Tipping Point?

I'm wondering if we have finally reached a level of absurdity in this campaign, that might focus the debate. Two issues developing, both with clear deception at the heart, with no outside backing, that essentially leaves the Conservatives twisting in the breeze. Suddenly, I see glaring openings in a debate, there is the potential for the elusive moment that political junkies crave.

It all started with the Conservatives promising things four or five years out, that is how this "platform" came to be. Rivals mocked the 2015 pledges, and I'm pleased to say the ideas didn't get the media traction I had feared. To square this optical irritant, the Conservatives massaged their deficit projections, SUDDENLY we were a year closer to a balanced budget, all those promises closer on the horizon, they look fiscally prudent as well as reasonable moving forward. What we have here is a Conservative war room making it up on the fly, aware their budget lacked "buzz", they moved the goal posts, offered future goodies, then presented new numbers to bring their promises closer to fruition. The platform leaves two choices, either the government is incompetent, their budget an utter joke, or they are making up new numbers trying to pull a fast one on the Canadian people. Neither is flattering, neither can insulate the Conservative from criticism, both arm Ignatieff for the coming debate.

The other issue, the F-35 is finally coming to a bit of a head as Harper digs himself an illogical HOLE. Faced with no independent backing to support his failing credibility, Harper has turned to this letter, a document that confirms Canada is "exempt" from any cost overruns, we have some special deal. There is one problem with Harper's letter, it hasn't been produced and American law demands it can't be true:

"United States Code preventing the Americans from selling military equipment to a foreign country at a lower price than what the United States government pays"

The idea of an American government trying to come to grips with out of control overruns and Canada outside of these considerations is simply absurd, it defies the most basic logic, it makes a fool out of any Conservative apologist. US law precludes it, common sense betrays it, Harper's letter is fantasy and he is now cornered on this file. All Harper has left is a romantic vein of wrapping himself in the flag, because on substance he is finished for all intent and purposes.

You add up the expenditure shortfall on the F-35, then calculate the sudden deficit chasm, and a convincing story of outright deception finds new resonance. I will never under-estimate the Conservatives ability to wiggle off the hook with distractions and double talk, but this campaign is reaching a critical mass on the "utter bullshit" scale. I sure hope so...

Stunner

Rarely do you see a poll- particularly with the daily slew- that makes you do a double take, but this Nanos poll this morning is simply stunning. Still early, only one pollster, maybe a couple bad nights just need to work through the rolling total, caveat, caveats, but I can't remember the NDP at 8.4% in Ontario, alarming evidence of a complete collapse.

Yesterday, in the comments, we were talking about vote splitting, the potential NDP erosion as factor for the other parties. However, and again BIG caveats, if anything like Nanos held on election day, it's hard to fathom the consequence. In fact, the conventional wisdom might need a readjustment, utter collapse, hard to see who the ultimate benefactor would be.

Nanos shows a dead heat in Ontario:

Libs 42.8% (up 4.4%)
Cons 42.1% (down 3.3%)
NDP 8.4% (down 2.8%)
Greens 5.1% (up 1.1%)

Hard pressed to remember as high a Liberal tally in recent memory. It is worth noting here, in the past, when one party touches or surpasses 40%, the other main is well back. Here we an anomaly, both parties about 40% concurrently. How that translates to seats, a bit "game changy" to say the least. The NDP have had two consecutive abysmal nights of polling in Ontario. Of note, high profile rallies for both the Liberals and Conservatives Thursday night in Hamilton, a NDP stronghold.

In Atlantic Canada, we see a nice chart for the Liberals, as they steadily come back and now best the Conservatives by the slightest of margins. Again though, the same dynamic as Ontario, both main parties very strong, at the same time, with the NDP now down to a low water 11.2%.

Quebec caught my eye in one respect, the Liberals are up 3 straight nights, from 4th in the province to a 2nd at 25%. Small gains, but better than the previous trend.

Things change quickly with polls, particularly in elections, so the NDP could well turn it around, Layton an able and attractive debator. However, my perceptions are now validated, this campaign isn't going well for the NDP, their policies are mostly rehash, there is no "buzz" with anything they are presenting. This bizarre proposal to make gang participation illegal(as if gangsters are law abiding), an issue they chose to highlight one day, evidence of a campaign not quite resonating. Early days, but concerning days, no question about it.

NDP Getting Squeezed?

Two weeks into the campaign, I think it fair to wonder if the NDP isn't getting squeezed out of this election? Both the main parties, for different reasons, are attempting to narrow the election down to two choices. As well, the NDP campaign to date has hardly lit a fuse, many policy announcements are rehash, nothing has really captured imagination. It's still quite early, but the latest polls confirm a lacklustre campaign, as well as very concerning regional numbers.

