Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin (Sun News) has been looking at races across Canada and has published estimates in something he calls the "Predictinator;" this is how he guesstimates the outcome right, now, five months out:

That would be just about the worst possible outcome ...

My current, five months out, sense is that the CPC is old and stale; it hasn't shown us anything new and interesting ~ things like the TFSA matter, they're good policies, but they're hard to "sell," they're streak, not sizzle. Old, stale parties usually lose. We Canadians don't, usually, vote for anyone, we vote to "throw the rascals out."

If we're in a mood to do that (throw the Tories out) then my preferred outcome would be something like this:

BQ (or other Quebec nationalists):  8
CPC:                                          117
Greens:                                        6
Liberals:                                      64
NDP:                                          140
Others:                                          3

That would give us a slightly left of centre NDP government, sustained, for 18 months or so, by the centre Liberals. It would give the CPC time to develop new ideas and get a new leader. I think M. Trudeau, if he keeps the party mired in third place, will move on and make way for a better leader. (Bear in mind, I have said, several times, that I want the Liberals to survive and prosper because we always need an alternative to the government of the day. My problem with the LPC in 2015 is its leader. I do not believe that Justin Trudeau is in any way suited to lead a G7 nation.)

 

[Brad Sallows]

>When I say Stalinism, I am referring to the way this government is literally deleting history to suit its agenda. In this case, it's to aid the RCMP in maintaining records of firearms ownership while publicly saying they've scrapped the long gun registry.

The article I read explained "The Harper government moved to retroactively rewrite Canada's access to information law in order to prevent possible criminal charges against the RCMP, The Canadian Press has learned."  How that can be interpreted as deleting history or aiding the RCMP to maintain records is puzzling.  Apparently the RCMP started withholding/destroying records before the legislation to end the registry passed.  The new language is to protect the RCMP from legal action based on premature action.  No-one is pretending that lawful access to information did not exist before.

This matter is not Orwellian, although I understand the rewriting-of-history analogy which was improperly deployed.  What is Orwellian is government keeping information about persons.

I approve of governments zealously destroying information they should not have.  I don't care whether it is about a person's political associations, sexual habits, or possessions.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Retroactive laws for criminal offences are prohibited under Section 11(g) of the Charter.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

    (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

If the law changes the lesser punishment applies under Section 11(i) and I assume no punishment is lesser punishment.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

    (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

Retroactive legislation is sometimes used in tax matters and in civil law and has been upheld.  In the case of the gun registry law, retroactivity is really irrelevant if what was done is no longer an offense.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting poll results (attached) re:  the Duffster's troubles - highlights mine ....

Canadians assign more responsibility to Duffy and Harper than Wright

Canadians assign more responsibility to Duffy and Harper in the personal cheque Senate controversy than Nigel Wright. Also of note, Canadians believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper's track record in creating jobs is most important in terms of his performance.

    Assigning responsibility for the Senate Controversy - When assigning points out of 100 for the responsibility of the controversy related to the personal cheque for a Senator's expenses, Canadians assign 40 points to Mike Duffy, 34 points to the Prime Minister Stephen Harper and 18 points to Chief of Staff Nigel Wright. The remaining were deemed as unsure.

    Important factors in PM's performance - More than half of Canadians (55%) believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's track record in promoting an environment to create jobs was most important to them in terms of their judgment of his performance. However, 31% of Canadians believed his management of the controversy related to the expenses of Conservative Senators to be most important.

    Paths forward for the Senate - While one in two Canadians (52%) would prefer reforming the Senate as a possible path forward, 38% would prefer abolishing the Senate and six percent would prefer leaving it as it is.

Methodology

Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land- and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,000 Canadians between April 24th and 27th, 2015 as part of an omnibus survey.

Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The sample included both land- and cell-lines across Canada. The results were statistically checked and weighted by age and gender using the latest Census information and the sample is geographically stratified to be representative of Canada. The current wave of research was commissioned by CTV News.

