duffy played Tim Murphy says that he'll talk to Volpe. Implying, I think at least, that the immigration complaint would have been taken care of. So, either the allegation is frivolous and appropriately dismissed by the minister who originated it (and therefore shouldn't have been made it in the first place) or the PM's chief of staff is offering to make a serious problem "go away."

If nothing else, Ujjal Dosanjh, confirmed that it really doesn't take much for the Liberals to take someone seriously when they say "let's make a deal." He didn't say that this sort of patronage was something you don't do for anyone because it's wrong he said it's something you don't do for Gurmant Grewal because he's not a big enough fish. As well, I don't care who started it. I don't care if Gurmant Grewal went fishing. The fact is that a cabinet minister and the PM's chief of staff bit--hook, line, and sinker. I hope I don't come off as exaggerating or emotional but Martin is seriously looking more like Richard Nixon every day. I have literally gone from respecting him while he was finance minister, to wanting to defeat him for political and partisan reasons when he took over the leadership, to now utterly disliking the sound of his name for what he has done to the public institutions of our country.

A couple asides: 1. I really dislike this new Mike Duffy show. Maybe it's something about being hungover but he was a lot more tolerable on Sunday mornings. He seems to be constantly mistreating his panel--he called one by the wrong name tonight and asked her for her opinion only as "a woman from Nova Scotia." 2. RIM really must be laughing all the way to the bank with the free Blackberry press they've been getting from politicos like Duffy and Solberg. Anyone else notice that the message clearly said that Duffy was "BCCed"? I wonder if he realises what that means?

Peter

2005-05-18T15:45:00.000-04:00

If you ever want to run again for the leadership you have my vote. See here.

A better way to look at polls

2005-05-18T11:20:00.000-04:00

Well, this post was Belinda-bumped yesterday. I thought about holding it until more post-rat polls come out but that blindered, biased boob named Jim Travers pushed me over the edge when he claimed on Don Newman's Politics that the Conservatives have a ceiling of thirty and the Liberals have the same as their floor.

I don't know if I've mentioned it before but Nodice.ca is a great resource for tracking polls. They seem to post poll results soon after they're released and present them in an easily comparable format. A quick look shows that two polls published within five days of each show a ridiculous swap of support. On May 11 Decima reported a Liberal lead of 37-28 while on the 16th Robbins SCE Research (whoever the hell that is) reported a Tory lead of 35-27. That's seventeen points of lead change in five days!! Obviously both of these polls can't be right. Or at least can't provide a sustainable picture of what will happen between now and election day.

Many partisans have tried to sort through this deluge of unclear polls and have pointed to reasons to discount polls they don't like. Such as: This is the first poll done by this company; A company is run by known partisans; The poll asked unfair lead-in questions; The poll was done over too many (or the wrong) days; The poll doesn't ask for Green support; Not enough people were surveyed. There is probably a measure of truth and relevance in all of these objections. The problem is that partisan devotion often causes one to over-emphasise the objections to polls that paint a bleak picture for one's own party. It is just too difficult to objectively balance the negative effect of all of these objections. I think the better way to consider polls and the momentum they supposedly represent is through a series of moving averages. The noise from both sides should cancel each other out and provide a more gradual, and accurate trend line.

Using the numbers available at Nodice.ca for the thirty-three polls published between February 4, 2005 and May 17, 2005 I created a spreadsheet and calculated both the moving seven-poll average and the moving fifteen-poll average for the four major parties. Between February and mid-April polls were taken about every three weeks. Since then the frequency has dramatically increased to about one every three days. On one hand this may seem inaccurate because the changes in opinion for February may be represented by one of two polls while the changes in April might have twelve or fifteen data points. On the other I think it is an accurate representation because of how closely the last month has mirrored the attention given to politics during an election campaign. Each data is more likely to represent a distinct change because more attention equates to a higher chance of changing affiliations.

Date	Lib 7MA	CPC 7MA	NDP 7MA	BQ 7MA
April 11, 2005	35.86	30.03	17.36	11.23
April 12, 2005 (3rd)	31.57	31.6	18.07	11.66
April 23, 2005 (2nd)	29.23	34.7	17.99	12.28
May 3, 2005 (2nd)	31.36	31.5	17.43	13.14
May 11, 2005 (2nd)	32.51	30.71	18.27	13.31
May 17, 2005 (2nd)	30.71	31.14	19.14	12.57

Note: The ordinals (e.g. 1st) listed above distinguish between two polls listed on Nodice.ca with the same date. Lower ordinals are further down the page.

These six polls from thirty-three represent the points of interest for the two major parties. In other words they show either where one party's advantage in terms of moving average reached a local maximum or where the moving averages crossed. I'll see about getting a graph of this posted here for those who are visual-minded.

The trend(s) represented in the table seem to be: 1. Liberal lead collapsed by April 12; 2. The Conservatives reached the height of their lead by April 23; 3. By May 3 it was back to a dead heat; 4. The Liberals regained a 2-point lead by the 11th; 5. Right now we are back to a dead-heat. I've mainly ignored the lesser parties but it seems that the NDP is trending upwards.

This comparison has the obvious failing that it concentrates on a short time frame--seven polls represents as little as seven days between April 23 and April 30. So let's look at the fifteen-poll moving averages:

Date	Lib 15MA	CPC 15MA	NDP 15MA	BQ 15MA
April 20, 2005	32.24	32.14	17.69	11.69
April 29, 2005	29.31	33.47	18.03	12.43
May 17, 2005 (2nd)	31.37	31.2	18.26	12.81

Note: The ordinals (e.g. 1st) listed above distinguish between two polls listed on Nodice.ca with the same date. Lower ordinals are further down the page.

As should be expected the trend here is much more gradual. 1. The two main parties start in a dead-heat on April 20; 2. The Tories take a four point lead by the 29th; and 3. The parties are back to a dead-heat.

The second poll published yesterday is really an interesting technical point. It gives the Liberals a scant lead (33-31) but because it pushes different old polls out of each of the averages it gives the Tories a slight advantage in the seven poll average and the Liberals a slight lead in fifteen poll average, both compared to the opposite situation after the one poll before it. I.e. this is a crossing point, on both graphs, going opposite directions.

Conclusions:
1. Jim Travers is totally useless when it comes to poll analysis. It looks like the CPC ceiling right now is more like 34.5 and the Liberal floor is about 29.
2. Short term momentum is even while medium term momentum is barely with the Liberals.
3. Obviously the Stronach switch is a major fundamental change that might make this technical analysis quite obsolete. I'll update this again in a week or two when things settle down (or get more excited).

We have no bananas

2005-05-17T21:36:00.000-04:00

I should say this now so that it doesn't totally sound like sour grapes later. Now that a Martin win on Thursday has gone from possible to plausible we should see why the confidence question last week was extremely important. Imagine our reaction if this were to happen in a republic (thank God and HM that we aren't one of those) that actually does grow bananas. The opposition wins a vote that they consider a confidence vote. The government disagrees. Experts are, at best, divided. The government stalls for ten days. In the interim a member of the opposition party is appointed to the government and the balance is swung. Amnesty International and Kofi Annan would be calling for a "multi-nation intervention force."

This is precisely why it was constitutionally necessary for the PM to call a vote of confidence last Wednesday. I was blog-surfing in a bit of a haze today so I apologise to whomever posted the inspiration for this point. See blogroll at right.

UPDATE: Ben's right it was his quote of Cosh that got me thinking about this.

Belinda Stronach: The Impact

2005-05-17T11:22:00.000-04:00

Okay, I feel better now that I've gotten past my initial reactions and personal distaste for Ms. Stronach. How does this change things? The implications of this major development can be looked at in the short and longer term.

There still will be a vote on Thursday and there are three general possibilities.

Stronach makes the count 151-151 before Kilgour and Cadman are counted (assuming Parrish votes Liberal and the pairing goes ahead with Efford and Stinson).

1. The Opposition wins because either both Kilgour and Cadman vote with the Opposition or one of them votes Opposition and the other is absent. This means an election immediately. Stronach has no impact.
2. The government survives because the independents split or both vote for it. No election. Stronach has a major impact.
3. Something else unexpected happens. Could be Hearn and Doyle vote for the budget or some other wacky side-changing takes place.