Today's Nanos shows a large national drop for the NDP, down to 14.9%. In fairness, yesterday had the NDP at 17.2%, but even there, problems were masked, the regionals telling a more concerning story. The NDP are doing relatively well in Quebec, which is acting as a national offset to real problems where they are more likely to loss or gain seats. A couple graphs tell a clear story:




Both graphics highlight a firming dynamic. The two main parties doing well concurrently, at the expense of the NDP, the two horse race taking shape. 13% down from 2008 in Atlantic Canada, even more concerning 7% down in vote rich Ontario, a far worse story for the NDP than even the nationals allude to.

EKOS out this morning as well, which pegs NDP support at a concerning 14.5% in Ontario, 20% in Atlantic Canada. As well, both EKOS and Nanos put current NDP support below 2008 in British Columbia, another crucial region. I have noticed the NDP highlighting their rise in Quebec, which is noteworthy, however it is also true that this support is soft, has no history of manifesting itself at the ballot box, and bring little in the way of actual seats, even if the numbers hold. On the other hand, the NDP is bleeding badly where they have to win, a far more important fact.

A huge consideration, if the NDP vote does collapse(early, early days), how that affects vote splitting, who that will benefit. Factor in, as well, a credible argument that the Greens could draw less support this election, these are the underlying moves that have great electoral impact. Of note, EKOS is now showing Green vote erosion, while Nanos has support well below 2008.

I don't believe any of these observations have anything to do with Liberal partisanship, I see an objective move taking place, that no reasonable person can dispute. I also believe things can still change, Layton remains popular, the NDP have delivered catchy ads, a professional team. However, there is something lacking this time with the NDP, there is no buzz or attraction. Couple this fact with rivals both arguing a similar choice, and one wonders if the polls are starting to show the NDP getting squeezed from the equation. As we move forward, this dynamic may well prove decisive.

2015: A Media Odyssey

The Harper government has opened an entirely new campaign wrinkle, the reaction to the tactic simply irresponsible. For the third time now, Harper has made a campaign pledge that has no relevance to reality, some bizarre future commitment, contingent on a host of yet unforeseen developments, a complete and utter illogical proposition. The commitments are attractive, but the now reoccurring thread demands a reassessment of what exactly is fair game commentary in THIS election.

The Conservatives are free to discuss whatever they wish, quite different however when the media parrots the chosen theme of the day, only adding the context with subsequent commentary, more muted and secondary. It begs a question whether the media is obligated to report on everything, can they not- as they do with investigative pieces- decide what is relevant or not, use their own standards, to decipher worth of coverage? It seems the drill goes as follows, said entity decides the messaging for the day, the media report that messaging, then only in after the fact fashion is there any analysis of worth. To my mind, the battle is already lost, when you report everything, because the intent is to merely get it out there, that's part of the partisan strategy.

We are having an election in 2011. We are having an election, wherein Canada faces a herculean deficit. Within the Conservative fiscal framework, massive questions abound about their fiscal plan, their costing of certain expenditures, it all remains rather unclear. Add in the inherent fallacy of trying to accurately predict the future state of affairs, less reliable the further out you forecast, and this 2015 timeline becomes that much more dubious. The Conservative projections are questionable, then the added factor of future uncertainty, these 2015 goodies simply don't pass the 2011 smell test. In other words, the Conservatives are trying to game the system, and unfortunately they found a willing partner, one that thinks a bit of questioning after the fact amounts to journalism.

As I read Harper's fixed election law, we will have another election in 2015, it can occur NO later, that seems an objective truth. That translates to an almost surreal situation, wherein there is no possiblility of implementation, by the Conservatives own logic, PRIOR to another campaign. The Liberal platform ends in 2014, it's as though we are fighting two elections concurrently, one that deals with the realities as we know them, the other a concoction of possibilities. I'm sure all parties will offer new goodies once the deficit is tackled, what pray tell does that have to do with this election? And yet, TFSA is today's buzzword, one of the leads on all the telecasts.

We partisans quibble about this and that, in terms of coverage, but that reality shouldn't distract anyone from the sheer ridiculousness of giving utter fiction a hearing. Any sense of fairnes, let the Conservatives put out what they want, but actually reporting, not sure how that of any benefit to the public. Every time I hear the word TFSA mentioned in a broadcast, I'm going to say GOTCHA! This just might be the most absurd election any advanced democracy has been subjected to. Harper actually called it "a major step forward" as if reality, and people report it as though it will come to pass. It would be funny, if it just weren't so flipping sad.

Poll Roundup

Three polls released, EKOS, Nanos and Angus Reid, all of which show very similar spreads. EKOS and Nanos show a 9% gap, AR a 11% gap. AR and EKOS both show a narrowing trend, relative to their last offerings, all show a relatively tight race in Ontario.

We are starting to get a clearer picture of the dynamics in play, although still some completely contradictory findings. On the latter point, I note that AR shows Ignatieff gaining traction, his approval rising a statistically significant 6% to a still modest 25%. Nanos shows a flatline number, even erosion, day to day, no sense of any direction. Of note here, Harris Decima earlier this week also showed a sizable 12% rise in Ignatieff's favorables. In addition, AR also mirrors Harris Decima, in finding rising disapproval for Harper, lowering approval.

