Election 2015

[a_majoor]

So how low can the Liberals go?

http://stevejanke.com/archives/321872.php

The flip side of the Orange Crush
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 06:29 PM
Comments: 2

During the election, I described the Orange Crush as an example of a positive feedback loop.  Essentially, an increase in support for the NDP was picked up by the pollsters, then reported in the media, which then led to an increase in support, and so on, until the level of NDP support locked at whatever maximum it could reach (the party picked up all the support it would ever get).

Now I wonder if we are seeing the flip side.  A positive feedback loop that is driving down Liberal support:

    The Conservatives remain the most popular party for both genders (Men 43%, Women 36%). Respondents aged 18-to-34 pick the NDP first (38%), while those aged 35-to-54 and those over the age of 55 prefer the Tories (42% and 48% respectively).

    Three parties-the Conservatives, the NDP and the Greens-are holding on to at least four-in-five voters who supported them in the May 2011 election. The retention rate is lower for the Bloc (75%) and the Liberals (70%).

That last tidbit of information is most intriguing for me.  A 70% retention rate?  Why?  The election is over.  There is no choice in front of the voters.  Frankly, there is little reason for people to be thinking of who to support, leading potentially to the changing of minds, since the question won't matter for another four years.  And yet, the Liberals are haemorrhaging support.

In other words, people voted for the Liberals, perhaps strategically, and realized that their vote was for naught.  The disastrous performance of the Liberals and the constant noise in the media about mergers with the NDP are causing these voters to belatedly switch their support to the NDP or to the Conservatives.  Remember that the Liberals earned only 18% of the popular vote.  Now they wish they had that much support.

But what about The Latest Liberal Tour to Listen to Canadians?  It won't make a difference.  People aren't listening to Bob Rae or Ralph Goodale or Justin Trudeau.  They just hear bad news followed by more bad news, and they are reacting accordingly, which generates even more bad news.  And so on and so on.

I have to wonder, therefore, if there is no cure for the Liberal Party.  The same dynamic that pushed the NDP up and up is driving the Liberals down and down.  Each report of Liberal troubles just reinforces the downward pressure, feeding into the next report, which increases the pressure further.  All that blather about Liberal values and such?  It doesn't matter.  Nothing matters.  Nothing can stop the downward trajectory until the Liberals hit whatever floor of support exists for them.

What happens then?  The downward pressure could dissipate, especially if fading Liberal relevance gives the party a respite from negative reports in the media.  But then the Liberals will have to have the banked resources to sustain themselves and then hope to drive upward.

I doubt that will be the case.  Hand-in-hand with the lowered support will be donation levels dropping quarter after quarter, and of course, the public subsidy shrinking year after year.  In other words, as the support drives down and down, so does the money.  Without money, the Liberal Party might very well shrivel up and die once it drops below some critical mass.

All we can do is hope.

 

[a_majoor]

Shaping the ground:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/09/27/blue-vs-orange-get-used-to-it

Blue vs. Orange: Get used to it

david-akin
By David Akin ,Parliamentary Bureau Chief

First posted: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 08:00 PM EDT
 
The 41st Parliament of Canada is young but already we’re seeing Conservatives and New Democrats take sharply different partisan approaches to the business of the nation.

If this keeps up for four years, as I suspect it will, it could radically re-shape the dynamic of federal politics in Canada, something I suspect both Conservatives and New Democrats would be pleased about, though it should scare Liberals who stand to be further marginalized from the national conversation.

On Monday, New Democrats voted to oppose the extension of the military mission in Libya. That’s a change because, for most of the last decade, on broad foreign policy questions such as our commitment in Afghanistan, the Liberals and Conservatives largely agreed with each other, regardless of who was in power.

On Tuesday, the Conservatives moved to limit debate on their omnibus crime bill to speed its passage into law.

NDP deputy leader Libby Davies called this “a nasty motion” intended “to stifle debate.”

Rookie Conservative MP Mark Strahl replied: “We’re just delivering on campaign promises. Get used to it.”

Meanwhile, over in a House of Commons committee, MPs were discussing how best to proceed with a study of CBC’s decision to contest an order by Parliament’s Information Commissioner that it must release records about some of its activities.

In the last few minority parliaments, this kind of “process” debate would be an invitation for all parties to frustrate their opponent’s goals using parliamentary procedure.

No more.

Conservatives and New Democrats were champing at the bit to get at a debate on some substantive issues, such as the future of the CBC, big labour’s ties to the NDP, and Treasury Board president Tony Clement’s complicity in bending the rules on G8 funding.

Strahl’s right: We should get used to this.

The Conservatives have the numbers to get their way whenever they want, so there will be few of the procedural logjams that gummed up our last minority parliaments.

The NDP is conceding that outcome but not the fight and will be offering pitched opposition — be it on Libya, Tony Clement, or crime legislation — on the substance of the matter.

