A Quiet Revolution

The following is basically a one day story, that won't resonate with the public, which makes it all the more concerning. Harper has always believed that the civil service has a "liberal" bent, part of the right's seige mentality that drives their paranoia. I'm not sure I'd dispute the political spectrum analysis, because really the civil service accurately reflects the makeup of average Canadians. Of course, the right wing would find some resistance within the public service, because they are a minority in this country, they don't reflect mainstream Canada in a majority sense.

This is obscene on so many levels, but hardly surprising:

An elite federal program to recruit the cream of new graduates suddenly wants to know the applicants' views on the government's vaunted Economic Action Plan before they get a job interview.

The Accelerated Economist Training Program invites highly educated people to develop careers in the federal public service, starting at a senior level.

Successful candidates go through two years of training at four departments. They start at about $50,000 a year and after two years can earn over $80,000.

Spaces are in high demand among university graduates.

But this year, for the first time, candidates need to provide more than a list of qualifications and good marks. They also must to write 1,000 words on the federal government's last budget, promoted widely as the Economic Action Plan.

There is no way to rationalize the inclusion of a partisan inspired essay into a job application:

"In 2009, the Government of Canada introduced Canada's Economic Action Plan to help Canada's economy weather the economic storm," says the application form. "In 1,000 words or less, please choose two of these measures and discuss their implications for Canada."

Applicants must consider the social, economic or international policy implications of the budget, it says.

I assume the "cream" of graduates possess some intellectual prowess. I don't know about you, but it stands to reason that the response to this question is automatic, completely devoid of any critical viewpoint, an opportunity to "kiss ass" ("It's hard for me to pick just two concepts, the document so awash in pure genius, so well crafted and comprehensive, but if I must...."). Should said applicant have any qualms, which they wish to articulate, this would be the equivalent of suicide. This question is an attempt to weed out people with a political bent not in line with the government. This question is also a reward to sympathetic applicants, their genuine zeal for the Conservative agenda given ample opportunity for expression.

I view the above as another quiet measure to reshape our institutions, Harper's attempt to leave a conservative legacy long after he departs. The government is effectively screening people, based on political leanings. There is simply NO intrinsic value in asking this sort of question, it is transparently loaded and obvious. The fact this initiative involves "senior" positions, all the more relevant.

The minority manufacturing a false majority.

Support Free Vote On Gun Registry

Everyone is always lamenting how individual MP's have little real power in our current system. MP's generally tow the partyline, taking directives from the various leadership groups. Rarely, are MP's allowed to express their own view with a vote, based on their ridings particularly "bent" and/or their personal decision. In Canada, the notion of MP's having internal freedom is seen as weakness and divisive. A look down south shows that independence of legislative members, despite party affiliation, can be a healthy exercise that is actually more representative.

I know many Liberal and NDP supporters are horrified at the prospects of the gun registry being repealed. To that concern, I would argue that the will of parliament is being respected. If the opposition parties are divided in their perspective, that in and of itself speaks to validity of arguments on both sides. Why should the "rural" point of view be excluded within the opposition perspective? Why should parties, which claim to represent all Canadians, voluntarily suppress opinion which runs counter to the official line?

Cutting to the chase, this gun registry would survive if more people supported it. Period. The fact many opposition MP's don't, well that's democracy in the purest sense. I think we need to separate our personal want from the larger questions here. A free vote isn't a betrayal of anything, it's an organic exercise, that best expresses the will of Canadians. If we could move beyond the "embarrassment" argument, everytime a leader can't manage to force kneejerk, lockstep support, we might find progress in our parliamentary system.

If the gun registry fails, it isn't a failure of Layton or Ignatieff, it isn't an affront. Simply, it's individual MP's exercising a power that they should receive more often. The registry lives, if it has the votes of our elected representatives, falls if it doesn't. I'm fine with that, seems a better process than the autopilot MP existence we see most often.

Silence, That's What We Need

I've heard this more than once in the past few days- the Liberals are running the risk of politicizing a serious health care "crisis". CTV went so far as to say the Liberals were receiving criticism (not sure from where) for their questioning of the government. For the LOVE OF GOD, are people for real here?

