The race is on

There's some very good news at the start of the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race, as the rules announced this weekend look to create a wide open field for possible contenders:

The rules for this contest will be much the same as the last, Pedersen said. Candidates will have a $200,000 spending limit, a slight increase over last time.

Nominations close six weeks before the Regina convention, and anyone who's purchased a membership up to five weeks before the convention can vote. Each member can vote in person at the convention, or by phone or online.

The party currently has 8,000 to 9,000 members, but Pedersen expects that to jump in the coming months with all of the excitement around the leadership race.

Probably the most important element of the rules is a spending limit set at a relatively low level - indeed, significantly below the amount that Dwain Lingenfelter is already rumoured to have in his back pocket as one of his preconditions to running.

The result looks to be a huge positive for the party's effort to build up both its leadership ranks and its broader membership. Because the limit has been kept at a relatively modest level, the cost of entering the race wouldn't figure to be prohibitive for any candidate with a substantial fund-raising plan.

And the limit would also seem to reduce the ability of any candidate to try to win the race based on media saturation or other paid media. Instead, the deciding factor should be the question of which contestant can best build up a support network around the province based on a combination of personal interaction, earned media and other lower-cost ways of building connections with potential NDP members. And based on the one member, one vote system there shouldn't be much doubt that the winner will need to bring in plenty of new members into the fold, as the current party membership of roughly 8,000 wouldn't even have formed a majority in the 2001 leadership race.

All of which is to say that there's now plenty of reason for optimism that the NDP's leadership race will fulfill much of its promise for party renewal. And regardless of who ends up winning, that has to be a positive result for the NDP and its supporters.

Promises broken

It isn't much of a secret that the Cons' actions on criminal justice legislation have been radically different from their words, as the Harper government has gone out of its way to avoid passing legislation while blaming the opposition, the Senate, and anybody else who happens to wander by. But they've managed to reach a new low in responding to questions about parts of their 2006 platform which were never introduced in Parliament.

Let's start by noting that the Cons were provided with a ready-made excuse for what they haven't done:

The federal Conservatives have scaled back their tough-on-crime agenda by abandoning at least one dozen of the key promises that helped vault them to power in 2006, including abolishing prisoner voting and eliminating "artistic merit" as a defence for child pornography...

Ed Ratushny, a constitutional law expert at University of Ottawa, suggested the Conservatives may have given some sober second thought to some of their earlier promises.

"Sometimes when governments get in power, they get advice (from bureaucrats)that says some of their simplistic approaches are unconstitutional or that the battle has already been fought," he said.

Mr. Ratushny cited a law that permits accused child pornographers to claim that their work has artistic merit -- a defence that the Conservatives proposed to eliminate in their 2004 and 2006 election platforms.

The Supreme Court of Canada, however, has given generous leeway for artistic merit as a defence...

A longtime pledge to end prisoner voting has also vanished. The right for inmates to cast ballots was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002 under a charter section that guarantees all Canadians age 18 and over the right to vote.

The section is immune from the notwithstanding clause that gives Parliament power to override an established right. Therefore, it could only be changed by amending the constitution, which history has shown is doomed to fail.

But far be it from the Cons to allow for the possibility that they might have applied some sober second thought, moved past their simplistic mindset, or given some consideration to the idea that changing the constitution solely to strip prisoners of the vote might not be worthwhile. Instead, it's time for another round of reality-free finger-pointing:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's press secretary, Darren Eke, said that the Conservatives government has a busy justice agenda heading into the next Parliament, in which Mr. Nicholson intends to resurrect several initiatives promised in 2006 that failed to pass in the House of Commons.

Mr. Eke blamed the opposition parties for the government's backed-up justice agenda, saying in an e-mail that it would be "irresponsible to introduce legislation that simply would have sat and stagnated."

Again, it's worth noting that even with the bills that the Con introduced, the hold-up was primarily a combination of the Cons declining to deal with their own bills, and proroguing in order to try to tie highly suspect legislation to a number of measures which had already passed the House of Commons.

But for the Cons, there's apparently no challenge in trying to cast blame elsewhere for their going out of their way to avoid getting bills passed. Now, they've ratcheted up the degree of difficulty by actually blaming the opposition for a failure to pass promises which they never even bothered to introduce.

It may not be surprising that the Cons are testing just how much further they can escape from the boundaries of plausibility after managing to get away with a couple of years of Potemkin government. But it seems probable that there's still some limit to what they can get away with - and the more the Cons keep pushing the envelope as they did today, the more likely they'll be to reach the point where their every pronouncement receives the contempt it deserves.

