Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

I wouldn't say that.  Christy Clark won in BC with nothing more than a mega-watt smile, lies about the state of the provincial economy and fear-mongering of the NDP.  Now she will try to get Trudeau elected PM with the same formula.

An interesting, albeit not entirely persuasive analysis of the polling from recent elections, especially in BC, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/25/pol-vp-weiers-bc-election-polls.html

B.C. election proved campaigns matter more than ever
While pollsters were talking to voters who didn't vote, Christy Clark stayed on message

By Bob Weiers, CBC News

Posted: May 25, 2013

Campaigns matter.

Polls? Maybe not so much anymore.

That's the takeaway, after the surprising majority government win by the BC Liberals and Premier Christy Clark in this month’s election.

And, for the pollsters, it's strike three.

In Quebec, the polls consistently failed to show the resilience of the Liberal vote. In Alberta, most of the polls were not able to gauge the slide of the Wildrose Party through the final weekend, nor predict or project that Alison Redford's Tories would win a majority.

In B.C., the polls were flat out wrong. Not a single survey had the Liberal popular vote at or even near where it ended up at on election night. For example, EKOS, in a poll taken over the final weekend, had the NDP at 40.5 per cent and the Liberals at 34.5 per cent. On election night, the Liberals got 44.4 per cent and the NDP got 39.4 per cent.

In fairness to EKOS, they did offer this comment along with the release of that poll: "…it is very difficult to predict a seat forecast or even whether we will be looking at a majority or minority government on May 14th. It does appear, however, that the NDP will win the popular vote and will most likely form government. This result, however, is by no means certain."

Voters who don't vote

The closest any poll got to the final result was a Forum Research effort that had the Liberals 2 points behind, but, it at least projected that the Liberals could win a one-seat majority government. The Liberals won an eight-seat majority with a total of 50 seats.

So, what happened?

Clearly, pollsters are counting votes from voters who don't end up voting. And, these voters are more generally the ones who are telling the pollsters they intend to vote for a party that is not the government.

In B.C., those people were NDP supporters. These voters who don't vote, are also most likely to be people under 35 years old. Factoring this into polling results, especially when election turnouts are routinely coming in at 50 per cent of eligible voters, is obviously proving very difficult.

The campaign does matter, in particular the last 10 days and especially the last 48 hours. We’ve always known that. It’s why we cover and report on the campaign trail every day. But, the campaign is now more important than ever before.

Fewer and fewer people are committed to a party at the start of the campaign. More are willing to change their minds. Many people are completely uninterested in the political process altogether. In both Alberta and B.C., it was clear many people made up their minds in the final week, the final day, or in the hours or minutes before they actually voted.

Messages and mistakes

The B.C. Liberals, and Christy Clark in particular, ran a great campaign. A simple, straight-forward message, repeated daily. Hard-hitting and effective attack ads that changed the ballot box question from the NDP's "time for a change" to "do you want to trust the B.C. economy to the NDP with a weak leader?" Christy Clark won the campaign, she won the debate, she was the better communicator and she became the leader voters "liked" the best.

The B.C. NDP, on the other hand, failed to remind and reinforce the voters why it was time for a change.

They allowed the B.C. Liberals to set the agenda by playing it safe and running a so-called "positive" campaign. The NDP made tactical mistakes too. The mid-campaign announcement to reject the KinderMorgan pipe line expansion failed to bring the Green voters back to the NDP. Worse, for those Liberals who might have been considering a NDP vote for change, it reinforced their concern the NDP might be bad for business and the economy. Exactly what Clark was saying every day on the campaign.

On election night, the Green Party did almost as much damage to the NDP as the Liberal campaign did.

The Green Party won a seat for the first time in B.C. history. In five ridings, the Green vote, added to the NDP vote, would have been enough to defeat the Liberal candidate. In another five ridings that the NDP won in the last election, the Green vote was high enough to allow the Liberals to win those seats this time. Two NDP incumbent candidates were defeated in the process.

In the end, those five seats would not have made a difference in the outcome. The B.C. Liberals won it going away. The lesson learned here for the media, the pundits and the pollsters is that the old cliché that "the only poll that matters is the one on election day" is exactly and emphatically true.

Bob Weiers is a Senior Producer at CBC News, primarily assigned to elections and live events. He's been covering politics since joining the CBC in 1990. His first election as a member of the CBC Core Group (the production team that travels the country setting up all that's needed to do an election night show) was in Alberta in 2004. He's worked on every one since.

First: to RangerRay's opening comment. Bob Weiers says "Christy Clark won the campaign, she won the debate, she was the better communicator and she became the leader voters "liked" the best." We can be very sure that Justin Trudeau will campaign on the fact - and I think it is a fact - that he is the "nicest," most "likable" of the three main party leaders. It can be an effective campaign tool; but

Second: consider the other reasons Bob Weiers gives for Christy Clark's success:

    1. "Christy Clark in particular, ran a great campaign. A simple, straight-forward message, repeated daily. Hard-hitting and effective attack ads that changed the ballot box question from the NDP's
        "time for a change" to "do you want to trust the B.C. economy to the NDP with a weak leader?" and

    2. "Pollsters are counting votes from voters who don't end up voting. And, these voters are more generally the ones who are telling the pollsters they intend to vote for a party that is not the government...
          In B.C., those people were NDP supporters. These voters who don't vote, are also most likely to be people under 35 years old."

Those two facts will work very much to Stephen Harper's advantage; he will stress, over and over and over again that neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau can be trusted to manage the economy and the Conservatives will count on the fact that their strongest supporters are about 50 years of age and older, and are reliable voters, while both the Liberals and NDP are appealing to the under 35 crowd who are not reliable voters.

 

[Jacky Tar]

Basically it came down to "hold your nose and vote Liberal - they smell bad but not as bad as the others" or "vote against the Liberals because you shoud change rascals regularly."

 

[Edward Campbell]

The National Post is reporting on a poll that predicts a Liberal majority in a 308 seat HoC if an election were held today and if Justin Trudeau were leading the LPC.

The poll results are:

BQ:                      6%         
Conservatives:  30%
Greens:              2%
Liberals:            41%
NDP:                20%




But when names, especially the Trudeau name, are taken away the results are that the Conservatives and Liberals are in a statistical tie with 32% and 30% respectively. Still, that represents a dip for the Conservatives and a real, measurable surge for the Liberals.

