Paul Wells has pumped both the most recent Ekos and Strategic Counsel numbers through the Hill and Knowlton and come up with two results that show either a small Conservative majority or a chunkier one.
The most recent SES numbers produce a seat projection like this:
CPC 145
LPC 80
NDP 29
Bloc 53
Oth 1
Interestingly this set of numbers shows the central Newfoundland riding changing to the Conservatives.
One of the results Paul uses has a seat in the province going New Democrat. I don't think so.
All this goes to illustrate a few points:
1. The polls are shifting which means public opinion is shifting somewhat.
2. Variation you are seeing comes from differences in sampling and in sampling period.
3. In some areas, such as Atlantic Canada and parts of Ontario, the samples are too small to get an accurate reading. (margins of error are unacceptably high)
4. The seat projections depend heavily on the methodology. I suspect the Hill and Knowlton one is using the last election in which, locally, the Dippers had a stronger candidate in one riding than they do now. As a result, they'll shift the seat to the NDP when there isn't any sign this time of the NDP being in contention in that seat.
Ah well, we'll know in a week.
16 January 2006
Local race projections
Check out democraticspace.com see the vote projections based on current polling.
This guy has no particular axes to grind and while you can quibble, his methodology seems sound.
This guy has no particular axes to grind and while you can quibble, his methodology seems sound.
Interesting crap from Connies or Dippers
Someone is telling Craig Westcott of The Express tnhat Siobhan Coady will come in third in the St. John's South-Mount Pearl race.
That's odd since, if her campaigning is tanking as badly as Westcott described, people wouldn't need to get out and push it down as obviously as with the "third place" story. It's obviously a crock since publicly available polling shows a voting pattern very similar to the normal vote distributions, at least according to elections Canada. Con in front (45%) , Lib in second (35%) and the Dipper in third (18%).
The only place a story like that would come from is either of Coady's opponents. Hearn, who was seen campaigning recently door-to-door in one area of the riding, likely for the first time in his career, could be wanting to puff himself up a bit.
The story could also come from Peg Norman, who's campaign might be trying to pull a reverse Layton. That is she might be trying to claim that Coady is running behind to pull Liberal votes from people afraid of Harper and Hearn. Wow. If that's the case, talk about the lobster effect.
Someone is telling Westcott a story.
Unfortunately, he keeps repeating it.
[Note: take a look at democraticspace.com. That projection conforms to recent local polling, at least for the two St. John's seats.]
That's odd since, if her campaigning is tanking as badly as Westcott described, people wouldn't need to get out and push it down as obviously as with the "third place" story. It's obviously a crock since publicly available polling shows a voting pattern very similar to the normal vote distributions, at least according to elections Canada. Con in front (45%) , Lib in second (35%) and the Dipper in third (18%).
The only place a story like that would come from is either of Coady's opponents. Hearn, who was seen campaigning recently door-to-door in one area of the riding, likely for the first time in his career, could be wanting to puff himself up a bit.
The story could also come from Peg Norman, who's campaign might be trying to pull a reverse Layton. That is she might be trying to claim that Coady is running behind to pull Liberal votes from people afraid of Harper and Hearn. Wow. If that's the case, talk about the lobster effect.
Someone is telling Westcott a story.
Unfortunately, he keeps repeating it.
[Note: take a look at democraticspace.com. That projection conforms to recent local polling, at least for the two St. John's seats.]
Connies: "our fear mongering's bigger"
Take a trip to see "balloon fear", one of the newest Connie ads.
It's a fearmongering piece about gun violence that includes the completely false claim that the homicide rate in Canada is up. It's actually down by 7% and has gone down just about every year since the early 1990s if memory serves.
The circus music is appropriate: the election has quickly descended into a fun-house mirror world in which reality (what Connies will really do) is deliberately distorted in order to mislead and frighten.
Word is the Connie team is busily looking around for a Canadian Willie Horton.
Who knows, the next Connie spot might feature Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.
It's a fearmongering piece about gun violence that includes the completely false claim that the homicide rate in Canada is up. It's actually down by 7% and has gone down just about every year since the early 1990s if memory serves.
The circus music is appropriate: the election has quickly descended into a fun-house mirror world in which reality (what Connies will really do) is deliberately distorted in order to mislead and frighten.
Word is the Connie team is busily looking around for a Canadian Willie Horton.
Who knows, the next Connie spot might feature Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.
15 January 2006
Connie custodial management commitment evaporates: more facts
When the federal Conservatives voted to bring down the government last spring, they were also voting to hold up work underpinning Canada's claim to control subsea minerals and the water column to the edge of the continental shelf off Newfoundland and Labrador.
Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle have voted three years in a row against work needed for Canada's claim to the subsea and waters beyond 200 miles.
Work on extending Canada's economic zone began in 2003 and funding each year since has been dedicated to conducted the underwater mapping which will be a crucial part of Canada's claim. Canada has until 2013 to complete its claim.