I admit that two seems to be the most likely option. Kilgour seems 75% likely to vote against Martin, and Cadman seems to be 50-50. But seriously, at this point anything could happen. More Tory MPs might jump ship. Disenchanted Liberals that we haven't heard from in a while may now fear that Martin will use this new momentum to pass SSM legislation before an election and jump the other way.

We now have two Tories (Stronach and Brison) who have gone from running to be leader of the opposition to cabinet in the government. If I were an up-and-coming backbencher who had put my time in I'd be pretty pissed off. If I were Martin I'd be worried that I had just welcoming a potential successor into the fold. Again this is a move that makes Martin look like the washed-out gambler pleaded for another "double or nothing". If he still loses the Thursday vote and can't pull out a better electoral showing his goose is cooked. Obviously, if this is the move that turns things around he looks like a brilliant strategist.

Longer term the impacts of this move will really have to be addressed. In my previous post I mentioned that I think the prominent Tories (Davis, Harris, and Mulroney) who brought Stronach into the party will have to at least implicitly disavow her. If not, the more right-wing elements of the CPC will justifiably see this as the old PC machinery undercutting Harper's leadership. The Conservatives will also have to worry about the supporters that will migrate to the Liberals with Stronach. While I didn't buy her as a viable leadership candidate some did and were willing to accept Harper in the interim. Peter MacKay or someone else will have to work hard over the next six months to show these supporters that there are reasonable options to the left of Harper.

Not all is lost here. Cadman and Kilgour may still vote against the government. If not, it's still possible to portray Stronach for what she is: a rather vapid, appearance-obsessed, opportunist.

Belinda Stronach: My Reaction

2005-05-17T11:00:00.000-04:00

I had a technical analysis of the polls half-written but I guess fundamentals have changed things drastically.

I admit that I am disappointed and angry at Ms. Stronach because of what her actions have done to the electoral chances of the party to which I am loyal. I hope that I can sufficiently put these emotions aside to produce an objective post on this turn of events.

My first impression at hearing this news was that this seems like an obviously self-interested move. Ms. Stronach says that she has fundamental disagreements with Stephen Harper, fine. So do I sometimes. Her options, as I see them were:

1. Vote in favour of the government last Tuesday (or absent herself)
2. Vote in favour of the government's budget this Thursday.
3. Couple 1 and/or 2 with a public statement of her position.
4. Leave the CPC and sit as an Independent.
5. Leave the CPC and resign her seat.
6. Cross the floor to the Liberals.
7. Cross the floor and accept a cabinet position.

Of those seven options she chose the only one that substantially increases her personal standing in government without giving consideration to principle. I find it extremely galling that she has the nerve to declare, through stage tears, that this was a difficult decision. The cabinet appointment makes it clear that she drove a hard bargain and Martin was forced to accept her on her terms.

I just hope that Bill Davis, Mike Harris, and Brian Mulroney wipe the egg off their faces fast enough to come out soon with leaked statements cutting her loose.

UPDATE: Just as an aside and I know it's pretty superficial but did anyone else notice that while she criticised Harper for not understanding Quebec he was able to answer questions in French while she was not?

Does Martin really want to win the May 19 vote?

2005-05-12T13:10:00.000-04:00

Much of this post will be hypothetical speculation, for that I apologise. Unfortunately this speculation at least tangentially involves the health of two respected legislators, and for that I apologise even more profusely.

So, here's the question: Does Martin want to win the vote next Thursday or does he just want to be sure that he loses on the budget and not something else? I guess there are four cases:

1. Positive Martin win:
All 307 MPs are there. Either through Newfoundland Tories or all the Independents voting for him Martin gets a majority. And it is clear that had everyone been in attendance he would have won on the 10th. If it takes Milliken's vote it's a TKO but he still does win.

2. Negative Martin win:
Both ailing Tory MPs are absent and only two of the three Independents vote for the government. This produces a tie vote broken by the Speaker. In this situation Martin would have lost on the 10th even if everyone had been there but now looks to be capitalising on illness.

3. Martin loss:
Some combination produces an opposition majority. What combination is really irrelevent unless the two Tories from Newfoundland manage to vote in favour of or abstain from voting on the budget and it still fails.

4. Martin meltdown:
I place the likelihoood of this happening at somewhere around .01%. Broadbent said Tuesday's vote was a confidence vote. The future of the corporate tax cuts is uncertain. What if the Liberal-NDP pact falls apart before the budget comes to a vote?

To return to the principle question, what can Martin do even if he gets a "positive win"? After the media firestorm this week can he really expect to stay in government until next January? I suppose he truly believes that he can.

Even more to the point what does he do with a negative win? Of course, this situation is only caused by the fact that Cadman and Kilgour have childlishly (yes, I said it, and neither of them will be reading this so what does it matter?) refused to stay committed to one side or another. Total silence from them would have been barely acceptable but they have both been flip-flopping so many times that credibility is definitely waning. Can he risk the possibility that Harper's inexcusable, low-blow (yep, said that too) accusation was right on the mark? Doesn't that put us into a "summer election is acceptable all bets are off" situation?

At least with a loss he can hit the campaign trail running and look more like Layton than Harper on the "we're here for government not power" front. Would he be willing to take a dive on the budget vote next week if it looks like the combination of absent, ill MPs and independent votes might produce a negative win? This is a "through the looking glass" moment for Canadians when backroom maneouvres come to the forefront. IMHO, the only party that will benefit from Canadians seeing the jabberwocky that is the Canadian parliamentary system is the one that most prominently features democratic reform.

Confidence Crisis

2005-05-11T09:54:00.000-04:00

The intractable position of the Martin Liberals has gotten so much attention that I don't think I could provide anything new and intelligent to the debate. Coyne seems to have a very good analysis with excellent links here and here.

The crux of the matter seems simple: No member of the House could have voted for this motion without desiring the government to resign; and no member could vote against it without desiring that the government not resign. It is an instruction to a committee to change a report but it does not give the committee any option other than to amend the report such that it calls for the government's resignation. What the committee does is irrelevant because they do not represent the confidence of the House, this motion does. I firmly believe that if the government does not consider this motion clear enough they must introduce a strict confidence motion of their own.

IMHO, this motion may not be new budget legislation. At this moment the House's confidence in the government is, at least, in question. For the government to do anything other than explicitly put forward a motion saying: "This House has confidence in this government's ability and legitimacy to continue governing," would be unconstitutional. I freely admit that a budget vote is what the Liberals want and what the Tories don't want.

Blackberries and backstabbers named Kilgour

2005-05-10T22:36:00.000-04:00

Call me a Luddite but I'm not sure what I think of members using their Blackberries from the floor of the House. Oh well, can't stop progress. RIM must be happy.

Monte does seem at least a little surprised that Kilgour voted with the Liberals. There has been some mumbo jumbo about Kilgour voting this way now because he buys the it's a non-non-confidence vote and isn't sure how he'll vote when he thinks it counts. Yeah right.

Anyone else notice that Carolyn Parrish had to poke Kilgour to remind him to vote?

Interpretations of Vulnerability Index

2005-05-09T13:20:00.000-04:00

In an earlier post I used predictions posted on electionprediction.org to produce a numerical representation of how vulnerable each party's current seats are if an election is held this spring. I found that 36% of Liberal incumbents are vulnerable, while only 21% of Conservative and New Democratic MPs, and only 2% of Bloc MPs face an uphill battle.

Evaluating the predictions

The longer the period of time between now and election day the less valuable current predictions become. Right now the folks at ep.org have been cautious and have not predicted any incumbent defeats yet. Instead, it seems, they have chosen to list races where the incumbent might be defeated as too close to call, for now.

This coming election will be much easier to correctly predict than the last. First, where we usually have four to five years between elections we now only have one. Also, last election, predictors were forced to try and estimate how well the previously split CA and PC vote would come together. That's not a problem here. Finally, this time around there are no boundary changes that have in past made it difficult to extrapolate from historical results.

In general, I feel quite strongly that this election is an ideal situation for organisations like ep.org and their predictions.

Interpretations

Both the CPC and the NDP are in similar positions with about one-fifth of their incumbent MPs vulnerable. Except for a couple of rare cases in Ontario and BC these vulnerable seats will go either to the party that now holds them or to the Liberals--it is unlikely that a seat would switch from Tory to NDP or vice versa.