Last time I checked, the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account, that's parliament 101, that's their role, that's how our system supposedly works for optimal results. Would Canadians be better served, if the opposition ignored the issue and didn't question the government?

What is particularly amusing here, I recall an interview just yesterday where CTV absolutely grilled the Minister of Health, asked her 8 different ways why she has failed so badly. Was that partisan in nature, or valid questioning, based on the facts at hand? Does that critical eye on their own part, coupled with questioning a critical eye from elected representatives not denote an air of hypocrisy? How dare the Liberals do exactly what we've deemed valid.

I don't seem to recall any talk of partisanship last spring when Carolyn Bennett was praising the Minister of Health, when she was praising her just prior to be TRASHED by her own Ministerial colleague. There was no political gain to be had, a gracious compliment that demonstrated confidence in the Minister. With that "on the record" backdrop, why is it suddenly political to criticize, when non-partisans are objectively concerned as well? Are the Liberals not simply mirroring public concern and media questioning?

Imagine for just a moment, if the Liberals remained silent on the issue, because they didn't want to inject even the perception of partisanship, onto a very serious matter. I can hear it now, probably from the same sources.

More "Weird" Coincidence

Which province doesn't have a relatively high percentage of Conservative MP's? Which province were Conservatives conceding was probably "dead" to them, no breakthrough realistic this past spring and summer? Is it any surprise that said province would be getting the stimulus SHAFT:

Quebec a loser in stimulus sweepstakes: CP analysis

Stimulus money earmarked for Quebec is only trickling down to communities in the province, while other provinces are awash in federal funds, an analysis by The Canadian Press shows.

By taking the data that supports that map, the analysis was able to count, locate and evaluate 4,833 projects that have been announced coast-to-coast. Far fewer than 10 per cent of those projects are in Quebec, Canada's second most populous province.

Of the 4,833 projects published on the government's centrepiece map as of Oct. 25, less than 300 are in Quebec. Ontario claims more than 2,500, while Alberta and British Columbia both have more than 300 each.

By my calculation about half of all Ontario projects seem to be in Clement's riding, so this statistically anomaly aside, the rest of the country provides a striking contrast.

Quebec has less projects than Alberta, despite having more than double the population. British Columbia about 60% of Quebec's population. Of note, the Conservatives hold 27 seats in Alberta, 22 seats in British Columbia and 10 in Quebec. Seem a distinct co-relation between representation and CASH. Couple that reality with a very sobering assessment of Quebec prospects by Conservative brass, at the same time money was being doled out, and again it seems more than just coincidence.

It would appear, once again, that money is being directed towards Conservative strongholds and competitive regions. When you keep seeing the same dynamic at play, using different measures, it doesn't just smell like a skunk, it is a skunk.

Pure Silliness

If you have any doubt how the Ottawa media cartel develop tunnel vision when it comes to narratives, the following example is quite informative. Okay, we all know the Liberals and Ignatieff are going through a very rough patch, valid examples plentiful to support the negativism. However, when CBC finds it necessary to have reporters actually COUNT treat or treaters at 24 Sussex and Stornaway, we've entered the realm of the absurd.

Pretty pictures of Harper handing out candy at 24 Sussex, followed by Ignatieff doing likewise at Stornaway. A nice little story, nothing of political value or in need of further analysis. But, NO, after CBC shows the shot of Ignatieff handing out treats, the piece ends with a comment on the traffic stats. Apparently, Ignatieff had less trick or treaters than Harper. I can't independently verify this fact, but that's what CBC told me, so it must be newsworthy.

On the practical front, isn't it stunning that more people would visit the PM's residence than the Leader of the Opposition? Common sense, please. Besides some simple realities, why anyone would actually compare and contrast escapes me. Hats off to the journalistic mind that was so desperate to pile on this obsessive narrative that they actually tried to make Halloween indicative of the polls and the leaders popularity. It's to bad us Liberals didn't have Halloween in May of this year, Ignatieff was HOT man, he would have kicked Harper's butt. "Zsuzsanna, we need more rocket candy!" Oh well.

I say, let's take this narrative a step further. Somebody should go back and do a detailed analysis of past Halloween attendance at Stornaway. Wouldn't it be something if Dion had more kids, during his darkest hours? THEN, you could really make the case that the Liberals are in trouble, based on this important indicator.