Think of that: Real debates in Parliament! Socialists versus Conservatives!

Peaceniks versus militarists! Hallelujah!

And, of course, those pitched battles will help Conservatives and New Democrats raise money by pushing the “hot buttons” of their bases. The fundraising e-mail from the NDP will read: Stop Harper’s militarist agenda!

From the Conservatives: Help us kill the CBC!

And from the Liberals? Right.That's the problem. The Tories are smoking the Liberals when it comes to raising money. And the NDP is more efficient at fundraising than the Liberals. Without the sharp focus that comes from being at the extremes of the political spectrum, the Liberals will have trouble raising money and attracting volunteers.

The cliche has always been that Liberals campaigned on the left and governed from the right.

Canadians who voted Liberal will now spend the next four years watching a heated battle between a party that will campaign and actually govern from the left and a party that will actually campaign and govern from the right.

Given this new dynamic and some of the stakes involved, I suspect more and more Liberal voters will desert the centre of the political spectrum.

They will get off the fence.

The big question is: How many will fall left and how many will fall right?

david.akin@sunmedia.ca

 

[a_majoor]

This is also applied in the Ontario election, with the Public Service Unions fronting various pro Liberal election ads as well:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Unions+spent+plus+federal+election/5524199/story.html

Unions spent $400,000-plus on federal election ads

By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen October 8, 2011

Unions spent over $400,000 on political ads during the spring 2011 federal election campaign, according to financial reports. The Professional Institute of the Public Service (PIPS) paid to set up forthepublicgood.ca, a website highlighting the value of the public service, and promoted a federal candidate debate it hosted at the University of Ottawa.

Unions spent over $400,000 on political ads during the spring 2011 federal election campaign, according to financial reports. The Professional Institute of the Public Service (PIPS) paid to set up forthepublicgood.ca, a website highlighting the value of the public service, and promoted a federal candidate debate it hosted at the University of Ottawa.

OTTAWA — As the NDP faces questions about money it received from labour unions for convention advertising, newly-released financial reports show unions spent more than $400,000 on political ads during the spring federal election campaign.

Reports filed with Elections Canada show public sector and trade unions funded third-party ad buys in newspapers, websites and on radio across the country leading up to voting day on May 2.

Most of the union-funded ads were non-partisan on their face, but opposition parties were the likely beneficiaries of campaigns that questioned the wisdom of cutting public service jobs — as advocated by the Conservatives.

Among the biggest advertisers was the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which spent $134,000, mostly on a radio blitz the day before Canadians went to the polls.

In the week before voting day, PSAC launched radio ads encouraging Canadians to vote in support of the public service, with spots heard on radio stations in Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and elsewhere.

PSAC also paid for lawn signs in Miramichi, New Brunswick, encouraging voting for “Anyone but Tilly” — a reference to local Conservative MP Tilly O’Neill-Gordon. PSAC targeted the riding because of fears that unionized employees who work on the federal gun registry would be laid off. O’Neill-Gordon was re-elected, despite PSAC’s efforts.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service (PIPS) spent $166,000, much of it on promoting a debate it hosted at the University of Ottawa that saw federal candidates discussing the future of the public service. PIPS also paid to set up forthepublicgood.ca, a website highlighting the value of the public service.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Auto Workers, the B.C. Teachers Federation and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada also reported third-party advertising during the campaign.

Elections Canada is looking into a complaint that the NDP accepted thousands of dollars from unions for advertising at the party’s national convention in June. The Conservatives allege the ads were a scheme to skate around the law that forbids corporations and unions from making donations to political parties. The NDP says the ads were sold at fair-market value and were entirely legal.

Unions also indirectly funded third-party ads by giving to advocacy groups, such as Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which received $5,000 from each of PSAC and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.

Les Sans-Chemise received $34,000 from Quebec trade unions for radio ads, placards and signage. And the Canadian Health Coalition, a union-funded organization that advocates for publicly funded health care, spent $33,000 on printing and postage for flyers.

Third parties are limited by Elections Canada to spending $188,250 nationally and $3,765 for ads in each riding that promote or oppose a candidate. Although the Harper government lowered the limit on contributions to federal parties to $1,100 per person, there is no limit on contributions made to third parties to fund their ads.

The third-party reports show the conservative advocacy group National Citizens Coalition took in $168,960 to fund its advertising purchases, with 12 donors giving amounts greater than the $1,100 cap that would restrict them had they made donations to political parties.

The NCC received four donations of $10,000 each, including one from Robert Colborne, president of Pacific Western Transportation in Calgary and another from Bruce Orr of Vancouver’s Intercity Realty.

During a hiatus from serving as an MP, Prime Minister Stephen Harper worked as the NCC’s director and led its court challenge against the third-party spending restrictions. His group lost before the Supreme Court in a case styled — to opposition parties’ continued delight — as Harper v. Canada.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Unions+spent+plus+federal+election/5524199/story.html#ixzz1aJ2DNJcn

 

[Edward Campbell]

The issue of how many seats will be contested in 2015 may still be in doubt according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-fears-delay-plan-to-add-seats-in-commons-for-ontario-alberta-bc/article2200754/

Quebec fears delay plan to add seats in Commons for Ontario, Alberta, B.C.