It is likely that, in 2015:

1. Justin Trudeau will lead the Liberals and the party will get a celebrity bump at the polls from that;

2. There will be a 338 seat HoC ~ advantage to the Conservatives; and

3. There will have been expensive, aggressive and nasty advertising campaigns between now and then ~ advantage Conservatives because they have, by far and away, the most money to spend on advertising.

Consequently: another Conservative majority government seems likely.

Liberal insider Warren Kinsella explains the real situation ~ "another Conservative majority government seems likely" ~ in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Sun:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/06/07/why-harper-isnt-losing-any-sleep-over-grim-polls

Why Harper isn’t losing any sleep over grim polls

BY WARREN KINSELLA, ,QMI AGENCY

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 08, 2013

In politics, body language is important.

In particular, the body language of Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau.

One of them does not seem worried; the other two look like they are taking nothing for granted.

Some pollsters, naturally, tell a somewhat different tale. If you believe successive polls — and after the industry’s dramatically wrong prognostications in elections in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and (to an extent) nationally — no one should anymore.

Notwithstanding that, myriad pollsters insist Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are ascendant, and cruising towards a colossal majority victory in 2015. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are locked in a downward spiral — while the New Democrats will be lucky to hold on to much of what they’ve got.

One much-quoted outfit, Forum — which predicted gigantic Wildrose and New Democrat wins in Alberta and B.C., respectively — told The Globe and Mail: “Of those surveyed, 44% said they supported the Liberals, 27% said they supported the Conservatives and 20% said they supported the New Democrats.”

If Forum’s numbers are right, Justin Trudeau should be lolling in his seat in the House of Commons, eating bonbons and playing Angry Birds.

But he isn’t.

Nor, for that matter, is Thomas Mulcair, who presides over the biggest opposition caucus in his party’s history, and who is allegedly within striking distance of the governing Conservatives.

Trudeau and Mulcair are working hard, pushing Harper in question period and pounding the pavement outside Ottawa.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper looks irritated, but not at all terrified, by the ongoing Senate scandal.

His party is preparing to do what it always does in times of crisis: Toss assorted staffers and parliamentarians under the proverbial bus and walk away. It has worked in the past, and it may well work again.

The body language of our three federal leaders, then, speaks volumes.

None seems to be too preoccupied with what the pollsters and the pundits have to say about the future, near or long-term.

The reason relates to bodies, not body language. At present, Harper has a commanding lead in bodies occupying parliamentary seats. And Mulcair knows he cannot hold on to many of the ones he’s presently got — whilst Trudeau needs many, many more to get to where he needs to be.

The May 2011 general election resulted in the Conservative Party taking 166 seats,

23 more than they had at Parliament’s dissolution, and more than enough to seize power in a 308-seat Commons.

The New Democrats won 103 seats, an astonishing result, given they had only 36 when the election commenced.

The Liberals, meanwhile, ended up with less than the NDP had at dissolution —

34 seats, losing half of what they had.

Michael Ignatieff and his oxymoronic brain trust led the once-great Grits to their worst showing in history.

Polls might lie, but the above numbers don’t: To do what some pollsters like Forum say is doable — that is, a big majority — Trudeau needs to find at least

130 seats.

To be sure, scandal, factionalism and ennui are chipping away at Harper’s coalition. He will lose some seats, and the recent Labrador byelection suggests that he may even lose a lot.

So, too, Mulcair.

He knows that his party’s historic May 2011 achievement was entirely due to the appeal of the much-loved Jack Layton, now gone.

He will lose MPs, too, mostly to Trudeau in Quebec.

But, as I regularly ask bright-eyed Trudeaumaniacs who will listen: “To win a majority, you need to shake loose 130 seats.

That’s a huge number of bodies. Where are they, right now? Name the ridings.”

And they can’t.

Thus, the tale’s moral: The polls say one thing. But the body language — and the parliamentary bodies — say something else entirely.

Mr. Kinsella offers some hope for a Conservative minority but I believe that the 30 new seats will, most likely, split 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives  see why here. The old Laurentian consensus which kept the Liberals in power and the NDP in perpetual support is shifting towards something new, something that unites BC and Ontario suburbanites - many of them "new Canadians" - with Western Canadians (outside of urban Victoria and Vancouver).

 

[ModlrMike]

Mr Kinsella hints at something many other pundits miss: the Liberals can not win the next election without Quebec, where the Conservatives can. My own prediction, FWTW, sees the Torries with a majority, the Liberals displace the NDP as opposition, and the Bloc return in numbers to parliament, perhaps even relegating the NDP to fourth place.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Liberal insider Warren Kinsella explains the real situation ~ "another Conservative majority government seems likely" ~ in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Sun:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/06/07/why-harper-isnt-losing-any-sleep-over-grim-polls

Mr. Kinsella offers some hope for a Conservative minority but I believe that the 30 new seats will, most likely, split 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives  see why here. The old Laurentian consensus which kept the Liberals in power and the NDP in perpetual support is shifting towards something new, something that unites BC and Ontario suburbanites - many of them "new Canadians" - with Western Canadians (outside of urban Victoria and Vancouver).

More on this topic in this article, which is part of a Globe and Mail series on the nature of Brampton. The article says, in part, "Immigrants are making up a larger share of the country’s population, particularly in suburban cities like Brampton, which now has more than half a million residents. They’re valued for their votes, but also for their disposable incomes – they’ve become prime targets of fundraising campaigns. And so politicians are reaching them where they congregate: their places of worship ... political observers say Brampton is where the Conservatives won their majority in the last federal election. Locals took notice when Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after launching the 2011 election campaign in Quebec City, was in Brampton the next day. He made another appearance in town less than two weeks later. Mr. Kenney was even more of a regular fixture at gurdwaras and local functions in the region and notably attended more than a dozen chai (tea) parties in one day ... Those efforts (along with the rise of the NDP) paid off. The Conservatives won all four federal ridings in Brampton in 2011, unseating two long-time Liberal incumbents and challenging the widely held belief that newcomers will blindly support the Liberals – the party of immigration reformer Pierre Trudeau – or their own."

My sense is that this is the "new religious right:" visible minorities who are not Christians and whose support cannot be taken for granted by any party. While I think the CPC can continue to win Brampton and other suburbs, it is not guaranteed, and the right Liberal leader - which might be Justin Trudeau - can turn the tables on Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney. As the article points out, new Canadians do have some issues, especially changes to the immigration rules that have made it more difficult to e.g. bring parents from overseas.