A nation waits....

3rd Quarter Fundraising

Pretty impressive fundraising for the Liberals in the third quarter. Rossi reports 2 million for the quarter, which is actually up for this period last year, despite that coming during an election campaign. The NDP had a successful quarter, with the benefit of a convention, raising just over 1 million. However, this number represents 57% of what was raised this quarter last year, while the Liberals raised 110%.

What makes the Liberal number all the more impressive to me, the party was forced to cancel a massive fundraiser in Vaughn for late September, due to the looming confidence vote. Estimates pegged that fundraiser at 1.6 million. Party organizers tend to space out their fundraisers for each quarter for optics, the loss of this donor vein was unanticipated. Had it occured as planned, this would have meant the Liberals were poised to mirror their very impressive 2nd quarter total, despite not having the benefit of a convention.

Having raised 2 million in a quarter, without this fundraiser, speaks to a growing institutional donor pool, which can be counted on for a steady flow of funds. By all accounts the Victory Fund push has been very successful, and the party was able to double membership over the summer, ahead of their ambitious schedule. This is the nuts and bolts stuff that goes largely unnoticed, but is paramount to building the party if it is to ultimately challenge the Conservative juggernaut.

I was a bit worried about this quarter, when I heard that the fundraiser had to be cancelled. Pleasantly surprised that Rocco and his team have done such a great job providing a consistent base support, that the party can count on. Good stuff.

Canadians Side With Liberals On Stimulus

The pdf for the Harris Decima poll on stimulus spending has been released, and the Liberals are clearly winning the PR war. Reading the commentary by Anderson yesterday, I'm going to challenge his conclusion, that while Canadians agree there is a bias, we are "resigned" to this practice and accept it as "business as usual". The numbers:

A majority of Canadians believe the Liberal claim that a lion’s share of the stimulus funding is being directed towards Conservative ridings. 56% of
respondents found this claim very (18%) or somewhat (38%) believable, while 34% did not find the claim believable. Strong majorities in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan found this claim believable, while opinion was split in Alberta where 48% found it believable, and 47% did not. Interestingly, in Quebec opinion was split down the middle as well
with 42% finding the claim believable, and 42% saying it was not believable.

In terms of polling, that is a pretty one-sided support of the Liberal claim of bias. Even Conservative supporters are somewhat inclined to believe the Liberal position, 43% see a bias, while 50% do not. Also noteworthy, in battleground Ontario, the margin is even higher at 2 to 1, 61% see favoritism, only 30% do not. I would catergorize those numbers as problematic for the government, the Liberal message resonating.

Here's my quibble with Anderson's comments, based on this question:

The Liberals are saying that spending more in Conservative ridings is unfair and should be stopped. The Conservatives are saying that this is happening because their members are working harder to get new projects for their ridings and that just how things work. Which is closer to your view?

46% support the Liberal position, while 34% support the government argument. Because the percentages are slightly closer than the "fairness" question, Anderson concludes that Canadians aren't that concerned about PORK, this isn't a "political bombshell". I would argue, the fact, by a sizeable margin, Canadians side with the Liberal position is noteworthy, irrespective of the other findings. It's still quite a gap, only in Alberta do the majority side with the Conservatives. Half of Ontario votes support the Liberals, while 33% believe the Conservatives. In Quebec it's a 47%-29% gap. To be frank, how anyone concludes that Canadians are accepting of the practice, based on these numbers, ESCAPES me. The numbers seem pretty self evident, using the first question to lessen the impact of these findings is "half baked".

From the Liberal perspective, I would describe the above findings, particularly the regionals, as quite "pleasing". While the support numbers haven't moved, a seed of doubt has been planted, which may be exploited as time goes on.

Very Compelling

This sure sounds like a government with a compelling story to tell, in an effort to counter unfounded criticism:

The federal government has dumped three boxloads of information about its efforts to stimulate Canada's sputtering economy on Parliament's independent budget watchdog.

But rather than provide an easy-to-read spreadsheet listing infrastructure projects and how much money has been spent on each of them to date, the government has flooded the parliamentary budget officer with 4,476 separate pieces of paper on individual projects.