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Friday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Friday, Oct. 14, 2011

Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

As a result, the changes the Tories promised in the spring campaign may not be in place in time for the 2015 election, leaving millions of voters once again underrepresented in Parliament.

The bill to change the way seats are allocated, which would give Ontario an expected 18 additional MPs, British Columbia seven and Alberta five, aims to redress the severe shortage of seats in large and growing urban areas.

But the Conservatives are still grappling with the fact that the change would disadvantage Quebec, which it continues to court despite being virtually shut out there in May. The province has 23 per cent of Canada’s population and 24 per cent of the seats in the House, but its share would fall to 22 per cent under the new formula. The NDP, which achieved a breakthrough there in the election, and many Quebec politicians vehemently oppose the plan.

Although Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal said in the summer that only Ontario, Alberta and B.C would receive extra seats, that position is being reconsidered, according to a government source. One option might be to give Quebec more seats as well.

A government source said the bill is now unlikely to be introduced before the end of the month at least. That could delay final passage until after the House rises at Christmas, in which case, the current reallocation process that takes place after a census will begin in the new year.

Once it starts, it becomes difficult or impossible to change the ground rules. The large English-Canadian provinces would remain underrepresented under the existing formula.

A spokesman for Mr. Uppal refused to comment on the government’s deliberations.

“We made a clear commitment in the campaign, and we will fulfill that commitment,” Kate Davis said. That commitment, in the Conservative platform for last spring’s election, is to “restore fair representation in the House of Commons” while ensuring that “the population of Quebec remains proportionately represented.”

A report from the Mowat Centre, an Ontario-issues think tank, is proposing that legislation should guarantee that Quebec’s representation in the House of Commons never falls below what its population warrants.

If the House were increased by 30 seats to bring Ontario, B.C. and Alberta closer to their fair share, Quebec would receive four seats as well, increasing the number of MPs to 342 from 308.

Such a move would reflect “Quebec’s unique place in the federation,” the report states. A copy of a draft was provided to The Globe and Mail.

Some critics believe that seats should be stripped from smaller provinces with declining relative populations to keep the House from becoming too large, but constitutional and legislative guarantees make that virtually impossible.

As the Mowat report notes, rebalancing the House to incorporate the reality of the three fast-growing provinces is essential, not only to preserve the principle of representation by population, but to prevent the unintended but real discrimination against visible minorities that results from the status quo.

Most new Canadians, the vast majority of whom are visible minorities, settle in the burgeoning suburbs surrounding the country’s largest cities.

As a result of the current system, rural ridings with virtually all-white populations are heavily overrepresented in the House, while suburban ridings with large non-white populations are heavily underrepresented.

For example, Brampton West, on the edge of Toronto, had a population of 170,422 in the last census and is 54-per-cent visible minority, while Malpeque, in Prince Edward Island, had 33,796 people and is 99-per-cent white.

“In the face of massive immigration, the dilution of some Canadians’ votes and the amplification of others increasingly disadvantages Canadians from non-European backgrounds,” authors Matthew Mendelsohn and Sujit Choudhry conclude.

Knowing, with about 99% certainty, that Ibbitson is a strong advocate for new seats and that he regularly uses his 'reports' as columns, it might be that the Conservative dithering is not as bad as he projects but there should be no doubt that Québec vehemently opposes an enlarged parliament. We will face this for decades, unless and until a government makes (at least proposes) a major redistribution - an example of which I gave here - a model that gives Québec new seats, too.

 

[Kirkhill]

If the price of getting the redistribution done, while salving Quebec's honour, is additional MPs then I believe the bargain to be fair.

MPs may be pricey, and some may be undesirable, but it is hard to argue against better representation in a democracy.

Fewer electors per representative SHOULD equate to greater ease in "Petitioning the King".

 

[Rifleman62]

Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

Fears of the huge ROC backlash has expedited  the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fears of the huge ROC backlash has expedited  the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

I don't like my buggered up knees either.  But..... adjust, adapt, accomodate and keep moving forward.

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly, Quebec voters rejected the current governing party and are fighting a rearguard action against the growing demographic, economic and political power of Western Canada. Elections do have consequences.

Of course Prime Minister Harper will also consider more seats in the West means more freedom of action for the GoC, as there is less and less ability for Quebec to take the ROC hostage.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I too would prefer to see realignment within an overall ceiling of 308 rather than additional MPs - or rather, realignment under an overall ceiling of 301 after the necessary carveouts for the territories and PEI (do I have that number right)?.  Regardless, if Quebec's share of population warrants an increased share of MPs under a static head count or an increased one, then it must be granted those MPs.