All that is just to confirm:
The Conservative Party platform commitment is to continue existing Government of Canada policy.
For those interested in tracking the changing Conservative commitment, check the Bond Papers archives for posts with the word "backpedal" or variations in the title.
Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle have voted three years in a row against work needed for Canada's claim to the subsea and waters beyond 200 miles.
Work on extending Canada's economic zone began in 2003 and funding each year since has been dedicated to conducted the underwater mapping which will be a crucial part of Canada's claim. Canada has until 2013 to complete its claim.
All that is just to confirm:
The Conservative Party platform commitment is to continue existing Government of Canada policy.
For those interested in tracking the changing Conservative commitment, check the Bond Papers archives for posts with the word "backpedal" or variations in the title.
The 100 door challenge
Check out Mark's 100 door challenge over at nottawa.blogspot.com.
The SES polls (which we are ALL guilty of citing to suit our daily needs) show that there was no upward movement in the Tory polls in the early days of policy announcements. Harper's momentum starts, quite clearly, a few days after Christmas, long after the "policy a day" type stuff was put to bed.
That little sample speaks volumes for the overall campaign, and Mark's point.
The SES polls (which we are ALL guilty of citing to suit our daily needs) show that there was no upward movement in the Tory polls in the early days of policy announcements. Harper's momentum starts, quite clearly, a few days after Christmas, long after the "policy a day" type stuff was put to bed.
My challenge to any of you who buy into this reasoning - go knock on 100 doors in any riding and come back and tell me if you hear about the GST as often as you do about Chuck Guite. Try it for yourself and then get back to me.I'll go Mark one better. Do an analysis of only one Connie blog. Or letters to the editor and posts to a CBC blog forum by the same guy.
Harper himself hasn't had to mention scandal, it has had enough legs on its own to permeate media coverage without his piling on.
But please - try the door-to-door thing, and tell me what you hear. Or, do a scan of all the Tory blog postings out there and tell me how many references to Harper's policies there are compared to how many references to "scandal".
That little sample speaks volumes for the overall campaign, and Mark's point.
Unfit to govern - Connies didn't give him everything to assess: economist
This should give everyone pause for thought:
Read a little further in the Canadian Press article, available from canoe.ca and you find this statement from the guy who originally endorse the Connie platform as fiscally sound:
OTTAWA (CP) - A prominent economist commissioned by the Conservatives to assess the financial soundness of their election platform says major items were omitted from the version he was given.
Paul Darby, deputy chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, originally concluded that Stephen Harper's Conservative platform 'is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011.'
"Those are two items that are not in what I was presented to analyze," he said. "I don't think, frankly, that those are in the platform, they're just under discussion.
"Those items were not costed, which leads me to believe that they're something that they're having under consideration that they're not committed to." [Emphasis added]
14 January 2006
Globe: change for change sake, despite fear over country
Odd that the Globe editors today opt for change in the coming election despite acknowledging the country is better off today than when Liberals took power in 1993.
Odd they endorse change given this paragraph in the election editorial today:
The vote is what counts; the policy comes after, and only after the Consdervatives have four years to do as they wish from a comofrtable majority position.
Once safely seated at 24 Sussex, likely with a strong majority by current polling numbers, the Conservatives will discover the country's finacial picture is now much bleaker than originally forecast.
An outside firm will audit the books and - predictably - declare the Liberals to be manipulaters - do the work.
Expect to see someone like Mr. Gourley of PriceClubWaterHouseCoopers, well known to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for his mockery of accounting integrity two years ago, brought forward to twist and distort the numbers to make the situation look much worse than it appeared. To produce the report the government asked for saying what it wanted said.
And suddenly there will be no base in Goose bay. No troops for Trenton.
No money for child care.
Suddenly the focus will shift to the $30 billion in reallocations.
Call them program cuts, to be more accurate.
And the tax cuts will carry forward since they benefit the wealthy, in any event. The ghost of Mike harris and the mess of Ontario after his tenure is long forgotten, as is the mess left by the last Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.
The Globe editorialists try to erase their logical contradictions by trusting in the voters. That would be fine if party policy, such as the Conservative one, was not a moveable feast of pork and verbiage. A voter might well chose today based on one thing only to find that in truth, the policy actually had changed to something else. Stephen Harper cannot be held to account since he has said dofferent things at different times, all within the same election.
It's one thing to campaign from the left and govern from the right when you are basically somewhere in the middle anyways.
But when you campaign from the far left and you are really from the far right, perhaps the results won't be so pleasant.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who wish so desperately for a change, people who can recall the folly of Bob Rae and Mike Harris, these same people should be careful what they wish for.