Frame building

Last week, I expressed some concern about whether the provincial NDP was planning its public messages to build toward the 2011 election and beyond. But I'll note that while the party's initial response to the latest throne speech may have been a bit disjointed, there's some great work (warning: PDF) going on to help frame discussion about Wall and company.

Of course, there's probably some room to make the content of the latest Coffee Row a bit more accessible - maybe by breaking it down in to multiple web pages in addition to the single PDF document, and creating links from the existing issues page to ensure that anybody looking to the NDP for information about specific topics will also get pointed to the Sask Party's failings.

But it's still worth noting that there's already been plenty of work done to develop narratives which should properly define the Sask Party. And with those readily available, it shouldn't be difficult for the NDP to make sure that its quick responses fit into the frames they're building for Wall.

Nothing new

Barbara Yaffe's column on Michael Byers' inaugural campaign in Vancouver Centre makes for an interesting read. But it's somewhat disappointing to see just what Byers apparently learned the hard way over the course of the campaign:

In a chat about his campaign experience, Byers says he was a "neophyte" in a riding contested by a posse of political heavyweights -- Fry, Adrienne Carr for the Greens and Lorne Mayencourt for the Conservatives.

He cites his own naivete in not recognizing the "logical complexities of running campaigns." He didn't appreciate the importance of a campaign apparatus to identify and then pull the vote, nor did he have time to assemble one. He'll now concentrate on building his party's riding membership and fundraising capability.

In fairness, there's plenty that Byers did well to position himself for the 2008 campaign and beyond - from establishing himself as a big-name candidate initially, to staying public eye throughout the campaign (including by introducing a key policy plank for the New Democrats). And it's certainly for the best that Byers plans to keep up the fight despite a disappointing result this time out.

But it has to be considered surprising that one of the star New Democrat candidates wasn't aware of the importance of some fundamental parts of any successful campaign. And part of the NDP's effort to keep growing in the future should include ensuring that all of its candidates - whether or not they start with a national profile like Byers - are better aware of what needs to be done both to improve their chances of success and to build the party.

Once a bad idea, always a bad idea

It's for the best that columnists are beginning to raise the demand that the Cons reverse their own ill-advised policy ideas past and present as their primary means of keeping the federal budget balanced. And that's doubly true compared to the Cons' own apparent plan to attack the public service or offload the burden onto the provinces.

But it strikes me as odd that the Cons' pointless giveaways are only now being highlighted. After all, is there any real difference in how much merit they hold based on whether or not the fiscal picture includes a potential deficit? And if not, shouldn't there have been a far more critical examination of what they would do when they were first introduced?

That pesky reality

It's well and good that the Cons are at least going to pretend to have a competent cabinet this time around, going so far as to carry out basic background checks which were apparently considered unnecessary for the last three years. But like Stephen Harper's attempt to sell himself as even remotely likeable during the course of the campaign, the effort figures to face some serious problems based on a steady stream of evidence to the contrary.

Interconnected

There's plenty of material worth reading about the Cons' shady dealings in Saanich-Gulf Islands which may have made the difference in Gary Lunn's reelection. But one part of the story seems to have received surprisingly little mention given how it ties the riding's shenanigans into the Cons' government as a whole.

Here's the background to one of the contacts listed for one of the astroturf groups set up to advertise for Lunn (see second link above):

Until September, (Patricia) Trottier was a director of CV Technologies, the company that promotes the controversial Cold-FX remedy championed by Don Cherry.

Her husband is Gwyn Morgan, the former president and CEO of EnCana Corporation and a former fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance and Conservative parties.

Together Morgan and Trottier own Victoria's eighth most expensive home and sit on the board of the C2C Journal along with other right wing luminaries like former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, the Fraser Institute's Michael Walker and Calgary professor and Harper adviser Tom Flanagan. Morgan and Trottier gave $1 million last year to the Fraser Institute Foundation, the right-wing advocacy group.

Oddly, the Tyee leaves out what may be the most important piece of Morgan's background. Presumably due in large part to his well-documented Con connections, he was Harper's idea of a chair for a non-partisan public appointments commission. And it was in response to his rejection by the opposition parties that Harper threw a tantrum and refused to set up the commission.

Now, there's no indication that Morgan had direct ties to the Lunn ad buys. But Trottier's link to Morgan would seem to add another reason for serious skepticism about the groups involved. And Morgan's continued involvement as a benefactor for the right-wing noise machine can only confirm that the opposition parties were right to reject his appointment rather than allowing somebody so closely tied to the Cons and their ideological allies to set the parameters for hiring within the public service.