As far as clarity, somewhat consistent national results, general provincial themes. Since the start of the campaign, the huge gap has narrowed somewhat, if anyone has momentum it's the Liberals. That said, the gap is still FORMIDABLE, so optimism also factors realism. For Liberals the trends are positive, chipping away was the only avenue, so in certain regards, so far, so good. Another commonality, in a general sense, it does appear that the Bloc is somewhat vulnerable in Quebec, most pollsters show mid to low 30's now, EKOS comes in with a 28.3% finding (down a full 8%). I'd be cautious about EKOS, does seem a tad low, but maybe they are capturing a downward trend. Stepping back from individual findings, it does appear Bloc fatigue maybe real, although it remains to be seen if any other party can capitalize.

There was one striking result in the EKOS poll that deserves consideration. Graves finds a sharp spike on the wrong direction score for the government:

Direction of country:
¤ 52.5% right direction
¤ 36.4% wrong direction
¤ 11.0% DK/NR

Direction of government
¤ 40.1% right direction
¤ 51.3% wrong direction
¤ 8.5% DK/NR

Noteworthy, the wrong direction score for the government is the highest we've seen in months. Perhaps an even bigger concern, the disconnect between apparent optimism about the country and attitudes towards the government. It would appear, Harper isn't directly benefiting from improving economic fortunes, given this is their cornerstone argument, a surprising weak point.

In summary, narrowing but big Conservative lead, Ignatieff showing signs of life, Liberals can claim limited momentum.

Harper Doesn't Get To "Decline"

For the second day in a row, Harper is brushing off questions about what measures his staff take to screen audience participants. This disposition that Harper has taken, than he can decline to answer a question about whether the Conservatives are monitoring Facebook and other social-media sites to weed out individuals who aren’t true-blue Conservatives is completely unacceptable.

Concerns have been raised about what the Conservatives are doing to investigate people. There are also questions about the RCMP, and how their screening process- completely LEGITIMATE- connects to the Conservative campaign. Are the Conservatives using data provided by the RCMP? Are the Conservatives independently monitoring the activities of people online? There are a myriad of important questions here, Harper doesn't get to sluff off anything, he is required to answer just what they are doing on this score. The issue was raised, accusations have been made as to criteria, facebook, bumper stickers, so Harper MUST CLEAR THE AIR, there is simply no alternative.

This goes beyond simple partisanship, it is now a question of our fundamental right to know just what exactly this Prime Minister is doing to screen people, what are the tools available to him, is he misusing RCMP information, does he have people who monitor individuals, based on political views? These are important questions, Harper doesn't get a "decline", he gets pestered everyday until he faces the problem like a leader must do.

But In Theory

The corporate tax debate tends to get bogged down by scholastic jargon, the Liberals on the defensive as many "experts" weigh in with their economic theorems, theoretical realities that SHOULD pan out apparently. Trouble is, for those pounding the table on corporate taxes, the arguments are OBLITERATED in the face of the real world data. According to Statistics Canada, not only have corporate tax cuts failed to deliver to the economy as advertised, about all they have done is lead to HOARDING, no trickle down, no job creation, furthering the gap between rich and poor. It's almost remarkable when you think of the sales job on the benefits of corporate taxes:

But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83-billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

But the tax cuts appear to have reversed decades of tradition. Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada’s total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000, The Globe analysis shows.

A pretty telling graph, not only does investment not increase it GOES DOWN, despite being awash in cash. Theory gets a kick in the sweets:


The exact opposite should occur, and yet the graph is striking. Now proponents would say EVENTUALLY companies will get off their stockpile of cash and invest, but again where is the basis in fact? Factor in more money going to the top 1% of our society, and something doesn't quite jive.

Another argument, that the corporate taxes lead to job growth, apart from simply re-investing, companies hire people because of improved balance sheets. The biggest benefactors of corporate tax cut decreases are the big banks, accounting for a sizable percentage of the overall cuts. I recommend people google "banks slash jobs", "banks cut workers", etc, what you will find absolutely no job creation, just hoarding cash while STILL TRIMMING payrolls. It really is quite remarkable, basically nothing the incredibly intelligent economists suggest has actually manifested itself. It's the equivalent of the weather man calling for muggy, warm weather and instead we have a blinding snowstorm, reality bears no relation to the forecast.

Dimitri Soudas Brings The Lame

Speaks for itself

Reporter: Why are they being kicked out of Conservative rallies?

Dimitri Soudas: As I stated earlier we're having great turnouts at our crowds (sic) so far. Every single campaign stop, we've had tremendous turnout so far.

Reporter: Doesn't answer the question. Focus on the question please. Why are these people being kicked out of the rallies?

Dimitri Soudas: For example the issue of the young lady. I can't speak to all the specifics. But the young student in London yesterday on behalf of the campaign we apologized for the inconvenience. At the same time, next time we're in London the prime minister would love to meet with the young student, take a picture with her and hopefully she can post it on her Facebook site as well. Having said that, the bottom line here is the conservative campaign is having tremendous turnout across the country. If the other parties are having a hard time turning out people that's their issue.