>The NDP, which achieved a breakthrough there in the election, and many Quebec politicians vehemently oppose the plan.

But this is just bullsh!t.  The NDP has formally abdicated any right to claim it is "democratic" if it is unwilling to support any plan which at least partially addresses the current imbalance.  Parliament is supposed to be a "rep by pop" democratic institution, and it is the institution at the heart of everything that falls under the umbrella of the word "democratic".

 

[Kirkhill]

......

>The NDP, which achieved a breakthrough there in the election, and many Quebec politicians vehemently oppose the plan.

But this is just bullsh!t.  The NDP has formally abdicated any right to claim it is "democratic" if it is unwilling to support any plan which at least partially addresses the current imbalance.  Parliament is supposed to be a "rep by pop" democratic institution, and it is the institution at the heart of everything that falls under the umbrella of the word "democratic".

As noted by others, and yourself I believe, we have a perfectly feasible institution in place where "rep by pop (mob rule)" can be balanced by Community Rights.  It is known as the Senate.

If Quebec wants its Community Rights guaranteed then all it has to do is agree to making the Senate more effective by improving its legitimacy (mechanism to be determined - perhaps all that is necessary is of all the Provinces to assert the legitimacy of the Senate in its current form.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

The issue of how many seats will be contested in 2015 may still be in doubt according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-fears-delay-plan-to-add-seats-in-commons-for-ontario-alberta-bc/article2200754/

Knowing, with about 99% certainty, that Ibbitson is a strong advocate for new seats and that he regularly uses his 'reports' as columns, it might be that the Conservative dithering is not as bad as he projects but there should be no doubt that Québec vehemently opposes an enlarged parliament. We will face this for decades, unless and until a government makes (at least proposes) a major redistribution - an example of which I gave here - a model that gives Québec new seats, too.

But, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, Prime Minister Harper says he is going ahead with expanding the HoC:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Tories+balance+seating/5554280/story.html

Tories vow to balance seating
Bill would add 18 Ontario seats, 7 more in B.C. and 5 in Alberta

By Mark Kennedy And Marianne White, Postmedia News

October 15, 2011

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday his government will move ahead with its election promise to introduce legislation that changes the distribution of seats in the House of Commons.

Harper was reacting to a media report that the bill could be delayed for fears of a backlash in Quebec, where critics say the province stands to lose out because of the reforms.

Without being specific on when the legislation will be introduced, Harper provided an assurance that it is coming, and that it will reflect the specific promises outlined in the Conservatives' recent election platform.

In that document, the Tories promise to table a bill "to restore fair representation in the House of Commons."

There are three components to the plan, said Harper.

? ? There will be more seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia to keep pace with the significant population increases that have occurred in those provinces.

? ? The bill will protect the seat count of slower-growing provinces.

? ? The reforms will ensure Quebec's seat count will not drop below its current 75 seats, and that the population of Quebec remains proportionally represented.

"Those are three commitments and we intend to bring forwarded legislation that respects those commitments," said Harper.

Earlier in the day, a spokeswoman for Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal also said the Tories would fulfil their election pledge, and that a delay was not being considered.

"We made a clear commitment to Canadians to move toward fair representation in the House of Commons," said Kate Davis.

"We are committed to fully following through on that commitment within our mandate and a bill will be coming forward shortly," she added in an email to Postmedia News.

Harper's plan to increase the number of seats for three provinces faces staunch opposition in Quebec.

Political parties of all stripes in the province fear the move will sideline Quebec by reducing its federal influence.

The bill is expected to give Ontario 18 additional seats, British Columbia seven and Alberta five.

But a media report Friday said the government is now considering adding more seats for Quebec, as well, to avoid sparking a crisis in the province.

The NDP, which made a breakthrough in Quebec in the last federal election, and the Liberals are both in favour of giving more seats to Quebec.

NDP democratic reform critic David Christopherson lashed out at the Tories Friday for wavering on the file and urged the government to move quickly to ensure the under-represented provinces, as well as Quebec, get more seats.

"I'm very disappointed the government hasn't got the courage of its convictions and as soon as they get in a little bit of political hot water they start pulling back," Christopherson said in an interview.

The NDP believes Quebec should receive guarantees it will never have less weight in the House of Commons than it had when a motion recognizing the Québécois as a nation was passed in 2006.

The Quebec government said Friday it won't comment on the issue until the bill is officially tabled in the House of Commons.

"But as we have clearly stated in the past, the formula that will determine the distribution of seats must guarantee that Quebec will continue to have an effective voice in the House of Commons," said Gabrielle Tellier, spokeswoman for Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs, Yvon Vallieres.

University of Regina political science professor David Smith said the issue is not simply about representation by population.

He noted the importance of providing for the expression of Quebec's interest in the national institutions was already an important principle when the federation was created in 1867.