A true Liberal visionary

After another election loss, one has to figure that the Libs have had ample time to consider just what it is they stand for and what values can best unite their caucus. So let's let one of their stalwarts define what he thinks the party needs to address:

When a reporter asked Senator David Smith what other issues besides leadership the caucus needed to discuss, he gave her a long, quizzical look.

"Get back in government," Smith finally responded.

A constructive suggestion

It's understandable that the federal NDP looks to be laying low to at least some extent in the wake of the just-completed election. But with most of the other parties making moves to get back in the news, it may be time for the New Democrats to do the same. And with that in mind, here's what I'd suggest to frame the debate for the fall.

One of the few areas of apparent agreement in dealing with the economic downturn is a need for additional infrastructure spending in the short term to mitigate against job losses elsewhere. Which is a problem under the Cons for two reasons: first, because they've been ponderously slow in putting announced funding into place, and second, because they've focused their spending for political gain rather than economic development.

In order to ensure that infrastructure investments can be put in place both quickly and effectively, it would seem to make sense to suggest instead that a streamlined, all-party or non-partisan mechanism be put in place to facilitate the approval of new infrastructure spending - with a twin focus on alleviating the current downturn, and building projects with long-term economic benefits.

If the suggestion were accepted, it would seem to offer a far more direct means than currently exists to put infrastructure money where it's needed most. And if that happens through multi-party agreement or a non-partisan approval process, then there should be far less need for concern about whether the money is being well spent. (Not to mention little danger of political blowback for anybody involved.)

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cons refused to allow anybody else any say in how money is spent. But that side of the equation would at least see some significant political potential. After all, Harper could be painted as valuing his party's power to dole out pork over immediate and multipartisan action to boost the economy, leaving him vulnerable on both economic management and ethics (with a concurrent boost to the NDP on both issues).

In effect, the two possibilities in putting forward a fast-tracked infrastructure program would be either be to cement a reputation of working effectively with the other parties to respond to Canadians' largest concern, or to force Harper to wear continued economic difficulties even more than he would otherwise. And it's hard to think of a better way for a rising NDP to announce its presence as Parliament gets back to work.

On focus

While the main action within the Saskatchewan NDP obviously figures to involve the pending leadership race, there's still both a need and an opportunity for the party to start drawing some general battle lines for 2011. And based on the initial response to the fall throne speech, there's some reason for concern in that department.

After all, there doesn't seem to be much prospect that the NDP can make much headway with a message that the Sask Party is merely copying its policies. But that's what the first response to Wall's attack on out-of-province Crown investments sounded like:

Calvert also questioned the premier's promise of a "Saskatchewan first" investment policy for the Crowns, saying that was in place under his previous NDP government. Some of the out-of-province investments that were made also proved lucrative for Crowns, Calvert said.

It didn't take long for Calvert to deliver a stronger followup message. But the initial response is even more problematic since it at least partially undermines the point which Calvert rightly tried to make later: if the goal of the Crowns should be to invest for Saskatchewan whether or not that means investing in Saskatchewan, then the last thing the NDP should want to do is take credit for mandating the latter.

Meanwhile, another initial message to the effect that the biggest problem with Wall's tax-cut structure is that it's taking awhile to put in place looks to have virtually no long-term impact. Simply put, when voters decide who to support in 2011, the question of whether a program which doesn't meet with opposition was implemented in 2008 or 2009 isn't going to be at the top of anybody's mind.

And other lines of argument which would seem ripe for attack seem to have gone without comment. Surely Wall's pushing forward with Senate elections would make for fertile ground to restate the NDP's commitment to Senate abolition - not to mention in continuing to brand Wall as the 14th Conservative MP. But that seems to have gone completely untouched.

Fortunately, there's plenty of time to set the narrative for 2011. But for those tasked with defining the NDP's message at the moment, there's still every reason to look to the longer term in determining how the NDP responds to - and highlights - events today. And the more the NDP instead gets caught up playing things safe by pointing out minor quibbles rather than drawing real points of distinction, the more likely we'll be to miss the opportunity to remove Wall from office in 2011.

Best days to come

Following up on my earlier post about the value of riding-based online fundraising, Robert Silver makes some good points about the Cons' current advantage in issue-based appeals for support. While Silver's focus is from a Lib perspective, the same message would seem to apply equally for the NDP.