Reporter: Are you doing a blanket apology to all those kicked out?

Dimitri Soudas: Campaigns always have these kinds of things....

Reporter: Do you have staff who are combing through people's Facebook sites to look for suspicious connections? Are you going into people's Facebook sites?

Dimitri Soudas: Bottom line here is that for every campaign event like I said earlier, we have a tremendous turnout and we always have to make sure that we're planning to have rooms big enough to ensure all the people turning up are able to attend and participate in the rally.

Reporter: But what is your screening mechanism?

Dimitri Soudas: Local campaigns make sure everybody in the region and everybody who are from the surrounding ridings attend our events.

Reporter: The question was what is your screening mechanism? You answer some other question that wasn't asked. How exactly is it that your staff are combing through people's Facebook pages looking for signs of disloyalty?

I'm not aware of such combing. I'm not aware of such things.

Reporter: But it happened. This woman in London says that she was told as she was removed from the rally the person removing her told her they had seen her Facebook site and seen a picture of Michael Ignatieff there.

Dimitri Soudas: Yes and as I stated, for this young student, I said we apologized.

Reporter: What are you apologizing for?

Dimitri Soudas: For the inconvenience it caused her.

Reporter: So you acknowledge your campaign did this?

Dimitri Soudas: No -- it obviously caused this young student an inconvenience. We have apologized for that.

Reporter: What about the other cases?

Dimitri Soudas: It's obviously evident that our campaign is attracting tremendous response and quite frankly the biggest crowds than any other election campaign.....

That's some rare kind of lame. A hint of Monty Python.

Taking Shape

With the latest evidence of Harper cleansing his campaign crowds, scrubbing the rooms, restricting access so only robotic supporters remain, a dangerous theme for the Conservatives is starting to gel. I note an uptick in Conservative supporters whining about the media, which is further anecedotal proof of a campaign coming off the rails.

This frame of a Harper as "bubble boy", restricting the media, not interacting with Canadians, going so far as to check out rally participants and deny access for the most baseless of rationale, it's all congealing into something of real consequence. Harper likes to portray himself as the anti-elitist, grassroot populist. Students of Canadian politics know it's a bunch of bunk, but to the busy Canadian, they can be sold, repetitive messaging can offset reality. However, when an election comes people do start to tune in, and now that they are to a certain degree, they are bombarded with countless examples of Harper as anything but the populist, more a man afraid of Canadians than connected to them. Contrasted with Ignatieff, Layton offering diametrically opposed campaign style, and Harper's predicament becomes more pronounced.

I'm not sure just how much "bubble boy" can resonate, move numbers, but I think it foolish for apologists to dismiss out of hand. People don't like the idea of a closed off politician, manipulating the optics, it comes off as phoney, it smells artificial, it's not flattering in the least. Moreover, with each successive example, the frame gains steam and it becomes an election theme. A stark contrast is present, everytime Ignatieff wades into an unscripted event, Harper's approach is that much more unaccountable, almost undemocratic.

What Canadians are starting to see is the Harper political junkies have seen in Ottawa for some time, all the "under the radar" control freak, paranoid, message management stuff, that is really a hallmark of his reign. You can argue all day long about resonance, but there is no disputing Harper doesn't look good, these examples aren't helpful in drawing voters, at best a non factor, at worst a DISTINCT TURNOFF. As well, when you are continually answering questions about your controlling nature, it's hardly what your war room welcomes, hardly a desirable development. A frame is forming, and it isn't flattering.

Latest Nanos Digestion

The gap still very significant, but a large move in the Nanos poll. In addition, for the first time in over a year a pollster pegs Liberal support about 40% in Ontario, now ahead of the Conservatives in the volatile province.

The nationals numbers show a large 4.3% narrowing in one day, which now means Nanos is more in line with the Harris Decima poll trend:

Cons 39.8% (42.3%)
Libs 30.2% (28.4%)
NDP 16.5% (16.4%)
Greens 4% (3.8%)

A 13.8% lead is now down to 9.6%, must have been quite a day of polling yesterday. Still a huge Conservative lead, but there are signs of life for the Liberals.

The Ontario numbers are quite striking, for a number of reasons. I can't recall such strength in numbers with both the main parties concurrently, a VERY worrying sign for the NDP, the squeeze apparently on:


You see a very nice, established trendline for the Liberals in Ontario, as they reach a pretty impressive tally. Of note, Harper was in Ontario all day yesterday scaring citizens, while Ignatieff was on the east coast. A 7% swing in one day, the Liberals gain at both the Conservative and NDP expense. It's fair to mention here that the NDP are below 15%, they can't seem to find any traction, eclipsed by the Liberals. In terms of vote splitting, this could be an important dynamic, raising higher the already lofty Liberals seat translation. Let's see if it holds, but all the pollsters have shown an improving Liberal fortune in Ontario, so something appears to be afoot, for the time being anyway.

