Election 2011

[OldSolduer]

Instead of watching Jack, Gilles, Iggy and Steve.....I watch "The Cat in the Hat".

He makes more sense, he is not so dense.

Have a nice day, or jump in the bay..... ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

More polling from ThreeHundredEight.com:

Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


Despite going up a bit in the popular vote, the latest data translates into one less seat for the Conservatives and one more for the NDP:

Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/


Here, according to ThreeHundredEight.com, is why:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

NDP on the rise in new projection

The campaign continues, and yesterday we were treated to three new polls. Two of them, those by Abacus Data and Forum Research, were added in full to the projection model. Harris-Decima, however, has not yet put the full details of their poll on their site, so for the time being I am using the media reports on Harris-Decima's findings at the national level, in Ontario, and in Quebec. I will likely add the other regional data for tomorrow's projection. Note, too, that all of these polls were conducted in part or completely following the dissolution of the House.

Yesterday seemed to be a relatively quiet day on the campaign trail, the Conservatives making a promise that will not be implemented until 2015-2016. While their plan to allow families with children to do income splitting is apparently significant in terms of cost, it really isn't significant until it is implemented. As the promise depends on the paying off of the deficit, it is really more of a pledge than a promise. Unless the Conservatives win a majority, in all likelihood they are not going to get the opportunity to go through with their plan before the next election.

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff was in Toronto to talk about Conservative "waste", while Jack Layton was in Saskatchewan. Considering that his party has now dropped to less than 20% in my projection in the Prairie provinces, it is a region of the country that needs a Layton boost.

This morning's projection shows that the Conservatives are continuing to widen the gap between themselves and the Liberals. It is now 0.5 points wider, and stands at 11.9 points. This is because the Conservatives have gained 0.2 points and now lead with 38.6%, while the Liberals are down 0.3 points to 26.7%. I can't remember the last time I had the Liberals at less than 27% in the projection.

The New Democrats, meanwhile, have another day of gains. They are now at 16.7%, well ahead of the Bloc Québécois at 9.8% (unchanged) and the Greens at 7% (down 0.2).

This all adds up to a seat gain for the New Democrats (now at 34) and a seat loss for the Conservatives (now at 151). But both go through the Liberals (still at 72).

So, it appears the Conservatives are projected to lose one seat to the Liberals (in Atlantic Canada) and the NDP picked one up from the Liberals (in BC). But, on balance, things remain very much as theye were at the start date.


Here is another useful graphic for those interested in potential coalition making:

PROJECTED CANADIAN PARLIAMENT
Source: http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

Note that ThreeHundredEight.com projects that parliament will elect another Liberal as speaker.

 

[Redeye]

Quite the condescending attitude. As I look at the 1st page of mutual funds listed on my brokerage account I see 3 Acker Finley mutual funds with a 3-5% MER.

I've only ever heard of a few Sprott funds charging that much.  Most come in below 2.5% - and even that in most cases is still far too high, but that's another matter all together.

As for the CPP operating costs, they were 599 million + trading costs in 2007-2008 according to the Annual report. It states 122 billion under management so that would be 49 basis points + trading costs if I am reading this correctly. I will admit this is better than I expected but still a good bit higher than the ETFs I invest in.

There are some people who can do pretty well with that, but I'd submit a good chunk of people lack the knowledge, time, or interest to do so effectively.  That's the benefit of pension, economies of scale taking care of managing the assets for them.

As for the "not bailing your clients out" if they paid for a 25% average industrial wage pension and they receive a pension of 50% of average industrial wage I would call that a bailout.

Again, that's not what I said, and not what I'd argue for.  Any such change would take time to implement.  Some good CPP reforms have already been made, but there's room for more.  I'd even be interested in the idea of it being a voluntary system where one could double their contributions in exchange for a higher annuity later, however, I don't know that that could be practically or cost-effectively managed.  A one-size-fits-all system seems better.  The idea, thus, is to increase the amount the CPP collects in contributions and increase the payment levels proportionately.  That is to say, whatever benefits accrued under the old system remain the same, if a change in implemented it's only reflected in those years where it's implemented.  I'm not suggesting anything resembling "bailouts" or "something for nothing".  Such a change will not fix the situation for those who didn't save effectively now, but it will going forward - and going so would probably keep more people from using GAINS (supplements which are effectively entitlement programs) to live off.  It's a pretty forward thinking idea, a long term one, and politicians tend to concern themselves with instant gratification.