In particular, most of the New Democrats' e-mail appeals seem to be based largely on party promotion rather than drawing strong contrasts - in effect, relying on an informative tone of "here's what we're doing", rather than a more aggressive "here's what we're fighting". Which would seem to me to be exactly the type of message one would want to aim at the general public to help build up positive images of the party.

But anybody on the party's e-mail list would figure to have a positive enough impression to want to help to some extent. Instead, the hurdle in fund-raising is to spur those somewhat supportive individuals to action - which would seem to often demand an appeal to what the NDP is up against on specific issues which speak strongly to a constituency within the party, rather than feel-good messages with less of a targeted appeal.

Of course, there's always some challenge in then meeting the expectations of those who donate based on specific issues. (And one of the more interesting dangers facing the Cons is the possibility of a backlash to the extent they still raise money on issues where they've declined to do anything while in office.)

But when it comes to building the grassroots, one of the most obvious areas for future development is to start building deeper ties based on the specific issues in the sights of the NDP's current and potential supporters. And both the party and those supporters stand to benefit if the New Democrats can succeed in replicating the Cons' fund-raising machine.

Seeding the grassroots

Having commented earlier this week on the evolution of the NDP's website over the course of the election campaign, I'll also take a moment now to point out one element of the site which I hadn't noticed until after the campaign - and which may offer the foundation for some strong mutual reinforcement between the blogosphere and the party.

Until doing research for the earlier post, I'd been under the assumption that the donation links on the NDP website and associated templates went solely to the New Democrats' national campaign. But fortunately, the party has made it easy to contribute to riding associations as well.

Take for example the candidate page for Stephen Moore, the New Democrat contender in my riding of Wascana. Rather than merely offering another conduit for donations to the party's central fund, the "donate" link on the left goes to the Wascana constituency association. Which means that anybody wanting to support a particular NDP candidate or riding can do so easily.

So how can that knowledge be applied? Consider what happened in the U.S. when Republican Michelle Bachmann called Barack Obama "anti-American". Rather than simply blogging about the incident and moving on, or trying to make a tenuous link between Bachmann and national funding efforts, the netroots were able to raise $700,000 for Bachmann's opponent. Which ensured that one moment's outrage was converted into action which could turn the tide in an election.

So far, I haven't seen much to the same effect in the Canadian blogosophere. But any time someone like Gerry Ritz or Tom Lukiwski does or says something asinine, it'll only take a link and a click to help give a real boost to their closest opponent. And likewise, when a New Democrat candidate does something particularly praiseworthy, it'll be a snap to turn that fact into substantial action.

And the benefit doesn't figure to run only one way. If riding associations begin to see boosts to their bottom line based on blog efforts, then it'll only make sense for them to encourage people to find out what's motivated the action.

In closing, then, there's one more way to help your favourite NDP candidate - or take a bite out of your least favourite opponent - than most bloggers have seemingly used so far. And both the NDP and the blogosphere have plenty to gain if that opportunity is put to good use.

More blame shifting

The Libs' internal finger-pointing continues, this time with party officials racing to the press to declare that Stephane Dion ignored their advice about the possible effect of Con attack ads. Stay tuned for the next bombshell announcement, where it's revealed that party apparatchiks helpfully informed Dion as environment minister that he wasn't getting it done.

On preconditions

A few days back, I commented at Sean's blog about the need for Saskatchewan's NDP leadership race actually include strong, multi-candidate efforts to reach out and expand the party - such that the worst possible outcome would be a coronation rather than a race. Unfortunately, though, it looks like the frontrunner's willingness to run is based largely on the assumption that there won't be any meaningful competition:

(A) majority of caucus support was one of the conditions Lingenfelter set before he would agree to come back. He also demanded the support of more than half of the four women in caucus and the support of more than two-thirds of caucus members under the age of 45.

Further, he wanted a provincewide organization of at least 700 supporters ready to work and enough money to run a provincial campaign. Yates compares this to running a full-fledged provincial election campaign and suggests it could cost as much as $300,000.

Lingenfelter is satisfied on all these fronts and is already hard at work.

Now, Lingenfelter has certainly made at least some positive noises about building the party in the longer term as well. But it still seems problematic both for him to have set conditions seemingly intended to guarantee victory before he'd even consider running, and for the bulk of the caucus to have apparently fallen in line so quickly.

Which isn't to say that any endorsements next week will necessarily make for the last word. And indeed, the drop in party membership numbers over the past decade and a half would suggest that a strong grassroots effort could very plausibly overcome the party's current power structure.