The Liberals are simply dreadful in Quebec, so bad their numbers are a drag on the national presentation. Here we have a poll with Liberals well above 40% in Ontario, and we still barely break 30% nationally. Ignatieff is set to roll into Quebec today I believe, which is good, because the NDP nipping at our heels, mired in the teen routine, isn't going to cut it. I appreciate the Liberals can only hope to pickup a few seats, optimally, but there is no reason we can't get back to a more respectable showing. People forget, the Liberals were once statistically tied with the Bloc in Quebec under Ignatieff, over 30%, so there is an audience available. I would also add our platform should be a good sell in Quebec.

All in all, the Liberals have to like the trend, the Conservatives a bit nervous.

A Poll For Everyone

Can't recall the last time we've seen such bizarre, conflicting trends, from two of the heavyweight pollsters. This morning Nanos came out with their poll, which showed the Conservatives have built up a "commanding 14 point lead", taken Friday to Sunday, suggested a worrying trend (outside of Ontario) for the Liberals. Now Harris Decima has just released their latest, taken Thursday to Sunday that shows the Liberals have cut the Conservative lead from 14 points a week ago to 7 points this week. In addition, Harris Decima shows Ignatieff starting to gain traction with voters:

These results, compiled March 31-April 3, see the Conservatives with 35% support, the Liberals with 28%, the NDP 17%, the BQ 10% and the Greens 8%.

•In Quebec, the BQ remains well in front. Over the last two weeks, the BQ stands at 42%, to 20% for the Conservatives, 16% for the Liberals, 15% for the NDP, and 6% for the Greens. Over the latest week, the BQ holds 42% support, to 19% for the Liberals, 17% for the Conservatives, 15% for the NDP and 5% for the Greens.

•The Conservatives hold an 8 point lead in Ontario over the last two weeks. Here, they stand at 41%, to 33% for the Liberals, 17% for the NDP and 8% for the Greens. In the latest week, the Conservatives hold 43% support, to 34% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP and 8% for the Greens.

•The Conservatives remain in front in BC. Over the last two weeks, the Conservatives are at 34%, to 28% for the NDP, 23% for the Liberals, and 13% for the Greens.

•The Conservatives remain the dominant party on the Prairies. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they stand at 50%, to 22% for the Liberals, 18% for the NDP and 8% for the Greens. In Alberta, they stand at 56%, to 23% for the Liberals, 14% for the NDP, and 5% for the Greens.

•The race is tight in Atlantic Canada. Here, the Conservatives are at 38%, to 36% for the Liberals, 18% for the NDP and 6% for the Greens.

The regionals don't capture the last four days the nationals speak to, so a bit outdated in certain respects.

Nanos shows the gap widening considerably, Harris Decima shows a decided narrowing in short order. Who to believe? I'm not going to venture a guess, let's see if we get a more overriding trend, but at least for the Liberals some evidence that all the "good first week" talk isn't just idle chatter.

Encouraging news for Ignatieff from Harris Decima:

Perhaps even more encouraging for the Liberals is the fact that their leader, Michael Ignatieff (while still having the highest "unfavourable" ratings of all of the five federal leaders) has improved his favourable ratings by 12 points since we last probed this question in February. Conversely, his principal rival, Stephen Harper has seen his unfavourable scores increase by almost as much (9 points)."

Interesting again, Nanos shows a flat trend for Ignatieff, Harper doing relatively well. Go figure.

So, it's Conservatives way up, Liberals closing quickly then...

Spent

Harper is out today re-introducing the gun registry debate. One can see the potential strategic logic, particularly in a targeted way. What I find striking, here we are well in this election campaign, and it seems the Conservative Party is essential BEREFT of ideas.

The big Conservative themes to date, the coalition, campaign financing and the gun registry. None of the issues are new, the lines are the same, it's tired, old, rehash and re-introduction. Again, not a statement on strategy, but more an indictment of a party clearly running on philosophical FUMES.

The only "new" pledges the Conservatives have made, the paltry commitments, revolve around the future, dependent on yet unforeseen events. In other word, we have a entire campaign which is offering nothing for today, either drawing on the past for inspiration or point to some nebulous future to curry favour.

People may remember that barely two years into their mandate, we heard whispers of Conservatives trying to come up with new policies, there was a intellectual defict that needed tending. At the time I was amazed, given 13 years in opposition and only having 5 election commitments on the books, seemed odd that the Conservatives were essentially SPENT on the policy front. As we sit here today, those early signs were more foreshadowing, because one is hard pressed to find many legislative successes after the initial wave of early legislation. In fact, there really hasn't been much going on in Ottawa, apart from re-introducing crime pieces or the occasional reaction to current events. With this backdrop in mind, we are seeing the culmination during this campaign, the Conservatives basically have nothing new to offer anyone.

