The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a column by Lawrence Martin that shows the sort of domestic political insight that makes him worth reading:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081009.COMARTIN09/TPStory/TPComment/?query=

And the winner is ... the party that cuts a deal

LAWRENCE MARTIN

October 9, 2008

Over to you, Jack and Gilles. Your game.

In the aftermath of election day, expect both major parties to be beating a path to the courts of NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

What we may be entering - emphasis on may - is a new phase of coalition politics in this country, a period in which the political dynamic becomes Europeanized: pizza parliaments, where the winner is the one that can bring together the pieces and cohabitate.

If there's a tight election result, Canadians won't want to go back to the polls again to sort things out. They've already had three elections in four years. So, after this vote, the "let's make a deal" game could well begin.

The Liberals are best positioned. If the Conservatives win a minority, the Grits could fashion a coalition of progressives to dump the government on the first confidence vote, then pay a visit to the Governor-General's residence. In other words, they could lose this election - and still win.

The coalition possibility became more realistic yesterday with Mr. Duceppe's surprise observation that he may be willing to enter into an agreement with the Liberals on some issues, such as the environment, to advance Quebec's interests.

But don't discount the possibility of the Conservatives coming up with a survival formula of their own. In the event of a slim minority, they may bend to some NDP demands to secure some medium-term support with that party, even though they are philosophically leagues apart. We aren't Europe, but it happens there. A conservative French president, Jacques Chirac, once cohabitated with a socialist prime minister, Lionel Jospin.

Mr. Layton has already signalled that he might welcome a coalition deal of some kind. The Liberals aren't going on record, but there's a lot of backroom buzz in their ranks about it as well. I put the question to one senior Grit earlier this week. The response? "Funny thing you should ask. I was just talking about that very thing with my colleagues."

For both Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe, side deals make a lot of sense. This is Mr. Layton's third kick at the can. If he comes in under 40 seats and is far out of second place, he'll need a new lease on life and leadership. A coalition of some kind would give him new purpose and new influence.

Mr. Duceppe has been around even longer. He needs something to give him and his party, criticized for not really achieving anything in Ottawa, new relevance. Some would balk at any arrangement between the Liberals and the Bloc. Others would see it as a new stage in co-operative federalism.

Easier for the Grits would be a postelection deal with the Dippers. But the combined numbers of the two parties might not exceed those of the Tories. That would mean Stéphane Dion would have to go hunting in Bloc land. Since he was a driving force behind the Clarity Act, it would be a tricky proposition. At the same time, though, Mr. Dion is not in the hard-line camp of, say, a Jean Chrétien or a Pierre Trudeau.

The Liberals aren't talking of coalitions now because they actually think they can win this thing. It's a little strange to see them suddenly dancing in the streets when they are at a dismal 27 per cent in the polls. The little bounce that sees the gap closing with the Tories could well reverse itself with the Conservatives getting an uptick on the weekend.

But Mr. Dion has many reasons to feel better. For the past year, he has been written off by almost every pundit in the land as a loser. But the way things are shaping up, he may be the one who survives this campaign, while Stephen Harper, stung by the wretched luck of a mid-campaign economic crisis, finds himself in a fight for his political life. Mr. Dion possesses what Michael Ignatieff has called extraordinary tenacity. He always seems on the verge of falling, but never quite hits the ground.

If we are moving into an era of coalition politics, Mr. Dion is well-placed. Green Leader Elizabeth May is a big admirer. Mr. Layton once said the Liberals would never have the class to elect a guy like Mr. Dion as leader. And now there's Mr. Duceppe making friendly overtures.

The division on the left was potentially crippling to the Liberals. Now they may be able to turn it to their advantage.

I described, a few days ago the conditions that might, in very late 2008 or early 2009, lead to a new, Dion government – without another election.

If situation 1 (Liberals + NDP > Conservatives) then I would not be surprised to see Harper’s government fall on the vote to adopt the Throne Speech, later this fall. I would then expect a Liberal/NDP coalition – with a few NDP members in cabinet and joint caucus meetings to keep the troops in line. I cannot see any reason for Jack Layton to settle for less. If Dion is as power-hungry as I think – he needs to gain power to keep his job – the he only has two choices: NDP or Bloc. He is all too aware that both the Conservatives and the NDP will heap scorn and ridicule on him if the Party of Trudeau and Chrétien crawls into bed with the separatists – and it will stick, too.

If situation 2 prevails (Liberals + NDP < Conservatives, but Liberals + NDP + Bloc > Conservatives) then, for the reason I cited above, I think Dion may join with the Bloc and NDP to defeat Harper but he will try to govern, alone, on a vote-by-vote basis, with Bloc and NDP support. In that case he would not want a coalition with the NDP because they, alone, cannot guarantee him power.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail are Jeffrey Simpson’s views:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081009.COSIMP09/TPStory/TPComment/?query=

Why Canadian politics will never be the same

JEFFREY SIMPSON

October 9, 2008

Canada's party politics is fractured. The days of two strong national parties are over, certainly temporarily, perhaps forever.

The rise of the Greens and the apparent permanence of the Bloc Québécois reflect the splintering of politics on linguistic or single-issue lines, something dreaded by those who saw national parties as indispensable links in a pluralistic, geographically huge, linguistically split country.

Now, parties are more like the country itself: subdivided. Something will give. Either enough NDP and Green voters will switch strategically to the Liberals, as the only party that can replace the Conservatives, or the next Parliament will be much like the last one, with the Conservatives holding power but facing three, or maybe four, parties.

