Election 2011

[Rifleman62]

Reports in various media continue to repeat the message: Harper refuses to state how he will reduce spending. No questions to Iffy re his spending programs.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/While+media+their+best+trip+Harper+landing+feet/4592819/story.html

While media do their best to trip Harper up, he's landing on his feet

By L. IAN MACDONALD, Freelance April 11, 2011

In this election, there are two campaigns: the one in the bubble and the one on the ground. The one in the bubble is just noise; the one on the ground is fundamental.

Stephen Harper is losing the campaign in the bubble, but in the walk-up to this week's leaders' debates, he is holding his own on the ground.

He's running a classic front-runner's campaign, trying to avoid unforced errors, while the media on his plane do their best to trip him up.

They whine about rope lines, whinge about access, and complain about staged photo ops. They also behave like children in need of adult supervision, making all kinds of rude noises.

On Harper's tour last week, the CBC's Terry Milewski actually asked him if he was a chicken and a coward for dodging a one-on-one debate with Michael Ignatieff. Journalism is the only profession, my former wife used to say, in which inappropriate behaviour is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

There's a new element in the bubble in this campaign: Twitter. If you didn't have a job, or a family, or a life, you could spend your whole day reading tweets from leaders and reporters inside the bubble.

None of this noise from the bubble resonates on the ground, for two reasons. First, it's not fundamental to voters' lives; and second, they're not yet engaged in the campaign. The debates are the one moment when they'll pay attention.

In all of this, there are distinct echoes of the 1988 campaign. In Brian Mulroney's bubble, the main story on the news one night was a media rope line and stanchions at a factory in Brampton, Ont., put there by the advance team so the media could have a cleaner shot. They whined about that, about access, about everything.

Nothing changed until the debates, when John Turner landed a haymaker, telling Mulroney he had "sold us out" on free trade with the United States.

Turner, like Michael Ignatieff in this campaign, had already exceeded expectations just by showing up. But in a single sound bite, he also defined the ballot question of a one-issue campaign. The rest of the 1988 campaign was a roller-coaster ride, totally authentic.

A trio of hecklers actually followed Mulroney around from one event to the next, and one day in Victoria, he invited them to debate him after a rally. It was a major turning point in the campaign, in which Mulroney proved that he knew what he was talking about. But at another level, the video images made a point about democracy, in which dissenters got a debate with a prime minister.

There was a moment like that in Hamilton, Ont., last Thursday, when the Conservatives relented in their stupid policy of controlled access to Harper's events, and allowed a group of young voters into his rally. Afterward, he met with them. And there was even a heckler from the NDP. Why would this surprise anyone in Hamilton? Harper handled it well, and the moment livened up his event. It woke him up, and broke him out of the bubble.

Which brings us to the debates. As in 1988, they represent the Liberal leader's best, and perhaps only, chance of transforming a losing campaign into a competitive election.

Ignatieff does not have to worry about managing expectations, and he is almost certain to exceed them. When you run behind "none of the above" on the bestprime-minister question, there's nowhere to go but up. But Ignatieff is a seasoned television performer from his years at the BBC in London, and he's also no stranger to debates from his years at Harvard.

The format for the debates allows for one-on-one exchanges among the four leaders. But the only one that matters in Tuesday's English-language debate is the six minutes between Harper and Ignatieff. The media are always looking for a knockout, and Iggy kind of needs one.

But he doesn't have what Turner had going for him - a one-issue election. There is no single issue in this campaign, except perhaps the election itself. Voters are annoyed by it, know the cost of it, and dread the prospect of doing this all over again in a year or so.

And there's the emerging ballot question: majority or minority?

imacdonald@irpp.org

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are a few changes to the projections based on aggregated polls in the report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions(§29) of the Copyright Act fromThreeHundredEight.com:

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

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011
Conservatives and Liberals gain

Today's projection primarily incorporates two polls released over the last few days: Ipsos Reid from the weekend and Nanos Research from today. The last fully independent three-day Nanos poll has also been returned to the projection, along with the regional data from Forum Research that was provided to me.

In the end, though, things are still static and there are no seat changes in today's projection update.

That keeps the Conservatives at 153 seats, but they have also gained 0.4 points and now lead with an even 39%. The Liberals, unchanged at 72 seats, are up 0.2 points to 28%.

The New Democrats are down 0.1 point to 16.8% and are unchanged at 33 seats, while the Bloc Québécois is unchanged at 9.1% and 50 seats. The Greens, at 6%, are down 0.3 points.

There have been some more interesting shifts at the regional level, however.