The Bloc has their seats all but locked up. Only one BQ seat is currently listed as too close to call. No where to go but up.

On a riding-by-riding basis the Liberals are in a worse position compared to the other parties. One-third of Liberal MPs are vulnerable enough that their ridings are currently listed as TCTC.

Conclusions

These numbers should be an obvious explanation for why the Tories and Bloquistes are eager to have an election this spring while the Liberals do everything in their power to avoid one.

A majority government is next to impossible. There are 124 seats all but locked up for all parties other than the Tories and 129 for all parties but the Liberals. Either one would have to both protect their base and gain a large number of the available seats. If we have an election before July 15 and we don't see the sort of monumental campaign blunder that only happens once in a generation the numbers more or less rule out a majority.

I am not sure how much stock to put in this argument but some will say that secure seats mean available resources that can be allocated elsewhere. I'm skeptical of how useful a brigade of Stetson-wearing Albertans would be to the Tories on the streets of Toronto or if Liberal volunteers from Toronto could help stave off Bloc wins in several Quebec ridings. I suppose this may be a factor on the issues of allocating funds and in choosing where to send the party leaders. Martin will have to concentrate more on saving incumbents while the others can work for new gains.

Within two to three weeks we should know if we are going to have a spring election. I believe that between now an election call the momentum for that election will be established. A strong indicator of who will benefit from an election will be the party who starts to have TCTC races assigned to their challengers. Also, if predictions begin to pull more of a party's incumbent ridings into the TCTC column we'll know that that party is in trouble.

Electionprediction.org and Seat Security

2005-05-09T10:35:00.000-04:00

Along with nodice.ca and politicswatch, electionprediction.org is a must-view for those obsessed, as I am, with the potential for a spring election. At EP.org they are fairly good predictors--see the track records posted on the front page of the site--and are an excellent source for information on the "local colour" that can determine close races or point to races that are more about the local candidates than about the national policy, polls, and leaders.

They have now begun accepting comments and making predictions for the yet to be called 2005 federal election. The choices for predictions are Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc. or too close to call (TCTC). After a casual inspection I've noticed that they are understandably conservative (in the very small-c, non-political sense of the word) in their predictions. As far as I can tell the choices are either that the incumbent holds the seat, the race is TCTC, or there isn't enough information (comments) to make a prediction. I think it would be interesting to see which party's seats are considered the most secure, and therefore which other parties have the most opportunity to improve.

Here are the results of my data collection:

National	Incumbent	TCTC	No Call	Total
LIB	72	49	15	136
CPC	77	21	2	100
NDP	13	4	2	19
BQ	39	1	13	53

Notes:
David Kilgour counted as a CPC. I know he's not but they have already called this as a CPC seat so if I were to count it otherwise it would be the only predicted incumbent upset.
Chuck Cadman counted as a CPC. His riding is right now called as TCTC, but the only race would seem to be between Cadman, if he chooses to run as an independent and whomever the CPC fields.
Carolyn Parrish counted as a Liberal.
Even though it's vacant Labrador counted as LIB.

So, by dividing the number of Too Close to Call seats held by each party by the number of seats that the party currently holds we can see that the raw vulnerability index for the parties is:

Party	Vulnerability Index (% of current seats)
Liberal	47.06
Conservative	23
New Democratic Party	31.58
Bloc Quebecois	26.42

The problem here is that No Calls are counted the same as races that are too close to call (i.e. against the incumbent). It seems that there are a few reasons for a "No Call" either a riding is very predictably safe for the incumbent and therefore no partisans have an interest in either "pumping" or "dumping", or a riding has a possibly retiring incumbent or the candidates haven't been picked. Also, there seem to be a high number of No Calls in Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario number may be because there are just so many ridings. If someone considers themselves an expert on Nova Scotia politics it is easy for them to post a comment on all 11 Nova Scotia ridings and thereby trigger a prediction on all of them--EP.org seems unwilling to make a prediction until a comment is made so it may just be that the Ontario "experts" haven't gotten around to commenting on all of the ridings. The same numbers argument can also be applied to Quebec. Additionally, because most of the Quebec No Calls are concentrated in BQ ridings we might assume that a language barrier exists--even though many comments are in French.

I think it would be more accurate to produce an Adjusted Vulnerability Index by counting the No Calls in favour of the incumbent. This produces:

Party	Adjusted Vulnerability Index (% of current seats)
Liberal	36.03
Conservative	21
New Democratic Party	21.05
Bloc Quebecois	1.89

No big surprises here. The Liberals and BQ reap the most benefits from this adjustment. We know that the Liberals are strong in Ontario, especially in urban and suburban ridings that are more likely to swing. Also, no one was expecting the Liberals to win many (or any?) seats from the BQ so no one should be shocked to see the BQ number so low. I'll be posting my conclusions and interpretations in another post this afternoon.

Meanwhile back on the ranch...

2005-05-06T11:06:00.000-04:00

What was that I wrote yesterday about a total mess of our democracy? Looks like the beat goes on...

Pundits, especially rank amateurs like me, have an extreme tendency to express personal dislike, bordering on hatred for those politicians with whom they disagree. I really can't understand this. Frankly, I wouldn't at all mind inviting Bill Graham, Ralph Goodale, Irwin Cotler, or Stephane Dion to dinner. I wouldn't vote for them but I can appreciate how they are all intelligent, well-meaning types who seem genuinely interested in serving their constituents. I must say though that Tony Valeri--or whoever is pulling his strings--is undoubtedly the greatest unrepentant, clownish jackass Parliament Hill has seen in a long time. First, he was responsible for the lunatic idea of proroguing Parliament until after Gomery, then for cancelling opposition days, and now he has declared that only the government will decide which confidence votes count.

The setup for this declaration is in itself ridiculous. Harper introduced an amendment to a report, which I'll be the first to admit seemed to me like a rather arcane route for a confidence motion but without opposition days or budget votes he really had no other option. Valeri objected to the amendment, in writing, on a variety of grounds with obvious effort and consideration. His objection was not a general "Mr. Speaker this motion is out of order" it was obvious that he considered the motion important and worth fighting. Peter Miliken, the Speaker of the House, and a Liberal MP, ruled Harper's motion in order. Now, Valeri is announcing that he and the PM will disrepect Parliament and the authority of the Speaker by ignoring this confidence vote should they lose.

It isn't quite time to start applying for a license (this is still Canada, after all) to set up a booth selling blue scarves to protestors on Parliament Hill. I admit that there is a good (say 50%) chance that the government will win this vote. And a decent chance (say another 50%, so 25% of the total) that should they lose Martin will realise the lunacy of ignoring Parliament and will do the right thing and call an election. Another quarter of the time we will have a constitutional perfect storm. The House will have voted its lack of confidence in the government and the PM will still try to cling to power. Duceppe says he will then have to talk to the GG, Harper says he would consider doing the same and she would be forced into deciding whether or not to call an election. Oh yeah, and if that isn't enough Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the HRH The Duke of Edinburgh will be here on a royal visit. Early in April when talk of a spring election began some speculated that it would be uncomfortable for Her Majesty to be in Canada during an election campaign. Well how would she feel about a constitutional crisis? I assume that the royal visit will have to be cancelled soon if at all.

Speaking of constitutional perfect storms: Would the royal presence supercede the authority of the Governor-General in respect to calling an election? Could Harper or Duceppe appeal to Her Majesty if the GG denies their request for an election?

This issue has not come to a head yet, and it won't unless the government loses this vote on May 18. I willingly admit that we are still more likely than not to avoid a showdown but if it happens this will be the perfect opportunity for the monarchy and its faithful representative to prove their importance to the Canadian democracy.

How about we take a moment to reflect?

2005-05-05T11:15:00.000-04:00

Certain rightwing blogrolls were a-buzz yesterday with speculation that the "left-wing media conspiracy" was doing its best to bury the story about Chuck Guite's testimony. I realise that as far as character points go Chuck Guite is near the bottom of the Adscam pile, and that his story changes frequently but by dinner time the CBC had bumped the story from the front page of its website. (Incidentally, today's Star found Guite deserving only of a seventh page story with a very small front page pointer that talks more about the government spending sponsorship money in China.)