The tactic has opposition critics accusing the government of trying to bury Page in paper.

New Democrat MP Pat Martin says the goal appears to be to confound and confuse people about how much has really been spent.

So transparent, and accountable, they just ooze "fairness" on this one, don't they?

Beyond The Headlines

The other day, Canwest released a study of infrastructure spending that came with the "fairness" headline, no evidence that Conservative ridings were given favoritism. In reaction to that claim, I penned a post challenging the most basic of premise in that Canwest post. Besides David Akin (who I do respect, just disagree on this point) calling me a "dink", I thought my criticism valid, no satisfactory counter forthcoming.

Well, Gerard Kennedy is at it again, doing fantastic work (Donolo, get him off the backbench, it just looks silly at this stage). This time Gerard trains his gaze on the Knowledge Infrastructure Program, the stimulus analysed by Canwest, that showed NO bias. What did Gerard find?:

Conservative stimulus bias continues at post-secondary institutions

the Harper government has funneled a disproportionate amount of money to colleges and universities situated in Conservative-held ridings, Liberal Infrastructure Critic Gerard Kennedy said today.

“An honest analysis of the facts shows the same pattern already evident in other infrastructure stimulus funds. Colleges and universities in Conservative ridings were given an average of 33 per cent more funding on a per student basis than those institutions in Opposition-held ridings,” said Mr. Kennedy.

“This amounts to a funding gap of nearly $263 million – and it’s not fair to our young people trying to get an education, or the researchers working to build our economy through discovery.”

Mr. Kennedy’s findings are based on an analysis of the available data on the $2-billion national Knowledge Infrastructure Program (KIP).

He found that in the four most politically competitive provinces – that is, where Conservatives are most likely to gain or lose seats in Parliament – there is a very pronounced bias of funding.

Of note, just to take this out of the partisan realm, not one press release claim from the Liberals on this score have been refuted by an independent analysis, using similar parameters. In fact, the Liberal analysis has been supported time and again, the only exception the Canwest piece, which missed the most glaringly obvious of problems with such superficial conclusions.

I'm sure there is some stimulus program out there that truly refutes the favoritism thesis. It's just nobody has found that program yet(sorry Mr. Akin), including a PMO which I'm sure has tried. Given the wide array of programs, the lack of counter is almost more telling than the evidence to date.

Conservative Lead Consolidating?

Three polls out today, two national, plus a CROP Quebec poll, all with very similar and now common themes.

Both the Angus Reid and EKOS poll show consistent results, providing further evidence that the Conservative lead is solidifying, something beyond a temporary blip. AR gives the government a 14% lead, EKOS 12%, both with no movement poll to poll. Slight improvement for the NDP, although still below 2008 totals.

The trend in Ontario, a 10% lead for the Conservatives has stayed consistent long enough to suggest a new paradigm in the province. One caution, these numbers were the same in reverse for a period of a couple months last spring. Still volatile, but the Conservative lead is holding.

In Quebec, all the pollsters show a worrying number for the Liberals, below Dion's totals. CROP also shows Ignatieff's personal stature on the wane, which comes as no surprise. The Liberals are mired in the low 20's, beside the Conservatives, who were once "dead" in the province. There is much speculation that part of Ignatieff's inner circle shuffle will include more francophones. An aggressive strategy in Quebec is of paramount importance, to undo the Coderre damage.

These polls are more of the same, but more of the same is the worrying part. If memory serves, the Conservatives weren't able to hold this kind of lead, for this long, last winter during the coalition crisis. Thoughts of a "blip" are diminishing, and it looks a long road back for the Liberals.

Sounds About Right

Rearview Mirror?

To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit conflicted about the shakeup in the OLO. On the one hand, bringing in Donolo looks like a shrewd move, impressive, talented guy, with an extensive pedigree. The appointment seems to be generating a favorable response from most Liberals.