Odd they endorse change given this paragraph in the election editorial today:
It is hard to endorse him [Stephen Harper] and his party unreservedly. We worry about his seeming indifference to the need for a strong central government in a country so replete with runaway centrifugal forces. We worry about him teaming up with the Bloc Québécois to weaken the federal government's tax-raising capacity and its advocacy of national programs. We worry that he might have to strike retrograde compromises with social conservatives in the party's midst. We worry that he may prove heavy-handed in wielding the considerable powers of a prime minister.To that might be added the very real fear that the Conservative Plan is actually not a plan at all. It is merely the tissue paper cover over the real plan that will only be seen once the conservatives are in power. Consider the number of twists and turns we have seen in the conservative "Plan" already, all designed to tweak the wording to match with what the right number of voters are looking for.
The vote is what counts; the policy comes after, and only after the Consdervatives have four years to do as they wish from a comofrtable majority position.
Once safely seated at 24 Sussex, likely with a strong majority by current polling numbers, the Conservatives will discover the country's finacial picture is now much bleaker than originally forecast.
An outside firm will audit the books and - predictably - declare the Liberals to be manipulaters - do the work.
Expect to see someone like Mr. Gourley of PriceClubWaterHouseCoopers, well known to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for his mockery of accounting integrity two years ago, brought forward to twist and distort the numbers to make the situation look much worse than it appeared. To produce the report the government asked for saying what it wanted said.
And suddenly there will be no base in Goose bay. No troops for Trenton.
No money for child care.
Suddenly the focus will shift to the $30 billion in reallocations.
Call them program cuts, to be more accurate.
And the tax cuts will carry forward since they benefit the wealthy, in any event. The ghost of Mike harris and the mess of Ontario after his tenure is long forgotten, as is the mess left by the last Conservative government under Brian Mulroney.
The Globe editorialists try to erase their logical contradictions by trusting in the voters. That would be fine if party policy, such as the Conservative one, was not a moveable feast of pork and verbiage. A voter might well chose today based on one thing only to find that in truth, the policy actually had changed to something else. Stephen Harper cannot be held to account since he has said dofferent things at different times, all within the same election.
It's one thing to campaign from the left and govern from the right when you are basically somewhere in the middle anyways.
But when you campaign from the far left and you are really from the far right, perhaps the results won't be so pleasant.
Maybe, just maybe, the people who wish so desperately for a change, people who can recall the folly of Bob Rae and Mike Harris, these same people should be careful what they wish for.
13 January 2006
Harper would cut $30 billion in programs and services
Go to the Conservative's fiscal plan.
Flip to the second last page.
Note the figures:
$6.8 billion in "re-allocation" and another $22.5 billion for "moderating spending" in government departments, agencies, and on grants and contributions.
That's almost $30 billion in program cuts that don't appear to be explained anywhere in the Conservative Plan.
Take a look at the Conservative Plan document itself and you might find a hint in the vague wording.
Economic development organizations like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will maintain their current funding levels.
Hmmm.
Maintain current levels.
That sounds like "freeze at current levels".
No increases.
With inflation, that means that in five years time, ACOA would actually have less money to spend on diversifying the economy in Atlantic Canada than it has now.
That's a program cut.
That's also a significant kick to the many successful efforts at economic development that have taken place since ACOA was created under Brian Mulroney.
But hey, Steve's gotta find $30 freakin' billion to cut from somewhere.
Flip to the second last page.
Note the figures:
$6.8 billion in "re-allocation" and another $22.5 billion for "moderating spending" in government departments, agencies, and on grants and contributions.
That's almost $30 billion in program cuts that don't appear to be explained anywhere in the Conservative Plan.
Take a look at the Conservative Plan document itself and you might find a hint in the vague wording.
Economic development organizations like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will maintain their current funding levels.
Hmmm.
Maintain current levels.
That sounds like "freeze at current levels".
No increases.
With inflation, that means that in five years time, ACOA would actually have less money to spend on diversifying the economy in Atlantic Canada than it has now.
That's a program cut.
That's also a significant kick to the many successful efforts at economic development that have taken place since ACOA was created under Brian Mulroney.
But hey, Steve's gotta find $30 freakin' billion to cut from somewhere.
Unfit to govern: Confusion in Connie Camp Continues
As if shagging up the costs of the plan wasn't bad enough.
As if the constantly changing the Party position on custodial management wasn't embarrassing.
Someone in the Connie bunker finally checked some facts on Canada's overseas spy agency.
The comment buried in a news release issued a week ago talked about "expanding" something called the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency.
The Bond Papers picked it up, reported it and a week later Canadian Press had more details:
There currently is no overseas spy agency to "expand".
Today's Conservative Plan refers to "creating" an overseas spy agency.
To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you don't know that Canada doesn't have an overseas spy agency when you make an announcement about expanding it, then that raises questions about your fitness to govern.
As if the constantly changing the Party position on custodial management wasn't embarrassing.
Someone in the Connie bunker finally checked some facts on Canada's overseas spy agency.
The comment buried in a news release issued a week ago talked about "expanding" something called the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency.