I'm generally quite cynical of these media-conspiracy theories so I decided to watch the National last night and see if Peter Mansbridge could be accused of the same level of biased reporting. I was happy to find the CBC lead with a rather complete account of Guite's accusations including his implication of Paul Martin. They did not give short-shrift to any of he controversial points while still reminding us that Guite's testimony record is much darker than lily white. My pleasure soured quickly as I continued to watch and see what stories had been bumped from the lead by Guite. I am, of course, referring to the V-E anniversary in the Netherlands.

I don't care who is to blame or who travels where to attend which ceremony but seeing the story of how genuinely grateful the Dutch, particularly those who are much, much too young to remember firsthand, are to Canada I couldn't help but feel a deep sense regret. I tried to imagine the response in Canada to schoolchildren being educated about their history by participating in programmes that maintain and beautify foreign cemeteries. I tried to recall one universal example of what Canadian parents point their children to and say, "look at them, they are why we are free." I tried to think of what the answer would be now to that admonishment: "Canada needs you." I didn't dare to even try and imagine what it would be like to have spent months at a time covered entirely in mud while stray bullets and falling shells constantly promised a horrible, random death.

I don't care what you do but I will be taking a break for at least today from the mess we have all made of this democracy of ours to reflect.

The world needs more of Canada. Canada needs more of the Dutch.

Dirty, but criminal?

2005-05-03T22:43:00.000-04:00

It is unconsionable that Paul Martin or one of his cabinet ministers would think of altering the outcome of a confidence vote in the House by offering MPs Senate or diplomatic positions. Yesterday the characterisation of these supposed actions went from just "underhanded" to "criminal". (See Wells and Coyne) I, therefore, offer a short history of MPs who have left parliament for greener pastures whose gates were opened by the PM:

I've gone back thirty years (starting with the parliament that was elected in 1974) and found six examples of MPs who were appointed directly from the House to other governmnet positions. Peter Stollery, and Stanley Haidasz were both appointed to the Senate by fellow Liberal Pierre Trudeau. Erik Nielsen (PC) was made chairman of the National Transportation Agency by Mulroney and Gerard Pelletier (LIB) was made Ambassador to France by Trudeau. So far only friendly-party appointments.

More interesting though are Mulroney's appointment of Ian Deans (NDP) to chair a government committee and Trudeau's of Claude Wagner (PC) to the Senate.

I don't know if Martin wants to depend on precedents set by Mulroney and Trudeau on the issue of Senate patronage but there clearly is a past history of MPs being appointed directly from the Lower House even if they don't belong to the PM's party.

Would offering Inky Mark a Senate seat so that he votes a particular way while still in the House be criminal? Almost definitely. But would offering him the seat so that he will have resigned from the House and not be able to vote at all, be criminal? Maybe not. If theoretically the appointment did go through Mark would still have the opportunity to vote against the budget implementation bill in the Senate. I don't think the fact that Martin has something obvious to gain (avoiding a spring election) would make this appointment legally different from the ones cited above where Trudea and Mulroney had something less specific to gain (reducing the number of opposition MPs by 1). What do I know though?

I'm also suspicious of the fact that Mr. Mark claims he was called by a cabinet minister directly. Seems to me that if you want to pull something this under-handed you'd have your "trusted advisor" (or even better one belonging to a backbencher) call his "unidentified staffer" to see if something could be worked out. I guess maybe negotiations made it past this stage when Inky got cold feet and someone (Peter McKay for instance) convinced him to blow the whistle.

N.B. The research for my historical examples was, admittedly, a bit rudimentary and leaned heavily on the excellent articles in wikipedia.

A True Canadian Icon

2005-05-03T14:01:00.000-04:00

For my first official post as a member of the Red Ensign Brigade I thought I'd reflect on the beauty of one of Canada's cultural relics. What, I ask you, could be more Canadian than...the stubby beer bottle?

I admit I was a mere four years old when the beer companies switched to the long-neck bottle. Still, the stubby always held a great deal of mystique for me. It was the beer pictured in old beers ads, and you could always count on finding a couple stubbies with faded labels for defunct brands whenever exploring a disused attic or remote swamp at the cottage. To this day I am amazed that a bottle, which at first glance, appears to be quite a bit smaller than the modern long-necks can hold exactly the same amount of amber goodness.

This is one great example where nostalgia and logically-sound thinking come perfectly together. On top of the fact that it is Canadian, and evocative of summers at the cottage the stubby also has its long-necked cousin beat on several practical grounds. The website stubby.ca does a good job of recalling the bottle's commercial history and notes some of its obvious benefits but here is a summary:

Easier to store, ship, and package because no space is wasted by the empty neck and surrounding air;
Chills faster because more bottle is in contact with the cool surrounding air;
More environmentally sound because a stubby can be refilled more times than the newer bottles; and
Because of the wider base and lack of a portruding neck it is less likely to spill.

Though I, of course, don't recommend littering I've recently discovered that the stubby is far better suited to be thrown as far out into the lake as possible on a (drunken) hot summer night.

I'm heartened by the lead taken by Brick Brewery three summers ago to re-introduce the stubby to southern Ontario. I don't hold out much hope but I would really like to see the major breweries follow Brick's lead and bring the stubby back to the entire Canadian market. Cheers!

Update: I don't throw beer bottles into lakes. For more on this please see the comments section.

Blogging Affiliations

2005-05-03T13:01:00.000-04:00

It seems to have grown popular to talk widely on Can-pol blogs about either joining partisan or non-partisan groups of blogs, or starting your own. I've considered joing Blogging Tories because well, I am a Tory who blogs. Problem is that once the election is over my focus will definitely shift from 80% politics to something like 8% politics. Still may happen--not sure yet though.

The one group I have decided to join is the Red Ensign Brigade of blogging Canadians. Here is the reason given by Ben Sharma who frequently comments on and is linked from a friend's blog. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that all one needs do to join is "fly" a red ensign and link to that post on ghostofaflea?

My reasoning is very similar to Ben's--I fly the red ensign for reasons of nostalgia and respect for the values that were represented by Canada when it was still our unofficial official flag. I entirely understand that there are a lot of aspects of our society that have been bettered since 1965 and don't in any way want to align myself with racism or foolish reactionary hyper-conservatism.

The Maple Leaf Forever! God Save the Queen!

Update: Mea Culpa. Seems that the Red Ensign Brigade is a bit more selective than I thought. In order to join an email must be sent to the organiser. All is well now, though.

Second Update: I've now implemented the Red Ensign blogroll as part of my site's template. I really like this script from the good people at flooble.com. Granted visitors to the site have to go to a little extra effort (clicking on the little "+" sign) to see the blogroll but I think this far outweighs the negatives of three-screen long blogrolls that crowd each other out.

Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubher

2005-05-02T12:22:00.000-04:00

After reading a review of this book in Esquire and seeing one of the authors on The Daily Show I decided to see what everyone is talking about.

I am someone who enjoys a spirited debate (hence the blog) and have often been known to try and start conversations with lines like, "so I've just read something really interesting..." Unfortunately, over the weekend I made the mistake of combining this tactic with the position Levitt is most famous for--that the decline in violent crime that started in the early nineties has more to do with the legalisation of abortion in the early seventies than anything else.

Usually, I'm careful to introduce these lines only around friends and family that are used to my debating desires but this weekend I made the triple faux pas of introducing a troublesome topic (abortion) around strangers (a friend of my cousin) and under adverse debating conditions (a bottle and a half of red for me, about eight tall cans of Bud for him). Admittedly, I wasn't totally surprised that Levitt's theory met with anger just the ferocity of this anger and some of the arguments made to refute the claim.

Most popular argument: There was no drop in the murder rate. This point wasn't being championed only by "Bud" either. It seems that the intelligent people (Bud included) with whom I was arguing believe that politicians always lie (not too shocking, Adscam was cited as proof) and statisticians and police forces were widely complacent and willing to help these politicians by producing false statistics (!). I tried to point out that this means that they are contending that the statistics were accurate until a point when politicians and their statistician buddies suddenly became more dishonest. Arguments that thinkers like Levitt would have been careful to make sure their data was accurate; that vested interests exist both for exaggerating murder rate and for understating it; and that of all statistics the murder would be very difficult to manipulate because of how public each murder is all fell on deaf ears. I then pointed out that challenging the "facts" of the argument were unfair especially when such a challenge was based on little more than emotional prejudice about politicians and statistics in general. Needless to say, that is where the intelligent debate ended and the name-calling began.