For now, though, the most likely direction for the leadership race looks to be the one that would severely limit any prospect of internal renewal. And Lingenfelter will need to answer for having made that so once the campaign gets underway.

Update: Sean has more.

On known quantities

The Globe and Mail reports on the efforts of one of the advertisers which wound up in the middle of Adscam to settle with the federal government. But the most telling news comes from the response of government sources who seem less interested in recovering the maximum possible amount of money than in playing off public impressions of the scandal:

A company that made large payments to a former Liberal organizer has offered to pay back millions of dollars to taxpayers in relation to its role in the sponsorship scandal, sources say...

Sources said Polygone's lawyers have offered about $5-million to settle the firm's portion of the lawsuit. The federal government rejected the offer, but is still involved in discussions in an effort to obtain more money.

“The departments [of Justice and Public Works] have been seeking an extra $10-million from Polygone,” a federal official said.

Polygone was a central player in the sponsorship program, receiving more than $35-million to put federal advertising in its publications and at its events, such as hunting and fishing shows.

Evidence has been presented in court and at a public inquiry that Polygone made millions in profits by charging large margins on marketing opportunities. For example, court documents show that Polygone obtained $475,000 in federal funds after spending only $7,300 to run ads on a community station in Quebec City.

The public inquiry into the sponsorship program heard that Polygone surreptitiously paid out $6.7-million in subcontracts to former Liberal organizer and fundraiser Jacques Corriveau. Inquiry commissioner John Gomery called Mr. Corriveau a “central figure in an elaborate kickback scheme” that benefited the Liberal Party of Canada...

Federal officials said Polygone was never a well-known player in the sponsorship scandal, and that there is interest in Ottawa in finding out whether the company can help authorities go after Mr. Corriveau.

“Mr. Corriveau is a lot better known. Mr. Lemay has always flown under the radar,” a source said.

In sum, then, Polygone would seem to have been the greater beneficiary of federal money, and thus the party with the most money that could possibly be owed to the federal government if implicated. So any effort to salvage the most money possible would seemingly start with a vigorous action to recover it from Polygone.

But then, Polygone isn't as well known as its subcontractor. Which means that any successful action against would make for a less effective political ploy than one directed against a more familiar face.

So rather than pursuing the total amount which could have been lost to Adscam, the Cons are trying to work with the party which profited more from sponsorship funding to attack its subcontractor whose receipts would be a fraction of the total amount. And all this solely because Corriveau's public profile can help to resurrect the scandal to a greater degree.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that this type of news will have the staying power that it probably should: the Cons surely don't want to highlight their own politically-motivated enforcement choices, and the Libs will presumably figure that they're best off trying to change the subject. Which is a shame, since the fact that the Cons are apparently willing to trade away public funds to embarrass the Libs would seem to confirm just how ill-suited they are for the responsibilities of power.

Bunker mentality

There's definitely something "historic" happening in Saskatchewan politics. But the story which really figures to change the province's course has nothing at all to do with the income tax levels that the Sask Party wants to highlight.

Instead, the real action is set to start behind closed doors, where the Sask Party is handing the nuclear industry $3 million to put together a wish list for nuclear development:

Saskatchewan has named the president of a company that is looking at building a nuclear power plant in the province to a panel that is to advise the government on how to develop its uranium and nuclear industry.

Duncan Hawthorne, president of Bruce Power Inc., is one of 12 people who were appointed to the Uranium Development Partnership on Monday by Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff and Enterprise Minister Lyle Stewart.

Bruce Power is currently conducting a feasibility study into building a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan, the world's largest producer of uranium...

Bruce Power operates six Candu reactors at its electricity generating stations about 250 km northwest of Toronto. The Ontario-based nuclear power company is a joint venture of Saskatoon-based uranium giant Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO) TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) of Calgary and other partners.

Other members named to the partnership include Armand Laferrere, president of Areva Canada, a France-based international nuclear power corporation, Jerry Grandey, president and CEO of Cameco and Alex Pourbaix, president of energy at TransCanada Corp...

The partnership's work will not include getting input from the public about uranium or nuclear power. The government pledged it will consult with the public after the final report is released.

See the full list of participants here.

Of course, this is far from the first time the Wall government has tasked big business with the job of deciding for itself how the province should be run with no input from such fringe interests as the general public. And judging from the Sask Party's track record, it surely won't be the last.