 

[Remius]

The only thing that could put a wrinkle in things is a Conservative split.  And while it may be easily dismissed, there are cracks showing, and water is starting to come through the cracks.  We've seen the quelling of a small backbencher revolt (revolt is too big a word, let's call them grumblings), but with the much publicised departure of one back bencher we could see more if things don't change within the party.  Peter McKay has already threatened to walk as he has before if certain policies are put in place and it is likely he will bring a few with him.  And the grass roots are not pleased with the handling of the senate issue.  It will be interesting to see what comes of what promises to be a interesting policy convention.

The worst thing is going into an election split like that and ending up defeating yourself.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Once more, I believe you're making more of this than there really is. These are minor blips, easily weathered.

 

[Remius]

Once more, I believe you're making more of this than there really is. These are minor blips, easily weathered.

Maybe I am.  But I highly doubt they are considered minor blibs.  The CPC just had the worst month of it's governing term.  I'd hardly call having your chief of staff resign in a scandal now being investigated by the RCMP minor.  And I'm sure the PM and other party faithful have not found it easily weathered either.  Luckily the summer is here.  They are at a critical half way mark.  contrary to what some people think, the whole senate issue, MPs, ethics etc is something that Canadians are watching.  Unlike minor things like proroguation or omnibus bills that most people aren't too concerned about.

But you make a good point.  If they can keep the economy on track then I believe that come election time Canadians will have forgotten or won't care unless it's still current at that time.  But they need to come out of this policy convention intact (and you know the media will be looking for those cracks).

 

[a_majoor]

As mentioned in the other threads, the other question on people's minds is "who is qualified/competent to replace the current government?"

Perhaps the 2015 election may be a question of holding your nose for the least worst choice. My own suspicion is after the smoke clears, we will see a reduced majority government, and Prime Minister Harper will make plans to retire prior to the following 2019 election, giving the CPC a chance to do a managed and planned succession (there is a thread about possible Conservative leaders where this is discussed).

Strategically, the Liberals are fighting an uphill battle on all fronts; Quebec will be a cage match with the NDP and Bloc, the NDP and Greens will be fighting hard for the urban ridings and the CPC will be literally fighting house to house in the suburbs. And this is before we talk about policy and leadership....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jeffrey Simpson offers Justin Trudeau some good advice, while highlighting a glaring Liberal weakness, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/when-things-get-serious-trudeau-will-need-some-firepower/article13316854/#dashboard/follows/

When things get serious, Trudeau will need some firepower

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Jul. 19 2013

Toronto Centre is a riding accustomed to attracting political kingpins. Ideally, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals would love to attract one for the by-election to replace Bob Rae – especially a candidate with extensive financial and business experience. So far, no luck.

Mr. Trudeau has an engaging Peter Pan quality to him. He’s focusing on younger voters and social media. He’s trying to contrast his youthful, upbeat self to the opposite personality and style of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Which is all well when kissing babies, but when politics gets more serious – that is, when the next election approaches – Mr. Trudeau needs to have built a team. And that team has to complement his own talents, which means having some heavyweight thinkers and doers aboard.

In particular, it means drawing some financial and business firepower to his side. The Conservatives are going to run the campaign around their ostensibly strong economic record, and contrast it with Mr. Trudeau’s lack of economic experience. To blunt that charge – if it can be blunted – Mr. Trudeau needs people on his team with what the British call “bottom,” that is, experience and intellectual heft.

When the Liberals were successful, they had such people. Think of Paul Martin in Jean Chrétien’s cabinet. Think of Donald S. Macdonald, minister of finance and energy in Pierre Trudeau’s cabinet and MP for Rosedale, the precursor of Toronto Centre.

Senior Liberals know that Toronto Centre, which includes part of the country’s financial district, would be a good seat for such a candidate. Having such a candidate, assuming her or his election, would allow Mr. Trudeau to parade around saying implicitly and reassuringly that although he’s not every experienced, the new Liberal MP for Toronto Centre certainly is.

But thus far, the trolling for such a candidate has passed through the political waters without a bite. Getting people from the private sector to run for public office is tough most of the time.

With all the recent shenanigans in Ottawa, a scathing media and a governing party with its attack-dog mentality, the recruiting task has never been harder. Similarly, the idea of an “open nomination” that the party has endorsed makes it hard for a leader to pave the path to a nomination for someone he really wants and who will help the party.

To put matters another way, why would anyone give up a successful and likely well-paying job in the private sector to wind up as an MP for any party, let alone the Liberals with their third-party status in the Commons?

By way of illustration, look at the core of the Conservative cabinet. Most of them, starting with the Prime Minister and running through ministers John Baird, Tony Clement, James Moore, Jim Flaherty, Rob Nicholson, Peter MacKay and Jason Kenney have spent most of their adult lives in or around politics.

Toronto Centre, like Rosedale before it, has had political heavyweights: David Walker and David Crombie for the Progressive Conservatives; Mr. Macdonald, Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and interim leader Bob Rae.

Mr. Rae won the seat with 41 per cent of the vote in the last election. It’s a winnable Liberal seat, although the riding will change after redistribution. The northernmost part, Rosedale, with its solid Liberal core, will go to a new riding of University-Rosedale.

What’s left – the exact boundaries are still in flux – will run from just south of Bloor Street in the north to Front Street in the south, and from the Don River to Yonge Street. The new riding will still be winnable for the Liberals, but also for the NDP.

Todd Ross is the only declared candidate as yet for the Liberal nomination. He’s a consultant and a self-described community activist who’s been involved in various causes. Another possibility is Sachin Aggarwal, who was a big organizer for Michael Ignatieff in the 2006 Liberal leadership contest and later joined the opposition leader’s staff.

Other possibilities include former provincial cabinet minister George Smitherman, young Liberal activist Zach Paikin and corporate lawyer John Campion. It will help the eventual winner of the nomination (and the riding) to be well-regarded in the large gay community.

All the possible candidates have undeniable talents. But do they have the “bottom” that the leader needs?

Deserved or not, Prime Minister Harper has the trust of Canadians on "pocket book" issues and, broadly and generally, Canadian "vote their pocketbooks."