From this exchange I can conclude that: there is a good reason not to even mention "abortion" around people who you aren't absolutely certain agree with everything you have to say on the matter; and a lot of people are very cynical about government, logic, and academic thinking unless it jives with their personal views based on emotional responses. I highly recommend that everyone take a look at this book though. No background in statistics or economics is at all required to appreciate the logical detective work that the authors have obviously put into it.

New Polls and Momentum

2005-04-29T11:29:00.000-04:00

As for these polls specifically, are they outliers? Maybe. Do they indicate a turning point where the Liberals will march to 45% support and a majority government within a couple of months? Probably not. Do they show that the Liberals have a chance at retaining a minority governmnet if an election were held this spring? Yes. But didn't we already know all that?

The Liberals seem to have the electorate behind them on election timing and have scored a couple of points for the budget deal. Martin himself proved in the early 1990s that fiscal conservatism sells in Canada it just takes a bit of convincing. This new deal definitely is not fiscally conservative. On the other hand Gomery is back under a publication ban. It seems that these bans work in the favour of the opposition because when they are invariably lifted the most salacious points of a few days' testimony is compressed into one "explosive" story.

After Guite the report from the forensic accountants is also coming up. I have no foregone conclusions about what this will say. The "no clear evidence to link the Liberal Party to illegal donations" and "there is a clear pattern of orchestrated money laundering" seem equally likely. Accountants aren't known for reporting in quotable, exciting terms. Mind you, it was one Sheila Fraser who opened up this giant can of worms in the first place.

Personal Ban on Predictions

2005-04-29T10:48:00.000-04:00

The two new polls that show the Liberals re-taking the lead have proved two things are possible. First, voter intent is very volatile right now--these swings cannot be explained only by the usual undecideds making their minds up. Or secondly, some of these polls are quite inaccurate. Obviously, these are not mutually exclusive choices.

In order to avoid looking like a buffoon I'm offiicially imposing, on myself, a ban on making grand predictions until an election is officially called. Including predictions on when that will happen.

A tall glass of water

2005-04-27T22:01:00.000-04:00

I wonder if anyone else noticed that obvious, regulation size, pub-issue pint glass full of water sitting on the lectern in front of Stephen Harper while he was making his most recent declaration of war against Martin.

Kind of sums up his personality, huh?

The finances of the budget deal

2005-04-27T15:27:00.000-04:00

Coyne has tracked down where the money will come from to pay for Jack Layton's insisted-upon spending amendments to the budget. So if I may summarise here is how the back and forth went:

-Layton asks Liberals to get rid of the tax cuts and increase spending
-Goodale and Martin say these tax cuts are necessary and won't take effect for half a decade.
-Martin and Layton make a deal to implement the spending Jack wants but when announcing the deal fail to clearly explain where the money is coming from.
-Martin vows to re-introduce the large business cuts as separate legislation.
-Turns out that the spending will be paid for from contingency and prudence reserves that were earmarked for emergencies or if not needed to pay down the debt.

I'm not the loudest voice calling for debt repayment but all the same it seems disingenuous that Layton and the PM would make it seem as though this new spending were being paid for by eliminating corporate tax cuts when in fact it is being paid for by eliminating part of the debt repayment plan. But I suppose for some the prospect of a tough election for "Canada's natural governing party" is a situation worthy of government contingency funds. Seems like more shaky ground for the fiscally conservative Liberal MPs.

Layton's Deal

2005-04-27T09:04:00.000-04:00

Jack Layton and Paul Martin have agreed on the deal that everyone was waiting for them to come to.

I admit that I predicted that this wouldn't go through but I think my analysis of the long terms effects hold.

Layton: Nothing but good here. If voters are mad about Adscam and were considering the NDP there is no way they're now moving to the Tories because of this. Maybe Green, but doubt it. (BTW, he's much better on the radio than tv, he could have been PM fifty years ago.)

Martin: I still don't see how this helps him. What electoral difference does "we got our budget passed" and "we tried our hardest to get our budget passed" make? Only imaginable advantage is that he lives until he can prorogue for the summer.

Harper: Does look like he was left out of the minority parliament's dealmaking. Might consider abstaining on the budget if he's sure NCV will pass soon after it. Again, this Harper-BQ alliance talk is really pissing me off. Concurrent desires does not equate to collusion. The Conservatives are not separatists. (Also note that Harper does not have a separatist as his Qeubec lieutenant, see: Jean Lapierre.)

Finally, what about the numbers on all this. No one seems to be talking about the absent MPs any more. Is it assumed that they're well enough to make it to the Hill if they have to? Also, I can conceive of a situation where Chuck Cadman or David Kilgour would vote for the budget but against the government in a subsequent vote of confidence. This would fit their MOs as political opportunists--not that I blame them.

Bill Bryson--Highly Recommended

2005-04-26T22:57:00.000-04:00

Here's a break from the political yada yada...

Over the last couple of months I've had the chance to read four of Bill Bryson's books: A Short History of Nearly Everything, A Walk in the Woods, Neither Here Nor There, and Notes from a Small Island. Why read four books by one rather unknown author? Good question--let's see about some answers...

A Short History

The concept behind this book is that Bill Bryson one day realised how little he knew about the fundamental scientific principles that shape everything. His solution was to get in touch with as many experts as he could, get them to explain their body of work, supplement this with some historical research and then write an hilarious book that helpfully relates what he learned. His timeline is organised chronologically and moves smoothly from the Big Bang to human evolution.

The writing is Bryson's usual laugh-out-loud funny but what makes this book so noteworthy is that it gives very informative insights into the scientific subjects that are so far from Bryson's usual travel writing. In this book he accomplishes the rare feat of educating and entertaining. I'm sure that specialists in specific scientific fields will be able to point to what they consider egregious errors but that really is besides the point. Though admittedly general this book is so well-written and researched that it is one every non-science type should make time for.
A Walk in the Woods

After reading Short History I was impressed enough with Bryson to do some research into the rest of his work. Turns out that he's a writer of travelogues. Extremely funny travelogues. Of the travel-themed Bryson books I've read this is definitely the pinnacle.

In Walk Bryson decides that he is going to conquer the giant Appalachian Trail, on foot, accompanied by his overweight, addiction-troubled, high school buddy Katz, who incidentally he hasn't seen since their post-graduation tour of Europe. I won't ruin any of the hilarious jokes by describing how foolish an endeavour this was but suffice it to say that at least it was funny.

This book is troubled by the same third quarter disease of his other travel works (see below) but at least his cause is one I could relate to, the preservation of natural wilderness hiking environments, and he manages to conclude on the same funny note he started with.
Small Island and Here Nor There

I've grouped these books together because they were the last two I read and, moreover, because they are so damned similar. While in Small Island Bryson tours England, Wales, and Scotland by foot, bus, or train he does pretty much the same for continental Europe in Here Nor There.

I guess here I should get around to mentioning that Bryson was born and raised in the US but moved to the UK in his mid-twenties and had worked there for two decades before moving back to the States. I don't know what part of this culture heritage (or perhaps his age) caused the subtle xenophobic tone of these two works. In both he seems to find it easier to complain about the lack of familiar comforts than to appreciate the local colour. He also has a tendency to spend much of his time (at least as he writes it) searching for places to get himself drunk. And not the sort of young, world-may-care drunk we expect of someone in Paris or Rome but the surly, depressing drunk more appropriate for someone pushing fifty traipsing across foreign countries without his family.

As alluded to above after about the halfway his funny engine runs out of gas and the writing is propelled by either a mostly annoying cause he wants us to join (please won't you help save England's quaint coastal resort towns) or just a morose desire to be home. It would seem to me that this sort of intense homesickness would be one of the few disqualifying qualities for a travel writer. I guess not.

Don't get me wrong, both of these books have extremely funny parts to them--especially when is recalling the times he and Katz had touring Europe as teenagers. I guess I would have been considerably more satisfied with these two if I had read them before his much better, and more recent, offerings.