But the radioactive partnership looks to be the first time the Sask Party has actively promoted any one sector over another rather than merely favouring corporatist ideas generally. And it surely can't be a good sign that the Wall government's first choice of industries to favour with public money is not only probably the most controversial they could have picked, but easily the one which carries the most severe potential dangers if non-industry interests are ignored.

Site lines

Michael Geist's column on the continued dominance of largely obsolete web strategies in the federal election is worth a look. And it's worth looking in more detail at how the NDP started to break the mould - as well as how the New Democrats can improve their online presence in the future.

On the up side, there were two extremely positive developments from the NDP worth keeping in mind. First, there was the Web ad buy which helped to ensure that anybody interested enough in the election to be searching party leaders' names would be presented with the NDP's site as the featured ad - showing some substantial creativity at least in the party's effort to attract more eyes to its message.

More importantly, there was the unveiling of the Orange Room, which put the NDP far ahead of the pack as the first national party to allow for user-generated content. (And I for one will be starting to include my NDP-related posts in the content there.)

Of course, there's plenty of room to build on the current Orange Room structure. To start with, I'd hope to see a reduction in inconveniences such as number of clicks needed to get to any news article. But more importantly the current site would seem to have loads of room for expansion through features ranging from something as simple as comments within the existing structure, to hopefully a full range of networking tools comparable to that put in place by the Obama campaign.

All in all, there's plenty to be satisfied with in the NDP's steps so far. On the down side, though, one choice by the NDP for this election campaign looks to me to have been a mistake.

For the bulk of the campaign, any visitor to ndp.ca (at least from the routes which I took to reach the site) was confronted with a splash page seeking donations before reaching the main site. Which would be strange enough if the party was merely expecting most of the traffic to consist of people who were looking to NDP material. After all, it's at least a somewhat counterproductive strategy to interfere with visitors' access to the party's core message in the medium likely used by the most interested observers in the interest of raising money to broadcast its message in commercials which would be ignored by most viewers.

But the move strikes me as particularly odd in light of the Google ad buy. After all, anybody taking the time to check out the NDP site after searching another party's leader's name would almost certainly be looking for information about their options, rather than already being sold enough on the party to want to contribute money. And based on the cost of directing traffic to the website (which I believe was estimated at up to $12 per click), the combination may actually have made for a money-losing proposition - in addition to a barrier to presenting the NDP positively to interested visitors.

Now, we'll see whether the NDP's donation numbers for the last two quarters of 2008 offer reason to think that the money-first focus of the website during the campaign at least helped the party out financially. But I'd still prefer to see a more balanced approach which helps to get information into the hands of site visitors to build support later on, rather starting with a request for money and treating the NDP's message as secondary.

All of which is to say that the New Democrats still have a ways to go in converting the party's website to a means of connecting NDP-friendly Canadians rather than a top-down messaging platform. But the first steps taken this year look to be a great start - and I'll be looking forward to seeing how much more progress is made in the future.

The blame shift

For all the reasons to criticize Stephane Dion's underlings for refusing to take responsibility for the Libs' poor campaign performance, it looks like the problem went all the way to the top. From Kady's liveblog of Dion's press conference today:

Roger Smith reels off a list of other possible reasons for his loss - language, failure to run negative ads, bad strategic decisions, etc — but Dion doesn’t accept his verdict that it was his fault, at least in part. According to Dion, he’s been told that his performance was “fine” - it’s that Canadians didn’t get to know the real Stephane Dion. As for the Green Shift, he says that the party simply “wasn’t equipped” to sell it in the face of the propaganda against it. “If we had been able to explain what kind of Prime Minister I would have been, we would have won.”...

And now, time for the French questions, starting with Emmanuel Latraverse (whoops, got that wrong first time around), who also wonders what responsibiity he takes for the loss. Dion, however, blames the Conservatives for using strategy imported from the US, as well as Australia, although he agrees he should have “better explained” his “avant garde policy.”

Now, I'd tend to think that the person entrusted to manage the future of a political party should at least have some grasp of the party's limitations. And that knowledge would seemingly include recognizing when a party lacks the resources to counter attacks against it, and being able to tell the difference between policies it's equipped to pitch successfully and ones which may turn out to be insurmountable liabilities.

But for Dion, the mere fact that some of his yes-men were willing to say that his performance was "fine" - a remarkable assertion in and of itself when coupled with Dion's acknowledgment that a national leader's platform wasn't enough for him to get Canadians to know who he really is - serves as reason to ignore the obvious role that he played in shaping where the Libs are now. And if that message of avoiding personal responsibility remains the defining value of the Libs generally, there would figure to be plenty more failures in the party's future.