 

[a_majoor]

The Ottawa Press Gallery bemoans their increasing irrelevance in the NP. I think this blogger's commentary gets it right, and also highlights some of what was alluded to in "The Big Shift"; the Ottawa Press Gallery represents the old Laurentian consensus, while the CPC speaks to the coalition of people's and regions making up the New Canada:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/07/kelly-mcparlands-maudlin-article-about-stephen-harper-is-right-on-the-money-and-thank-god-for-that.html

Kelly McParland’s maudlin article about Stephen Harper is right on the money, and thank God for that!

The self-pitying National Post columnist titled his piece, “Stephen Harper won’t read this, and doesn’t care what it says.” In it, he makes some interesting points:

“[T]he government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have taken the measure of the industry and decided it can be safely ignored as a major political player.

Mr. Harper has been doing his best to treat reporters, broadcasters and commentators as an irrelevance since he came to power.”

One of the keys to Harper’s success in Ottawa so far has been his ability to manage the Ottawa Press Gallery that chewed up and spat out his predecessors. The first indication of a new strategy in the offing was a minor story that appeared a couple of months after Harper’s first general election as party leader, the one where he held Paul Martin to a minority. To beat Martin the next time around, he did a reorg among his staff, replacing a number of advisors. The press laughed at this (for reasons nobody could understand), but among the people he replaced was his most trusted media consultant, whose principal advice had been to curry journalistic favour, with somebody who believed in a sterner approach. As a result, the press stopped treating him with contempt and started treating him with hatred – and respect.

“Journalists, like civil servants and activist judges, were all part of the unreliable Liberal-friendly superstructure that had been carefully put in place over the decades of Liberal domination.”

An accurate description of the ‘deep state’ in Ottawa.

“The depth of Mr. Harper’s disregard might be reflected in his handling of the torrent of bad news his government has endured this year.  He’s pretty much ignored it, other than occasionally issuing terse statement, no follow-up allowed.”

That’s because he thinks the public will be able to see that it’s all small-ball crap that’s been blown way out of proportion.

“The speculation, as so often, proved unfounded.”

In other words, the press doesn’t know what it is talking about.

“Mr. Harper now faces a press that shows much of the open disregard and distrust that marked the closing stages of the Mulroney government, when the prime minister was dismissively referred to as “Lyin’ Brian”. Every leaked email is now instantly labelled a scandal.  Backbenchers are derided as trained seals. Cabinet members are no more than better-paid lackies. Any statement from the PMO is treated with suspicion, as if the last thing it could contain was the unabridged truth.”

Correct. But tell me Kelly, how is it Harper’s fault that the Ottawa Press Gallery is petty and vindictive while it pretends to be objective and professional?

“Rather than make a show of tempering the toxic atmosphere his troops bring to the House of Commons…”

“Toxic atmosphere,” as opposed to the ‘congenial, fraternal atmosphere of mutual respect’ that turn-the-other-cheek Christians Preston Manning and Stockwell Day experienced in their dealings with Ottawa journalists?

“The Prime Minister plainly thinks Ottawa’s traditional news voices can be ignored.”

He seems to be right.

“It doesn’t matter if they denounce him on a regular basis."

It appears it doesn’t.

“If Mr. Harper wants to be heard, he’ll film an infomercial or a YouTube video, or the party will release another attack ad, which the media will be obliged to cover.”

One of the great developments in the past 15 years, is how technology is enabling ordinary citizens – and political parties - to go around the traditional press, thereby making Big Media less relevant. Hey, somebody should write a book about that!

“Maybe he’s right.”

Good for him.

 

[a_majoor]

And a bit of a counterpoint as to why polls have become unreliable, and why despite everything *we* are not getting the changes that *we* claim we want:

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=0278af66-ca8c-4c5f-9bb0-80938b9ad709

The disheartened state of voters
BY BRUCE A. STEWART
19 July 2013


We are angry, these days: angry at austerity for us and not for them, angry at the lies, angry at the disconnect between our lives and the issues in the capitals.
One polling collapse might have been bad luck. Two suggests something deeper is at work.

It’s easy to sit in Central or Eastern Canada and say, “well, it’s those crazy Westerners, telling pollsters one thing and then tricking them at the polls”.

But that’s not what happened — and the disconnect between polls and people is widening nationwide.

What underlies it won’t be fixed by finding more representative samples, or filtering out the opinions of those groups unlikely to vote, or any of the other fixes the polling industry is playing around with now.

What lies beneath the difficulty with polls — between elections and even into general election campaigns it looks like those who are governing will be turfed out, only to discover on election night that they’re back for another term, often with more seats than they had going into the campaign — is a malaise in the citizenry at large.

They don’t believe anything or anyone can fix the mess they perceive the country to be in. At that point, staying with the devils you know starts to make sense.

Since 2010, not one government going to the polls in Canada has lost, other than Québec’s Liberals (and they came very close to pulling it out, despite the stench from the Charbonneau Commission surrounding them). Think about that.

It doesn’t matter what party we’re talking about. From the NDP in Manitoba getting a fourth term to the scandal-ridden Liberals in Ontario staying in with one seat short of a majority, to the long-in-the-tooth Alberta PCs getting another solid win, to the inept and scandal-ridden BC Liberals getting more seats in an election they were supposedly upwards of 20 points behind in, we’re not willing to toss the sods out.

Oh, we talk a good line when the pollster calls, or when we’re filling in their web form. But then, on election day, we either stay home, or go and vote for more of the same.

What’s got the electorate spooked is the economy.

We don’t believe the unemployment numbers. We all know people out of work. We all know people forced to take part-time when they’re laid off from full-time, or who are contractors and consultants not out of desire but out of necessity. We all know students who couldn’t get a job. We also all know how precarious things are at work, if we do have a job.

The public sector unions don’t want to admit it, but they know the squeeze is coming, and that they’re going to have zero support when it does. They’re the last bastion of “protected jobs” in the country, and it’s being whittled away.

The average voter is carrying $1.63 of debt for every $1.00 of income. Their credit cards are maxed out, their line of credit is in use, and they’re looking at their investments (feeling nervous) and the local real estate market (falling, despite the best propaganda efforts of the real estate board in their community) and they’re worried sick.

Politicians can crow all they like about the healthy economy, the tax cuts supposedly delivered, the lack of inflation, and so on, but none of it is believed.

Taxes are up for the average person. Prices are up quite a bit. Every utility bill promises an annual double-digit increase. The squeeze, in other words, is being felt.

It’s that underlying fear about the future that’s causing the disconnect between polls and voting practice.

Not, mind you, that opposition parties are figuring any of this out.