The problem here is that you appear love the nanny state and I detest it. I believe there should consequences for behavior and you don't appear to. I remember the Grasshopper and Ant fable. It seems applicable here only you want the government to force the Ant to have to put aside some of his hard work so the Grasshopper doesn't starve.

Not in the least.  The state's only role to should be to act where markets fail or cannot reasonably expected to produce a socially optimal outcome.  Given that private sector employers offer pensions less and less, I see a good argument for a decent public pension system.

(Edited to fix a couple of spelling mistakes and clarify a point)

 

[MJP]

This is an interesting sidebar about public sector compensation and other benefits but it is clouding up the election thread.  Perhaps a split is in order?

Are you saving $14,180 a year for your pension? That is how much you would have needed to save – every year for the last 35 years – to pay yourself a pension equal to that of a federal public servant retiring today

http://taxpayer.com/node/13429

I don't know many peiople on civy street who can afford to put $1200 a month into a RRSP acount......

Larry I am firmly in the camp that public sector total compensation is much too high when compared to private sector.  I would be wary of using the article you put up as the base for my argument as it is rather partisan.  The author uses some extreme examples that are not indicative of reality (70% pensions, $100,000 salary @ 25 year old) to make his point, there is a ton of better information that isn't as biased as that to make the argument.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And interesting article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, discussing what the Liberal strategy might be:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-take-aim-at-harper-but-are-gunning-for-each-other/article1960909/

Liberals, NDP take aim at Harper but are gunning for each other

GLORIA GALLOWAY
Hamilton, Ont.— Globe and Mail Update

Published Tuesday, Mar. 29, 2011

In rhetoric delivered to inspire their supporters and win over voters, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton have both painted Stephen Harper as their prime political target.

But their words and their actions seem to tell a different story.

In the first three days of the 2011 campaign, the Liberal Leader has taken his plane to ridings that are held by New Democrats.

And on Tuesday, Mr. Layton will repay the favour, heading to Brant and Kitchener, Ont., where the Liberals have always enjoyed good support even if they were not victorious on election night in 2008.

If the hope is to hold the Conservatives to a minority – which would seem to be the most realistic aspiration for either of the former opposition parties at this juncture – would it not make more sense to go directly after Conservatives?

And if the Liberals and the New Democrats split the centre-left vote, does it not just open the door for a third-place Conservative to sneak up the centre?

“It is probably not a good strategy if the aim is to get enough seats so the Conservatives do not get a majority,” said Robert Drummond, a professor of political science at York University in Toronto.

This may just be the plan for the early days of the campaign, said Prof. Drummond. Perhaps, he said, it is an effort on the part of the Liberals and the New Democrats to convince voters that they really have no interest in forming a coalition to usurp power should the Conservatives win a minority.

But it is certainly possible, he said, that there are seats where a tough three-way battle could see the Conservative win by a divided left.

On the other hand, said Prof. Drummond, the Liberals have probably looked at the electoral map and decided that they must also take some seats from the New Democrats to keep the Conservatives at bay.

Party strategists will not talk on the record. But the Liberals say taking NDP seats is very much a part of their game plan.

They say they need to polarize the electorate – to convince all voters who do not support Stephen Harper that, if they vote for the NDP, they will end up with a Conservative MP.

There is no safe NDP seat, said one official pointing to the loss in a recent by-election of Winnipeg North, a riding that had been held for many years by New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

That is why the Liberals have made a dash out of the starting gate for constituencies like Outremont in Montreal, Ottawa Centre and Trinity Spadina in Toronto, all NDP seats.

“We have to squeeze down the vote,” said one Liberal party official.

NDP Leader Jack Layton scoffs at the strategy.

“This is the old attitude of ‘we’re the only game in town,’” he said at a news conference on Monday.