"Canada is a federation, not only of provinces, but also a federation of cultures. It is not in the Canadian tradition to say: 'Too bad, Quebec, you're not growing fast enough, so you loose.' We can't do that," said Smith, a leading expert on Parliament.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

Maybe John Ibbitson of the Good Grey Globe achieved his own aim and flushed the PM from the bushes.

IF the PM wants to add more seats in QC he probably has to add many more than 18+7+5 - maybe something like 25+10+7+5 which would give us a HoC of 355 seats, 80 (23%) being from QC.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And still more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on redistribution plans:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pare-back-increases-in-commons-seats-for-ontario-bc/article2205121/

Tories pare back increases in Commons seats for Ontario, B.C.

JOHN IBBITSON, KAREN HOWLETT AND DANIEL LEBLANC
Ottawa and Toronto— Globe and Mail Update

Published Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011

Ontario and British Columbia will have to make do with a smaller increase to their share of seats in the House of Commons, according to a new seat redistribution formula being proposed by the Harper government.

The reduced number could reflect changing demographics and more up-to-date census data. But the new formula also appears to respond to complaints from Quebec that it was being shortchanged.

Government sources report that, in legislation soon to be introduced by Tim Uppal, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Ontario’s seat count will increase by 13 seats from its current allotment of 106. This is down from the 18 seats it was to have received in previous legislation that died with the last Parliament.

British Columbia would receive five seats, down from its original allotment of seven, while Alberta would actually increase its count by six, up from its original five. Quebec would receive two seats, to keep its representation in the House from dropping below its share of the population.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty acknowledged Tuesday the province might end up with fewer new seats in the new bill. The difference, he said, would be tied to figures from Statistics Canada that show that the population of the province has declined.

“I think in fairness we’ve got to wait for the feds to come forward with a specific proposal, with a bill and with some reliable data from Stats Canada so that we can then make an assessment as to whether or not Ontario is being treated fairly,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters.

“Here’s the good news: There’s a broad consensus on Parliament Hill that we are being shortchanged as, by the way, is B.C. and Alberta. We need to address that.”

Mr. McGuinty said that he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed the issue privately last Friday, following an event at the airport in Peterborough.

Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are all seriously underrepresented in the current House of Commons. Constitutional and legislative guarantees ensure that the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan cannot be stripped of seats, leaving them with seat counts higher than their current populations warrant.

As a result, large urban centres have ridings with populations several times the size of those of ridings found in places such as Prince Edward Island.

To bring the House closer to meeting the principle of representation by population, a bill introduced by the Conservatives in the last Parliament would have grown the House of Commons by 30 seats, with Ontario receiving 18, British Columbia seven and Alberta five. The new seats would be located in fast-growing urban areas such as Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary.

But that formula would have seen Quebec, with 23 per cent of Canada’s population, reduced to having 22 per cent of the seats in the Commons, which prompted fierce protests from Quebec politicians. NDP MP Dave Christopherson said Tuesday the House had already recognized Quebec as a nation within Canada and that its interests had to be taken into account.

A formula proposed by the Mowat Centre, an Ontario think tank, would have redressed the problem by giving Quebec four additional seats. But the new formula being proposed by the Conservatives would appear to give Quebec its proper representation while minimizing the increase in the number of MPs by paring back the increases of the two largest provinces in English Canada.

I think we need to wait and see. This plan, if that's what it is, based mainly (exclusively) on keeping QC at 23%, gives us +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) = 26 new seats. It's better than now but not good enough.

 

[dapaterson]

And still more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on redistribution plans:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pare-back-increases-in-commons-seats-for-ontario-bc/article2205121/

I think we need to wait and see. This plan, if that's what it is, based mainly (exclusively) on keeping QC at 23%, gives us +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) = 26 new seats. It's better than now but not good enough.

Progress of any sort is better than status quo, as it establishes precedent for future changes.  Waiting for perfect results in lost opportunities - and often results in no change at all - and further reinforcement of the status quo, making future change even more problematic.

 

[a_majoor]

While it is a pretty solid bet the NDP will have shot itself in the foot by 2015 (perhaps multiple times), this demonstrates the Liberals still won't be contenders, and it is my thought they will eventually go the way of the Unionist, Whig, and Progressive parties:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1074341--john-turner-still-fighting-for-the-liberals

John Turner still fighting for the Liberals
Published On Fri Oct 21 2011Email Print
Rss
Article

“Now we’ve got a situation which is way worse than 1984,” former prime minister John Turner says of the Liberal party.
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR
Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA — Former prime minister John Turner is sorry to see that his Liberal party is in worse shape today than it was in the 1980s, when he had the job of steering it through some very dark moments in the political wilderness.

“Now we’ve got a situation which is way worse than 1984,” Turner said in an interview this week.

But he disagrees with former prime minister Jean Chrétien about the solution to the Liberals’ woes. Chrétien has been floating the idea of a potential merger with the New Democrats for a couple of years now, and as recently as last month in an interview on CBC.