However, and this is no slight on Donolo, I'm a bit concerned with this "rear view mirror" mentality that tends to dominate Liberal thinking. There are rumors that Donolo will bring in old Martin and Chretien people, some experience to try and turn things around. I agree with expanding the "team", Ignatieff should draw from the biggest intellectual pool possible. My only worry, this "expertise" comes with a glory day mentality, this sense that Liberals can recapture past magic. It is noteworthy, that Donolo held his communication post with Chretien 18 years ago- ancient times in the modern political reality. If Donolo surrounds himself with other past "heroes", there may be a tendency to rely on outdated templates, approaches that lack new ways of thinking.

Maybe it's because I just recently joined the Liberal Party, and wasn't particularly enamored with it's past manifestations, but the past isn't the golden age in my mind. The fact of the matter, the rot that the Liberal Party is dealing with now, the "lost our soul" difficulties all began under the reign of these "sages". In many respects, with the party held power under ideal conditions, it became an empty vehicle, which is something that plagues it to this today. IF, Liberals are under the illusion that we can simply bring old warhorses back into the fold and victory will be at hand, then we will deserve our fate in the end.

There's a real pecking order within the Liberal Party, and my brief exposure sees lots of jockeying and backroom postures. Re-energizing this party with fresh ideas, and blood for that matter, is the true to key to an attractive presentation. While experience is essential, that can be a drag on progressive thinking, because it relies on recapturing, re-inventing, when dynamics have changed.

I wish Donolo well, and I don't question his suitability. What I would stress, the CHIEF liability for this party at the moment is a lack of identity. That must be the focus, "bringing back the band" is fine, but keep looking at the horizon, not the rearview mirror.

G8 Summit Boondoggle

Imagine using government money for the Vancouver Olympics to build a botanical garden in Chilliwack. That would seem weird, wouldn't it? Imagine money allocated to clean up the Hamilton Harbour being used to repave roads in Barrie? That wouldn't seem "right" would it? Imagine using money to help host the G8 summit in Huntsville for granite signage in distant Parry Sound ???:

A $50-million fund to build infrastructure for next June's G-8 summit is being spent partly on projects that are far from the summit site and have tenuous links to the high-powered meeting, according to a Canadian Press analysis.

Industry Minister Tony Clement announced the low-profile fund last February, saying it was for G-8 infrastructure, including a new building in Huntsville, Ont.

Huntsville, where the G-8 meeting is being held, is in Clement's riding about 200 kilometres north of Toronto. A partial list of fund projects shows that many of the towns in Clement's riding are receiving money to build bandshells, plant gardens and put up signs and lights.

One news release announced $1.1 million to upgrade a street and replace trees in Parry Sound, about 80 kilometres away from the summit site.

Clement has also announced $194,000 for a large "welcome granite stone" and new lighting for a concert stage, also in Parry Sound.

Sometimes, visual aids are handy. Note the geographical locations:



I'm not sure what is more offensive, that this money was wasted on projects with NO co-relation to the G8 summit, or that Clement has become so ARROGANT and OUT OF CONTROL that he thinks he can pull it off without anybody noticing. Blows my mind.

Liberals File Complaint Over Partisan Advertising

The Liberals have filed a formal complaint to the Ethics Commissioner, regarding the gross misuse of YOUR money for partisan gain:

Liberal Public Works Critic Martha Hall Findlay is filing a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner for abuse of conflict of interest in the Harper government’s $60 million-and counting partisan advertising campaign.

“Since the Harper government came into office, it has been gradually exploiting the mechanisms of government for partisan gain,” said Ms. Hall Findlay. “We believe that the Harper government’s partisan advertising campaign breaches both the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code which applies to Members of Parliament – and we’re asking the Ethics Commissioner for a Review.

You can view the document HERE, which provides a very detailed and compelling case to show a consistent pattern of partisanship influence (even includes my little finding of social media links to Harper on the EAP website).

Of all the current issues swirling around this EAP, the one that deserves the most attention in the final analysis, is the idea that this government is using OUR money to benefit itself, not the Canadians it was intended to help. Anyone who does any research will see that this advertising is unprecedented in terms of scope, sheer mass and the blurring of the lines between government and party.

Worse, at a time of economic uncertainty and many challenging issues, the Conservatives seem to have put more energy into promoting themselves than tackling the problems. This whole issue speaks to misplaced priorities and flies in the face of any notion of "good government".