The Bond Papers picked it up, reported it and a week later Canadian Press had more details:
There currently is no overseas spy agency to "expand".
Today's Conservative Plan refers to "creating" an overseas spy agency.
To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you don't know that Canada doesn't have an overseas spy agency when you make an announcement about expanding it, then that raises questions about your fitness to govern.
Unfit to govern: Harper dumps Hearn on custodial management
Contrary what Loyola Hearn wanted in 2004 and what he would have everyone believe even today, Stephen Harper is now pledging to "[e]xtend the two hundred mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and be prepared to exercise Canadian custodial management over this area."
That isn't what he said a mere five weeks ago.
At a news conference held at Petty Harbour, assisted by talk show maven and Conservative operative Sue (on the advance bus, no less), and flanked by incumbent Connies Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, Harper announced that a Conservative government would move immediately to announce custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and fully take custodial management of these international waters within five years.
The Bond Papers has already documented the weakening of Harper's commitment over the course of a few weeks. Check the "Harper backpedals" posts.
Harper's announcement today is exactly the same as current government policy. The Government of Canada is already pursuing the legal means to lay claim to the continental shelf outside the 200 mile economic zone, in a process set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The process began in 2003 when Canada finally signed the UNCLOS treaty, triggering an eight year timeline that will end in 2011.
The continued weakening of the Conservative commitment on custodial management, a major element in the local Connie candidate's campaign is a sign Loyola Hearn has no influence on Conservative Party fisheries policy.
Hearn's campaign brochure features the custodial management issue prominently:
"The Hon. Trevor Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Loyola Hearn, the Member of Parliament for St. John'’s West -
Some honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Taylor: - on the successful passing of his private members'’ motion on custodial management in the House of Commons last evening. Motion 136 calls on the Government of Canada to immediately extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
Mr. Hearn is to be commended for his efforts. He has worked tirelessly on the issue of foreign overfishing, including his dedicated work with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans."
Hmmm. We went from "immediately" to "will no hesitate" to "move towards" to now, not doing it at all except what is already happening.
To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you can't stick to a simple policy over the course of five weeks, that raises questions about your fitness to govern.
That isn't what he said a mere five weeks ago.
At a news conference held at Petty Harbour, assisted by talk show maven and Conservative operative Sue (on the advance bus, no less), and flanked by incumbent Connies Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn, Harper announced that a Conservative government would move immediately to announce custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and fully take custodial management of these international waters within five years.
The Bond Papers has already documented the weakening of Harper's commitment over the course of a few weeks. Check the "Harper backpedals" posts.
Harper's announcement today is exactly the same as current government policy. The Government of Canada is already pursuing the legal means to lay claim to the continental shelf outside the 200 mile economic zone, in a process set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The process began in 2003 when Canada finally signed the UNCLOS treaty, triggering an eight year timeline that will end in 2011.
The continued weakening of the Conservative commitment on custodial management, a major element in the local Connie candidate's campaign is a sign Loyola Hearn has no influence on Conservative Party fisheries policy.
Hearn's campaign brochure features the custodial management issue prominently:
Fisheries: Loyola has led the charge in Ottawa to rebuild our fisheries.Trevor Taylor, the former provincial fisheries minister described that motion very well in early 2004:
"Finally, it's agreed by political leaders that custodial management of fish stocks outside 200 miles by Canada is the only possible way we can save our rural population. We have to thank MP Loyola Hearn for his persistence and tenacity in having a supporting resolution recorded in the House of Commons. Without his dedication, it never would have passed."
Gus Etchegary, Respected Fisheries Advocate
"The Hon. Trevor Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Loyola Hearn, the Member of Parliament for St. John'’s West -
Some honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Taylor: - on the successful passing of his private members'’ motion on custodial management in the House of Commons last evening. Motion 136 calls on the Government of Canada to immediately extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
Mr. Hearn is to be commended for his efforts. He has worked tirelessly on the issue of foreign overfishing, including his dedicated work with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans."
Hmmm. We went from "immediately" to "will no hesitate" to "move towards" to now, not doing it at all except what is already happening.
To paraphrase Bob Fife: if you can't stick to a simple policy over the course of five weeks, that raises questions about your fitness to govern.
Omnifacts poll: Libs ahead in Atlantic
The number of undecided voters has risen during the campaign in Atlantic Canada, but the Liberals are ahead in three provinces and neck and neck with the Conservatives in New Brunswick. That's the result of a poll released today by Omnifacts Bristol.
Across Atlantic Canada, the results are (decideds only):
LPC 45%
CPC 37%
NDP 16%
OTH 02%
Undecideds are up 10 points to 27% from a survey completed by Omnifacts at the start of the campaign. The survey is concerned accurate to within 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 48%, Conservatives at 40% and New Democrats at 12%. Pump those numbers into the Hill and Knowlton WunderPrediktor and the seat count stays the same as it is now. Factor in the undecideds, then bear in kind Liberals held 50% of the vote across the region at the start of the campaign and things look interesting. The election is far from over.