The margin of accuracy for a random sample of 1,000 likely voters is 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

QUESTION - Say you had 100 points to assign the responsibility for the controversy related to the $90,000 personal cheque for a Senator's expenses, to [ROTATE] Senator Mike Duffy, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff Nigel Wright or Prime Minister Stephen Harper, how would you assign the responsibility?

Senator Mike Duffy - 40.1%
Chief of Staff Nigel Wright - 18.3%
Prime Minister Stephen Harper - 34.0%
Unsure - 7.1%

QUESTION - What is more important to you in terms of your judgment of the performance of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his management of the controversy related to the expenses of Conservative Senators OR his track record in promoting an environment to create jobs? [ROTATE]

His management of the controversy related to the expenses of Conservative Senators - 31.0%
His track record in promoting an environment to create jobs - 54.9%
Unsure - 14.1%

QUESTION - As you may know, in Canada there is a House of Commons that proposes legislation and a Senate which generally reviews legislation proposed and approved by the House of Commons. Which of the following possible paths forward would you prefer for the Senate? [ROTATE]

Abolish the Senate - 38.0%
Reform the Senate - 51.7%
Leave the Senate as it is - 5.8%
Unsure - 4.4%

(....)

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin (Sun News) has been looking at races across Canada and has published estimates in something he calls the "Predictinator;" this is how he guesstimates the outcome right, now, five months out:

That would be just about the worst possible outcome ...

My current, five months out, sense is that the CPC is old and stale; it hasn't shown us anything new and interesting ~ things like the TFSA matter, they're good policies, but they're hard to "sell," they're streak, not sizzle. Old, stale parties usually lose. We Canadians don't, usually, vote for anyone, we vote to "throw the rascals out."

If we're in a mood to do that (throw the Tories out) then my preferred outcome would be something like this:

BQ (or other Quebec nationalists):  8
CPC:                                          117
Greens:                                        6
Liberals:                                      64
NDP:                                          140
Others:                                          3

That would give us a slightly left of centre NDP government, sustained, for 18 months or so, by the centre Liberals. It would give the CPC time to develop new ideas and get a new leader. I think M. Trudeau, if he keeps the party mired in third place, will move on and make way for a better leader. (Bear in mind, I have said, several times, that I want the Liberals to survive and prosper because we always need an alternative to the government of the day. My problem with the LPC in 2015 is its leader. I do not believe that Justin Trudeau is in any way suited to lead a G7 nation.)

Just a couple of days later, but based on some addtional polling data, Davoid Akin has updated his Predictinator:

The CPC is unchanged but the NDP have overtaken the Liberals to move into second place: a shift of nearly 15% of the 200+ seats in contention for the two parties.

 

[a_majoor]

This is probably the way the CPC likes it; the two "left" parties close enough to split the vote. Some subtle messaging to keep the NDP a bit ahead of the LPC is probably all that is needed for now...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bruce Anderson of Abacus Data, who self-describes as non partisan but who has a strong Liberal history, talks about the two front war in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the [ui]Globe and Mail[/i] ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-the-federal-election-liberals-and-tories-will-be-fighting-a-two-front-war/article24453286/

In the federal election, Liberals and Tories will be fighting a two-front war

BRUCE ANDERSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, May. 15 2015

Bruce Anderson is the chairman of polling firm Abacus Data, a regular member of CBC The National’s “At Issue” panel and a founding partner of i2 Ideas and Issues Advertising. He has done polls for Liberal and Conservative politicians in the past, but no longer does any partisan work. Other members of his family have worked for Conservative and Liberal politicians, and a daughter currently works for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He writes a weekly digital column for The Globe and Mail.

Given a choice, nobody would prefer fighting a two-front war to focusing on one opponent. But does anyone in Canadian politics still have a choice?

For the longest time, only the NDP needed to fight on two fronts. Tom Mulcair needed to knock down the Conservatives and undermine the Liberals.