In British Columbia, both the Conservatives and Liberals are gaining, displacing the NDP and the Greens.

In Ontario, the Liberals have remained stable at 34.6% but the Conservatives are up 0.3 points to 42.4%. The Liberals were getting close in a few ridings but this gives the Tories a little more breathing room. The NDP, however, are still dropping and are now projected to be at 15.7% support.

In Quebec, the Bloc is down 0.4 points to 37.1%, while the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP all make small gains. If this continues, more than a few Bloc seats will switch over to the Liberals. Ahuntsic and Brossard - La Prairie are the ones most on the bubble.

And in Atlantic Canada the Liberals are in the lead with a big 0.8 point gain. A few ridings like West Nova and Saint John are looking promising for the Liberals.

At this point of the campaign, it appears that the head-to-head match-up between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff is pushing Jack Layton aside, while in Quebec the Bloc is looking less dominant. It could be an interesting three weeks.

We shall see, in a few days, if the debate makes any difference.

 

[GR66]

I am a 24 year old graduating university student who is undecided as to my voting decision for the upcoming election. I believe in making educated decisions so I have been doing research on the liberal and the conservative platform and have one question maybe someone could help me out with.

Why should I vote for the Conservative Party? In their adds I hear more about why we shouldn't vote for the liberals than anything that actually has to do with the Conservative agenda. I also read through their platform and every paragraph it makes reference to the "reckless coalition" and how terrible the liberals are. Why? I want to read your platform, to understand what you will do to continue the growth of our country, not an editorial on why you dislike the other parties.

I personally like the Conservative platform better than the Liberal one, however I have trouble voting for a party that seemingly does not have confidence it's own ability or beliefs. A party that fully believed they were the best option for the Canadian people would not feel the need to spend time and money insulting the other party...s in the running. In fact they would waste as little time as possible talking about other parties because they would need to take all the time they have to make sure Canadians know they will give them the best. Yes you can compare yourself to the competition in order to differentiate yourself, but what I've seen so far is a long way from being constructive and frankly, is quite unprofessional.

That being said, I am aware the Liberals take part in the same type of behavior so I have posed them the same question.

The honest truth (despite the desperate claims and wishes of those of us that are political junkies on ALL sides) is that whichever party gets in power there will be little fundamental change to the future course of the country.  Certainly there will be specific differences in the issues that we'll face as a result going forward, but the overall long-term difference will not be that huge.

We talk in theory about the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals (and even the perma-opposition NDP) but in reality their respective governing policies are not that different (on a grand scale on the political spectrum).  They are in most cases greatly influenced by world events as much as by their own ideologies.  When jobs are at risk from various economic bubbles bursting governments worldwide (even Conservatives, Republicans and their ilk) will spend in an attempt to soften the blow.  When debt servicing becomes a burden due to high deficits and high interest rates then governments (even Liberals, Democrats and their ilk) will tighten belts and cut programs. 

The economic tides will ebb and flow as will the governing style of whichever party is in power.  Politicians of ALL parties being politicians first (and Conservatives/Liberals/Social Democrats, etc second) will continue to grow government and buy our votes with our own tax dollars when they can, and then brace us for difficult decisions, spending cuts and "deregulation" when things get too far out of hand.

When such a time comes as we get a leader that defines a clear ideological vision for the country and can sell the bulk of the public on that vision, and then both runs on those principles as well as sticks to GOVERNING by those principles we can talk again.  Until then I'm not really concerned that the "Evil Harper Conservatives" will grind up my poor, destitute Grandmother as lubricant for a Tar-Sand extractor...or that the "Commie in hiding Prince Iggy Liberals" will raise my tax rate to 115% to pay for free invitro treatments for immigrant welfare moms.

 

[vonGarvin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/
I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.

I cannot express how much I agree with you, Mr. Campbell.  I say this as a practicing Roman Catholic, and I feel that there is NO NEED for such an office.  "Stupid" only starts to describe this idea, as far as I am concerned.  Bloody nonsense.

 

[Old Sweat]

The following story which appeared in the Ottawa Sun is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Iggy caught double-talking
Liberal leader needs to come clean on voting recordBy BRIAN LILLEY, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: April 11, 2011 8:47am

OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff has some 'splainin' to do.

As the Liberal leader scoots across the country asking for your vote, it seems he has forgotten where he has voted in the past.

Ignatieff now claims he has never voted in a foreign country, but quotations from his past suggest he voted Labour in Britain and would vote Democrat in the U.S.

"I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November," Ignatieff told The Glasgow Herald in 2004.

Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard at the time, was defending his record as a human rights advocate against charges that he had become a neo-conservative who backed then-president George W. Bush in the Iraq war. Ignatieff and some other left-leaning intellectuals supported Bush in the early days of the war.

Despite the statement that he would vote for Kerry, Ignatieff now says he has never voted outside of Canada.

"Mr. Ignatieff is and always has been a Canadian citizen, period. He has never held any other citizenship and as such, has never voted in a foreign election," Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron told QMI Agency.

Asked to clarify why Ignatieff once said he would vote for Kerry and why he says now that he has never voted outside of Canada, Ignatieff's spokesman dodged the questions.

"Mr. Ignatieff has simply confirmed what we already know — that he is a progressive, compassionate liberal. Always has been, always will be," Liboiron said in an e-mail.

American law states that only citizens can vote. Ignatieff was living in Cambridge, Mass., at the time. Voting without being a citizen is considered a crime punishable by up to five years in prison and/or fines of up to $10,000. Illegally registering to vote carries the same penalty.

While the public record only shows Ignatieff said he would vote for the Democrats, his record in Britain shows he did vote.

In a 1998 book, Ignatieff says he voted Labour in 1997 to oust the ruling Conservatives. The Conservatives had been in power since 1979, first under Margaret Thatcher and then under John Major.

"Why did I vote Labour? I wanted the rascals out," Ignatieff said in Identity and Politics: A Discussion with Michael Ignatieff and Sean Neeson.

Identity and Politics is a record of an Ignatieff speech and a question and answer session at the Liberal-Democrat conference in Brighton, England, in 1998. A copy of the short book is kept at the Library of Parliament.

The Liberal-Democrats are a left-of-centre party that used to place third in British politics but recently became part of a coalition government with the Conservative Party under Prime Minister David Cameron.

In Britain, it would have been completely legal for Ignatieff to vote. British law allows citizens of Commonwealth nations living in Britain to cast ballots. Residents aren't automatically registered to vote and are required to sign up to get their name on the voters list. According to online records, Ignatieff was registered to vote in Britain as recently as 2002.

 

[observor 69]

Apparently Liboiron misspoke because on Monday, Ignatieff himself said:

Q: You say you’ve never voted in a foreign election. But you said something different in 1998 and 2004. So which one is true?

Ignatieff: I’m a Canadian citizen. I’ve never been the citizen of another country. I’ve never voted – can’t vote in the United States. But I’m a Commonwealth citizen, so I have voted in a British election. But you know, I’m also someone who didn’t go to a foreign audience and call this country a second call failed socialist state in front of a Republican audience. You know, I’m a proud Canadian. I’m a proud Canadian. And I’ve lived overseas – ya. And wherever I’ve been, I’ve always supported progressive policies. So, you know, in 2004, I thought that John Kerry was a better idea than George W. Bush. And only a Conservative would think that George W. Bush was a better choice for the United States. But I can’t vote in the United States. Never did.

Q: How many Canadian elections did you vote in when you were living overseas.

Ignatieff: I voted in a couple. Can’t remember, happy to tell you. But I voted in Canadian elections since I was able to vote.

http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011/4/11/4792947.html

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Until then I'm not really concerned that the "Evil Harper Conservatives" will grind up my poor, destitute Grandmother as lubricant for a Tar-Sand extractor...or that the "Commie in hiding Prince Iggy Liberals" will raise my tax rate to 115% to pay for free invitro treatments for immigrant welfare moms.

There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.

 

[GR66]

There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.

When it comes down to it people will vote with their wallets.  If any Canadian government follows a path that is so deeply out of step with what the rest of the industrialized world is doing then business investment will dry up and Canadians will see their standard of living plummet compared to the rest of the First World.  Canadians will then wake up as voters and kick out the bums that are taking us down that path. 

We (Canadian voters) may be asleep at the wheel when it comes to pushing the political parties to be responsible with OUR money, but when the tires hit the rumble strip on the centre line I'm very confident that we'll wake with a start and yank the wheel to the right to get us back in our comfortable lane.

Heck, even Greece as an economic basket case beyond what Canadians collectively would allow to happen aren't eating tulip bulbs.  Thank goodness we've got all this cropland, oil, gas, fish, lumber and water that everyone else will continue to want in order to keep THEIR economies growing.

 

[Rifleman62]

Don't count on it.

Canadians are spoiled, I'm Aright Jack.

The timely leak of the Draft AG report has probably killed, as was the aim, a CPC government. The AG, IAW the Act, will not release or comment on the completed Report on the G8.

 

[dapaterson]

One wonders whether the fall of the government was engineered by the Tories to try to avoid the AG report being released.