Paul Martin is considered the best choice for prime minister by 46% of decided respondents, with Stephen Harper at 32% and Jack Layton at 12%.
There is a gender gap in the PM picks. "Among decided female voters, 50% say Mr. Martin would make the best prime minister, compared to 42% of decided male voters. Only 29% of decided female voters support Mr. Harper in this category, compared to 35% of decided male voters."
A recent poll conducted for NTV by Telelink showed that in Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.
Across Atlantic Canada, the results are (decideds only):
LPC 45%
CPC 37%
NDP 16%
OTH 02%
Undecideds are up 10 points to 27% from a survey completed by Omnifacts at the start of the campaign. The survey is concerned accurate to within 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 48%, Conservatives at 40% and New Democrats at 12%. Pump those numbers into the Hill and Knowlton WunderPrediktor and the seat count stays the same as it is now. Factor in the undecideds, then bear in kind Liberals held 50% of the vote across the region at the start of the campaign and things look interesting. The election is far from over.
Paul Martin is considered the best choice for prime minister by 46% of decided respondents, with Stephen Harper at 32% and Jack Layton at 12%.
There is a gender gap in the PM picks. "Among decided female voters, 50% say Mr. Martin would make the best prime minister, compared to 42% of decided male voters. Only 29% of decided female voters support Mr. Harper in this category, compared to 35% of decided male voters."
A recent poll conducted for NTV by Telelink showed that in Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.
Unfit to govern: Costing confusion on Connie Plan leaves media bewildered
Check Bob Fife's debrief on the Conservative newser and media briefing over at CTV.ca.
As Fife put it, the confusion was such today that: "[w]hen you can't explain that it adds up immediately, it raises questions about their [the Conservatives] whole ability to be able to govern."
The Conservatives will outspend the New Democrats in a combination of tax cuts and spending that adds up to $75 billion dollars. After much too and fro - and apparently some confuddled explanations - the figure was revised to $60 billion. In between the number hit $67 billion and then the Conservatives apparently announced more spending.
This comes from something called "reallocation", which apparently means there will be some sort of "slow down" in spending for Human Resources Canada and Industry Canada. There is also an expectation of growth in the economy resulting from tax cuts.
Decipher that doublespeak about slowing things down in at least two departments and you can see the words "program cuts". Something has to go to make room for other things. The question will be what is set to be killed off.
There was some initial confusion over the numbers. Before the formal announcement of the platform, journalists were given a first look at the costing in a media lockup.
From CTV.ca:
As Fife put it, the confusion was such today that: "[w]hen you can't explain that it adds up immediately, it raises questions about their [the Conservatives] whole ability to be able to govern."
The Conservatives will outspend the New Democrats in a combination of tax cuts and spending that adds up to $75 billion dollars. After much too and fro - and apparently some confuddled explanations - the figure was revised to $60 billion. In between the number hit $67 billion and then the Conservatives apparently announced more spending.
This comes from something called "reallocation", which apparently means there will be some sort of "slow down" in spending for Human Resources Canada and Industry Canada. There is also an expectation of growth in the economy resulting from tax cuts.
Decipher that doublespeak about slowing things down in at least two departments and you can see the words "program cuts". Something has to go to make room for other things. The question will be what is set to be killed off.
There was some initial confusion over the numbers. Before the formal announcement of the platform, journalists were given a first look at the costing in a media lockup.
From CTV.ca:
CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said it took puzzled Tory officials a long time to come to an agreement over the total net cost.From the clip:
"It turns out that total promises for the Conservative party adds up to $75 billion. When there is reallocation we are told it is $60.7 billion," said Fife.
He added: "It took a combination of effort by everybody, the media and the Tory officials, to get to this $75 billion -- and then some subtraction and fooling around until we finally got to, what they say, is the accurate figure of $60.7 billion."
Fife: Well, they finally released their total platform document and they tried to give Tuesday costing figures but I have to say there was a lot of confusion, a lot of voodoo economics this morning as we tried to figure out where the Conservative platform was going in terms of cost.
For a long period of time they could not add up the figures.
Reporters as you know, we are not good at mathematics but one of my colleagues were saying that they were trying to do Liberal math compared to Conservative math and my friend Tom Clark says it is only math can you please add it up for us.
It turns out that their total promises for the Conservative Party adds up to $75 billion. When there is reallocation we are told it is $60.7 billion. But this took about an hour or so of discussions and adding up to get to this figure of about $67 billion. Total tax measures are about 44.9 billion. Other spending initiatives I don't want to go there because it was so confusing even Monte Solberg the conservative finance critic did not explain that ...
It is a slip-up. I mean, this is a very important part of the Conservative government's [sic] platform. They have done a very good job from day one, issue-driven, a policy a day, well thought out, generally well thought-out policies, populous policies, consumer-driven policies that seem to have struck a chord with Canadians.