Peter Russell, an intellectual pepper pot of a retired political scientist, wrote in a recent book that, if splintered politics is what Canadians want, then things parliamentary and political will have to change.


Parties are going to have to learn to work together, either inside or outside formal coalitions.

Parliamentary rules are going to have to change, so that co-operation prevails over confidence votes and other blunt instruments of division.

Devotees of proportional representation will argue that, since the electorate is producing splintered politics under the "first past the post" system, why not change to a system that makes majorities almost impossible. Bring the voting process in line with reality, they will argue.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the election prematurely, despite his own bill fixing election dates every four years. Presumably, he reckoned his party would win a majority or, with bad economic news coming, he could stem his losses. He certainly did not anticipate - who did? - the tsunami that swept over the U.S. financial system and reverberated around the world. In Canada, he is being blamed for something he did not, and could not, anticipate. As in the United States, the tsunami hurts the incumbent party.

The Conservatives did seem well-positioned to win their majority, or at least strengthen their minority. Beyond the tsunami, what crippled their hopes was the retreat of francophone Quebeckers into the comfortable embrace of the Bloc. That party has been the choice of francophone Quebeckers since the 1993 election. In five consecutive elections, the Bloc has won the largest number of Quebec seats, and will do so again next week.

By voting Bloc, many francophones have fundamentally altered their view of how to pursue their interests. They no longer see Canada as a federation or a country, but rather as an entity from which to extract benefits while making a minimalist contribution to the country's governance.

Quebec has become, for federal political purposes, largely a demandeur society rather than a participating one, with voters secure that their provincial government will always be demanding, comforted that any federal government will pay attention to their interests, and possessed of an opposition party that speaks only to and for their interests.

The effect of this withdrawal from the governance of Canada is to make that governance more difficult, or at least to change it profoundly, since majorities based on national parties with strength in Quebec and beyond are now hard to assemble.

In the early years, the Bloc said it would hang around only long enough to see Quebec become independent. Now, of course, it doesn't even talk about that issue in a campaign. Instead, it has settled in as an apparently permanent fixture, to the satisfaction of a chunk of francophone Quebeckers, with structural consequences for Canadian politics.

No one knows whether the Greens will win a seat, but they are now beneficiaries of large public subsidies and a leader who can participate in national debates on an equal footing with leaders of much larger parties. These benefits suggest the Greens also will become a political fixture.

Broad national parties that tried internally to broker compromises are under assault from the ideology of the left (the NDP), the narrow pursuit of regional self-interest (the Bloc), and single-issue politics (the Greens). A lot of Canadians are happy with this state of affairs. Canadian politics, and therefore Canada, will never be the same.

While I agree with Simpson re Québec being a demandeur rather than a participant in the political process, I doubt that we are headed for a very long period of coalition managed minorities.

I suspect there are only 35 to 40 hard separatist demandeaur seats in Québec; the other 35 or 40 can split, fairly evenly, between the Conservatives and Liberals. The Liberals are unlikely to lose their stranglehold on 20± of Atlantic Canada’s 32 seats just as the Conservatives have a very, very good chance of winning 70± of the 95 seats West of Ontario. That means that Ontario’s 106 seats become critical – and Jean Chrétien won three successive majorities by ‘owning’ Ontario.

The Liberals can get majority after majority with 25 Atlantic seats, 20 Québec seats, 15 seats West of Ontario and, therefore, 95 of Ontario’s 106 seats.

The Conservatives can win with 10 Atlantic seats, 15 Québec seats, 70 seats West of Ontario and 60 Ontario seats.

One of those two possibilities is, in my opinion, the mos likely result of the next general election.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

The only thing Harper can hope for now is a weak minority, he slipped the tongue these past few days and it hurt his numbers. If he had  kept his mouth shut and stop talking about his mother or how Canadians could get bargains in the stock market right now (true as that may be), that's the last thing people want to hear if this chaotic financial environment. he may of had a chance, but now its a bit to late, because the others parties have used this in whatever way they can to gain the advantage and the cracks in his campaign are getting wider.

 

[a_majoor]

I read one blog which suggested a grand coalition between the CPC and Liberals here. I suspect this would be far more palatable for either party than letting the NDP or Bloc or (shudder) the Greens anywhere near the levers of power.

A secondary suggestion might be to have a coalition cabinet: leading Liberals invited to assist the government during the crisis with an agreement to dissolve the arrangement once the crisis is over (although given FDR's interventions made the Great Depression even greater, this could be a long time with a Democratic Administration or Congress at the wheel in the United States).

 

[Edward Campbell]

A new day: new polls.

--------------------

Ekos says:

Tories Fighting Regional Battles But Winning Nationally

BQ: 10% (NC from the 7 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 35% (+1 “ ) (Ekos have the Tories at 33% to 36% for the entire election campaign)
Greens: 11% (NC “ )
Libs: 24% (-1 “ ) (Ekos have the Grits at 24% to 26% for the entire election campaign)
NDP: 20% (NC “ )

--------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Stabilize, Lead by 5

BQ: 8% (NC from the 8 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 32% (+1 “ ) (Harris-Decima have had the Tories at 31% (yesterday) to 41 a month ago)
Greens: 12% (NC “ )
Libs: 27% (NC “ ) (Harris-Decima have had the Liberals at 23% to 28%)
NDP: 19% (-1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

Status quo overnight, Tories hold on to 4 point lead

BQ: 10% (+2 from the 8 Oct 08 results)
Cons: 33% (NC “ ) (Nanos has had the Tories at 32% to 40% during the campaign)
Greens: 7% (-4 “ )
Libs: 29% (NC “ ) (Nanos has had the Grits at 24% to 35% during the campaign)
NDP: 20% (NC “ )

--------------------

So, except for the Nanos reporting of the BQ and Green numbers (not my transcription), essentially a no change day – despite all the economic bad news. Ho-hum.  :boring:

 

[GAP]

Andrew Coyne coming out is support of Harper? Almost "Alice in Wonderlandish". He does do a good job of showing people what the stock market is doing to them.