You’ve got people like the BC NDP, who wouldn’t take the facts and figures to the population of British Columbia and tried coasting to victory. (Today they’re busy claiming the Liberals “cheated” their way back into power — that rush to claim victory was stolen is another thing seen across the country in the past few years.)

You’ve got people like the Ontario PCs, who lost to Dalton McGuinty in 2011 and have learned nothing and changed nothing in the two years since, setting themselves up to lose again to a scandal-ridden, fiscally inept, Liberal party.

You’ve got the NDP and Liberals in Ottawa, constantly failing to resonate with the public’s concerns (sorry, touting “middle-class Canadians” or “ordinary Canadians” in speeches doesn’t cut it), and more concerned with inside baseball than the issues on the street — at least, from what you see and hear.

Good heavens, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have scored a steady stream of own goals all spring and still are likely to pull off 2015.

The phenomenon has parties in the lead spooked across the country. In Nova Scotia (next to the polls) the Liberals lead the governing NDP in the polls, and they’re going crazy trying to figure out how Darrell Dexter is going to beat them. (Hint: look to yourselves.)

We are angry, these days: angry at austerity for us and not for them, angry at the lies, angry at the disconnect between our lives and the issues in the capitals.

But we’re not foolish: we’re not prepared, at this point, to just toss the bums out and put new ones in in a vain hope that things will improve.

The first opposition leader to figure all this out and communicate it will probably break the “those in power get re-elected” trend.

But I suspect it’ll be a long wait. Day-to-day sound bites are so much more important, after all...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with John Ibbitson's thesis in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/infrastructure-now-solidly-on-voters-minds/article13475150/#dashboard/follows/

Infrastructure now solidly on voters’ minds

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jul. 29 2013

The Harper government could be facing the gravest crisis in its seven years in power, on account of the weather.

Catastrophic flooding in Alberta. Severe flooding in Toronto. Wind storms, wildfires, hail. Extreme weather is costing governments and insurance companies billions of dollars in losses. And everyone is suddenly worried about their basement.

“The Alberta event, and the Toronto event, and just the stormy summer we’ve had, on the heels of many other stormy years, has changed the debate,” says Don Forgeron, president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. “I think that individual Canadians are becoming more and more concerned about their security.”

Voters will punish governments that don’t address those concerns.

“If people see things happening in their own backyard, or in their own basement, governments run the risk of being punished if people blame them for not having done something about it, for denying it or not taking it seriously,” argues David McLaughlin, who was head of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, before the Conservatives cut off its funding. “That’s the frame they’re stuck with, fairly or not.”

But while Stephen Harper will never convince anyone that his government is serious about preventing climate change, he may be able to persuade voters that his government is serious about adapting to its effects. It will cost tens of billions of dollars over the coming years. But taxpayers will demand the money be spent, because nothing matters more than preserving the safety of your family and the value of your home.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities believes that “extreme weather is the single greatest threat to Canada’s infrastructure and transportation system,” according to its president Claude Dauphin, who is also the mayor of Lachine, Que.

A few years ago, the FCM estimated that it would take $120-billion to repair the nation’s roads, sewers and other infrastructure. “I don’t think we’re making a mistake in saying we could double it, because of the climate-change threat,” Mr. Dauphin said.

The problem goes far beyond people living on once-dry land that turned out to be floodplain. Severe rain and flash flooding can back up storm sewers, flooding the basements of homes in neighbourhoods nowhere near water.

Blair Feltmate is chair of the Climate Change Adaptation Project at the University of Waterloo. He foresees a future in which repeated chronic flooding renders vast swaths of real estate uninsurable, causing banks to revoke mortgages. “We will be heading towards an uninsurable housing market in Canada,” he warns.

From 2000 to 2008, “large catastrophic losses” cost the insurance industry $500-million or less in every year but one. From 2009 to 2012, losses have been near, at or over $1-billion every year.

“The number and the severity of the storms keep surprising everybody, and it’s very difficult for the industry to keep up,” Mr. Forgeron said.

If this is the new normal, then each new storm will heighten public fears, and woe betide the municipal, provincial or federal politician who is seen as indifferent to those fears.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford acknowledges that climate change is having a severe impact on her province. "What we can do, and what we will do, is put in place effective infrastructure mitigation to reduce the impact,” she told reporters. The premiers want Ottawa to fund 50 per cent of “disaster mitigation” costs.

The Harper government has pledged $70-billion over 10 years to upgrade municipal, first nations and other infrastructure, “the largest – and longest-ever – federal infrastructure plan in Canadian history,” Marie-Josée Paquette, press secretary to Infrastructure Minister Denis Lebel, said in an e-mail.

“Disaster mitigation will continue to be an eligible category for investment,” she added.

But if governments are to seriously tackle the job of hardening cities against severe weather, the bill could be much, much higher.

Not everything has to be expensive, said Prof. Feltmate. Protection against flooding can mean installing low-cost back water valves to prevent sewer backup; designing parking lots to absorb rather than slough off rainwater; building bioswales – essentially water-absorbing ditches – in strategic areas; increasing storm water capacity when upgrading sewage systems; redrawing flood-plain maps; protecting wetlands around and in urban areas.

But it may also mean sea walls, water diversion ditches, barriers against wildfires and other big-ticket items.

“The climate has changed, it is changing, it will continue to change,” Prof. Feltmate says. “Extreme weather events are going to be the norm going forward. And we’re going to have to adapt.”

Ignoring this crisis is not an option. The weather will see to that.

Four points:

    First: anything Canada does unilaterally ~ anything Canada can afford to do ~ about climate change will be meaningless: China, India, Europe and America (including Canada at about a 10% rate) must,
    first, agree on what, if anything should and can be done.

    Second: this is the key point - "... taxpayers will demand the money be spent [on adapting infrastucture], because nothing matters more than preserving the safety of your family and the value of your home."

    Third: this can, and in my opinion should be done on the same basis that the federal government has proposed for job training grants - the Government of Canada will pay a full, fair share only if municipal and
    provincial governments agree to contribute, too.