Star Conservative Candidates

2005-04-25T16:23:00.000-04:00

As I have been harping recently, the chances of the CPC meeting and beating expectations rides strongly on the slate of candidates fielded. Last week and over the weekend the growing number of announcements and rumours confirmed that the CPC leadership shares my view. Apparently John Reynolds (CPC campaign chair) has a list of 200 star candidates that in a perfect world he would want to run in the ridings not held by Tory MPs (or vacated by retirements such as his own). I thought I might compile some of the speculation here:

Definite, at least as candidates for nomination:
John Baird
Lawrence Cannon - Pontiac
Jim Flaherty - Whitby Oshawa

Somewhere beween plausible and probable:
Peter Kent - St. Pauls
Russ Courtnall - somewhere in Vancouver
Dennis Furlong - NB
Patrick Lynch - NB
Elsie Wayne - Saint John
Bernard Valcourt - Restigouche
Josee Verner - Quebec City or thereabouts
Frederic Tetu - "
Maxime Bernier - "
Jacques Gourde - "
David Young - Willowdale
Tony Clement - Parry Sound Muskoka
Greg Kerr - NS
Blair Lancaster (Miss Canada winner)
Barry Tuner - Ottawa South

Very unlikey but still rumoured:
Donovan Bailey
Marc Garneau
Ron Maclean
Rick Hansen
Scott McCain

I, admittedly don't have any extraordinary contacts within the CPC so these may be totally off-base or my categorisation of the candidates may be inaccurate. Sources are the April 15 and 19 posts from Heard at Hy's, this G&M story and another that was de-linked from the front page while I was writing this.

Also, I don't necessarily equate recognizability with winnability. Many of these potential candidates (e.g. Peter Kent and Tony Clement) would be facing cabinet miinisters if they ran in the ridings indicated. Some CPC riding associations may choose more involved, local candidates over these stars.

Bottom line though is that it's obvious which way the momentum is going.

Let's Make a Deal

2005-04-25T16:07:00.000-04:00

The current election story is Jack Layton's proposed deal to Paul Martin that would cancel the budget's tax cuts for business in favour of more social spending. Many bloggers have considered the strategic implications of this deal for the three federalist parties.

The angle that I think may have been missed is the possibility that Layton is being very cunning with this proposal (not jus his usual used-car-salesman-vanilla cunning). Layton has made it clear that this deal only affects his party's support of the budget bill. What if Martin accepts the deal, the NDP votes for the budget but then against the government in a subsequent vote of non-confidence?

Seems that Martin would get a very little (his budget passed) and Layton would get a lot (proof that the NDP can be a policy force plus an election to reap the rewards). This scenario would totally negate the negative perception that Layton is making a deal with the devil to prop up a corrupt government but would augment his slime factor. I don't know that Jack would really be bothered by that possibility, not because he's genuinely slimy but because I think he would realise that it just wouldn't cost him many votes in the long run.

Now obviously this sort of situation would be totally unacceptable to Martin. He would lose votes to Harper for getting in bed with the Dippers, and to Layton because now the Dippers seem like more feasible bedmates and would be stuck with his dreaded spring election. This is why I think Martin will make one of two counter-proposals, either: too low for Layton to accept; or a more comprehensive deal which guarantees NDP support on NCVs as well as the budget. Media reports seem to indicate that the former is more likely.

A non-spring election by the Calendar

2005-04-22T15:15:00.000-04:00

Martin says (roughly): "I'll call an election 30 days after the final report"
Martin hopes we hear: "We're innocent until proven guilty as judged by Gomery."

People seem to at least in part be buying this argument so let's see what it actually means:

Here is the Gomery schedule. The final report will come 45 days after the interim fact judgment report that supposedly establishes guilt or innonence. Martin then says he'll call an election within 30 days that will last at least 36 days of campaigning. He may call it sooner or the campaign may be longer--I think it pretty much evens out.

So, while Canadians think they're holding off an election until Justice Gomery decides what is true and what isn't we would in fact be waiting for that plus 111 days for the Liberals to distract attention from the supposedly all-important inquiry determination before we got to cast a ballot. That's an approximate date of February 21, 2006 which is exactly ten months from yesterday.

If this were truly a matter of fairness or justice and not political optics and agenda control Martin would have proposed an election date of, say, November 15 which would have given Canadians two weeks to consider how Justice Gomery had sifted the testimony and decide whether or not they agreed with his conclusions.

Adscam by the Numbers

2005-04-22T13:55:00.000-04:00

The political commentary over the past month that culminated in last month's speeches makes it clear that when Canadians go to the polls the parties are all pretty much agreed that they will have to, at least in part, ask themselves some questions about the Sponsorship Scandal. They'll have to judge the depth, breadth, and scope of the malfeasance. In my opinion these are the central four questions of the sponsorship issue:

1. Was public money, allocated under the auspices of the sponsorship fund, misspent? That is did it go places that weren't the ideal(.5), legal, and ethical means of accomplishing the goals set out by the programme?

2. Was public money knowingly misdirected to those who were not doing the work they had been contracted to do (1.5) merely because these people were the known supporters of the governing party, or associates of elected or public service officials?

3. Was the Liberal Party of Canada's apparatus in the province of Quebec knowledgeable (2.25) of or responsible (2.5) for indiscretions? Was money directed to LPC causes either directly or indirectly (by paying Liberal operators to do Liberal business) (2.75). Does the level of corruption indicate that it possibly could have been even more widespread (i.e. programmes other than sponsorship).

4. Did any elected officials, still candidates of the LPC know of these trasgressions? Or did any elected officials benefit from this malfeasance to the extent that they rightfully should have known what was going on?(3.5) Did any current Liberals have a hand in creating or directing this corruption?

We know that this happened in enough cases with enough money for the size of the transgressions to be irrelevent--arguments that this was only XXX million in a XXX billion dollar budget don't wash. The question for Canadians will be two-fold how far up the meter of corruption does this scandal go? And how far up does it have to go for you to move your vote elsewhere?

To use this categorisation numerically let's say that to score a full point the broadest definition of the question must be met. I've indicated places which I think are naturally breaking points for believing part of an accustion. I think that I have set the scale up such that if part of (2) is true then all of (1) must be true and so forth.

0-1 Everyone, including the PM admits this happened, it's a given. In fact people have come to believe it about just about everything the government does (Liberal, Conservative, federal, or provincial).

1-2 I think this is pretty much also commonly accepted.

2-3 Here is where the true crux of the matter falls. This is where the Liberals raise the parallel organisation of ne'er-do-wells argument. If the public universally believes all of this accusation to be true I think all but the most ardent Liberal supporters will vote for other parties.

3-4 Watergate level. This really is tough to imagine. Maybe Chretien had a part in directing or approving this particular corruption but Martin almost definitely didn't. But if it were true guaranteed CPC majority.

So, if we're to quantify the level of corruption on this proposed scale I posit that about 85% of Canadians would agree that it lies somewhere between 2.0 and 3.0. The other 15% have vested interests or emotional encumberances that prevent them from being logically convinced otherwise. In their "heart of hearts" Martin would probably assign a value of 2.0 and Harper a value of 2.75 maybe a 3.0. One believes that really bad things happened but that rogue actors were responsible; the other believes that slightly worse bad things happened but that the Liberal party apparatus was responsible and was the one to benefit.

I hope that I have illustrated my ardent belief that this really is a minute difference as far as votes are concerned. If they examine the facts after the testimony has ended and make up their own minds do Canadians really need Justice Gomery to tell them that he puts the corruption at 2.25, 2.5 or a 2.75? (Obviously he'll used much more opaque language. Also please don't take my setting up a slightly simplistic scoring system as an easy way to ridicule a more complex situation--it's just shorthand for what the numbers represent.) Will people thinking that the level of corruption is a 3.0, hear that Justice Gomery thinks it's only a 2.25 and therefore decide to vote Liberal instead? I really doubt it.

Martin's Adscam Speech

2005-04-22T09:56:00.000-04:00

Well, last night's speeches didn't really tell us anything new. The PM wants an election later, every other leader wants it sooner (well, Jack Layton will be willing to wait if the Liberals are willing to do the impossible).