The only thing they have to fear
By Andrew Coyne October 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm Posted to: Andrew Coyne's Blog,
Article Link

I didn’t care much for Stephen Harper’s accusation, earlier in the campaign, that the opposition were cheering for a recession. At the time, it seemed like a cheap shot. But the longer this goes on, the more I’m starting to think there’s something in it. The Liberals are now trying to make a “gaffe” of Harper’s perfectly sensible observation that the present panic on the stock markets presents a remarkable buying opportunity, for those with cooler heads. Stephane Dion, in particular, was quick to denounce the advice as “so insensitive.”

I’m sorry? How? What would they have him say? Sell? Take your lumps? Do nothing? You can only call it “insensitive” if you are bound and determined that nothing should break the spell of panic that now grips the country — that no possibility of an upside should be allowed to intrude. Just so long as cooler heads do not prevail.

This is demagoguery of the worst sort. And I don’t just mean that nothing about the present state of the Canadian economy justifies lumping it in with the United States or Europe, still less invoking the ghost of R. B. Bennett. We have not suffered a real estate crash, nor are we likely to; we have not seen a single financial institution go under, nor is any likely to; we did not have anything like the sub-prime mortgage mess; nor do we have the institutional equivalents of Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns — large, highly-leveraged, stand-alone investment banks without the backing of a chartered bank.

But that’s not what distinguishes the opposition demagoguery in this case. It isn’t that they’re fear-mongers: it’s that, having mongered such fears, they do not propose to do anything about them. Sensibly enough — the problems of the Canadian economy, such as they are, find their origins outside our borders, and will find their solutions there. But it’s the height of hypocrisy, whaling away at the government for doing nothing while offering precisely the same themselves. The 85 lefty economists who signed that letter demanding the government go into deficit and otherwise “stimulate” the economy might have been out to lunch, but they were at least putting their names on the line, and exposing their proposals to public criticism. The opposition are taking no such risk, or responsibility.

So. We are not in a depression. We are not even, so far as anyone knows, in a recession. And while the rest of the world’s financial system dissolves in panic, Canada remains a notable island of stability. We do not have an emergency on our hands. What we have is a nasty downdraft in the stock market — one that is reflective of a deeper crisis, to be sure, but a crisis not of our making.

Is a 35% drop in the stock market (from its June peak) a crisis in itself? No it is not. The stock market does not owe you a living. It’s down 35% from four months ago, but it was up 50% in the three years before that (see chart). The present “crisis” has taken prices on the TSE all the way back to where they were in the dark days of 2005 — when they had just finished climbing 50% in two years. Think back to that time. You were rich! You were happy! You were counting your money!

Maybe you should have sold then. But you didn’t, because you wanted more. Now you’re paying the price. You’ve given up three years of gains. But you’re still up 50% from where you were five years ago. And, if you’re sensible, you’ll make up for not selling then by buying now. Those who were on the buy side on October 19, 1987 made a killing in the months that followed.

Not willing to risk it? Fine. Just sit tight. Worried about your retirement? If you’re anywhere under 55, you’ll be fine. You don’t need the money for 10 or 15 years. Stocks will have more than recouped their losses by then (at a compound annual growth rate of 5%, you double your money every 14 years). If you’re over 55 — what are you doing in the stock market?

This bears emphasis: If you’re old enough to be worried about your stocks, you’re too old to own them. Stocks earn more in the long term, because they’re riskier in the short term. You should be heavily in stocks when you’re young, because you’re not going to need the money any time soon. But you should be gradually shifting into safer investments — bonds, T-bills — as you get older. By the time you’re of retirement age, they should be only a small part of your portfolio. That’s not complicated. It doesn’t take a PhD or a high-powered investment adviser. It’s just common sense.

So when the Liberals invoke the pensioner who’s lost half of his savings in the stock market plunge, you have to ask: what was he thinking? To be sure, on this one point the Grits have actually proposed something creative — allowing pensioners to keep their investments in their RRIFs a while longer, rather than being forced to sell at these prices in order to make the required withdrawals on the usual schedule.

But at some point, people have to take a little responsibility for their actions. Otherwise, we have the individual version of moral hazard: everyone has a great ride on the stock market on the way up, but comes crying to government to bail them out when things turn south.
More on link

 

[GAP]

John Ivison: Dionmania and the Spruce Goose -- two ideas that just won't fly
Posted: October 09, 2008, 6:30 PM by Kelly McParland
Article Link

HALIFAX • Dion-mania, a three-day-old irrational exuberance that results in its victims believing Stéphane Dion might actually become Prime Minister, started to wane yesterday, in direct proportion to the stability returning temporarily to some stock markets.

You could see reality dawning on those in the audience at the Halifax Chamber of Commerce yesterday who started to notice inconsistencies between the world the Liberal leader inhabits and the one where they live.