Then you win

Most of the post-election commentary discussing the New Democrats' strategy of auditioning Jack Layton for the role of Prime Minister has either criticized Layton for even suggesting the possibility of an NDP government, or portrayed the campaign as a failure for not achieving that lofty goal on the first try. But let's take another look at where the New Democrats are now compared to the start of the campaign - and how the NDP looks to be positioned for elections to come.

To start off, let's keep in mind Gandhi's quote which has served as the inspiration for the netroots movement in the U.S.:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

As recently as 2006, Layton and the NDP were shy about even hinting at the possibility of forming government later on. And that made it far too easy for the other parties - particularly the Libs, but including the Cons and Bloc as well - to simply ignore the NDP's message during the campaign.

This time out, the effort to present Layton as a Prime Minister in waiting definitely received some ridicule at the time. But it looks to have paid dividends in forcing the other parties to mention the NDP as a real alternative. And in particular, the Libs' messaging by the end of the campaign was actually based on asking voters to think about an image (however distorted) of how the NDP would govern, rather than simply pretending Layton could never take power or laughing at the idea.

Even better, the NDP's messaging from this year's campaign should provide a foundation to build the party's image even more. Now that a public link has been drawn between Layton and the Prime Minister's role, it should seem like far less of a reach to start portraying the rest of the New Democrat caucus as a cabinet in waiting, and presenting the party's policies as a governing platform rather than a tasting menu for future Lib governments.

Of course, the fighting stage doesn't figure to be an easy one. But the NDP's stronger relative position now should ensure that there's no turning back from the position that the party deserves to be seen as a real governing alternative. And now that Canada has already been through one election campaign where the prospect of Jack Layton as Prime Minister served as more of a positive than a negative for the New Democrats, there's every reason for optimism that the last part of Gandhi's road map is within sight.

The buck stops...over there somewhere

The story from election night, when Lib strategists were apparently eager to highlight their own genius in hiding the facts from their leader:

Dion was not prepared to (resign immediately after the election) because he was reeling from the election outcome, having been told only shortly before the polls closed that the Liberals were about to take a hit. He was protected from the bad news to keep him pumped during a final cross-Canada sprint on election eve to ridings where Liberal candidates were in big trouble.

The story now that the Libs are about to blame Dion for everything that's wrong with the party:

Liberal insiders say he was completely surprised by the result, not having consulted with his candidates or having refused to listen to them as to what voters were really telling them.

Lessons unlearned

In case anybody held out hope that the Libs would start to focus some of their attention on actually opposing the Cons rather than navel-gazing and internal warfare, it's time to lower those expectations yet again. Not only does the Libs' impending leadership race figure consist of little beyond ammo for future attack ads and a chance to renew the party's usual internal rifts, but they apparently can't even name an interim leader without a fight to the death.

On thresholds

The Pundits' Guide features another interesting tidbit on its front page, listing the rebate-eligible ridings for each federal party (i.e. ridings where each party took at least 10% of the vote). But while the NDP's performance overall is impressive enough, its progress in Quebec is particularly significant.

In total, the NDP managed to reach the rebate level in 244 ridings - an increase of 30 from 2006. But the regional numbers show that in Quebec, the NDP went from only 8 ridings at the 10% level in 2006, all the way to 50 in 2008.

And that should have a huge impact on how those ridings raise and spend money in the future. Rather than having to assume that election expenditures will only offer a one-time benefit, most NDP Quebec riding associations will now be able to count on getting back 60% of what they spend. Which should make it far easier to justify investing money in the party's electoral campaigns - and to convince supporters to make their contributions at the riding level as well.

What's more, the impact of possible four-way races in Quebec may make for less of a distance from the rebate level to the point of winning seats. And that can only encourage the NDP in its continued efforts to build the party in Quebec.

On balance sheets

In the comments to Danielle's post which suggested based solely on income that the Libs' financial picture would be better than the NDP's, I theorized that the picture would likely look very different taking into account how much money the parties had actually spent since the 2006 election. Having actually done that today, my suspicions appear to have been confirmed.

Here's what one can tell from the 2007 year-end returns (the most recent ones available) for the Cons, Libs and NDP respectively.

On the surface, the 2006 numbers were extremely similar between the Libs and the Cons: both parties took in roughly $34-35 million, and spent approximately $31 million. But there are two important differences.