When asked about voters who will put their X beside the name of the Liberal candidate simply to stop Stephen Harper, Mr. Layton said: “The way to stop Stephen Harper from getting a majority is to take Conservative seats, one by one, and defeat the MPs who are there. That’s how you stop Mr. Harper from getting majority.”

But the NDP is also preparing to go after constituencies where a Liberal might have a better shot if there was no strong competition on the left.

One of them is Brant, west of Hamilton, which is currently held by a Conservative but was Liberal for many years. Mr. Layton will visit there today.

He will undoubtedly repeat his message that the only way to defeat a Conservative is with a vote for his party.

“This is battleground Ontario,” said one NDP official, explaining the decision to go to a seat where the New Democrat candidate was a distant third in 2008 and the Liberal incumbent was only barely defeated.

Just as in Quebec and British Columbia, he said, there is a lot of volatility and the New Democrats want to make a “footprint” in the region.

The NDP has a story to tell middle class voters in the 905 belt around Toronto, he said. That’s why they will also visit Kitchener on Tuesday, another former Liberal stronghold.

“We will be asking who is really better to rally the non-Conservative vote,” he said. “We believe (Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff) is not that guy.”

The Conservatives are aiming for a “safe” majority – say 160± seats; the Liberals are aiming to grow their seat count somewhat, to say, 85 and the BQ and NDP want to hold on to their 50± and 35± respectively.

We don’t have enough seats in parliament for everyone to get what they want. If the Conservatives can get a “bare” majority (155) they must take 12 seats away from the BQ, Liberals and NDP and, based on the early going, that (a Conservative bare majority) seems the only realistic goal out there - although I suspect the BQ can and will hold on to at least 45 of the 47 seats they now have.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This is an interesting sidebar about public sector compensation and other benefits but it is clouding up the election thread.  Perhaps a split is in order?

I'd second a split.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'd second a split.

Same..... :nod:

 

[GR66]

I think that the Liberals are actually playing it fairly smart by targeting the Conservatives in their rhetoric but targeting the NDP in practice in the opening stages of the election. 

I personally don't think there's much hope that many (any?) Conservative seats will have any hope of falling to the Liberals unless there were seen to be some kind of larger shift in voter preference toward the Liberals giving them at least the potential to pose a more realistic challenge to the Conservatives.  That's an impossible situation while the Centre/Left vote is split with the NDP.

If the Libs continue to present themselves as the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives and at the same time can pull off some poll numbers going forward showing momentum in the consolidation of the Centre/Left vote behind THEIR party then some soft Conservatives, or much more likely some otherwise indifferent voters who weren't planning on voting because they thought it was hopeless, may give the Liberals some actual hope in ridings with tighter Liberal/Conservative races.

Frankly, I don't see them having many other options other than hoping the Conservatives make some kind of mis-step that they can pounce on.

 

[Redeye]

I think that the Liberals are actually playing it fairly smart by targeting the Conservatives in their rhetoric but targeting the NDP in practice in the opening stages of the election. 

I personally don't think there's much hope that many (any?) Conservative seats will have any hope of falling to the Liberals unless there were seen to be some kind of larger shift in voter preference toward the Liberals giving them at least the potential to pose a more realistic challenge to the Conservatives.  That's an impossible situation while the Centre/Left vote is split with the NDP.

If the Libs continue to present themselves as the only realistic alternative to the Conservatives and at the same time can pull off some poll numbers going forward showing momentum in the consolidation of the Centre/Left vote behind THEIR party then some soft Conservatives, or much more likely some otherwise indifferent voters who weren't planning on voting because they thought it was hopeless, may give the Liberals some actual hope in ridings with tighter Liberal/Conservative races.

Frankly, I don't see them having many other options other than hoping the Conservatives make some kind of mis-step that they can pounce on.

I agree with your estimate.  It would seem that the Liberals have to fight on two fronts - against the Conservatives in their rhetoric (and against their attacks), but also to try to sway voters from the NDP over to them.  The centre/left vote, as GR66 notes, is now split much in the same way that the right was in the days of the Reform Party.

The key seems to get people out to the polls, since voter turnout was so miserable in the last few elections, if Liberals can encourage more people to go to the polls, that might help.