It's time for the MSM to do some detailed comparisons, because any research will show the unprecedented nature and will reveal that the Conservatives are without peer, when it comes to the singular obsession of self promotion at our expense. This isn't about some rogue crooks, this directive comes and was hatched in the PMO itself, this is Harper approved waste of taxpayer money to improve Conservative fortunes. Down to the use of color, language imprinting, a multi level propaganda machine that's sole purpose is to manipulate the electorate. Somebody needs to ask the basic question- what the hell is going on here anyways?

The 100 Million Dollar Sway?

Another poll today, which shows more of the new trendline. Everyone has digested the reasons for the changing political fortunes, namely backlash against the Liberals election desire, coupled with internal strife that has undermined Ignatieff. These factors are real, no question. However, there is another quiet storyline at play here that gets little attention, one that isn't as easily quantified but just as persuasive. I don't think there is any doubt that part of the Conservative's new "windfall" of support has a direct correlation to the advertising dollars being spent promoting the government.

There is a curious dynamic at play within the polls. Even though the Liberals are reduced to Dion era numbers, there is no corresponding uptick for the NDP, their numbers equally dreadful. It seems that these two parties are both, in parallel, bleeding support to the Conservatives. Even the Bloc numbers are pretty much static, despite favorable developments. There is only one party that seems to be drawing support at the moment, and that's the government. This strange narrative is a bit of a polling anomaly, which means the most obvious of reasons might not capture the full picture.

It seems simple logic- surely a 100 million dollar, suspect, highly partisan presentation would have some effect. I recall previous partisan ad buys in the order of 1/20th given credit for "moving the numbers", so something of this magnitude isn't easily dismissed. I believe that this wall to wall feel good exercise is working in tandem with other factors to create a new political order.

The real kicker here, that gets virtually ignored- WE are paying for this manipulation, with money we DON'T HAVE. It's an obscene number, so unique in it's magnitude that no partisan can make the lame claim "everybody does it". This advertising is exponentially higher than any previous campaign, it has no peer, to suggest otherwise willful ignorance.

When people try to figure out what happened, just remember last spring when Ottawa was abuzz about the "biggest ad buy" in Canadian history- the Conservatives 5 million dollar Ignatieff smear campaign. That was a seismic political move, but in retrospect it's a drop in the bucket to this assault on Canadians. That has no effect, it doesn't benefit the government? There's a reason why all parties are mired in the mud, with the exception of one and it isn't because Harper can sing in monotone. Votes are being bought with my money, and I'll have to pay it back someday with interest. A great country.

What A Crock

Bombarded by several independent media outlets showing a worrying trend? Tired of bad press that demonstrates a clear pattern of political favoritism? No worries, Canwest to the rescue, using the most dubious of measures to paint a pretty picture. Fact- if you've been paying attention the past couple weeks, you would have noticed a curious ABSCENCE of stories in Canwest publications, speaking to this stimulus distribution. The eyes don't lie, everybody knows the bias, the low key focus ENTIRELY predictable. But wait, it's all changed now, Canwest has done it's own homework, using a fund that I'm sure was conceived of independently (COUGH), and guess what?:

Infrastructure funding fair, analysis shows

Ridings represented by Liberal and NDP MPs are getting more than their fair share of a $2-billion federal infrastructure fund, suggests a new analysis by Canwest News Service.

Canwest's analysis of 310 infrastructure projects receiving funds from the Knowledge Infrastructure Program follows separate analyses by other news organizations of other infrastructure programs published last week that showed ridings held by Conservative MPs were receiving a disproportionately higher share.

This fund, is meant for college and universities. I will GUARANTEE you, that if Canwest bothered to cross reference the number of said high learning institutions in each riding, they would find that the opposition parties, by their support base nature, would have more of these institutions per riding, relative to Conservatives.

The "analysis" by Canwest finds Liberal ridings in Quebec are the big beneficiary, the Bloc ridings shortchanged so to speak. Well golly gee, take a look at where the Liberals hold ridings and you might just see a CLUSTER of higher learning institutions. Then, look at many of the rural Bloc ridings- hmmmm, I see a discrepancy.