When you put it together you want to be able to tell the Canadians look, this plan adds up. When you can't explain that it adds up immediately, it raises questions about their whole ability to be able to govern. And I mean, that is the questions that he was getting in the room today is we wanted to know, tell us how much it will cost. How does it add up when they weren't able to do that and then they started to give conflicting numbers, a lot of head-scratching which the journalists...
Ravi: What about Monte Solberg, was in in command of the facts there? He being the finance transit critic.
Fife: Monte Solberg is a good guy. I would not give him high grades for his performance today.
Release the Zeisman form
British Columbia Conservative spokesperson Colin Metcalfe [<-- requires RealPlayer] told CBC in British Columbia that Derek Zeisman filled out a form as part of the nomination process in which he was supposed to disclose relevant information.
If Zeisman failed to disclose, then the Conservatives can simply make the completed form public. Any sensitive information can be blanked out in a noticeable way. It's a fairly simple thing.
Of course Metcalfe couldn't explain how this guy could appear in court several times and no one noticed.
No one.
I am not making this up.
If Zeisman failed to disclose, then the Conservatives can simply make the completed form public. Any sensitive information can be blanked out in a noticeable way. It's a fairly simple thing.
Of course Metcalfe couldn't explain how this guy could appear in court several times and no one noticed.
No one.
I am not making this up.
Then there's Zeisman, Day Three of Connie spin
The Vancouver Province is quoting Derek Zeisman as saying that the federal Conservative party knew all about the "administrative charges" he faces.
"Administrative charges". That's the new Conservative-speak word for allegedly trying to smuggle a Mercedes-Benz and 112 bottles of liquor across the border. The maximum penalty on conviction for these "administrative" infractions, which will be heard in British Columbia Provincial Court, could be a fine of up to $50, 000 and up to six months in jail.
Zeisman said: "The Conservative Party is aware of this [the charges]."
Now that's interesting. I was suspicious of the Conservative position from the get-go. It would be standard procedure for any political party, let alone the party of Law & Order [every night, on some channel and still on NBC] to do a background check on prospective candidates.
Heck I think these guys likely have their own CPIC account. That's the nationwide police criminal database.
(Left: Conservative Party background checker Ralph Wiggum, shortly before his retirement as Springfield chief of police.)
But to listen to Stephen Harper, he is surrounded by by people who didn't see fit to ask even the simplest of simple questions: are you bondable? Or maybe even: is there anything that might pop up in the media about you that might be a problem?
Harper didn't even ask the checkers those simple questions.
Compare that Jean Boyle-like shifting of responsibility to the way Prime Minister Paul Martin has handled the "military ad" thing. One pushes it away. One steps up to the plate. Hmmm.
Both Zeisman and Conservative Party campaign chair John Reynolds used almost identical phrases, referring to "administrative procedures" or "administrative charges" when talking about the matter.
That was when the Conservatives were standing behind their man fully.
The other thing you'll learn from the Province is that the former incumbent, Zeisman's old boss, won the seat by only 780 votes.
It was curious why the Conservatives didn't just forfeit the seat by having Zeisman resign for all his alleged and real failings. (Alleged = smuggling; real = failure to disclose relevant information]
Now we know:
They want every vote they can count on. This seat is a potential squeeker and they want to make sure it squeeks Conservative.
"Administrative charges". That's the new Conservative-speak word for allegedly trying to smuggle a Mercedes-Benz and 112 bottles of liquor across the border. The maximum penalty on conviction for these "administrative" infractions, which will be heard in British Columbia Provincial Court, could be a fine of up to $50, 000 and up to six months in jail.
Zeisman said: "The Conservative Party is aware of this [the charges]."
Now that's interesting. I was suspicious of the Conservative position from the get-go. It would be standard procedure for any political party, let alone the party of Law & Order [every night, on some channel and still on NBC] to do a background check on prospective candidates.
Heck I think these guys likely have their own CPIC account. That's the nationwide police criminal database.
(Left: Conservative Party background checker Ralph Wiggum, shortly before his retirement as Springfield chief of police.)But to listen to Stephen Harper, he is surrounded by by people who didn't see fit to ask even the simplest of simple questions: are you bondable? Or maybe even: is there anything that might pop up in the media about you that might be a problem?
Harper didn't even ask the checkers those simple questions.
Compare that Jean Boyle-like shifting of responsibility to the way Prime Minister Paul Martin has handled the "military ad" thing. One pushes it away. One steps up to the plate. Hmmm.
Both Zeisman and Conservative Party campaign chair John Reynolds used almost identical phrases, referring to "administrative procedures" or "administrative charges" when talking about the matter.
That was when the Conservatives were standing behind their man fully.
The other thing you'll learn from the Province is that the former incumbent, Zeisman's old boss, won the seat by only 780 votes.