The lack of policy underscores the need to run on fear, really no different than the bankrupt Martin government. The first days of a campaign is where you set the tone, so it's fair to say the Conservative policy department is THIN at best. On every score, we've already had protracted debate in this country, the gun registry has gone on for four elections, the coalition a national conversation, campaign finance, heard it all before. Maybe the early perception of "flat" was more to do with the geniune lack of excitement in rallying behind already plowed terrain. Sure, it might work politically, but it's hardly anything that captures people's imaginations. Scrambling for any type of forward vision, we get these bizarre commitments after the next election.

It totality, this might just be the oddest campaign in recent memory. The past and future are covered, the present, not so much. The whole presentation sharpens a focus toward a Conservative government which has really lost the rationale to govern, more about retaining power than offering a compelling reason to want it.

Where Do The Liberals Sit?

When Ignatieff first took over the helm, a lot of people on the left saw him as nothing more than Harper-lite, based on a selective list. When he first returned to seek the Liberal leadership I largely agreed with much of the criticism, only when I did my own research, did I find strands of classic liberalism weaving through his thoughts, at least in certain regards. When Ignatieff took over from Dion, another wave of "Liberal/Tory, same old story", people jumping on any convergence as proof dammit, proof. The situation wasn't helped by a clear lack of policy development, the Liberals still adrift, a situation not of Ignatieff's making, but a reality nonetheless.

Today, we dropped the Liberal platform, a culmination of a year's worth of work, some big items already stated previously, plus a few new one's for overall rounding. Step back and look at the evolution the past few months, and you see an apparent move philosophically. Many pundits, commentators seem to say the Liberals have "moved left", the Liberals are stepping "all over the NDP", plus some worry that we've sacrificed the center. I must admit, I find it a bit amusing that Ignatieff of all people is being accused of this spectrum shift, given past criticism.

I'm not surprised Liberals find themselves here, as a firm left of center Liberal, I was convinced Ignatieff shared this ground, with certain obvious omissions. However, as we've fleshed out our policy, as we've firmly planted our flag on the center left, it makes it much easier to support this party, this leader, this alternative to Harper. I donated yesterday with enthusiasm, not duty, because I believe in where we stand, this is traditional Liberal ground, the center left is the heart of Canadian society, not the fringe. Progessive on social issues, committed to fiscal disipline, a compassionate government that realizes constraints, but attempts to find equalities.

I feel like this party has found it's rallying cry, and I know I'm not alone. Many of us railed against this and that, our meandering positions, lack of clear focus. Victory or defeat aside, it feels like we have found something to support, the Liberals have finally armed themselves with a slew of ideas to convey a message. It's not perfect, it has pandering aspects, gloss, pure crap to be honest, but if you understand all political parties operate in this world, no exceptions, it's a fairly good projection. Where do the Liberals sit? People can debate the significance, ramifications, but it sure feels more comfortable from here.

New Poll

This morning's Nanos poll shows a solid Conservative lead of 11 points, with some interesting regionals:

Cons 40.7%
Libs 29.4%
NDP 16.9%
Greens 4%

Both main parties down slightly today, the Conservatives up in British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, the Liberals well down in Atlantic Canada. These regionals offset what is becoming a developing trend in Ontario:

Can't recall any recent polls pegging Liberals support quite this high, you see a fairly rapid narrowing in Ontario. I've said it a million times, there is a decent subset in Ontario that changes intention with the slightest breeze, here we see weak Conservatives support gravitating back to the Liberals. Regionals losses elsewhere mask this possible trend in Ontario, but it's a good one for the Liberals. I note here, scanning Ontario headlines, columns, newscasts, very favorable coverage for the Liberals the last few days. Also, Nanos shows virtually non-existent Green support, a vote splitting consideration, as Ontario shapes up as a clear two party race.

Another angle that has quite registered yet, Nanos shows continually erosion of Bloc support in Quebec, now down to 33.8%. The Conservatives only 8% back, followed by the Liberals stuck at 22%. My only real beef with our campaign to date, actually our strategy for two years, the apparent lack of real focus in Quebec. There are seats available for the Liberals, not to mention any sense of national momentum is forever blunted by lowly standing in Quebec. Appears calculations have been made, but it's also true the Liberals have never formed government without a decent tally in Quebec. Let's hope we see more than token appearances in Quebec, because voters are clearly looking around.

As an aside, I read an article this morning from one of the pollsters, stating that voters are just starting to tune it. An important fact to keep in mind.

Not Going Away

A new wrinkle on the debate story, one that has breathed new life into the prospect of a one on one:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has accepted an offer from comedian Rick Mercer to take part in a one-on-one debate with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

Harper has yet to respond to the popular television personality, who mused on his Twitter account on Friday night about moderating a debate between the two leaders.

"Ok hell i will rent massey put the camera's in place and moderate the Harper Iggy smackdown," Mercer tweeted.

He followed it several minutes later with "Ok i'll produce a Iggy Harper debate. 50 grand to a charity of their choice. I'll find a broadcaster or 4."

Michael Ignatieff responded Saturday afternoon, also on Twitter: "I'm in."

The Liberal leader then tweeted that he wanted the charity money to go to the Alzheimer Society. Ignatieff's mother succumbed to Alzheimer's disease in 1992.