    Fourth: this will have an impact of defence spending because I'm guessing that the federal government will start talking about it in 2013, make concrete proposals in 2013/14 and start spending in summer 2015, in
    time to trumpet it on the campaign trail. Money being spent on infrastructure adaptation ) which is, in economic  term productive spending) is money that cannot be spent on defence (because the
    government will still be in the process of "zeroing" the deficit by 2015 and the government will not raise taxes in an election year and because defence spending is (in economic terms) unproductive and
    because, primarily, defence spending is unpopular.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The Federation of Canadian Municipalities believes that “extreme weather is the single greatest threat to Canada’s infrastructure and transportation system,”

BS. The biggest threat is the lack of willingness of jurisdictions to do proper and timely maintenance on what they have, and to follow a schedule of staggered replacement (eg. the "replace 2% of sewer/water each year" idea).  Put any required maintenance and replacement off long enough and the costs are bound to be high.

>The problem goes far beyond people living on once-dry land that turned out to be floodplain.

Oh yes, that's always a surprise.  Not a clue in sight.

>“The climate has changed, it is changing, it will continue to change,” Prof. Feltmate says. “Extreme weather events are going to be the norm going forward. And we’re going to have to adapt.”

Feltmate must be new.  30+ years ago I was reading articles postulating that the relatively benign weather of the mid-20th century in the post-Depression era was anomalous.  He is correct that the norm going forward may be different; he is wrong that it is "extreme".  What went before was an "extreme" ("extremely benign").

 

[a_majoor]

BS. The biggest threat is the lack of willingness of jurisdictions to do proper and timely maintenance on what they have, and to follow a schedule of staggered replacement (eg. the "replace 2% of sewer/water each year" idea).  Put any required maintenance and replacement off long enough and the costs are bound to be high.

Exactly so. Since @ 2000 London has preferentially spent taxpayer dollars on "investments" like a convention center, downtown arena and "downtown renewal" at the expense of infrastructure and public works. The City Engineer once complained that while he estimated it took $30 million/year to maintain the existing infrastructure, the City Council only budgeted $8 million/year. Even if the City Engineer was padding his estimates 100%, that is still a huge shortfall. (and the "investments", rather than paying for themselves, are an ongoing drag on the taxpayer, siphoning monies that should go to other things, or ideally remaining in the taxpayer's own pocket).

Rinse and repeat for virtually every city and town in Canada, and there should be no surprise as to why simple weather events are suddenly so costly and damaging. Weather events that were no worse than we had in the 1970's, BTW.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As far as I can see, the key to a successful Conservative campaign in 2015 is based on showing Canadians that they, the CPC candidates, are the best choice for Canadians' financial security. This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Post explains why that's not a sure thing:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/03/flahertys-unfinished-business-slaying-the-deficit-biggest-and-most-elusive-check-left-on-to-do-list/

Flaherty’s unfinished business: Slaying the deficit biggest and most elusive check left on to-do-list

Gordon Isfeld

13/08/03

OTTAWA — When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited a hard-earned $13-billion-plus budget surplus from the Liberal government. By 2009, the country was in the red by more than $55-billion.

The global recession had posed a challenge to the Harper government’s bragging rights about prudent pay-as-you-go fiscal stewardship. With other countries around the world pledging to do whatever it would take to contain the fallout from the financial crisis and minimize the damage from the economic collapse, the Tories — eventually and reluctantly — fell in line.

The result: Canada’s first deficit in 10 years, and a whopper at that.

Ottawa’s spending taps began pouring cash into infrastructure projects, North American automakers were bailed out, banks were offered emergency funds to ensure liquidity and unemployment insurance benefits were extended.

The task of digging the country out of that debt heap on Canada belonged to Jim Flaherty. The finance minister is still digging.

With the global banking sector building liquidity buffers and implementing new regulatory backstops, but with economic recovery still fragile, eliminating Canada’s deficit remains unfinished business for Mr. Flaherty.

That’s not the only missing check mark on his “to-do” list after more than seven years in the government’s No. 2 position.

For Mr. Flaherty, there’s also the elusive goal of a national securities regulator, more changes — including possible privatization — at Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp., and renewed cries for tighter regulation of credit card companies.

But time is running out for the 63-year-old lawyer-turned-career-politician — who still sees Job No. 1 being to get Ottawa’s finances back in the black, in time for the next federal election in 2015 and his expected departure from government, unless recent health issues — or a can’t-refuse offer from the private sector — hasten his departure.

“He came to the Finance portfolio after the previous government had spilt considerable political blood to balance the budget,” said Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a public-policy think-tank, based in Ottawa.

Mr. Flaherty has “an emotional reaction to having been the guy who took Canada back into deficit. He didn’t create the conditions that made it necessary, but I think he would like to feel that when he gives up the portfolio, whenever that is, that he can say, ‘When I received responsibility of Finance, I got a balanced budget, and when I handed back that responsibility, the budget was balanced again’,” said Mr. Crowley, who worked with Mr. Flaherty at Finance as an associate deputy minister and who still rubs shoulders with him professionally and considers him a friend.

“I think that is one of the main reasons he is so keen to remain at Finance, because he feels it’s unfinished business.”

Christopher Ragan, associate professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal, said one of Mr. Flaherty’s biggest accomplishments “is one that he didn’t really want to do, which was to have a big stimulus budget in 2009 and 2010. And he did. He had an absolutely prototypical Keynesian stimulative budget, along with all the other countries that did it.”

“In 2008, they [the Conservatives] were saying budget deficits aren’t going to happen, budget deficits shouldn’t happen. Then life changed. I think it is a big accomplishment to reverse your position,” he added.

“It was really important to do that, in the first place, but also really important to get back from it. I don’t think it matters, from an economic point of view, whether he gets back to balance in 2014, 2015 or 2016. . . . But politically, there’s a clear benefit to being back in balance by 2015 because there’s going to be an election in 2015.”

The Canadian economy has not been cooperating lately with those reduction plans. After an impressive initial rebound from the recession, growth has slowed — as it has in many countries — or sputtered downward, as it has in the 17-nation eurozone.

Gross domestic product grew just 0.2% in May, according to data released Wednesday by Statistics Canada. The economy added 2.5% on an annualized basis in the first quarter of this year. Even so, analysts expect only a 1.5% advance between April and June.

Ottawa has been counting on 1.6% growth for all of 2013, followed by 2.5% next year and 2.6% in 2015. The Bank of Canada, meanwhile, now expects the economy to gain 1.5% this year and 2.7% in both 2014 and 2015.

The March budget put the fiscal 2013-14 (April-March) deficit at $18.7-billion — whittled down from $25.9-billion the previous year through spending cuts — and aiming for a $800-million surplus in 2015-16. That’s a big improvement over the $55.6-billion hole in 2009.