“Oh, I’m not for that,” Turner says, arguing the Liberal and NDP cultures will never mesh.

“We’re a centre-left, centre-right party. They’ve got a historic, legitimate relationship with the trade-union movement and so on. It’s a different focus.”

Longtime observers won’t be surprised that these two former leaders are at odds on how to save the Grits from oblivion after the devastating May 6 election defeat.

Their fierce rivalry in the 1980s — which continually plagued Turner’s six years as leader — carried over into the epic feud between Chrétien and yet another Liberal leader, Paul Martin, in the 1990s and up to 2006, when the party tumbled from power.

No one can really understand where the Liberals are today — third party in the Commons, for the first time in their existence — without knowing the sometimes tortured history of factional schisms and tensions within the party.

And a new biography of Turner, which has landed on the bookshelves this month, is a valuable, new addition to that recorded history. Titled Elusive Destiny, by Carleton University historian Paul Litt, the book chronicles Turner’s political career through some powerful Liberal highs and lows of the latter half of the 20th century.

Turner co-operated in the writing of this book, but he made it clear he wasn’t interested in tell-all memoirs or settling scores with old rivals.

So the stories of the tensions with former prime minister Pierre Trudeau and Chrétien are told with a kind of restrained grace, with little or no hint of lingering grudges.

“I inherited a very difficult situation,” was all Turner would say in this week’s interview about those rough-and-tumble times, when the Liberals were reduced to 40 seats in the House in the 1984 election, and Turner had to rebuild while dealing with repeated, rearguard mutiny from within the party.

In the part of the book dealing with Chretien’s departure from elected politics, after losing the 1984 leadership to Turner, for instance, Litt writes: “Turner had tried to talk him out of leaving because, as he told the press, ‘You can’t lose Jean Chrétien and not be the weaker for it.’ . . . No one really thought Chrétien was really gone for good. Indeed quitting freed him to pursue his leadership ambitions unhindered by the niceties of caucus solidarity.”

The book goes on to give an unvarnished view of the party’s woes while it languished in opposition to Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives under Turner’s leadership — the widespread disorganization, Turner’s rusty communications skills and efforts to fix them, and yes, even the repeated allegations (some traced back to Chrétien), that Turner drank too much.

“Do I have a drinking problem? What the hell. Have you ever seen me not perform?” Turner is quoted as saying in the book.

It should be noted, though, that the biography goes well beyond the feuds and petty problems, and also paints a picture of a politician who was far more than simply a victim of internecine Liberal warfare.

We see Turner, for instance, as an impassioned advocate of greater roles for backbench MPs from his very early days in politics, before that cause became fashionable. He was also a man, we see, who was willing to risk scorn and ostracism from his old Bay Street business colleagues in Toronto, to wage the “fight of his life” against the Canada-U.S. free-trade deal in the 1988 election. While Turner didn’t win that election, he doubled the Liberals’ seats and believes he helped pave the way for Chrétien to win in 1993.

In fact, though Turner’s politics often seemed more in tune with a bygone, gentlemen’s era of elites and clubby politics — he rubbed shoulders with royalty and the White House — he also emerges as a bit of a radical, happiest when he’s fighting for citizens up against government or authority. His staunch feelings about democracy and free trade, it could be argued, would make him equally at home with the sentiments fuelling the current “Occupy” movements on Wall Street and around the world.

Turner still burns with frustration over how MPs have allowed themselves to be steamrollered by centralizing PMOs and party machines. Elusive Destiny charts how Turner, back in 1963, was eager to speak out in favour of greater independence for MPs, giving a speech at the McGill Liberal club titled “Is Democracy Behind Closed Doors.”

“We were far better in the 1960s than we are now, but I saw the warning signs,” Turner said in his interview this week. “And I’ve been expanding on it ever since.”

Prompted largely by this book’s release — as well as the hobbled state of his party — the 82-year-old Turner is preparing to be a little more vocal in the coming weeks. He’s giving a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto on Nov. 3 and he intends to lend a quiet hand wherever he can to help prod Liberals back into contention. But it’s a massive task, he says.

“It’s going to mean fundamental rebuilding from the bottom up.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

Turner still burns with frustration over how MPs have allowed themselves to be steamrollered by centralizing PMOs and party machines. Elusive Destiny charts how Turner, back in 1963, was eager to speak out in favour of greater independence for MPs, giving a speech at the McGill Liberal club titled “Is Democracy Behind Closed Doors.”

“We were far better in the 1960s than we are now, but I saw the warning signs,” Turner said in his interview this week. “And I’ve been expanding on it ever since.”

Prompted largely by this book’s release — as well as the hobbled state of his party — the 82-year-old Turner is preparing to be a little more vocal in the coming weeks. He’s giving a speech at the Economic Club of Toronto on Nov. 3 and he intends to lend a quiet hand wherever he can to help prod Liberals back into contention. But it’s a massive task, he says.