 

[PuckChaser]

One wonders whether the fall of the government was engineered by the Tories to try to avoid the AG report being released.

That's a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory if I've ever heard one.

 

[a_majoor]

I've said it before, but it is worth repeating:

Mr Ignatieff will trigger a coalition if there is a minority CPC government. Simple understanding of human nature ensures this is so; in one fell swoop he can:

1. Become Prime Minister
2. Avoid a hostile leadership review
3. Discipline (or extract revenge on) unsupportive members of his caucus. Bob Rae, are you listening?

This being the case, it is extremely disturbing the LPC platform has something like $24 billion in unfunded promises. Worse yet, a coalition will have Jack Layton in cabinet, and Mr Ignatieff will be compelled to add the unfunded NDP and Bloc wish list to government spending year after year in order to remain in power.

There is one fear - that the economy could be so damaged by debt making a recovery too painful and possibly unlikely.  Considering that the Chretien Liberals were fiscally more conservative than any recent alternative I wouldn't worry too much about the Liberal spending plans unless Iggy is actually telling the truth which is highly unlikely.

Mr Ignatieff will be compelled to "tell the truth" and be pushed beyond. The forecast after a coalition victory is pretty grim (and if the economy in Western Canada "goes Galt" in response to the sudden demands for cash from the coalition, the day of reckoning comes that much faster).

 

[dapaterson]

Governments routinely manage the news cycle to release bad news on Fridays, good news during slow news weeks... and get copies of OAG reports in advance and neegotiate to have them amended, and thus are well aware of the contents in advance of their release.

It's no tinfoil conspiracy theory to point out that having a damning OAG report on the street would be damaging to the Tories, and that having an election without that on the table would be in their best interests.  Joe Clark aside, most political leaders, even with a minority, are able to channel and arrange for battle at times of their choosing; choosing a time before the enemy gets some new artillery is a sound tactic.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Governments routinely manage the news cycle to release bad news on Fridays, good news during slow news weeks... and get copies of OAG reports in advance and neegotiate to have them amended, and thus are well aware of the contents in advance of their release.

It's no tinfoil conspiracy theory to point out that having a damning OAG report on the street would be damaging to the Tories, and that having an election without that on the table would be in their best interests.  Joe Clark aside, most political leaders, even with a minority, are able to channel and arrange for battle at times of their choosing; choosing a time before the enemy gets some new artillery is a sound tactic.

Departments must have the Final DRAFT AG's report in advance because the report cannot be completed and presented to parliament until after the departments' responses, which may include objections and/or proposed remedial measures, have been included. When I worked for ADM(Mat) (1980s) I think I negotiated over five or six 'final' drafts with the OAG folks - until we got one to which we could all agree.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

What does everyone in Canada think is in the AG report?  Somehow I don't think that all the good press from the G8/G20 will be negated as there was none.  Just a rehash.  All the supposed Conservative corruption is procedure, a big yawn.

 

[a_majoor]

Mr Ignatieff's gaff aboout voting for John Kerry gets a response in the United States:

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/04/11/american-democrat-for-prime-minister-of-canada-or-another-non-citizen-caught-voting-in-u-s-elections/

‘American Democrat’ for Prime Minister of Canada? Or Another Non-citizen Caught Voting in U.S Elections?
by Capitol Confidential

Canadians will go to the polls on May 2nd to elect a Prime Minister.  The election has gained almost no attention in the U.S. but one candidate suddenly has a very American problem.

As reported in the Toronto Sun, Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party candidate for Prime Minister stated in a 2004 interview with a U.K. journalist:
“I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November.”

Ignatieff, a professor at Harvard University, was living in Cambridge, MA at the time.  He had been away from Canada for over 30 years, having arrived at Harvard as a graduate student in 1969. In the 70s he moved to the UK, but eventually found his way back to Cambridge and settled in as an academic.  He became so settled that it was a shock to many in Canada when returned in 2005 and announced his intention to run for Parliament. 

Many questioned if he was a U.S. citizen.  Feeling the pressure, Ignatieff told the Toronto Star, ”
“I’ve never been a citizen of any other country.  Nor was I a green card holder in the United States.”

If that is true, then voting in the U.S. was illegal. And a professor at the Kennedy School of Government would have known that.

A conviction for illegal voting in Massachusetts carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  For each time that he voted.
But proving if he did or did not vote may be an impossibility .  The only conclusive proof would be the hard copy poll books that are used to check in voters on election day – if he signed in, he voted.  But, the Cambridge Election Commission says that they no longer have the hard copy material from 2004.  And while their electronic database includes voter history, they admit that a voter who has been purged from the rolls may not show up anywhere in the file.  Assuming Ignatieff didn’t vote in Cambridge after being elected to Parliament in 2006, he would have been purged.