The Globe has an unusually good behind the scenes article about what was going on on Parliament Hill yesterday. Sort of reminds me of SOMA, which by the way is still going strong--I saw some very young looking kids in suits carrying those blue folders yesterday.

Radwanski and Wells pretty much hit the high points of analysing the televised content. In the short term call it a win for Martin but only barely.

I only have two points to add to what everyone else is saying: 1. It may cost Martin that he has given a more definite date; and 2. If an election happens any time soon Martin is going to need a bucket of Botox.

I see the definite date (or season: winter) being a problem for Martin because now Canadians will be able to visualise what his idea of a campaign will look like: political fights at Christmas dinner, politics getting in the way of hockey season (God willing), and having to vote in a potential blizzard. Before it was just a fuzzy idea that he wanted an election later, after the report, now it's a definite a or b not a or something better.

What I meant by the botox comment is that the PM looked very very tired last night. Reminiscient of Jean Charest at the end of his federal campaign. If the (now only slightly less) inevitable happens and we get a spring election Martin will have to make an appearance turnaround if he wants to be an effective leader on the campaign trail.

The "best advice money can buy" isn't what it used to be

2005-04-21T09:39:00.000-04:00

Seriously what were Martin's handlers thinking when they proposed this lousy national address idea. This is the political equivalent of some loser poker player insisting after a night of losing that the stakes be quadrupled so that he can win back his money. A national address vastly increases the volatility of the situation and the only way to turn it positive is to make a total turnaround and deliver an entirely perfect message. Here is my breakdown of the situation.

The Optics
Okay, so in response to allegations that Chretien and co. did all these bad things that at their worst essentially amounted to campaigning for election on the public dime Martin is going to deliver a Chretien style address with the distinct possibility of an election around the corner and ask that the country's television stations broadcast it for free? How can campaigning for free possibly make Martin look better?

Is parliament really gridlocked?
This supposed parliamentary standoff seems to be the only reasonable justification for this message. But, as far as the media is reporting the only thing out of the ordinary in the House of Commons is the opposition's unwillingness to stop beating up on the government during QP and at the Public Accounts committee. Oh yeah, and the little matter of Tony Valeri (more annoying every day) trying to screw around with when opposition supply days are held because...wait for it...the majority of parliament wanted to exercise their democratic right to schedule them.

What's he going to say?
Here's pretty much what I think he'll try to say. Pretty much the same "Chretien bad, me good" and "we're trying to govern, the opposition just wants to kick us while we're down." It will be obviously close to a campaign ad and will definitely not warrant the time slot. This whole national appeal really seems like the last bomb in the arsenal and I think the Liberals will be pretty disappointed by the results if it's just the same message as the last three weeks. I really hope that Harper asks for and is given an opportunity to reply. Say about a 75% chance that we get something like this.

An unlikely possibility
He'll announce new policy moves that the Tories and/or NDP will have to agree to. This seems like the only possible way to make calling an election a campaign liability for either of them. Also opening talks with Ontario for federal money would take some of the wind out of the opposition's sails. I give this about 20%.

Even more unlikely
He'll announce something much more dramatic and unexpected like an election or prorogation or that he's asked Gomery to move his report up three months. This is especially unlikely because it's exactly what they are saying they *won't* do. All the same, 4.5% chance.

The most unlikely
Martin will talk for a minute or so then the camera will zoom out to reveal Chretien sitting beside him. Chretien will go on to take total responsibility for the scandal and talk about how much Honest Paul was a thorn in his side during all this corruption. Chretien will then suggest that we blame him for everything and ask us to vote for Martin. I hope that I clearly convey how unlikely I think this outcome is by giving it 0.5% chance of happening.

My Fellow Canucks...

2005-04-20T16:30:00.000-04:00

I wanted to get a post out today that has nothing to do with politics, and I'm working on some really good ideas in draft form but what the hell...

Apparently Martin is going to "address the nation" tomorrow night. Its anyone's guess what he's going to say (Paul Wells has two very good ones) but I can't really imagine what gains he intends to make. Either he does more of this "we're going to get to the bottom of this" and "give Gomery the time he needs to report" in which case he'll just be making sure that any Canadian who wasn't already tuned to the daily Gomery broadcasts starts doing so. ("What's that windbag talking about, eh? Why the hell isn't the OC on, eh?") Or he goes for Paul's second guess and calls an election. If just the former this really seems like a bonehead move--he just increases the volatility of the situation by jumping the gun on the campaigning and playing his remaining trump card of moral suasion. If its the latter I hopehe keeps it short so that I won't miss any of the Apprentice.

I suppose the only other totally out of left field option is that he shares the stage (literally) with Chretien who takes full responsibility and falls on his own Sword of Ego. Yeah, uh-huh.

In some ways I hope that Harper isn't accorded time to respond (and not just because that will definitely cut into Apprentice watching) because this is truly the only arena where Martin has him beat. Lengthy prepared speeches with no interplay with the PM going first are not Harper's strong suit and being PM Martin will have the authority of argument in his favour.

Parliamentary Shenanigans

2005-04-19T10:32:00.000-04:00

Over the last month as Adscam has really tarnished the Liberal image I hope that I have managed to be fair and balanced about what I've said and written. This ridiculous move to control when a non-confidence vote (NCV) can be made really smacks of desperation and manipulation. This is the sort of move redolent of Mike Harris or Charles I at their worst.

It may be irrelevent if the NDP or the Independents can't be convinced in enough numbers to support an NCV but this sort of manipulation will, in my opinion, cause much more voter outrage than pre-emptively forcing an election would.

Controlling the Debate

2005-04-18T17:43:00.000-04:00

It is pretty clear that the Liberal government will try this week to distract attention from corruption allegations by making important announcements on foreign relations and immigration. Yeah, yeah, I realise that they are in government and that they're supposed to be spending their time (and our money) governing and not just dodging pointed questions in the House, but the insider opinion appears to be pretty unanimously on the side of spin control not genuine governance.

The problem with this strategy is that it ignores what network executives seem to consider their golden rule: never throw your best new show up against the other guy's established gold. There's a reason that it took a long time before anything with the chance of popularity was aired against Friends (and by the looks of it the Kinsella/Boulay double header might be second only to Guite during this political sweeps month) and it's that you run the huge risk of wasting genuine quality for little reward because no one is willing to change the channel.

The schizophrenic pace that the government alters strategy on Adscam smacks of desperation and disorganisation.

Spring Election III: Local Candidates

2005-04-18T10:06:00.000-04:00

Local Candidates

I can't say it enough: I think the chances of a strong CPC government (125+ seats) rest soundly on the quality of the candidates that get the nomination in southern Ontario, Quebec, and some parts of B.C. These are the places where the uneasy coalition between the supporters of the old PC and Reform parties can finally produce tangible results. On this issue I find myself in disagreement with one of my favourite Tory bloggers but in agreement with Peter Mansbridge from the current issue of Macleans.

If the strikingly Liberal-negative polling results hold steady for a while some senior Liberals in swing ridings will have an important question to answer: Is running another campaign really worth it if chances are at least even that I'll find myself in the opposition benches even if I manage to get re-elected? Having a riding go high profile cabinet minister to relative unknown candidate is definitely a recipe for flux. I suppose the fact that it seems obvious that no one is going to win a majority in an election called within the next twelve months will make some of these guys less likely to retire. Presumably, the fact that they were willing to run in the last election means that they'd planned on sticking around for five years after that. Of course the more time passes until an election is called and the more it looks like the Liberals will be in opposition the more difficult it gets to predict what these senior politicians will do.

To expect even a minority government the CPC will have to run an extremely professional campaign. The biggest obstacle last time was candidates who ran their mouths off. A repeat can only be avoided if the best possible slate of 308 candidates is nominated and given a chance to install a campaign architecture before the writ is dropped. As far as I know the BQ is the only party that is at this level of readiness right now.

Polling numbers are pointing strongly towards a Conservative minority right now. I really think that Ontarians in swing ridings can be convinced that the best way to counter the western yahoo factor is to elect as many moderate Tories from elsewhere.

Wikipedia

2005-04-16T16:01:00.000-04:00

Okay, here's a post that has nothing to do with politics...my feelings on the greatness of Wikipedia.

What is it?