“It’s going to mean fundamental rebuilding from the bottom up.”

I actually agree with John "Chick" Turner:

1. The centralization of power in the PMO and in the PCO is a problem; I'm not sure about democracy but we do have "Government Behind Closed Doors;"

2. Both democracy and government were, in my opinion "healthier" in the 1960s; and

3. The Liberal Party can, and I am fairly certain, will be rebuilt but it must be, a Turner suggests, "a massive task" and one that must be done "from the bottom up."

For a start the Liberal;s must stop looking for saviors - both 'leader/saviors' and 'savior policies.' They need to pick a good, solid parliamentary leader* and a top flight party leader. If I were the Liberal brain trust then Dominic Leblanc would be my choice for parliamentary leader.

Dominic LeBlanc
Beauséjour, NB. In the HoC since 2000; prior to entering a lawyer (UNB & Harvard) in NB; fluently bilingual.

If I were the party leader I would start with several local and regional Party conferences where MPs and party insiders would listen to local Liberals and, at least as important, listen to people who used to vote Liberal. I would not attempt a national conference until early 2015 - and I would not allow it to become a leadership convention.

If I were the Liberal Party I would cede the loony left to the NDP; in fact I would push the far left edge of my own left wing out of the party. I would aim for the mushy middle, the people Stephen Harper is in the processing of converting into Conservatives. I would preach fiscal prudence and a social conscience. My model Liberal would be:

Louis St Laurent: A man of sterling honesty and superior intellect.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further, if I was the Liberal brain trust, I would mount a two phase attack on Canadian political power:

The Phase 1 objective is Stornoway - the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition. The Liberals need to return to being the official opposition party by 2015. By all means campaign to become the government, but focus on beating the NDP.

Stronoway: residence of the Opposition Leader and the the Liberals main target in 2015

The Phase 2 objective is 24 Sussex Drive and the PM's office. The goal is to secure Phase 2 in 2019, by which time Canadians will, likely, be tired of the Conservatives - even if they govern fairly well for the next eight years.

24 Sussex Drive: residence of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Liberal's final, 2019, objective.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cool.  How long has Stornaway had that half-pipe?

 

[GAP]

Cool.  How long has Stornaway had that half-pipe?

Steven took up skateboarding when he was opposition leader.......

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealin provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is art of the challenge for both the Liberals and the NDP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/the-common-thread-in-ottawas-moves-this-week-they-all-point-west/article2210004/

The common thread in Ottawa's moves this week? They all point West

JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
Ottawa— From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Saturday, Oct. 22, 2011

Every now and then, a week comes along that brings home how much has changed. This was such a week.

Stephen Harper's government introduced legislation to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. Word leaked about changes to a planned bill that would give Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta more seats in the House of Commons. And Halifax and Vancouver won big shipbuilding contracts, leaving Quebec City in the cold.

Put it all together and what do you see? That the power shift from Central Canada to the West that everyone speculated about is no longer speculation. It's here.

Some of us may not like it. But we're all going to have to get used to it.

Roger Gibbons, of the Calgary-based Canada West Foundation, speaks of “a fundamental change taking place in the country” that is only now, belatedly, being reflected in Ottawa.

From 1971 to 2008, Alberta and B.C. had a net growth of 1.1 million people through interprovincial migration. That growth will accelerate, Mr. Gibbons believes, as oil, other commodities and economic diversification power a Western boom that entices immigrants away from Toronto and toward Vancouver and Calgary.

What does this mean for our politics? A powerful government that prefers market-based approaches rather than regulation, as the Wheat Board bill shows. A greater emphasis on Asia-Pacific issues: Mr. Harper is travelling to Hawaii, Australia, Thailand and probably China – for the second time in three years – in the coming weeks. And a federal industrial strategy, to the extent there is one, that will focus more on broadening the base in Alberta and B.C., and less on scraping the rust off the Ontario manufacturing belt.

Look at the billions that the Conservatives have injected into the Asia-Pacific Gateway, an infrastructure project so successful that U.S. Pacific ports are demanding tariffs to prevent B.C. ports from taking more of their business.

Meanwhile, this week's shipbuilding decision shows that everything Ottawa does is no longer filtered through how it will play in Quebec, says Antonia Maioni, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at Montreal's McGill University.

Even when Quebec gets federal largesse, such as the recent announcement of funding for a new bridge in Montreal, she notes, it appears Premier Jean Charest's government wasn't given advance notice of the announcement.

“Those are the kind of things that resonate about how Quebec as a whole no longer has a pipeline into Ottawa,” Prof. Maioni maintains.

Along with these shifts, major transfer programs, including the health-care and equalization agreements that are up for renewal in 2014, are going to have be rethought.

The Royal Bank projects that Saskatchewan and Alberta will lead the country next year in economic growth, thanks to capital investment and strength in commodities. Ontario and Quebec will lag behind the national average because of their dependence on the troubled U.S. economy.