Frankly, I hate attack ads, but Ignatieff wants a shot, he has to come out swinging against the Conseravatives, because they've already been working on him for quite a while.

I haven't heard much about so-called "strategic voting" yet, but a movement called "Catch-22" is already working on it - the name comes from the goal of knocking out 22 Conservative MPs - that has a list compiled of their targets here: http://catch22campaign.ca/notes.  I don't see much likelihood of it working, it hasn't before.

 

[Haletown]

Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.

So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.

The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.

 

[Jed]

Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.

So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.

The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.

There you go, typical Liberal Party approach: Sell out the security of the country to buy votes from the duped masses of the Canadian people. Its worked for them for years so why change a good thing?

 

[larry Strong]

Same..... :nod:

My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.

No need to apologize: the tangent, which does deserve to be split into its own thread, is interesting; thanks to all three of you.

 

[OldSolduer]

Iggy confirmed this morning he plans to take the money allocated currently to DND to procure the F-35 and  use it to pay for his student grant program.

So the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is to to defund the military to the tune of $30 billion.  This means that Canada, already one of the lowest spenders on Defense - 1.3% of our GDP, will drop even lower.

The Liberals  have played this game before and it resulted in a very dark decade for the CF. No doubt this would be one of many procurement cuts needed to fund Liberal promises of free stuff for Canadians.

The " we don't need Cadillac Helicopters" statement virtually ensured Chretien a victory in that election. Will history repeat itself? I think it may.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My apologies for running off on a tangent...it won't happen again.

What E.R. said - I think it's worth its own thread because of the detail involved and worthiness of separate debate away from the election in general.

 

[KJK]

A split sounds good to me.

ERC, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the possible CPP changes vs private investment.

KJK

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The " we don't need Cadillac Helicopters" statement virtually ensured Chretien a victory in that election. Will history repeat itself? I think it may.

Anything is possible, but there are differences between '92 and today. First off, I don't know if the the "Cadillac Helicopters" statement alone, won the election for Chretien. Remember, he was campaigning against the Mulroney Conservatives who, at the time, were despised by the Canadian electorate; Chretien could have stayed home and would still of won. Secondly, the military had a very low profile and people didn't really think about or care what happened in the military. Today, just opposite, the military's profile is much higher; its been in combat for almost ten years and we know have a Canadian general running the NATO no-fly campaign against Qaddafi.

Another factor is that the Canadian government/military/aircraft industry are defending the F-35 purchase much more vigorously than the Mulroney/Campbell governments defended the EH-101 purchase. In '92, no one, from the military or government tried to defend the purchase. It was only the aviation and defence associations who were defending the helicopter purchase. The Liberals pretty well had the airwaves to themselves and that's all the electorate heard; so its a small wonder that people were against the purchase.

 

[Good2Golf]

There are Canadian companies literally participating in the design and production of parts for prototype F-35s as we speak -- shut that down and you directly endanger those jobs, the genesis for which was..........(click on link during rum roll).......the Liberals.

I think it's a "wise people shouldn't go there" issue...but one which the PLC seems committed to investigate....notwithstanding the potential link back to the Liberals' own position in 2002 when the Liberal Government commited to Level 3 involvement (as signed by the now "This is a bad deal" Mr. Alan Williams, see p. 7 for Williams' signature on the 2002 JSF MOU at the drum-roll link above...)


The perfect CPC rejoinder would be, "Great, when we're back in power in 2029, we'll see how the 47-year old CF-18's are doing, since you cancelled the JSF back in 2011....just the same as we were looking at 48-year old Sea Kings in 2011 due to your 1993 cancellation of those aircraft too.  You Liberals appear to like stretching 25-30 year old aircraft into 47-48 year old aircraft...is that in your Party Constitution?"

From the 2002 Liberal Government's own PWGSC Depository Services Program report on the Joint Strike Fighter - 15 Jul 2002 (rev. 19 Feb 2003): (interesting bits highlighted)

...
C.  Canada’s Participation

Canada’s participation began in 1997, when it gained the status of informed partner upon making a US$10 million commitment to Phase 1, the Concept Demonstration Phase.  Unlike the United Kingdom, Canada did not announce plans to buy the JSF since its CF-18s are expected to remain in service until about 2017.  Indeed, the radars and other systems of the CF-18s are currently being modernized to ensure that the aircraft can effectively carry out operations for another decade.