Assertion after unchallenged assertion created a picture of the sunny uplands to which a Dion government would lead Canadians. But there seemed to be a sense in the crowd that it was all too good to be true. Increasing government spending at a time when your tax revenues are drying up has the same logic to most people as putting your foot on the gas as you hurtle towards a brick-wall.

Mr. Dion claims that his plan would “unleash” a welter of economic opportunies. “Two hundred and thirty of Canada’s leading economists have written a letter advocating for the principles of the Green Shift...They have all said this is good for the economy and good for the environment. Good for your wallet and good for the planet,” he said yesterday.

Not quite. While the economists did say that government should put a price on carbon, they admitted that “substantive action will involve economic costs”, not financial benefits.
More on link

 

[TCBF]

John Ivison: Dionmania and the Spruce Goose -- two ideas that just won't fly
Posted: October 09, 2008, 6:30 PM by Kelly McParland
Article Link
... Mr. Dion claims that his plan would “unleash” a welter of economic opportunies. ...
More on link

- The 'opportunities' he speaks of are the lavishly-funded bureaucracies, consulting firms, and advisory panels 'administering' the application of these funds.  Needless to say, they will all be staffed with campaign workers and the party-connected.  Immigration and Refugee Board, anyone?

 

[vonGarvin]

I've been holding off making a prediction.  Looking at the fractured left combined with the solid centrist Conservatives, I foresee a majority for Stephen Harper et al.  With regional representation, national numbers can be misleading.  Myabe it's wishful thinking on my part, maybe it's my spider senses, but this is my prediction.  Come Next Wednesday, I'll know if I was right or wrong.

 

[GAP]

Maybe spiders in empathy, but I too have the same feeling.....it still feels like there is massive Conservative support out there.....

 

[TCBF]

- A future majority government might get support, but will it get the votes it needs to become a majority?  How many out there will just believe it will happen and not bother?  Nothing beats organization at the grass roots level.  Remember "Landslide Annie" and her teams? She won in 93 by ONE VOTE (grew to 12 after the re-count) and in 2000, TWO radio stations declared her opponent the victor - prematurely. Seems the old-folks polling stations votes got counted last, and who was getting them out to the polls?  "Need a ride, Ma'am?" Organization pays.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I've been holding off making a prediction.  Looking at the fractured left combined with the solid centrist Conservatives, I foresee a majority for Stephen Harper et al.  With regional representation, national numbers can be misleading.  Myabe it's wishful thinking on my part, maybe it's my spider senses, but this is my prediction.  Come Next Wednesday, I'll know if I was right or wrong.

Please can you pass over what ever your smoking, must be some good stuff.

A majority may have been in the stars two weeks ago, but now the world economic crisis has lifted it's ugly head out of the ashes that was the world economy and blasted that "majority" all to hell. Along with tongue tied comments like "now is a good time to buy stock" or don't panic it will all be OK". Or the interview with Mansbridge Wednesday night when he said, two minorities in a row is a warning to the opposition and in itself is a majority", come on, with comments like that, he's starting to sound as flabbergasted as Stephan Dion. He's all but lost Quebec on the arts cutbacks and throwing 14 year olds into jails, (petty as these things may sound), but they are all important matters to quebecors and Ducceppe made sure of that earlier last week.

When he released his platform on Tuesday all he said over and over again is "lets be clear, we intend to keep on doing the same thing we've been doing for the past 2 1/2 years and that's making sure that Canada's fundamentals are sound". We all heard that line 4 weeks ago, please tell us something we don't know, enlighten us. 

Then he comes out and says the world economic crisis won't be to bad on Canada and just a day later Flaherty comes back and says just the opposite, that we're in for much darker times, that shows that the farmer doesn't know were all his cows are or that Flaherty has aspirations of his own of moving up the food chain. People are scared right now, so to tell them not to panic, is not a very bright idea, especially not during a global financial meltdown. People are worried and for good reason and his off comments are just going to hurt him at the polls.

On October 14Th , people are going to be looking for one thing from a leader "empathy" they want assurances that the government will help them through these hard times and whatever party can show that they can deliver that result will come out ahead. So far he's shown resolve and restraint, but he hasn't shown much empathy or given very many assurances and those are the weaknesses that the opposition parties are capitalizing on right now and hoping he will continue doing. 

So roll me one of those doobies, I could sure use some inspiration right about now. hell, after this past week I think Harper could probably use one to, it may help him have pleasant dreams of that majority.

 

[TCBF]

- The facts:
1. The USA has practically nationalized it's mortgage market.
2. Britain has partially nationalized it's banking sector.
3. Spain has created an $80 billion bail out fund.
4. The EU can't decide on what to do.
5. France has imposed resrtictions on executive pay.
6. Iceland has pleaded for an emergency loan from Russia! (Perhaps with basing priveledges?)
7. Canada...  Canada... ugh, Canada....  what was the question?  Canada had a functioning set of safeguards in place and our banks are now buying foriegn institutions at firesale prices.  Meanwhile, the NDP and Liberals are squeeling gloom and doom.  Where do they live? ICELAND? 

 

[vonGarvin]

Please can you pass over what ever your smoking, must be some good stuff.

\\\\\\\

So roll me one of those doobies, I could sure use some inspiration right about now. hell, after this past week I think Harper could probably use one to, it may help him have pleasant dreams of that majority.

Well, I am in Afghanistan, and there is plenty of illicit stuff growing all around, so...