Mulcair’s path to victory required him to both make the case for change, and convince people that he was able to win the election and deliver that change. Being 7 or 8 points behind the Liberal Party made the second part of that claim seem more hopeful than factual. The Alberta victory by Rachel Notley has reminded everyone how things can change, and that for average voters (not other partisans), the NDP is far from a toxic brand.

Meanwhile, both the Liberals and the Conservatives could afford to focus most of their attention on each other.

The Conservatives had been training their weapons mostly on Liberals and raising questions about Justin Trudeau’s fitness for office. Their goal was to see the Liberals and the NDP split the “change” vote equally. They were happy enough if they hobbled the Grits, even if it meant seeing some gains for the NDP. Lately, this approach had been showing some promise for Mr. Harper.

But, too much of a good thing isn’t always a good thing. Conservatives may now need to beware of what they were wishing for.

In the wake of Notley’s win, pollsters (including me) are looking to get a handle on what it means for the federal NDP. Some may conclude it’s a blip, while others may think that this is the start of a big wave. My own instincts are to take more time and maintain an open mind about what might or might not be under way. While it’s far from certain that the federal NDP are surging – it would also be a mistake to assume that it can’t possibly be happening, too.

So far, the national appetite for change has been broad, but not entirely enthusiastic. Fifty per cent want change, another 19 per cent would prefer it but don’t feel all that strongly. Should that 19 per cent develop a head of steam, federal Tories could face real trouble.

In Alberta, change didn’t really look like it had a chance, until it suddenly became an unstoppable force. That sort of pop-up phenomenon is becoming a new normal in this era of low-engagement politics. Polls well in advance of a campaign are best read with this in mind.

The Conservatives can thus ill afford to focus only on Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. They need to fashion an argument that will put a ceiling on NDP growth. This won’t be easy for them, because they have little feel for voters who are tempted by the NDP. Over-the-top attacks could end up sounding like arrogance. Politics is difficult, sometimes.

For the Liberals, the clearest path to a win looked to be about taking the fight to the Conservatives, and along the way rallying those voters who wanted change around the only brand that looked as though it could deliver it.

The Notley win, if it produces a sustained ripple effect for the federal NDP, will require the Liberals to adjust. They will need to firm up the market for change, and argue that Liberal change will be better for you than what the NDP is offering. The idea that change could only plausibly happen with a Liberal vote is not as obvious a proposition as it seemed only a few weeks ago.

In the run-up to this long-anticipated federal election, the mood in Ottawa is highly charged, and many seem tempted to offer forceful, if ill-advised, declarations based on every new piece of data.

But what we know now is not much different than what we’ve known for some time: This election will feature three well-funded, highly competitive parties, each led by talented politicians. While some may crave a prediction, sensible observers know that the outcome is becoming less, not more, predictable as the writ period draws near. This campaign hasn’t even really begun.

A federal election has not officially been called yet, but party leaders and their political machines have wasted no time zeroing in on the key ridings where they want to pick up seats, or need to defend them. In Montreal, in one of the country’s safest Liberal ridings, the party is leaving nothing to chance. And in Truro, N.S., the Conservatives are taking a challenge from a one-time Tory personally. It all highlights the powerful political maxim that it is best be humble about your support – even a handful of seats could mean the difference between winning and losing. The campaign of inches has begun.

... but I think he gets it (partially) wrong.

I agree with Mr Anderson that it is too soon to tell if the NDP's surge in Alberta portends a new Orange Crush, but Prime Minister Harper must hope it does and M. Trudeau must fear that it does.

As Bruce Anderson suggests a "two front war" is normal for the NDP but it poses two distinct problems for the others:

    1. Prime Minister Harper must play for good splits in many, many, many ridings: Liberals and NDP gaining 30+% each and the CPC "coming up the middle" with 35+%. That's hard but manageable and it is, really, a
        problem to be addressed riding by riding by good, locally aware tacticians. Sometimes, in some ridings the CPC will "go easy" on the NDP to help them and in others they will "go easy" on the NDP, in each case to split the vote;

    2. M. Trudeau must campaign hard against Prime Minister Harper and the CPC for the centrist (mushy middle) vote but he must, simultaneously, woo the centre left and left of centre "slices" of the electorate away from the NDP.
        That's going to be a neat trick, being a prudent fiscal manager and a big spender at the same time.