Harper was obviously hoping to run out the clock, in this media reality, hard for any issue to sustain itself. However, Mercer has interjected himself and provided another round of EMBARRASSING digestion for the Prime Minister. Let's hope the Liberal war room has some enterprising soul working out the logistics with Mr. Mercer, or Don Newman, or any of the other suggestions presented.

Feels Much Different Than 2008

Week one is "in the books", and while the polls aren't kind, they are about the only measure that bears any resemblance to the 2008 campaign from the Liberal perspective. In fact, when you add up all the factors at play, it still seems remote, from my perspective, that the Liberals fail to improve their situation this election. Polls are part of the mix obviously, I check first thing every morning, but to isolate yourself to them as only measure of a campaign, only indicator of your mood for the day, you're losing a big part of the plot.

There were many signs early on in 2008 that the Liberals were in real trouble, things that foreshadowed Liberals "staying home" in 2008. I recall early news reports detailing abysmal turnout at rallies, one or two not even touching triple digits. There was no "jam", no "moxy" to the Liberal campaign, absolutely no enthusiasm whatsoever, again a early sign that trouble was possibly at hand. Contrast 2008 with this campaign, Ignatieff is simply stuffing them in at every stop, which translates to volunteers on the ground, a curiosity about this man, a motivation to get out and get involved. Small indicators, but Liberals are coming out, absolutely no comparison to 2008. This headline, from a local paper yesterday covering Ignatieff's stops, is symbolic, as well as indicative: Ignatieff ignites crowd on two-stop visit. I will guarantee the word "ignite" was never fathomed in 2008, "extinguished" maybe, but...

Liberals are rowing together this election. To understand this more united front, your starting point is Ignatieff's speech to caucus and candidates on January 25. I've heard various reports from that room, I've watched that speech a few times, that is when Ignatieff made people believers, that is when all the time on the bus, all the message development, congealed into a compelling figure. That speech was the end of whispering behind Ignatieff's back, people rallied behind him and there was more confidence going forward, no question in my mind. That speech is also why I wasn't worried about Ignatieff on the trail, why I said pre-writ, low expectations are chief asset, this guy would surprise. Ignatieff is doing just that, and because of this compelling fact I have a difficult time seeing a 2008 redux, or worse for that matter. Review the columns, news items the last couple days, I defy anyone to find any similar sentiment in 2008.

Another indicator of some enthusiasm is fundraising. I remember the shock I felt when the 2008 campaign spending was released post-election. The Liberals hadn't spent near the maximum, it was entirely disappointing, little surprise we did so poorly. This election, we already have stories of "unbelievable fundraising, another core indicator that Ignatieff is resonating, the Liberal message is finding takers. Again, another "intangible" that points to optimism from the Liberal perspective. We will spend to the max, Harper will have no key advantage this election.

Pretend for a moment that we had no polls during a campaign, and we were left to our own mental calculus, rather than lead around on a leash by Nik Nanos? I suspect in that world, people would be concluding that the Liberals had the big momentum, everywhere you look, positive indicators, contrasted with a bit of a disjointed Harper campaign. And yet, this isn't the case to date, or more rightly, the polls haven't caught up to the "gut feelings". Maybe the polls will, maybe they won't, but after a week I can't find even the slightest similarity to 2008, in fact the polar opposite for a host of reasons.

Hope and Humour

A couple videos caught my eye today, this slight glimmer of hope in an otherwise apathetic voter world:




And this video is just stupid funny:

New Polls

Two heavyweight pollsters out today, the NANOS rolling poll shows little movement, decent Conservative lead, but room for some Liberal optimism. Everyone waiting for EKOS, and he comes out with a fairly good poll for the Conservatives:

Cons 36.9%
Libs 26.2%
NDP 17.2%
Greens 8.7%

Week to week, the Conservatives up 1.6%, Liberals down 1.9%, NDP up 3%, Greens down 1.9%. Of note, unlike others EKOS shows a NDP rebound, although it comes off a particularly bad number the week prior. A big jump, but still below 08 levels, so the overall sentiments still hold, although conflicting evidence. A sizable Conservative, 3.5% larger than at the start of the campaign.

As with other pollsters, the Conservatives are opening up a very large lead in Ontario. People will note, even when the Liberals closed in the NANOS poll, it came at the expense of NDP, the Conservatives doing quite well in Ontario:

Cons 41.6%
Libs 32.2%
NDP 15.5%
Greens 8.4%

Again, while the NDP is up nationally poll to poll, I'd hardly call 15.5% in Ontario good news. What is objectively good news, the Conservatives are now polling in the 40% and above range regularly in Ontario, a "breakout" signal. It might be time to consider if the coalition argument isn't getting some traction in Ontario. People recall Ontario moved markedly when the coalition threat came, maybe there is some underlying method to the apparent Conservative madness. Just a suggestion, let's keep an open mind, my conclusions can't be stubborn in nature. Let's watch it play out.