But in all seriousness, I think that in the final few days, Harper just has to point South, East and West and say "We were prepared thanks to our (read: the conservatives') actions.  If you want continued stability, vote Conservative".  I think in the end, people vote with their wallets, not their hearts.  People already know Stephen Harper to be a bit of a social dud.  But, when it comes to "Hands in our Pockets", they would rather Stephen Harper et al, not the tax and spend liberals, especially when one looks to Europe, Asia and the USA and see nothing but chaos.

Anyway, just my thoughts.  I will watch nervously on Tuesday evening (Wednesday am here) to see if my dope is really that good!

Cheers!

 

[GAP]

Well, Harper is learning, albeit the hard way, but after awhile you learn what and how to say things, and what not....by 2015 he should have it down pat and everybody will be simply amazed at how astute a politician he is.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is that journal’s endorsement of a party and leader:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.weelection2008/BNStory/politics

GLOBE EDITORIAL

Harper is growing into the job

From Friday's Globe and Mail
October 9, 2008 at 9:00 PM EDT

Two anxieties, neither wholly irrational, have attached themselves to Stephen Harper in his years as a contender for and holder of the top political office in the land. The first is that he is a right-wing ideologue, badly out of sync with mainstream Canadian values and sentiments. The second is that he is possessed by a mean-spirited and controlling nature; that his emotional intelligence isn't up to his mental level.

These dual anxieties continue to fuel a passionate anti-Harper streak in Canadian politics. Certainly, he has been far too much a solo runner in the team game of politics. He doesn't trust easily and so isn't trusted much. He is prone to savage attacks on his opponents and detractors, such as his gratuitous characterizations of parliamentary critics as Taliban sympathizers or artists as rich gala-goers. He also shows an underdeveloped appreciation for the basic tenets of pluralism with his denigrations of the keepers of critical checks and balances in our political system, from officers of Parliament to members of the press.

But despite these personality traits, Mr. Harper has governed moderately and competently for nearly three years. He has not taken the country in dangerous new directions or significantly eroded the capacity of the government to act, when necessary, in the public interest. He has been side-swiped, at least on the emotional level, by an international economic crisis of epic proportions. But he has gotten the big things right.

An election rarely offers perfect choices. Voters are called upon to sort through a catalogue of inputs — issues, policies, past records, regional affiliations, personalities, etc. — in casting their ballots. On balance, Mr. Harper remains the best man for the job in the tough times now upon us. He deserves if not four more years, at least two more years. By all logic, he should be cruising to an easy majority. That he is not, and has proven incapable of holding north of 40 per cent in public support, will hopefully persuade him to be mindful of the penalty he pays for failing to address these two persisting anxieties.

That said, the anxious among us should also be mindful that the exercise of power is inherently moderating in a democracy. Elected officials need to balance competing interests and be able to justify their actions. Public opinion weighs constantly on a political leader; the knowledge is always there that his or her political strength is directly co-related with approval ratings.

In this campaign, Mr. Harper and his Conservative party are only seriously challenged for government by Stéphane Dion's Liberals. (For all the flourish of his introductory line — "I'm Jack Layton and I'm running for Prime Minister" — history and political culture suggest otherwise.) Mr. Dion is a decent man of great integrity and tremendous courage, most evident in his years as minister of intergovernmental affairs under Jean Chrétien. But a leader he is not.

If you want to meet the most inflexible head of a major political party, Mr. Dion takes it in a cakewalk. He's had a relatively strong week to be sure, but has never been much inclined to make the kind of mid-course corrections required in uncharted waters. He is a priest not a proselytizer, better at righteousness than salesmanship. The Green Shift has been an electoral disaster not because a carbon tax/income tax swap is a bad idea, but because his proposal is ill-timed, ill-considered (why mix an anti-poverty initiative into a tax on greenhouse gas emissions?) and ill-presented. You cannot be a leader without creating followers and Mr. Dion has failed to attract followers to his signature policy.

Some Liberals already have taken aim at Mr. Dion in the midst of the campaign, but they should engage in a more sophisticated diagnostic. The party-writ-large has failed to reinvent itself for the 21st century and public opinion research shows, perhaps as a result, that fewer and fewer Canadians identify themselves as "liberal." With the exception of the halcyon years of a badly divided political right, the Liberal Party of Canada has been shedding core supporters for decades, starting with Western and rural Canadians, then small business operators and Quebec nationalists and perhaps now extending even into the more entrepreneurial and socially conservative immigrant communities. It has not made adequate use of its time out.

Meanwhile, the supposedly obstinate Mr. Harper has been nothing if not open to adjusting as circumstances change. He was masterful in building a "big tent" centre-right alternative to the "natural governing" Liberals. His vision, determination and adroitness restored political competition to Canada, not an insignificant accomplishment.

Mr. Harper has done well on other fronts, too. He has spoken with refreshing candour and courage on foreign affairs, especially on the Middle East, and he was nimble in fulfilling his regrettable promise to hold a free vote on same-sex marriage while depriving the matter of any combustible material. He controlled his party's extreme social conservative rump, not vice versa.

He was shrewd and deft when the sensitive issue of recognizing Quebec as a nation was dropped in his lap by the machinations of Liberal Michael Ignatieff. He acted calmly and decisively to forge a cross-party consensus and made sure the status of nationhood went to the Québécois people, not to Quebec. As with Afghanistan, he played a bad hand very well — an example worth remembering as the economy poses unprecedented challenges.

Indeed, the most important characteristic Mr. Harper has shown over 33 months in office is a capacity to grow. There is no reason to think he won't continue along the same trajectory if re-elected — a good thing, too, since there is much more for him to learn.