Here's the kicker with the Canwest "study", which actually undercuts their conclusion:

With nearly 90% of the money allocated, colleges and universities in ridings held by Conservative MPs have received the most funding -- $666-million or 38%.

But Conservatives won 143 seats last fall, or 46% of all ridings. If the money from the Knowledge Infrastructure Program was being distributed equally across each riding post-secondary institutions in Conservative-held ridings should have received $803-million, or about 17% more.

So, in Conservative ridings where these institutions exist in some capacity, Canwest finds they received "the most funding". This fact actually supports all the other analysis, because I'll guarantee you that 38% of all college and universities don't fall within Conservative ridings. No, this sidenote admission is the really storyline here, buried amongst the fluff to show "fairness".

I challenge Canwest, David Akin, to review all their findings, using institution placement within these ridings. It will then be no surprise that NDP ridings do well, nor the Liberals, because, WELL, they have lots of seats in URBAN settings, settings that just so happen to be HUBS for colleges and universities, DISPORPORTIONATELY if you will. Could you start with a more SKEWED data set? The fact that Con ridings with these institutions are getting OODLES of cash supports previous findings, there is no "confusion".

A shocking day, Canwest finds the data to absolve the Conservative government, but doesn't bother to acknowledge the most common sense, inherently problematic "apples to apples" dynamic within that data. Please.

PMO's Dmitri Soudas "Should Shut Up"

I must have missed Soudas' talking point today, but it caught the attention of CTV. The fact that Soudas was reduced to playing the card he did, is quite telling and insightful. Soudas actually accused The Globe and Mail, which endorsed the Harper Conservatives the past two elections, of getting their stimulus cash spending direction from the Leader of the Opposition.

Think about that for a second? Soudas couldn't refute the numbers, the PMO couldn't devise a feasible counter argument, so they were reduced to manufacturing a vast "liberal media" consipracy defence. Does this mean all the Ignatieff bashing and negative Liberal storylines being puked out by The Globe and Mail for the past weeks and months actually originated with the Liberals themselves? Liberals plotting their own demise, behind the "skirt" of their media organ? Hmmm, there's a plausible argument.

It's pathetic that Soudas went there, but from the Liberal perspective it's a great development. What it suggests is the PMO is becoming exacerbated, they're lashing out because they're losing the public relations battle. The arguments are starting to bite, and it's getting under their skin.

CTV Powerplay discussed this issue today. Obviously, The Globe and Mail laugh off the accusations. Craig Oliver went further, quite upset with Soudas for the mere suggestion. He advised Mr. Soudas that he "should shut up". I would advise Mr. Soudas to keep talking.

Numbers Don't Lie

Still waiting for any counter evidence to support the Conservative's increasingly WEAK defence on the stimulus, today we have another "detailed" analysis from the Globe and Mail, and another Liberal release:

Harper slush fund favours Conservative Northern Ontario ridings


OTTAWA - Stephen Harper’s pork-barrel politics extends to Northern Ontario, where he let Tony Clement give Conservative ridings twice as much infrastructure funding as opposition-held ridings, a Liberal analysis shows.

Under the first comprehensive look at all of the stimulus funds in announced in Northern Ontario, the Conservatives gave their two Northern Ontario ridings an average of $35 million, compared to $18 million on average for the other eight ridings in the region held by opposition parties.

“The Harper Conservatives think some unemployed Canadians are more worthy of job creation projects than others,” said Liberal Infrastructure Critic Gerard Kennedy. “Otherwise, why would they give more than double the average to projects in their own ridings, at the expense of children, infrastructure and jobs in opposition-held ridings?”

“Once again we see this government treating taxpayer money like their own personal slush fund to try and buy the votes, while ignoring the needs of those who dared to vote for someone other than a Conservative.”

As reported by Tom Clark on CTV, the Conservatives aren't refuting the numbers or "statistics", because, well, they're FACTUAL.

About the only defence I've seen today, that Conservative MP's across Ontario apparently went to George Smitherman for stimulus dollars. The federal Conservative MP's didn't solicit funds from their own government, but instead relied on clearance from a Liberal provincial minister. Interesting that defence, if not entirely believable or part of the REAL WORLD. When you have nothing, you cling I suppose...