One HUGE caveat with these numbers. I was noting to a friend this morning, in relation to the NANOS poll, that most of our "gains" had come in regions other than Ontario. I felt this a particularly good sign, since my long held belief is that Ontario is the most volatile of all, while trending Conservative, softer than a Stephen Harper debate pledge. In other words, I'm not going to become despondent based on Ontario, concerned but full realizing it has the capacity to swing back in a big way. However, the reality is a move to the Conservatives in Ontario, so it's noteworthy news for them, no question about it.

It's going to be quite the ride...

Fear For Canada

No matter how you approach it, it really is the perfect poke at the Conservatives "Here For Canada" slogan. Whether one focuses on the Conservatives election messaging, or their own campaign style, it always leads to the word "fear".



Harper has, as far as I've seen, failed to met with one ordinary, non-partisan Canadian on this campaign, and we are a week in. Have we seen any shots of him shaking hands, interacting with PEOPLE? I would appear that Harper is afraid of the citizens he claims to lead, who he's "here for". A bit of farce isn't it, particularly with man who used to lead as supposedly populist movement, now he operates like a despot. I have pointed to this fact before, last election Harper REFUSED to appear on CBC if had to answer ONE RECORDED question from a voter.

The Prime Minister also seems to fear the press, provoking confrontations we haven't seen in recent memory. Journalist questions are the only opportunity to challenge party spin, the inability of the Harper campaign to adhere to this most basic form of accountability is actually quite worrisome. Harper has been limited and manipulating the press for years, nice to see these issues finally getting some traction. Politicians hate the media, but particularly in a campaign, their participation is a democratic essential, flawed but fundamental. Why does Harper fear having to answer questions, why doesn't he seem to have the courage of his convictions?

Harper likes to talk tough, macho language, challenging and aggressive. Trouble is, when called on bravado he suddenly looks afraid. It is normal for the "favorite" to try and limit debates, quite another though when said front runner was the one who suggested the idea, even PROVIDED sound rationale as persuasion. We now have the spectacle of empty words Harper contradicting himself, apparently so fearful of Ignatieff that he willingly embraces hypocrisy.

A quick recap, afraid of voters, afraid of questions, afraid of his opponent. Yes, it would appear "Fear For Canada" is Harper's chief contribution. Factor in, an already articulated campaign which has offered nothing but dire predictions, pending economic and social doom, near apocalyptic post election scenarios, and really it's all fear, all the time. No vision, just fear, no accountability, just fear. Actually, the more you think about it WE should fear for Canada.

So Far So Good

Rather than offer a million caveats, let's just assume it's part of the equation. Disclaimers aside, the campaign is now starting to take shape and I'm hard pressed to find any real positives for the Harper campaign.

People will note, starting yesterday Harper edited his phrasing, coalition was for the most part replaced by these bland references to alternative government's. No accident, in a matter of few days, the word "coalition" has become a double edged sword for Harper, no longer able to pummel opponents with impunity. The word now brings questions about Harper, moreso than his targets, this explains why the Conservatives have massaged the language, at least from the leader himself. The fact Harper has adjusted speaks to, at least, partial message failure.

There is a fast growing theme emerging, on that paints Harper as detached, unaccountable and defensive. Ignatieff, Layton are taking all comers, Harper has chosen to limit access, creating an unflattering air. Harper doesn't look comfortable answering questions, he is somewhat flat and reactionary, this comes across, this has an impact. Particularly noteworthy when contrasted with Ignatieff, who by all objective accounts is on his game, at every stop, relaxed taking questions. I always look to body language as one of my key intangibles- pretend you no nothing else about the campaign- it says a lot about how things are going at the moment.

I take a different opinion than some, I don't believe Harper's one on one debate challenge was an accident or spontaneous comment. Nothing that happened last night dissuades me from my view, in fact the Harper team did push for just this concept, a fact which shouldn't be lost on anyone. The problem for Harper, the Liberals simply bested him, we didn't bite on either/or, we demanded both, which has lead to Harper on the defensive today. Harper offered a debate, Ignatieff is now taunting that challenge, further cementing a frame of a man who isn't accountable, won't debate, won't take questions, won't even wade into crowds of ordinary Canadians, unlike his opponents. Ignatieff looks strong, offensive, Harper has lost this back and forth in a decisive way.

On the policy front, Harper has really offered nothing that has grabbed attention, apart from the mocked commitment to maybe do something in the distant future, dependent on scenarios which could change. That is the signature announcement to date? Contrast with Ignatieff, Harper comes up short again. Take away the fear, so far a pretty THIN presentation from the Conservatives.

I see the Conservatives scrambling a bit, I think they are off message and tinkering. I see the Liberals calm and cool, a leader looking beyond comfortable, out there and thriving. Again, here is where all the disclaimers come, but let's just isolate ourselves to the first few days, I certainly like the way this campaign is shaping up, go so far as to see it's been pretty much best case scenario. And YES, it can all change in heartbeat, and probably will for that matter, a few times too :)