Instead of carping about a dysfunctional Parliament, for which he holds much responsibility, Mr. Harper should throw out his previous playbook and try making the institution work. It would mean displaying the confidence to operate outside his comfort zone of near-absolute control, but it is a mission built for a true conservative. And, no, Senate reform is no substitute for getting the House of Commons operating well.

Mr. Harper should also use his political skills to wring real meaning out of last spring's apology to aboriginals. The rampant social pathologies afflicting native Canadians — from suicide to alcoholism to poor educational outcomes — remain the greatest stain on Canada's history and reputation. Coaxing First nations peoples into a full partnership with other Canadians and full participation in the Canadian economy and society would be the stuff of a prime minister intent on real achievement.

We also urge Mr. Harper to revisit his wholly inadequate climate-change plan. Canada and the world need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Counterintuitively, Mr. Harper may be the best-positioned Canadian politician to lead on this important issue, should he ever condescend to take it seriously. Given the impregnability of his Alberta base, he could strike a modern Nixon-to-China on climate change.

His attitude toward China, which thankfully looks to be in transition, has been rooted in old-fashioned, missionary-driven zeal. Human rights matter and should be part of the discussion. But managing relations with China, as with the United States, calls for balance and the pursuit of national interest, not personal ideology. Mr. Harper needs to recalibrate his approach to this proud and flawed world power.

Finally, the economy. Mr. Harper has to temper his distrust of the national government as a force in domestic policy with an understanding that Canadians always look to Ottawa in times of trouble. His instincts to play as small a role as possible, other than for electoral gain, are perhaps not as wrong-headed as those who would have the state play too big a role, given the excesses of past interventions. But we have entered an unprecedented period of market breakdown and Canadians need their government to be attentive and responsive. Mr. Harper possesses the competence and flexibility to pull this off, notwithstanding his awkwardness over the past week, including the rollout of a policy to shore up lending reserves.

Whatever you think of him, the Stephen Harper of today is not the Stephen Harper of 2004 or earlier. The "firewall" temperament has largely subsided, despite the odd recurrence on matters such as artists who choose free expression over popularity. He is in better control of his emotions. He is smart enough and adaptable enough to recognize that his tendencies toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship hold him and his party back.

By and large, Canadians still don't really trust Mr. Harper and so he has not yet earned their comfort with a majority government. If he prevails next Tuesday, it will be as a default choice, not a popular choice. Voters generally respect him — and, right now, competence trumps the unknown — but if he ever hopes to complete the construction of a governing party of the right and be remembered as more than a middling, minority prime minister, Mr. Harper will have to show as much capacity to grow over the next four years as he has over the past four.

It is woth noting that the Good Grey Globe is not a Tory rag. It’s own published record is:

• 2006: Globe endorses Harper and Tories
• 2004: Globe endorses Martin and Liberals
• 2000: Globe endorses Paul Martin, not Chrétien or Day

This is a qualified endorsement. The Globe’s editorial board takes issues with Harper’s Conservatives on a variety of issues from Aboriginals to China. But, that being said, the Globe and Mail endorses Harper and the Tories, perhaps as the best of a bad lot, but mainly because Harper is a competent manager, not an ideologue.

 

[GAP]

I have noticed that in the last while, as the prospect of Dion gaining support enough to challenge Harper, suddenly staid "liberal" media outlets (except the CBC), have begun to turn the theme of their articles towards Harper, and that maybe he isn't so bad after all.....this is done with enough panache that they can criticize him handily once the election is done and over with.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Harper has one weekend, including the Sunday he habitually “takes off” for a rest/family time, to parlay this ‘good news’ – reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail – into votes:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wjobs1010/BNStory/Business/home

September employment soars unexpectedly

HEATHER SCOFFIELD

Globe and Mail Update
October 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM EDT

Finally, a piece of good news: Canadian employers created a blockbuster 107,000 new jobs in September, mainly part-time.

The employment numbers blew away market forecasts, although the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 6.1 per cent.

Economists had been expecting a small increase in the number of new jobs, of about 8,000, after a modest 15,000 increase in August. They had also forecast a slight rise in the unemployment rate to 6.2 per cent from August's 6.1 per cent.

The eye-popping jobs numbers gave the sagging loonie an immediate lift on Friday morning, and will no doubt dominate the election campaign throughout the day. Still, there was some reluctance among economists to jump for joy.

“This survey was conducted in the middle of September, just as the financial turmoil began to gather serious momentum -- so even this relatively timely report may be largely viewed as ‘old news,'” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at Bank of Montreal.

“Still, this report drums home the point that the Canadian domestic economy carried much firmer momentum heading into the storm than many other nations.”

But he said the jobs report defied “not just the conventional wisdom but gravity as well,” referring to the global slowdown in economic growth.

Part-time employment rose by 97,000, while full-time jobs increased by 10,000 from a month earlier, Statistics Canada said.

So far this year, part-time work has increased by 131,000 – nearly double the increase in full-time positions, the agency pointed out. That's a stark contrast to last year, when most of the gains were full-time.

Despite the huge jump in employment in September, the job market this year has not been nearly as robust as last year. Employment in the first nine months of 2008 has risen 1.1 per cent or 194,000 positions, compared to 1.7 per cent or 275,000 new jobs last year.

The unemployment rate in September remained the same as August, because more people joined the labour force, Statscan said.