Since any decision on the replacement of the CF-18s will not likely take place for many years, public statements by Canadian government and military officials concerning the JSF have been few.  Nevertheless, they have indicated Canada’s strong support for the project. On 6 December 2001, Art Eggleton, then Minister of National Defence, mentioned the JSF during a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade.  He noted that Canada’s participation in Phase 1 had granted it access to useful technical data and had resulted in some contracts for Canadian companies.  He also indicated his intention to recommend to Cabinet that Canada participate in the next phase on the grounds that, in the early stages, this could result in some $350 to $450 million in contracts for Canadian companies and generate 3,500 to 5,000 person-years of employment.  Over the life of the project, it is estimated that Canadian companies could potentially obtain between $8 to $10 billion worth of contracts resulting in 50,000 to 65,000 person-years of employment.

Cabinet approval paved the way for the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and the United States concerning Canadian participation in the SDD phase as a Level 3 partner.  The MOU was signed on 7 February 2002 by Allan Williams, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, and Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, on behalf of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.  Under the MOU, the Department of National Defence will contribute US$100 million as its share of the project costs while providing the resources of any Canadian test and evaluation facilities that might be used, as well as some personnel to the JSF Program Office.  Technology Partnerships Canada will also provide US$50 million in funding for contracts, while the Canadian Commercial Corporation will make its services available.  The Department of National Defence can withdraw from the MOU if it decides that the level of Canadian industrial participation in the project is not satisfactory.

...food for thought for those who choose bold words that could come back to bite them...

 

[Infanteer]

...food for thought for those who choose bold words that could come back to bite them...

Oh, that guy quit the site in a huff....

 

[GAP]

CBC's voter quiz tool flawed, prof says
By Samantha Butler, QMI Agency 
Article Link

KINGSTON, Ont. — The CBC appears to have a new spin on the old joke about the answer to all multiple choice questions being "C". This time the answer is usually "G", as in Grit.

Queen's University political science professor Kathy Brock says the state broadcaster's Vote Compass online survey tool is flawed and tells people they're Liberal by default.

Vote Compass, a 30-question survey on the CBC's website, is supposed to show Canadians which party's political views are most like their own.

Brock said she completed the survey three times using three distinct strategies, and was aligned each time with the Liberal party.

"If you're giving opposite responses and getting the same result, that's not correct," she said.

Brock said the first time she did the survey she selected the "somewhat agree" response to every question. The second time, she selected "somewhat disagree," and the third time she chose "strongly agree."

The final questions in the survey pertain to leaders. They ask respondents to rank candidates for prime minister based on trustworthiness and competence. Brock said she selected the "I don't know" option for all the leader questions, every time.

"Every time, it told me I was politically centred and should vote Liberal," Brock said.

Cliff van der Linden, a Toronto researcher who developed the tool, said Brock received those responses because the questions are equally split between the left and right side of the political spectrum.

"So if you answer all one way or another, you're going to end up answering half left and half right -- and end up in the middle."

Brock argues the Liberal party doesn't necessarily represent the traditional centre of the political spectrum today.

"The Conservatives have also been moving towards the centre lately," she said.

"We're talking about the centre of the Canadian political landscape as it applies to these 30 statements," van der Linden said. He said all four parties were asked to verify the statements.

Van der Linden acknowledges the party platforms are more nuanced than the questions in the survey, but says "Canadians aren't engaging with those platforms, and haven't been for years."

"Over half a million Canadians have taken this survey in three days."

Van der Linden said an expert research team, based out of the University of Toronto, devised the tool using a "rigorous scientific process."

The tool is meant to generate discussion and give all Canadians a say, he said, but not to provide voting advice.

Brock says it's a "gimmick" that "impoverishes the level of discussion in our democracy."

"It might stir up some debate, but it doesn't encourage people to think deeply."

Van der Linden said the tool has been widely used in Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands for the past 10 years.
end

"In Europe, this is a fixture of democratic discourse," he said.