The latest reading by Finance, released July 26, showed the deficit for April and May actually rose from a year earlier, going to $2.7-billion from $1.8-billion.

“It’s going to be very, very tough,” said Mike Moffatt, a business and economics professor at Western University’s Ivey Business School. “There’s really only a couple of ways you can to go about it — you can either cut spending or you can increase taxes.

“I can’t see this government undergoing significant cuts to the military. And on taxes, I think that’s a non-starter. It goes against the Conservative brand,” he said.

“I definitely do believe the deficit will be decreased, through a combination of slow spending growth and an improving economy. But it’s a large hole to climb out of. To get to zero any time in the next couple of years doesn’t look realistic to me.”

Slaying the deficit certainly tops Mr. Flaherty’s “to-do” list, but pushing head, one way or the other, with the creation of a single national securities regulator — rather than the current 13 bodies across the country — has also been a contentious issue during his tenure.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2011 that Ottawa’s initial push for a single regulator infringed on some provincial constitutional areas.

“He’s a persuasive individual,” said Ian Lee, assistant professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business in Ottawa.

“I still think he can pull it off, because it’s in the self-interest of so many people to have a single regulator with a single set of rules,” he said. “We’re the only OECD country without a national securities regulator. Having a hodge-podge of rules and regulations, I don’t think it’s efficient for the capital markets.”

Also on the list are additional reforms to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which has seen its mortgage liabilities skyrocket in recent years.

Mr. Flaherty’s “done” list includes toughening rules last summer to shorten mortgage amortization to 25 years — from a peak of 40 years at one point — and putting oversight of CMHC under the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

“That was a hugely important move, because up until then it was self-regulating,” said Mr. Lee. “When you’re dealing with mortgages and mortgage insurance, self-regulation is not the way to go.”

Mr. Flaherty has also indicated the eventual move would be to privatize the federal agency.

Still to be done, as well, are stricter guidelines and possible new regulations on the credit card industry. The minister said he is “carefully reviewing” a July ruling by the Competition Tribunal that allowed Visa and MasterCard to continue charging merchants higher fees for so-called “premium” cards.

He held out the possibility of new regulations for the industry, over and above the government’s existing Code of Conduct for card issuers,  which has been criticized for being toothless.

On the flip side, Mr. Flaherty’s “done” list also has not been without controversy.

Chief among them: fulfilling the Conservatives’ campaign promise to reduce the goods and services tax — progressively to 5% from 7%.

“From an economic jurist’s point of view, it’s not what I would do,” said Mr. Crowley. “You get a far bigger bang for the buck out of income tax reform than lowering the GST rate,” he said. “There were better things to do, but clearly they wanted to return some money to taxpayers.”

Another was to cut corporate taxes. “That was a Paul Martin policy. It was part of the larger package of reforms from the mid-90s up to 2000 — a long-term strategy, getting the federal corporate [tax] rate down to 15%,” Mr. Crowley said.

“[Mr.] Flaherty, courageously, I think, stuck with that, [even] when it has been the subject of criticism and controversy.”

But the corporate world was less impressed with another tax move by Mr. Flaherty: this one income trusts. He announced on Oct. 31, 2006  that he was eliminating the tax advantage of these investment vehicles because they were costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars annually in tax revenue.

Recently, though, one of the pressing issues revolves around the man himself — and his health.

In February, after weeks of speculation about his appearance, Mr. Flaherty’s office finally issued a statement saying he was being treated for a serious, though not life-threatening, skin condition, one that required treatment using a steroid called prednisone. The side effects of the treatment are bloating, weight gain, redness in the face and “bouts of sleeplessness,” his office said.

Only two weeks ago, Mr. Flaherty was unable to take part in a summit of Group 20 finance ministers and central bankers in Moscow due to what his staff described as a bout of stomach flu on his arrival. While the illness restricted his ability to participate in the meeting, a spokesperson said the minister was able to keep “abreast of developments.”

Still, the optics were not good.

Talk of an early departure by Mr. Flaherty began even before any health issue was made public — shortly after Mark Carney in November announced he was stepping down as Bank of Canada governor to head the U.K.’s central bank. The two were often considered policy brethren, lecturing consumers on the ills of record-high personal debt and warning them against getting in over their heads during a time of soaring home prices, fuelled by historically low mortgage rates.

“The big question is how long can Flaherty hang on,” said Mr. Moffatt at the Ivey Business School.

“At what point does Harper say, ‘You know what? I really need a guy in here who can make it to these events and can do all the necessary media.’ Despite whatever personal relationship there is there, and no matter how the prime minister feels about Mr. Flaherty, at some point, the prime minister has to make the pragmatic decision.”

Some expected Mr. Flaherty, who appeared shaken and disappointed by Mr. Carney’s surprise departure, would also leave his post early, most likely for the private sector, to allow a replacement to be named ahead of the long search for a new BoC governor.

Instead, Mr. Flaherty maintains he is not going anywhere, any time soon.

“It’s been an exciting time for Canada and our future is full of potential,” he said in a statement to the Financial Post.

“Our government has a plan to realize that potential, and I look forward to being part of that.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper apparently agreed, reappointing him to the Finance post in the July 15 cabinet shuffle. Regardless, the talk continues.

According to someone close to Mr. Flaherty, the minister has “the ability to see this through physically.”

“He’s just not going to be daunted by that. If he can possibly see it through, he will.”

Financial Post

I agree with Prof Mike Moffatt of Western: no really deep cuts to national defence, but no growth, either, and no new taxes. That doesn't leave an awful lot of room to manoeuvre.

(On a personal note: I favour one new tax: an end user pay (à la the HST/GST) carbon tax that aims to address climate/environmental concerns by helping    Canadians to change their behavior. A new carbon tax should be accompanied by reductions in the income tax rates applicable to the bottom 20% of federal income tax payers and by cuts to corporate taxes which are investment and job killers.)

 

[Kirkhill]

As with everything else in this world the problem invariably resolves itself into a lack of income.

Time for a pipe, dear boys.

To be precise Christy's pipelines.

My prediction:  Christy will approve BC pipelines.

The scenario will run this way.