So all we have is Ignatieff’s word that he voted in a U.S. election. And he may or may not be a citizen.

When asked for comment, Ignatieff’s spokesman basically thumbed his nose at U.S. election law:

“Mr. Ignatieff has simply confirmed what we already know — that he is a progressive, compassionate liberal. Always has been, always will be.”

But that doesn’t answer the question: Is he an American, or did he vote illegally?  If he’s an American, he should stop denying it and be proud to have become a citizen of this great country. If it’s the latter, he should be prosecuted for making a mockery of our democracy.

So far, there has been no word from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office about investigating Ignatieff’s voter files.

 

[ballz]

And I thought the only press our election would get in the US would be about our rescheduling the debate because of a Habs game...

 

[Rifleman62]

Iggy may have voted anyway, even if he was not eligible. Many states allow people to vote without ID of any type. This was a big controversy  in Texas, for example, in the last Presidential election. Texas is currently changing it's legislation. Of course the Democrats shidt is in a knot about having to identify ones self to vote. Incredible.

http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com is the latest projection based on aggregated polls:

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

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 12, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011
Liberals gain one seat, close in seven more

There is a Harris-Decima poll for the Canadian Press to add to the projection this morning, in addition to the usual Nanos poll for CTV andThe Globe and Mail. Thanks to the close race both polling firms have identified in Ontario, the Liberals are poised to make a major move in the projection - but they aren't there yet.

Nationally, the Conservatives are still leading with 38.9%, a drop of 0.1 points from yesterday. They have also dropped one seat and are now projected to win 152, three short of a majority. The Liberals have made that seat gain, and are now projected to win 73. They are up 0.1 points to 28.1%, reducing the gap between the two parties to 10.8 points, or 0.6 points narrower than it was in 2008.

The New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, and Greens are unchanged at 33, 50, and zero seats, respectively. The NDP is down 0.1 point to 16.7% while the Greens are up 0.1 points to 6.1%.

The update is a mixed bag for every party.

The Conservatives have made modest gains in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, but they are not in a position to make any serious gains in those provinces. The drop in the Prairies doesn't hurt them much, but the 0.4-point slip in Ontario does - especially considering the Liberal gain of 0.5 points. Just like that, a gap of eight points is now a gap of 7.1 points.

That's about the only good news for the Liberals in this update, as they have dropped in every province but Ontario and British Columbia. Granted, most of those drops are insiginificant.

The same can't be said for the New Democrats, who are down 0.3 points in Alberta and Quebec. That isn't a huge drop, but considering their already low level of support in these provinces, the decrease is larger than it seems. But the gain of 0.4 points in the Prairies makes a seat like Elmwood - Transcona a lot safer.

The Bloc Québécois has dropped only 0.1 points in Quebec, but the decline continues unabated.

The Liberals make their seat gain in Ontario, picking up Brampton West from the Conservatives in the projection. It's the riding of Liberal incumbent Andrew Kania.

More interestingly, however, is how close the Liberals are getting to raking in a pile of other seats. They are within 1.5 points in seven other ridings, four of them currently held in the projection by the Conservatives in Ontario (Ajax - Pickering, Brampton - Springdale, Kitchener - Waterloo, and Vaughan) and three of them held by the Bloc Québécois (Ahuntsic, Brossard - La Prairie, and Haute-Gaspésie - La Mitis - Matane - Matapédia).

Winning Kitchener - Waterloo and Haute-Gaspésie would be significant for the Liberals, as they would give the party seats outside of their current centres of strength around Toronto and Montreal. Haute-Gaspésie would be a particular coup, as it is a very francophone riding with no city of over 20,000 people within its boundaries.

My guess is that the ethics, accountability and contempt issues are, finally, starting to take hold, thanks to a very well timed leak, which I suspect came from an anti-Harper civil servant in a federal government line department (not from the Office of the Auditor General). I expect Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton to go after Harper, endlessly, on those issues – that may backfire if some (many? most?) Canadians feel their economic and health care issues are being ignored for a bunch more “inside the greenbelt” stuff.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think if Harper can stay on message and continue with his platform, he can ride this "accountability" stuff out and pull off the election win. People are going to slowly start seeing through all the yelling about other things that the Libs and NDP have no real plan for the country other than to inflate the social safety net off the backs of people with jobs and using money they've knit out of nothing.