It was curious why the Conservatives didn't just forfeit the seat by having Zeisman resign for all his alleged and real failings. (Alleged = smuggling; real = failure to disclose relevant information]
Now we know:
They want every vote they can count on. This seat is a potential squeeker and they want to make sure it squeeks Conservative.
It all bobs to the surface
Call them floaters.
The stuff you'd like to go away but just won't sink. Thanks to Canadian Press and the story at canoe.ca for helping things bob to the surface.
Like Stephen Harper and Kyoto. He admitted in Halifax yesterday that under a Harper government, Kyoto: up the chimney faster than carbon dioxide emissions from a coke plant.
Like Jack Layton. Turns out that Jack had hernia surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s.
Like Stevie again and missile defence. Canadians said no. Harper would wait for a formal invitation before doing something. The wording suggests that the idea could be turned over to a free vote. Take a close look at the wording of the quote though and you'd think the option of turning the proposal over to a free vote in the Commons is the bit that hinges on it being in the national interest.
Incidentally, since when is a matter of national defence not in the national interest?
Sounds odd.
A bit like saying the provinces jurisdiction in international affairs must be recognized.
Or that Canada has had a handgun ban for decades and it's working just fine.
The stuff you'd like to go away but just won't sink. Thanks to Canadian Press and the story at canoe.ca for helping things bob to the surface.
Like Stephen Harper and Kyoto. He admitted in Halifax yesterday that under a Harper government, Kyoto: up the chimney faster than carbon dioxide emissions from a coke plant.
Like Jack Layton. Turns out that Jack had hernia surgery at a private clinic in the 1990s.
Like Stevie again and missile defence. Canadians said no. Harper would wait for a formal invitation before doing something. The wording suggests that the idea could be turned over to a free vote. Take a close look at the wording of the quote though and you'd think the option of turning the proposal over to a free vote in the Commons is the bit that hinges on it being in the national interest.
Incidentally, since when is a matter of national defence not in the national interest?
Sounds odd.
A bit like saying the provinces jurisdiction in international affairs must be recognized.
Or that Canada has had a handgun ban for decades and it's working just fine.
12 January 2006
The Orchestra pit theory of political news coverage
This is as good a time as any to remind people of the Orchestra Pit Theory of political communications.
Credit for coming up with the little anecdote to illustrate the point goes to Roger Ailes, who these days heads up Fox News but in a previous life was a Republican Party communications whiz.
Basically, if there are two politicians on stage, one announces a cure for cancer and one falls into the orchestra pit, the guy in the pit will get the coverage.
There are a couple of versions of this going around. google and you'll find one. James Carville and Paul Begalla tell a slightly different version of it in their 2002 book Buck up, suck up and come back after you foul up.
As Carville and Begalla put it, news media love "to cover only four things in politics: scandals, gaffes, polls and attacks. Three of them are bad. So if you want to get coverage go on the offensive and stay there."
Of course, it should go without saying that it all depends on who you at aiming at in the offensive. Candidates normally aim at their opponent and as long as the attacks are factual, everything is just fine.
There will be people who bleat, complain and pontificate, but political campaigns are a winner-take-all affair.
After all, people have a right to see the sharp lines between candidates. Voters are choosing people to run our country, to make decisions that will affect each and every one of us on a daily basis. The choices aren't the same as which brand of toothpaste to buy. People deserve the chance to see the sharp lines between candidates and heaven knows there are sharp lines out there among all the contenders.
For some reason, this election has largely been about erasing the distinctions among the parties. Fundamentally, that's wrong.
[Fundamentally it's wrong for a crowd to sanctimoniously condemn attack ads and then run an entire campaign of their own around attacks.
But I digress.]
With all that in mind, have a look around and see if you can find genuine distinctions between candidates or among parties. There aren't as many as you'd think on major policy issues. In fact, it is almost scary the extent to which Conservatives are taking up New Democrat turf of supposedly detesting Americans, New Democrats want to get tough on crime and Liberals are the guys preaching fiscal responsibility, more cash for health care and people are pounding them.
Sharpening up the distinctions at election serves a useful purpose beyond giving political junkies something to blog about.
Planning a campaign that aims to differentiate a party from its rivals clears the political skulls. It sets a clear goal that the party can shoot for.
And voters would be able to hold political candidates and political parties genuinely accountable for things they would actually be able to do.
However, when campaigns are designed to blur distinctions, or push you to vote against something, everyone is getting shafted. We don't need proportional representation, or a reformed senate to fix elections.
We need political parties to actually stand for something different.
Consistently.
Credit for coming up with the little anecdote to illustrate the point goes to Roger Ailes, who these days heads up Fox News but in a previous life was a Republican Party communications whiz.
Basically, if there are two politicians on stage, one announces a cure for cancer and one falls into the orchestra pit, the guy in the pit will get the coverage.