For anyone who hasn't, check out www.wikipedia.org for the Internet's most comprehensive open source encyclopedia. The "open source" part basically means that anyone can create or edit any article on any topic and that the history of all versions of the article and an index of who made what edits is easily available.

What's so good about it?

Well, they do a great job of arguing the plusses of their own model but the high points are basically that: it isn't bound to the usual size and time restrictions of a print encyclopedia; it doesn't have the usual regional, generational, or commercial biases; and it can provide better context for its articles because they link to each other.

What's wrong with it?

Critics justifiably point out that any jackass can surf in and knowingly or unknowlingly change an article that is accurate and correct to something else. Because there are no financial consequences from having incorrect information printed on this free Internet site there is no reason to trust it. It also lacks the academic support to be an acceptable research tool after, say, grade nine.

My Conclusions

It seems that the accuracy problem is one that corrects itself. Either because people take ownership of articles they write or that apply to their lives; or because the altruism of the project trumps the individual desire for mischief things seem to level out. Granted there are some isolated articles where controversy has obscured usefulness but these are definitely the exception and almost always where one would expect to find controversy (2000 US election results, for instance).

The issue of favouring democratic support over expertise is one where critics may have a point. In other words if a particular expert knows of a recent breakthrough in a scientific field and writes an article about it on wikipedia he may be over-ruled by the masses who genuinely believe that he's wrong and don't realise that he's just ahead of the crowd. All the same genuine experts seem to be willing to donate their time towards improving this project.

As well, this definitely should not be the only source for any sort of scholastic paper. I imagine that teachers at many levels will be dealing with new wiki-related plagiarism epidemics. I hope though that teachers at lower levels will be willing to accept wikipedia references anywhere they would be willing to accept ones from a traditional encyclopedia. In my mind, like any other encyclopedia this is best used as a quick reference used to introduce oneself to a topic or settle a bet.

This truly does seem like an embodiment of what the Internet is supposed to be. It is a collection of useful, highly concentrated content, that is easily accessible for free, and is controlled on a democractic, decentralised basis. I will be interested to see if this will fit the history of great Internet applications being purchased by giant companies and consequently ruined. Does anyone still buy the overpriced hard cover encylopediae? or even Encarta-esque CD versions?

Spring Election II: The Polls

2005-04-15T17:12:00.000-04:00

We've seen a poll this week from Ipsos-Reid and one from EKOS that were taken after the publication ban was lifted. Apparently another is going to be published tomorrow. I'm rather tired of reading obviously faulted interpretations of the minutea contained in these polls regional snapshots so I'll stick to the broadstrokes:

Nationally

Things look quite bad for the Liberals. By most accounts their support has fallen below what it was just after the scandal originally broke. This seems to support my supposition that the testimony from Brault and co. has put the scandal in a new, much worse light for most Canadians.

The NDP

The leftwing supporters are understandably as upset about Adscam as those on the right and many of them are migrating to the NDP. I imagine there is a certain level of "perceived support" (what the media is saying) at which point people will either consider the NDP to be a viable option for government or feel too repulsed by the Liberals to vote for them strategically. I think we may be near to this situation now and if it holds to election day we may have both a very unpredictable election (much higher turnout in competitive NDP ridings, and more leftwing vote splitting) and an oddly balanced post-election House of Commons.

Quebec

Things aren't totally certain but it seems that the Tories may be able to present an alternative for federalist voters in Quebec. I'm most wary about the permanence of this situation and I think that federalist Quebec voters are the most likely to be scared by Harper and the yahoo factor into returning to the Liberal fold.

The Heisenberg Effect

The MSM and right wing pundits have together been bemoaning the apparent desensitization Canadians have to scandals. It is hard to tell whether this is the case or whether voters were simpy unwilling to vote for the alternatives but, the next week or two may prove to be a turning point.

I don't pretend to have any great insight into the Canadian psyche but these polls may start to break the desensitization dam, so to speak. I think that Canadians conscious of what their neighbours think of them may not want to be the only province or riding or whatever seen to be still supporting "corrupt" Liberals. Polls which show a high level of volatility in Liberal support (let's face it, more than a 5% drop in a month is definitely volatile) will, I think tend to cause even more volatility. They'll have a "snowball effect" so to speak. And for this reason I will not be making any serious outcome predictions until the writs are dropped.

Update: Wrote this in draft a couple days ago so the number of polls is out of date. I still think the general point holds though. BTW, if anyone knows a site that does a good job of tracking these federal polls please feel free to post the link in the Comments section.

An Election this Spring

2005-04-13T10:03:00.000-04:00

It looks very likely that Canadians will be going back to the polls this spring. I'm going to divide my opinions of how important elements of the campaign will shape up into a few posts.

Timing

Commentators, amateur and professional, are making a great deal of the fact that this will be our second federal election in roughly twelve months. The most-talked about issue during both of these campaigns will probably be Adscam. Both times voters will be asked to render a judgment on who is best suited to govern before hearing a "final" report on the matter. I admit that at first this definitely doesn't seem like a situation the CPC should be seen as contributing to by calling a second election. On the other hand...

1. I strongly believe that the average voter's impression of what Adscam was, in a nutshell, has fundamentally changed since June 2004. Then it was seen as just another example of government being careless with expenses and allowing itself to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous ad agencies. Now, I believe, Canadians have in large part bought into the view that this was instead a carefully orchestrated scheme to funnel government money to Liberal Party of Canada causes.

2. On the issue of timing the media will be caught between a rock and a hard place. There will only be a few short days during which they can harp on the matter of who's responsible for an early election before their unabashed glee at having something interesting for their political flacks to cover takes over. So long as Harper doesn't take the bait, Liberal arguments that the spring is too early for an election will fizzle because: the Liberals pre-emptively called the last election; and Gomery testimony is getting enough attention that voters will soon get to the point where they draw their own conclusions and will feel resentful about being asked to wait six months to have some judge tell them what they already know.

3. Frankly, Harper has to call the election for the spring. The CPC leader finds himself in a position similar to Martin's on SSM and ballistic missile defense. As far as I can tell the vast majority of Tory activists and party members are champing at the bit for an election as soon as possible and while his better judgment might tell him that it would be wiser to wait until after the summer their emotion will win out. A failure to meet the highest expectations will draw less second guessing of his leadership if it happens for a spring election vs. the fall.

4. For both the Bloc and the CPC calling a spring election has come down to sort of a "might as well" situation. As far as I can tell the Gomery reports will be coming in November and December. If an election is held until after their release than the Liberals will have a chance to implement the recommendations and possibly issue another budget. So this negates the desirability of a winter 2006 election, which leaves fall 2005 or spring 2005--both of which are on equal footing as being before the release of the reports. I've made the argument recently that the Tories could do with the extra couple of months to prepare for a successful campaign over the summer but I'm starting to think that the degree to which voter outrage over Adscam will cool probably outweighs the benefits.

Inaugural Post

2005-04-13T09:19:00.000-04:00

Well, this is my inaugural post to this blog--sort of. Admittedly, I started this blogger account nearly a year ago in a futile attempt to get an invitation to join gmail. This time I'm in it for real though.

I hope to use this space for two purposes: As a way of expressing what I'm interested in and thinking about; and to entertain, illucidate, and incite discussion with those who are for whatever reason attracted to read what I write.

Right now, I happen to be interested in Canadian federal politics and I guess it is that interest that has pushed me to finally join the "blogosphere". That being said I will NOT make this another "political wannabe gone berzerk blog". This will also not be one of those current events commentaries that make arcane arguments solely dependent on the assumption that readers are willing to follow half a dozen links to newspaper and magazine sites that require users to register (or even more improbably pay) to read the stories and therefore understand the arguments that the writer wishes to express. Context is important and there are some great writers working their magic on the Internet right now (and I'm sure I"ll link to them, but sparingly) but I realise no one is willing to go to any great lengths to understand what I happen to be thinking on a particular day.

Finally, I'm struggling with the issue of anonymity. On one hand I realise the inherent lack of courage of posting one's opinions namelessly but on the other hand I am sensitive to the tendencies of ad hominen attacks (at least latently) amongst the people I enjoy arguing with. Also, while this journal will not be of a personal nature I'd prefer not to have to consider the effects posting an opinion will have three decades done the road. I'm sure this will be the first of many open questions I raise for myself here.