1.  The Dog and Pony Circus has wrapped up.

2.  The report highlighting concerns and deficiencies will be made public no later than Dec 2013.

3.  Christy will squawk - not too loudly

4.  Harper will recognize her "legitimate" concerns

5.  Allison will sit on her hands, and her royalties and leave the discussions to Harper.

6.Harper will promise to beef up the West Coast coast guard with a fleet of Norwegian style vessels all built in Vancouver and Victoria

7. Harper will agree to match any play Christy makes to protect the BC rights of way.

8. Harper will ensure that the native vigorish is suitably improved - jobs will be offered to natives in both the onshore and offshore environmental protection services

9. Christy will beef up onshore environmental protection

10.  Problem resolution just in time for the 2015 election

Where will all the money come from to pay for this?  The current $30 to $60 discount per barrel the Market/Obama/Environmentalists are imposing on Alberta oil

Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) competes with Canadian heavy oil producers in the Gulf of Mexico, and its heavy Mayan crude is currently priced at $96 (U.S.) a barrel, $5 more than the trendsetting light crude, West Texas Intermediate, and nearly $30 more than Canadian heavy crude was fetching in the North American futures market.

But it’s not only in North America where heavy crude is being valued highly. Prices for Saudi Arabian heavy crude delivered in China in the first quarter average $106 a barrel, just $6 below the average price for North Sea Brent, the leading international light crude.

Problem resolved in time for re-election.

Bonus points:

Books balanced

Obama sidelined

Yanks sidelined

Nation building project that ties Kitimat to St John, all financed by Alberta. 

Harper recreactes MacDonald's National Dream with TCPL as CPR.

2 More Terms.

>  Feeling adventuresome this morning. Must go buy a lottery ticket.

 

[Rifleman62]

Where will all the money come from to pay for this?  The current $30 to $60 discount per barrel the Market/Obama/Environmentalists are imposing on Alberta oil

The average last year was $23 per barrel. A lot of people have no idea that our oil is sold at less than world market price.

13 Dec 12 CBC report (figures at time of the report):

The wide gap between oil’s global benchmark price and what Canadian producers can get for their oil is costing Canada $2.5 billion a month, according to new research that sees the spread remaining for years even if new pipelines are built.

Normally, the price gap between Brent North Sea oil and Western Canada Select oil is $10 to $15 a barrel, says Charles St-Arnaud, an analyst at Nomura Securities. But currently, that spread is a near-record $50 a barrel.

Someone will have to explain to me why our gasoline prices, especially in Western Canada which doesn't import oil, are based on the world oil price not the discount Cdn price.

 

[ModlrMike]

Someone will have to explain to me why our gasoline prices, especially in Western Canada which doesn't import oil, are based on the world oil price not the discount Cdn price.

Because gasoline is traded as a commodity by itself, therefore the price is unrelated to the price of oil.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson weighs in on the importance of Toronto to the next general election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/toronto-still-a-political-barometer/article13605665/#dashboard/follows/

Why Toronto is still a political barometer

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Aug. 06 2013

The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario submitted its final report last week confirming that Toronto doesn’t matter like it used to.

But though the relative weight of Canada’s largest city in the House of Commons has declined, it remains a political barometer, a leading indicator of political party fortunes. How Toronto votes in the next election will signal who governs after it.

Thanks to the 2011 census and new legislation, the House of Commons will increase by 30 seats, from 308 to 338 in 2015. Fifteen of those new seats are in Ontario, for a total provincial count of 121.

The commission decided to allocate two of those new seats to Toronto. But in a telling indication of who is moving where, the cities surrounding it – stretching from Hamilton in the southwest to Barrie in the North to Cobourg in the East – received 11 new seats, further reinforcing the electoral dominance of the 905, as it’s called in honour of its area code.

If Toronto lacks the heft it once did in political representation, however, the electoral splits in the city make it a sort of oversized bellwether.

Many analysts overlook the fact that the Conservatives won Toronto in 2011, taking nine of its 23 seats.

The NDP surged to eight, helping make it the Official Opposition, while the Liberals were reduced to six.

The Conservative breakthrough came in Toronto’s suburbs: Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough.

The new riding of Don Valley North is carved out of Tory turf, giving the party a potential gain next time out.

But the Conservative win in Toronto was part of its domination of suburban Southern Ontario.

And the party was lucky: A rising NDP vote in Toronto weakened the Liberals, often allowing the Conservative candidate to come up the middle.

If support for Stephen Harper weakens in suburban Southern Ontario, or if the NDP vote returns to its traditional level of support, then the first Tory losses will come in Toronto, probably to the Liberals’ advantage. How much of suburban Toronto stays blue, and how much of it turns red, will tell us a lot about who forms the next government.

After a period of little growth, the city’s population expanded moderately over the past five years, as new residents – many of them immigrants or young professionals or both – took advantage of the new condos flooding the city.

“Many of the traditional neighbourhoods have evolved as a result,” said Michael Pal, a fellow at the Mowat Centre, an Ontario-issues think tank. How many Chinese live in Chinatown any more, or Italians in Little Italy? In the face of these changes, the challenge for the NDP under Thomas Mulcair will be to preserve the gains made under Jack Layton.

The demographics are particularly difficult for Olivia Chow, whose riding has been redrawn and renamed (from Trinity-Spadina to Spadina-Fort York), giving her a whole new swath of condo-dwelling voters to contend with.

But don’t count Ms. Chow out.

Nathan Rotman, the party’s national director, used to work for her. “My experience in the area is that they are about 50-per-cent renters,” he said in an e-mail exchange. “Most are second- or third-generation Canadians who grew up in the burbs and are either moving out or buying their first place.” Ms. Chow has taken the condo vote before; she could do it again.

For the Liberals, winning back Toronto is essential to the party’s revival.

Right now, attention is focused on a future by-election in Toronto Centre, where the well-known journalist and author Chrystia Freeland is seeking to replace Bob Rae. If she wins, Ms. Freeland will probably run in the newly created riding of University-Rosedale in 2015.

But downtown Toronto doesn’t elect the prime minister or the premier. It doesn’t even elect the mayor.

If Justin Trudeau wants to become prime minister, he will have to win the vote in suburban Toronto – Rob Ford country, even to this day.

Which is why, if you want to know who’s going to win the next election, you might want to park yourself in a coffee shop in Scarborough, North York or Etobicoke, and listen to what the people have to say.

I agree that:

    "How much of suburban Toronto stays blue, and how much of it turns red, will tell us a lot about who forms the next government," although I would say GTA, rather than just suburban Toronto; and

    "For the Liberals, winning back Toronto is essential to the party’s revival [and] "if Justin Trudeau wants to become prime minister, he will have to win the vote in suburban Toronto – Rob Ford country, even to this day."