There are a couple of versions of this going around. google and you'll find one. James Carville and Paul Begalla tell a slightly different version of it in their 2002 book Buck up, suck up and come back after you foul up.
As Carville and Begalla put it, news media love "to cover only four things in politics: scandals, gaffes, polls and attacks. Three of them are bad. So if you want to get coverage go on the offensive and stay there."
Of course, it should go without saying that it all depends on who you at aiming at in the offensive. Candidates normally aim at their opponent and as long as the attacks are factual, everything is just fine.
There will be people who bleat, complain and pontificate, but political campaigns are a winner-take-all affair.
After all, people have a right to see the sharp lines between candidates. Voters are choosing people to run our country, to make decisions that will affect each and every one of us on a daily basis. The choices aren't the same as which brand of toothpaste to buy. People deserve the chance to see the sharp lines between candidates and heaven knows there are sharp lines out there among all the contenders.
For some reason, this election has largely been about erasing the distinctions among the parties. Fundamentally, that's wrong.
[Fundamentally it's wrong for a crowd to sanctimoniously condemn attack ads and then run an entire campaign of their own around attacks.
But I digress.]
With all that in mind, have a look around and see if you can find genuine distinctions between candidates or among parties. There aren't as many as you'd think on major policy issues. In fact, it is almost scary the extent to which Conservatives are taking up New Democrat turf of supposedly detesting Americans, New Democrats want to get tough on crime and Liberals are the guys preaching fiscal responsibility, more cash for health care and people are pounding them.
Sharpening up the distinctions at election serves a useful purpose beyond giving political junkies something to blog about.
Planning a campaign that aims to differentiate a party from its rivals clears the political skulls. It sets a clear goal that the party can shoot for.
And voters would be able to hold political candidates and political parties genuinely accountable for things they would actually be able to do.
However, when campaigns are designed to blur distinctions, or push you to vote against something, everyone is getting shafted. We don't need proportional representation, or a reformed senate to fix elections.
We need political parties to actually stand for something different.
Consistently.
Harper now backs ACOA
Stephen Harper has decided that if he gets to 24 Sussex in a few weeks, he'll keep the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an organization he vowed to get rid of just last year.
h/t to Andrew Coyne.
h/t to Andrew Coyne.
Harper shifts position, temporarily, on accused candidate
UPDATE BELOWWhat a difference the light of day makes.
A difference, alright, just not much of a difference.
On Wednesday, the Conservatives were standing behind Derek Zeisman.
On Thursday, after the case of the candidate accused of smuggling gained national attention, Conservative boss Stephen Harper has announced that Zeisman will still carry the Conservative banner in the federal election but he just won't be able to sit in a Conservative caucus if elected, at least until the court case is resolved. [Corrected to reflect the details of the Canada Elections Act, as pointed out by a more-knowledgeable reader.]
Zeisman's bio has been removed from Conservative.ca, but he will apparently still be the official Conservative candidate on the ballot.
While he has not been convicted, Zeisman failed to disclose the charges against him to Harper and the federal Conservative Party didn't check Zeisman's credentials. When asked about it, Harper sloughed responsibility for the problem onto other people for failing to complete the appropriate checks, despite being the person ultimately responsible for approving candidates.
Compare Harper's position on his own responsibilities to the Conservative position on ministerial accountability. Harper made his initial comments in front of a Conservative backdrop featuring the word "accountability".
Update: The correction above notes that apparently the Conservatives can't punt the guy and block him from carrying the party banner. Fair enough.
Two things still apply:
1. This should have been caught by the approvals process. Harper's attempt to push the responsibility for this situation to the candidate and to unnamed officials of the party isn't good enough to meet the standards of accountability to be expected here.
2. Why was the first response to back the guy up and downplay the charges because they weren't under the Criminal Code?
Zeisman should have been strongly encouraged to resign from the ballot. Period.
Of course, given the guy's background, Harper can count on his vote if he gets elected, regardless of where in the House he sits.
Outside of caucus isn't much of a change.
Connie campaign chair sets the bar low
These comments from Connie campaign chair John Reynolds may give a sense of the high standards of integrity we can expect from a Conservative government.
Speaking of Derek Zeisman's charges for attempting to smuggle a car and 112 bottles of liquor across the border, Reynold's said that even if Zeisman were convicted "it's not a criminal offence."
So breaking the law is ok, as long as it isn't a violation of the Criminal Code.
Reynold's just gave us the sense of the ethical standards a Harper government would apply.
Talking about change isn't good enough, John.
Speaking of Derek Zeisman's charges for attempting to smuggle a car and 112 bottles of liquor across the border, Reynold's said that even if Zeisman were convicted "it's not a criminal offence."
So breaking the law is ok, as long as it isn't a violation of the Criminal Code.
Reynold's just gave us the sense of the ethical standards a Harper government would apply.
Talking about change isn't good enough, John.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)