There is another aspect of the "two front war:" Quebec vs Ontario. M Trudeau's route to 24 Sussex Drive is, I am certain, through Quebec: if he cannot take 30+ Quebec seats away from Thomas Mulcair and the NDP then I think he is toast. He can do well in Ontario, even very well, but it will not swing, massively, as it did for Prime Minister Chrétien in 1993, '97 and 2000. The CPC will not produce leaders of such outstanding unpopularity or unelectability in Ontario as Kim Campbell, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. So he must do well in both Quebec and Ontario but my guess is that he will not do well in Ontario unless he is seen to be winning Quebec. Ontario has, traditionally, sought national leaders who will  "keep Quebec in its place:" French Canadians who are strong federalist do well in Ontario, those who appear to want to appease Quebec (with real political or economic influence rather than just money) do less well.

 

[ModlrMike]

I too think Mr Anderson has it somewhat wrong.

Each party has to fight a two front war. That being said, the Conservatives only have to account for one opposing ideology, where the Liberals and NDP have to account for two. The end result will be that while each party fights on two fronts, I think the Conservatives have the better tactical position.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I too think Mr Anderson has it somewhat wrong.

Each party has to fight a two front war. That being said, the Conservatives only have to account for one opposing ideology, where the Liberals and NDP have to account for two. The end result will be that while each party fights on two fronts, I think the Conservatives have the better tactical position.

Yes, that's it! The CPC holds pretty much everything from the moderate centre-right all the way to real, tooth and claw right wing, but they want to fight against all comers for the centre and even for a few centre-left votes; the Liberals are, traditionally and generally, a centrist party so they must fight for all of the centre: centre-right and centre against the CPC, and centre left and even some of the left of centre against the NDP. The NDP used to be able to fight a one-front war but Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair also aspire to be a centrist party and they need to hold the left of centre and fight, against the Liberals, for the centre-left and centre and, maybe, even a few centre-right votes, too. So the Liberals and NDP must both fight to hold the centre against the CPC, and to hold it and the centre and left against one another.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In an article which I posted in another thread David Akin of Sun Media challenges political leaders to make defence spending an issue in the forthcoming election.

We should all tell our MPs and candidates that we demand to hear what they will do about our national defence.

 

[dimsum]

In an article which I posted in another thread David Akin of Sun Media challenges political leaders to make defence spending an issue in the forthcoming election.

We should all tell our MPs and candidates that we demand to hear what they will do about our national defence.

I agree, but as you've posted numerous times in this forum, support for Defence is a mile wide and an inch deep.  If said MPs/Candidates say they'll support Defence at the exclusion of *insert social benefit here*, they'll lose.

 

[GAP]

I agree, but as you've posted numerous times in this forum, support for Defence is a mile wide and an inch deep.  If said MPs/Candidates say they'll support Defence at the exclusion of *insert social benefit here*, they'll lose.

Candidates won't touch defense with a 10 foot pole lest they be labeled as war mongers......we're peace keepers don't cha know? The Liberals and ignorant have got that message across very well.

As long as not too many were killed in Afghanistan they could tolerate it, but they want the military to be way, way in the background.....

They equate the CF with all the American fighting scenes daily on the TV.....they know no better.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the emphasis should be no what every good hooker knows - you sell "tail" not "teeth"  >

Think about it for a minute.

Most of the woes that I hear about come from a lack of logistics and support, or tail.  You could at least cover off those expenses in an increased defence by arguing that it is those very capabilities that enable the forces to assist usefully in civil and humanitarian crises at home and abroad.

The fact that having sufficient logistics on hand to permit a 24 hour response time domestically and 72 hour response time internationally could also be tailored on the basis of supporting deployed forces (light brigades, naval task groups, air expeditionary wings) would be purely a useful coincidence.