Mind you, growth in B.C. will also be anemic, because of a weak retail sector, although RBC notes that “British Columbia's economic fate depends less and less on the U.S. market and more and more on non-traditional markets such as China.” So Canada's Pacific half now will wax and wane based more on Asian than on North American rhythms.

This means a rethinking of the country's fiscal framework. If Ontario's economy continues to flag, how is it going to be able to carry on subsidizing the poorer provinces through equalization and other transfer programs? Though the West is rich and growing, it is still not rich enough and large enough to prop up the Centre and the East.

“It's not a case of regional conflict, or anything like that,” Mr. Gibbons insists. “It's simply the case that it's hard to make equalization or anything else work when the biggest province is also a have-not province.”

None of this means that Central Canada is entirely in eclipse. Projections continue to put Ontario at about 40 per cent of the country's total population 25 years from now, with the West at about one-third.

And Quebec will always be on any federal government's mind, as it was when the Harper government announced a new Ottawa-Quebec harmonized sales tax deal with financial compensation. Quebec will also get more seats in the bill to rejig the House.

The province is too large, the French fact too important and Quebec's ties to the rest of Canada too fragile for it ever to be completely ignored.

Pendulums swing. The West's new-found political power rests largely on the fact that Ontario voters supported a Western-based Conservative Party. One day, those same voters could endorse a party with roots in Quebec.

But for now, there's a new reality: The West isn't just in. It's in charge.

Assuming that there will be 26 new seats in the House of Commons ( +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) ) then the distribution of seats will be:

1. Old Canada (East of the Ottawa River):  109

2. New Canada (West of the Ottawa River): 225

3. TOTAL:                                                    334

This is the new reality. A majority can be had with 168 seats; that's only a tiny bit less than 75% of the seats in New Canada alone. Diefenbaker took nearly 79% of the seats in 1958 and Mulroney took 74.8% in 1984 so such victories are not unknown. Political parties that want to gain or hold power must[, above all else appeal to Canadians West of the Ottawa River.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Will Rona Ambrose and Lisa Raitt play more important roles as we approach 2015 in an effort to strengthen the Conservative's share of the female vote?

Maybe so, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ambrose-and-raitt-deftly-manage-difficult-files-for-harper/article2211267/

Ambrose and Raitt deftly manage difficult files for Harper

JANE TABER
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Monday, October 24, 2011

Two of Stephen Harper’s cabinet ministers who were written off initially after making rookie mistakes are emerging as potential stars – and at the same time showing up the guys.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Labour Minister Lisa Raitt have both successfully guided potentially explosive files of late.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Labour Minister Lisa Raitt were both written off after rookie mistakes in cabinet.
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Ms. Ambrose stick-handled the massive $33-billion shipbuilding contract process and received kudos for the outcome. Last week, the Conservative government awarded two shipyards –in Halifax and Vancouver – the contracts to build combat and non-combat vessels.

The process by which the contracts were awarded was applauded by the opposition parties – and even lobbyists – for being fair and without political taint. Ms. Ambrose has been given credit for the way in which it was structured and for not allowing it to veer off-track by keeping politicians and political influence at arms-length.

In a time when Canadians are cynical about politics, Ms. Ambrose proved that the best bid can win. And she says the process will be used a model for future contracts.

As a rookie minister, Ms. Ambrose served for a year in the Environment post before she was shuffled out for making what was considered a number of missteps. But she seems to have redeemed herself after several years, capping it off with this win last week.

Lisa Raitt, meanwhile, had suffered from rookie-itis after stumbling in the Natural Resources portfolio. She was appointed to the post after winning here Toronto-area riding of Halton in the 2008 election. But after attracting controversy for making comments critical of her colleagues that were caught on tape, she was shuffled to Labour last year.

Usually considered a lesser portfolio (Ms. Ambrose had also served there as part of her purgatory), Ms. Raitt has actually made the most of it and a name for herself. Although union workers and the NDP would disagree, she has successfully avoided major labour unrest in the country by either ordering (the postal workers) or threatening to order workers back to work (Air Canada flight attendants, for example).

She is hands-on in her dealings with both sides and disciplined and consistent in her message – just as Ms. Ambrose was with the shipbuilding contract.

Mr. Harper has no senior women ministers – the Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Industry portfolios are all occupied by men. Perhaps he should reconsider.

Last female Foreign Minister: Barbara McDougall (Conservative, 1991-93), preceded by Flora MacDonald (Conservative, 1979-80);

Last female Minister of National Defence: Kim Campbell (Conservative, 1993)

Last female Minister of Industry: Judy Erola (Liberal, 1983-84) but she was Minister of Consumer of Corporate Affairs, a portfolio with much less clout than the current Minister of Industry; and

Last female Finance Minister: You're kidding, right? Has hell frozen over? Have the Leafs won the Cup?