By sector, the most active hiring was in the health care and social assistance area, followed by business and support services.

The health care hiring erases job losses over the last three months. Employment in the sector is now 2.8 per cent higher than nine months ago.

Manufacturing employment increased by 20,000, putting the number of jobs in the troubled sector at the same level as it was at the end of last year, Statscan said.

The job gains were spread across five provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. In Ontario, where the economy has stagnated and may well be contracting, employment rose by 52,000 positions, led by hiring in the transportation, warehousing and construction sectors.

But the province's unemployment rate crept up to 6.4 per cent, from 6.3 per cent in August, as more people started looking for work.

Nationally, wages surged as well, in September. The average hourly wage was 4.6 per cent higher in September than a year ago, far outpacing the recent 3.5 per cent increase in inflation. The strongest wage growth was found among youth and older workers, Statscan said.

Overall, the job creation was broadly based, with 46,000 new jobs in the goods side of the economy, and 61,000 jobs in services.

Young people fared particularly well in September. Employers hired an additional 45,000 people aged 15 to 24 in the month. Workers aged 55 and older found 41,000 new jobs.

It is not too late to remind Canadians that:

• Liberals lie – Dion et al are spreading false rumours and inciting panic, pushing Canada down, in their efforts to frighten voters away from good, sound, prudent, factually based crisis management; and

• Harper’s leadership and management work for ‘ordinary Canadians’!

 

[Edward Campbell]

These two items, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, ought not to come as a surprise – the Post is, after all, a Tory rag despite the deep Liberal roots of the Aspers – but they are worth a read because they are TRUE:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=871656

Panic-mongers

National Post

Published: Friday, October 10, 2008


We are legitimately amazed that the economy has come to the forefront of the Canadian election campaign in the manner that it has, with the Opposition parties spending almost a week caterwauling about the Prime Minister's preternatural calm in the face of international crisis.

It is bizarre to see Stephane Dion and Jack Layton self-consciously demanding empty reassurances and displays of feeling from Stephen Harper: "There's a panic on," they almost seem to be saying, "so why aren't you panicking?"

Except, of course, when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty came forward yesterday to give a talk about the global credit situation, the Liberal party promptly accused him of being "in panic mode."

The Opposition's see-sawing rhetoric on this subject could not be more clownish. One recalls that not long ago, when Mr. Flaherty opined that Ontario had not adopted the capital-friendly policies of other provinces (which is no more or less than the truth) and was in danger of becoming less competitive, these same leaders shrieked with outrage. Now, as the government is assiduously preaching that Canada has the soundest financial sector in the G-8 and international observers are confirming it, the Opposition is infuriated that Mr. Harper won't give voice to hypothetical concerns about Canadian bank solvency, employment and pensions. Apparently the role of a true statesman is to talk down Canada in a time of uncertainty and near-madness in credit markets. At any other time, it's unpatriotic.

There is, in fact, much to be said in favour of Mr. Harper's impassivity. A Wednesday article in The Wall Street Journal by UCLA macroeconomist Lee Ohanian echoed a point already made a couple times in this space:When a panic hits the paper markets, as happened in 1929, the chief task of a government is to avoid market-distorting overreactions that will merely compound the effects on the real economy.

Wall Street recovered its wits fairly soon after the 1929 crash, but it provoked jittery, ill-advised politicians into what Ohanian calls a "perfect storm of bad policies" -- wage controls, higher tariffs, new labour-union entitlements --and it was those actions, each one designed to "protect" U. S. enterprises and workers, that ultimately turned a nine days' wonder into 10 years of misery. Ohanian adds that the United

States has, technically, not yet even reached the transition point between liquidity struggles and tangible recession. Since the housing market began to slide, GDP has continued to grow, as has productivity, and even consumer non-mortgage credit remains readily available. For Canada, the step into recession is further away still, and ought to be shallower. Our unemployment rate has held steady and is now lower than that of the United States for the first time since Wayne Gretzky started shaving. Statistics Canada announced last week that GDP gained almost a point in July alone (the most recent month for which calculations are complete). Even housing starts have defied gravity by officially remaining "strong," according to a Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation report issued yesterday.

Obviously, we are not going to come off unscathed if our largest trading partner suffers a sustained, deep recession. There is little our elected politicians can do about that, though the independent Bank of Canada pitched in this week by supporting a dramatic 50-point cut in the Federal Reserve funds rate, helping to shield the U. S. dollar from the effects of looser money. (On cue, Jack Layton began to whine about the rate cut not being passed entirely onto consumers by Canadian commercial banks, who captured half the cut to cushion against crazy prices in the world's interbank loan market.)

What our politicians can do is to resist experimental, populist economic measures that appeal to a bemused voting public. The Conservatives' deliberately modest platform has been attacked for a lack of measures to protect against the global panic, but modesty itself seems like precisely the chief measure called for. The NDP, for its part, dreams of reversing productivity-encouraging cuts to business taxes that have long since been priced into the assumptions of those who trade Canada's equities and its currency. And voting for Jack Layton, who spends so much time spewing venom at our world-beating banks, would be a paradoxical way for any Canadian to react to recent events.

As for the Liberals, ho-hum, they only want to transplant the government's revenues to an entirely new, virtually untested basis of carbon taxation, with no certainty whatsoever about how the economy is going to react. Remember, the Grits costed the Green Shift and declared it "revenue-neutral" on the puzzling assumption that carbon emissions wouldn't change at all for the immediate future in the face of rearranged incentives. To the degree it succeeds, the Shift must starve the treasury, making deficits more likely and countercyclical government stimulus activity more difficult.