I believe that the provinces get charged when the CAF gets called out domestically.  Does Foreign Affairs get charged when the CAF if called out on a humanitarian mission internationally?

Here's another thought - Is there a way to present the budget in such a way as to "minimize" the cost of providing a lethal force?

I know it goes against the military culture where lethal force is the raison d'etre.  But, if that doesn't sell in Canada can the emphasis be switched to the sunk cost of maintaining a standing body of 58,000 +/- Canadians ready and able to assist in all situations?  One of the situations, the primary situation, has to be the provision of lethal force and they need to properly equipped for that.  But the cost of arming them is only a fraction of the cost of maintaining them.

 

[ModlrMike]

The challenge with that approach is that it creates the condition for rust out of our big ticket items. No one is going to believe that a jet fighter or a destroyer is a non-lethal asset.

 

[Eland2]

Candidates won't touch defense with a 10 foot pole lest they be labeled as war mongers......we're peace keepers don't cha know? The Liberals and ignorant have got that message across very well.

As long as not too many were killed in Afghanistan they could tolerate it, but they want the military to be way, way in the background.....

They equate the CF with all the American fighting scenes daily on the TV.....they know no better.

Absolutely, and that is the crux of the problem when it comes to how squeamish many Canadians are when it comes to defence spending. They haven't yet wrapped their heads around the concept that just because you have a truly combat-capable military, it does NOT mean you automatically must participate in every war, or, more particularly, every misadventure the Americans get themselves into.

The problem, though, is that Canada is so heavily dependent on trade with the US, it has tended to have little choice in whether to go in with the Americans - it's a case of either cooperating, or losing a lot of trade and living with restricted access to US markets. Even the Germans demanded that we supply reasonably capable military forces in Germany. Indeed, the way Chancellor Helmut Kohl rather bluntly put it, "No tanks, no trade." Like it or not, realpolitik sucks sometimes.

If you look at how the Swiss and the Swedish have handled defence, they have armed themselves to the teeth, yet maintain a neutral stance. Their militaries operate as the big stick that can be pulled out if, God forbid, diplomacy fails and an enemy - any enemy - invades or otherwise physically threatens the sovereignty of their countries. At the same time they maintain some capacity to participate in peacekeeping (where there actually is a peace to keep) or in humanitarian missions or aid to civil power scenarios. They also don't stick their noses in other people's business, so you don't seem them engaging in adventurism just because they have a military that can actually shoot back.

The way I see it, the first job of any military is defence of the country and its sovereignty, full stop. Anything over and above that is gravy. By maintaining combat capable forces, you gain three major benefits:

• You can maintain sovereignty and at least a relatively independent foreign policy.
  
• You can participate effectively in alliances like NATO and thereby live up to your treaty obligations. This opens up considerable trade and diplomatic benefits.
• If you are attacked, you can rely on your allies to come to your aid because you honoured your obligations to them, and thereby reduce your defence expenditures a little bit.

It is wanton and immoral in the extreme to insist that your closest allies defend you without at least making a good, solid attempt at covering your share of the load. I have always liked what John Manley (a former Liberal cabinet minister) once said - that you can't just get up from the table and go to the washroom when the defence bill is presented.
[/list]

 

[Edward Campbell]

Absolutely, and that is the crux of the problem when it comes to how squeamish many Canadians are when it comes to defence spending. They haven't yet wrapped their heads around the concept that just because you have a truly combat-capable military, it does NOT mean you automatically must participate in every war, or, more particularly, every misadventure the Americans get themselves into.

...

It is wanton and immoral in the extreme to insist that your closest allies defend you without at least making a good, solid attempt at covering your share of the load. I have always liked what John Manley (a former Liberal cabinet minister) once said - that you can't just get up from the table and go to the washroom when the defence bill is presented.

I agree that some people look at it like that, but ...