Two Polls

Both the NANOS poll out today, and the weekly EKOS poll show similar results. EKOS puts the Conservatives 11% ahead, NANOS 10%:

Cons 38.3% EKOS, 39.8% NANOS
Libs 27.1%, 30%
NDP 14.5%, 16.6%
Greens 11%, 4.6%

NANOS hasn't polled for 7 weeks, so the poll to poll trend isn't as instructive as the more regular EKOS poll. The fact the two show similar results though, speaks to any relevance in the EKOS finding. Although EKOS still shows a strong Conservative lead, which shouldn't be understated, the gap is down a full 4% in one week, and the Conservative drop is outside the margin of error. Of note, last week I made reference to a huge one day sample from EKOS, on the last day of their sampling, that showed similar numbers, the first hint of a narrowing. This occurs as the government is being hammered, so some pullback is expected. It will be interesting to see subsequent polling, because these things tend to manifest themselves slowly, rather than instant changed fortunes.

In all honestly, I expect to see a GRADUAL narrowing, merely as a function of a return to more normal polling, as the maelstrom around the Liberals fades. If that lowering of the temperature is accompanied by Conservative missteps, then the prior weeks may be another temporary blip, akin to last January. Time will tell.

Beyond The "Rhetoric"

What to make of it all? I thought it might be TELLING to compile a list of independent examinations, regarding the stimulus spending and "fairness". It is true, that statistics can be misleading, which is why many times we do see seemingly contradictory empirical information that can be confusing. In many instances debates are reduced to dueling claims and the truth tends to get lost in the numbers. Anyways, in an effort to move past partisan rhetoric, here are samples of all available media analysis, using government provided data sets.

ANALYSIS SUPPORTING LIBERAL CLAIMS:

Oct 13 Chronicle Herald

The analysis by The Chronicle Herald supports the conclusions reached by a federal Liberal party report, which found that Conservative ridings across the country have been getting more federal economic stimulus funding than opposition-held ridings have.

In Nova Scotia, though, the projects announced so far do not appear to be fairly distributed.

Oct 20 Ottawa Citizen:

Tory ridings receive bigger slice of big-money stimulus cash: Research

Conservative ridings across Canada received more than their fair share of big-money stimulus projects paid for by taxpayers, an investigation into the Harper government's Economic Action Plan shows.


The numbers — drawn from Ottawa's own website — bolster opposition allegations of pork barrelling in the multi-billion-dollar stimulus package, a charge the Tories deny.


An Ottawa Citizen-Halifax Chronicle-Herald investigation shows 57 per cent of the projects, with more than $1 million in federal funding nationwide, went to Conservative ridings.

Oct 20 Chronicle Herald:

Vote Tory, get an ice rink
Our analysis shows more blue ridings got rec funding

Funds from a federal stimulus program for hockey rinks and other recreation projects in communities across Canada appear to have been awarded disproportionately to Conservative ridings, an investigation shows.

Tory ridings have landed 66 per cent of all projects announced so far under the Harper government’s Recreation Infrastructure Canada program, also known as RinC.

Oct 21 Globe and Mail:

Recreational stimulus favours Tory ridings

A high-profile Harper government stimulus program created to build hockey rinks and other recreation projects has funnelled about 33 per cent per cent more money to Conservative seats than to opposition ridings in the battleground province of Ontario.

An analysis by The Globe and Mail shows Tory ridings received an average of $2.1-million, compared to $1.5-million on average for opposition ridings.

More evidence coming in tomorrow's Globe and Mail, according to CTV.

ANALYSIS SUPPORTING CONSERVATIVE CLAIMS:
































.......

I know the Liberals and Kennedy are making up all this stuff for partisan gain, but it is strange that the Conservative counters can't find ONE SINGLE INDEPENDENT REFERENCE POINT TO VALIDATE their claims. Can't they give L. Ian MacDonald or The National Post a calculator and some cooked numbers to get some "balance" out there? Dmitri, my man??

In all seriousness, if the government had any credibility, you would expect to see some conflicting data produced. In fact, the law of averages almost suggests some limited backing. But NO, whatever rock is turned over, finds the same worrying favoritism.

Forget checks, this is the real issue that will blow up in their faces. The reason, it's TRUE.