And, hey, what better time than now could there be to try something like that?

Panic is Canada’s enemy and, through Stéphane Dion, the Liberal Party of Canada campaign office is spreading panic: hurting, rather than helping, our country.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/10/david-asper-liberals-ndp-steal-a-page-from-chicken-little.aspx

David Asper:
Liberals, NDP steal a page from Chicken Little

Posted: October 10, 2008, 8:04 AM by Kelly McParland

One day, Effie Stephie was wandering aimlessly through the election campaign when -- kerplunk -- word of failing banks around the world hit him. Effie panicked, and decided to run to the media to tell all Canadians the horrible news. On his way, Effie ran into Jacky Jack and Silly Jilly, who were also out foraging for votes. “Come with me,” said Effie. “The sky is falling. I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!”

Hearing of Effie’s alarm, Even Silent Stephen, who ruled the land, declared that “People should always watch out for the sky falling -- but only as a precaution. Anyone can see that it isn’t.” By then, however, Effie, Jacky and Jilly had gotten the word out, and a chorus of panicked voices rose in alarm.

This adaptation of the Chicken Little story captures the hysterical nature of the ongoing efforts by Stephen Harper’s political opponents to stir up economic panic. But at least Chicken Little had the excuse that he was a chicken. Jack Layton and Stéphane Dion, on the other hand, profess to be economically sophisticated politicians -- men who say they know what’s best for Canada, and can be counted on to act in the nation’s best interests. So why are they cynically instilling fear in Canadians for cheap partisan advantage?

Two weeks ago, the Conservatives seemed within range of a majority government. But now, many Canadians are wondering whether the Liberals, or some left-leaning coalition, may wind up governing Canada on October 14. Apparently, the NDP and Liberals have convinced at least some voters that our Prime Minister is to blame for the collapse of international financial markets.

This despite the fact that Canada has the most solid banking system in the world (according to a World Economic Forum survey released this week) and is projected to lead G8 countries in GDP growth. Housing starts are strong. And our unemployment rate is as low as America’s for the first time in more than 25 years.

How can there be such a disconnect between fact and political perception? Even if our economy slows somewhat as the result of global factors beyond our control, on what basis can blame be laid on our Conservative government?

Moreover, on what basis can it be said that increased taxation, spending and regulation -- the solutions proposed by Mr. Harper’s opponents -- are the antidote? If times get tight in your household, would you attempt to rectify the problem by going on a spending spree?

Rationality, however, has been thrown out the window. This is about politics and power. Scaring Canadians may threaten our stock market and consumer confidence. But messrs. Dion and Layton are doing it anyway -- because it suits their interests.

The louder they ring the alarm bell and the more they scare you, the better. The less sleep and more irritable you get -- all good. The more you spend the Thanksgiving weekend worrying rather than giving thanks for the stability of our country, the better.

Why would we want to elect anyone who would do this -- someone who would sacrifice the national interest for the benefit of their own political party? Have we not already seen this movie during the sponsorship scandal?

As this newspaper’s editorial board has argued on these pages in the past few days, Canadians should not fall prey to the political fear-mongers, nor to the snake oil sales staff who do their bidding. Seek out the truth and make your voting decisions on that basis.

One thing is for sure, though: Phony prophets of national doom should have no place in the government of Canada.

Think about it -- and enjoy the long weekend.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Finally, of course, the National Post endorses the Conservatives, saying ”Like all elections, this one presents Canadians with a choice between imperfect options. But on balance, the Conservatives are clearly the best choice for this country. We urge our readers to vote accordingly on Oct. 14.” -  but who would have expected anything less?

 

[WannaBeFlyer]

The latest story seems to be the YouTube video of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrliDQs1Jps&feature=bz301">Dion interview</a> that is in the news this morning...

Tone gets nasty as campaign nears day of decision
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081010/delection/fedelxn_main
By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
OTTAWA - The argument over the state of the Canadian economy is taking on a sharply personal tone as the federal election campaign speeds toward the day of reckoning.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pointing to a bungled English-language interview by Stephane Dion as proof that the Liberal leader doesn't have what it takes to cope with the current financial crisis.

The Liberals retort that Harper is taking a cheap shot at a man whose English is imperfect, and who has a hearing disability to boot.
The row was sparked by an interview Thursday in which Dion complained he didn't understand the opening question and asked to start over.

It took three false starts before he finally solved the problem by repeating the 30-day economic action plan he's been touting for the last week.

Harper pounced on the incident after a day that had been marked by more bad news for his Conservative campaign.

It started with a report by Parliament's budget officer warning that the cost of the Canadian military deployment to Afghanistan could reach $18 billion - far above the $8 billion the prime minister had claimed.

That was followed by another day of falling stock prices and further losses by the Canadian dollar on international markets.

All eyes will turn Thursday to the latest unemployment figures due to be released by Statistics Canada. Analysts have been split in recent days on what the numbers will show, with some predicting little change and others fearing more job losses.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will have his say on that and a variety of other issues at an Ottawa news conference, his second in as many days in an effort to allay public concern.

Harper and Dion will be barnstorming through vote-rich southern Ontario with just four days of campaigning left until next Tuesday's vote.

Jack Layton of the NDP will start the day in Toronto before moving on to western Quebec, while Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe will be in the Montreal area.

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be in Nova Scotia, where she's been concentrating on trying to win her own seat ever since the televised campaign debates a week ago.