My sense of the electorate, at large, is that many, many, many Canadian vote their pocketbook and the calculation is less philosophical. I suspect that most Canadian look at spending in etrms of concentric circles around themselves:

    Spending on ME is good;

          Spending that directly benefits my family is pretty good;

              Spending that indirectly, but visibly/measurably benefits me, my family and my community (e.g. some infrastructure) is OK;

                    Spending that benefits others or is for a somewhat nebulous "common good," like defence (or symphony orchestras), is wasteful.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Tis human nature as a rule, I'll admit I am somewhat guilty of this myself.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson returns to the notion that Canadian politics are drifting towards a two party (centre-left vs centre-right) system and that the battle in 2015 will be (between the Liberals and NDP) to be that centre-left alternative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/albertas-political-polarization-should-worry-justin-trudeau/article24574701/

Alberta’s political polarization should worry Justin Trudeau

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, May. 22 2015

Western Canada has been the incubator and innovator of political reform in Canada for a generation and counting. When it comes to running the country, no one in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal has had an original thought in decades.

Now the West may be about to teach Central Canada another lesson, in the art of political polarization.

It was westerners who, in the late 1980s, identified deficits and debt as the single greatest challenge facing the country, and it was they who first tackled the challenge, in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Reform Party made deficit reduction its number-one priority, giving the Chrétien government the political room to act.

On national unity, almost no one remembers that, on Oct. 30, 1996, a Reform MP by the name of Stephen Harper put forward a private member’s bill, C-341, that stipulated a province could only leave Confederation after voting Yes in a referendum with a clear question – with Parliament alone judging whether the question was clear – followed by negotiations that included all the provinces, and with the result affirmed in a national referendum.

The Liberal tweak of Mr. Harper’s bill was known as the Clarity Act.

And in 2006, a western-based Conservative Party took power federally, launching a decade of reform in taxation, criminal justice, federal-provincial relations, immigration, trade and foreign policy that has reshaped the country for good or for ill, depending on your point of view.

Now the West could be putting forth another idea for the centre to consider: that politics in Canada must polarize between two parties, one of the centre-left and one of the centre-right.

In three of four western provinces, such polarization is nothing new. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have long alternated between the NDP and the Conservatives in Manitoba, the Saskatchewan Party (the current conservative party) in Saskatchewan and the Liberal Party (which is more conservative than liberal) in B.C.

The exception was Alberta, which experienced one-party conservative rule from the Depression until a few weeks ago.

But now NDP Leader Rachel Notley is about to become premier, the right is in disarray and Alberta appears to be evolving toward the same political dichotomy as the other western provinces.

And right on cue, the NDP under Thomas Mulcair is surging nationally.

A couple of years ago, Darrell Bricker of Ipsos Reid and I argued in a book called The Big Shift that politics in Canada was polarizing between left and right, with the party of the right holding the advantage thanks to the strength of the coalition of conservative westerners and suburban voters in Ontario, especially immigrant voters.

But we also argued that the left could effectively challenge this conservative hegemony if it coalesced around a single party with a coherent economic message. Mr. Bricker and I are wondering (a) whether the Big Shift has come to Alberta, and (b) whether western political polarization is about to be exported east.

We ask this tentatively, even hesitantly. After all, there is no denying that Justin Trudeau has revived the Liberal Party and made it a force to be reckoned with. Until quite recently, the Liberals led in the polls, and Mr. Trudeau remains for the Conservatives a dangerous foe who could unseat Stephen Harper this October.

But a new orange wave appears to be building, launched in Alberta and sweeping east. In national polls, the NDP now vies with both the Liberals and the Conservatives for first place, even as Mr. Trudeau struggles to get a hearing for his proposal to tax the rich and give the money to the middle class.

At some point between now and October, voters desperate to put an end to the Conservative decade are likely to coalesce around one of the opposition parties.

Will they coalesce around the Liberals or the NDP? If past is precedent, if the West is once again the teacher and Central Canada the pupil, then Mr. Mulcair should be feeling optimistic and Mr. Trudeau concerned.

I have said before that I believe the Liberals are the natural parry of the centre-left and that the NDP's political genes make it the home of the left of centre and left which is a faction that I think (hope) is in decline. But, both Jack Layton and, now, Thomas Mulcair, have tried to drag the NDP to the centre and, perhaps, we may end up with something more akin to a modern UK Conservative-Labour split than a mid to late 20th century US Democrat-Republican one.

In any event, a more polarized electoral landscape benefits only two parties: the CPC and either, but not both of the Liberals OR the NDP.

Whichever one wins the war for the hearts and minds of the centre-left, I wish them well because Canada always needs a government in waiting.

(I would like to see the centrist Liberal base led by M Mulcair ...)

 

[Kirkhill]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson returns to the notion that Canadian politics are drifting towards a two party (centre-left vs centre-right) system and that the battle in 2015 will be (between the Liberals and NDP) to be that centre-left alternative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/albertas-political-polarization-should-worry-justin-trudeau/article24574701/

I have said before that I believe the Liberals are the natural parry of the centre-left and that the NDP's political genes make it the home of the left of centre and left which is a faction that I think (hope) is in decline. But, both Jack Layton and, now, Thomas Mulcair, have tried to drag the NDP to the centre and, perhaps, we may end up with something more akin to a modern UK Conservative-Labour split than a mid to late 20th century US Democrat-Republican one.

In any event, a more polarized electoral landscape benefits only two parties: the CPC and either, but not both of the Liberals OR the NDP.

Whichever one wins the war for the hearts and minds of the centre-left, I wish them well because Canada always needs a government in waiting.

(I would like to see the centrist Liberal base led by M Mulcair ...)

With respect to the UK split between Labour and the Conservatives:

I think it could be fairly argued that the UK is morphing from the "Western Dichotomy" that Mr. Ibbitson suggests - a dichotomy characterized by class struggle between the working man and the owners - and towards an egalitarian 1950s Republican-Democrat model (or the older pre-Reform model lampooned as "Liberal-Tory:Same Old Story".

The fight in Britain was between those that believe in "tradition" and those that believed in everything else.  The traditionalists won by voting for the Conservatives and the UKIP.  Labour lost by trying to resurrect that British immigrant, Marx.  Labour is now fighting it out internally between its militant Waffle tendency and its Co-operative movement that still believes in the same things their church-going, masonic forebears believed in. 

Keir Hardie's Labour Party was not about Revolution.  Its rallying cry would be more fairly described, in Canadian terms as, "The Working Man Wants In".  The dominant characteristic of most of those old Labour men was not that they wanted to unseat the Aristocracy.  They wanted the same opportunities that the Aristocracy enjoyed.  Some of their greatest scorn was reserved not for the aristocrats that acted aristocratically but for those aristocrats that wasted the opportunities available to them, opportunities that the miner's son and shopkeeper's daughter would never have.  Conversely I know how well received were those aristocrats that met the working man on equal terms and mucked in themselves.  Keir Hardie's party was built by men and women that believed strongly in self-improvement and paying your own way.  Keir Hardie gave rise to that great Scot Tommy Douglas.

The challenge for every NDP leader since has been to meld that very British centrist co-operative movement individual with the much more radically minded continental leftist who was the result of the continuing struggle between peasant and church and aristocracy where there had never been a compromise possible.  The Church demanded no compromise.  The aristocracy accepted no compromise. The peasantry were never offered an opportunity to compromise.  Laisser-faire is a french word for a concept that does not exist in french.  It is a vilified Anglo-Saxonism.  The offspring of that community became the David and Stephen Lewis's of Canada.  They became the Waffle Intellectuals.

I think that there is a strong level of support for a party system that supplies two teams of individuals that broadly pursue identical policies but replace the individuals in power on a regular cycle as the faction in power becomes too comfortable and corrupt.

That would explain the tendency for governments to defeat themselves, for the lack of interest in policy generally except when policy is too obviously divergent from the status quo.  People like the status quo.  People like tradition.

And youngsters are not people....

 

[GAP]

that made my head hurt....