First, the Libs' income and expenses included the leadership race and convention which added significant numbers to both totals - meaning that the Cons were already spending more on basic party operations than the Libs. More importantly, though, the Libs' expense numbers don't include the debt incurred by leadership candidates, which has of course led to a large chunk of the Libs' fund-raising being diverted away from the party's bottom line.

In contrast, the NDP's 2006 numbers are substantially lower, but also included an extremely healthy bottom line. Indeed, the NDP's 2006 net position of over $5 million in the black makes for the healthiest year enjoyed by any of the three parties in 2006 or 2007.

For 2007, with no general election or leadership race, the Libs' expenses predictably dropped a long way to under $15 million. But the Libs' income dropped even further, resulting in their expenses exceeding their income by just under $2 million. Which makes the Libs' 2007 the only year for which any of the parties ran an overall deficit.

Meanwhile, the Cons took in and spent almost exactly the same amounts in 2007 as in 2006. That's a fairly stunning result given that there wasn't a federal election to serve as a focal point for expenditures, but it ensured that the Cons posted a profit of $2.6 million for the year rather than running up a particularly bloated bottom line.

And the NDP? It cut back its expenses to under $8 million for 2007. And that allowed it to stay in the black by $1.6 million despite the lack of election rebates to boost the party's bottom line as in an election year.

Totalling up the numbers, here's where the parties stood at the end of 2006-2007 compared to the beginning:

NDP: +$6,891,450
Cons: +$5,565,975
Libs: +$2,385,764

Now, none of the parties should be in particular trouble based on those totals. But it seems fairly clear that the NDP was careful to ensure that it could afford its 2008 election expenses, while the Libs have cut their margins the closest even while receiving far more federal funding than the NDP. In effect, the NDP has run a party that's sustainable at a donation level just under $4 million a year; the Libs don't appear to have done the same.

Moreover, if the Libs anticipate running another big-money leadership race as well as continuing to spend money at their historical pace, then they could be looking at plenty more red ink to come. And since the costs of finding a new leader don't seem to be a matter of choice at this point, the Libs' reduced federal funding now may well force them to cut back their operations just a time when they most need to try to build their party.

Strategic evaluations

As a follow-up to the federal election, let's take a quick look at just how effective the Vote for Environment strategic voting site was in worked out both in predicting seat results and in assessing voters' strategic options. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that that the projections used to instruct voters how to cast their ballots often varied wildly from the actual election results.

Let's start with its seat chart of projected Con ridings, which was released to much fanfare just in time for the vote.

Vote for Environment's top-ranked riding for strategic voting intended to stop the Cons was Richmond. There, the Cons took 49.8% of the vote for a 19-point margin of victory - and would have won even if all actual Lib, NDP and Green votes had lined up behind one party (as two independents won some votes as well).

#2 was Ottawa South, where the Libs won 49.8% of the vote for a 16-point victory.

#3 was Newton-North Delta, where the combined Lib/NDP vote more than doubled the Cons' vote - making strategic voting unnecessary to beat the Cons.

In #4 West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country, the Cons took more than 44% of the vote for an 18-point win.

Which means that #5 Mississauga-Erindale was the first riding on Vote for Environment's list where a strategic vote would actually have had the potential to tip a tight race.

#s 6 through 10 look better based on the site's intention, including only one relatively comfortable Lib win in Vancouver-Quadra to go with Saanich-Gulf Islands, Vancouver Island North, Edmonton-Strathcona and Oshawa where strategic voting could have made a difference (and may actually have in the case of Edmonton-Strathcona).

From there on, the results are likewise a mixed bag at best, featuring a range of ridings from ones like Parry Sound-Muskoka and Blackstrap where the Cons won an outright majority of the votes, to St. John's South - Mount Pearl where the Cons finished a distant third at 12.6% of the vote behind a tight two-way Lib/NDP race.

But what if one looks from the other side to see whether Vote for Environment's main recommendations actually anticipated which ridings would be the closest ones? (See Election Pundit Queries on this page.)

There, one has to go all the way to #2 on the list of the closest actual results to find Kitchener-Waterloo - which Vote for Environment pegged as a safe Liberal seat which wouldn't require a strategic vote. While it's a little ways down the list before another riding completely escaped Vote for Environment's attention, Brampton-Springdale and Vancouver South both ranked among the top 20 closest ridings in the country after being listed as safe seats. And perhaps most damningly, another top-20 closest race in South Shore - St. Margaret's actually included a Vote for Environment recommendation to vote for the Lib who finished a distant third behind the tight Con/NDP battle at the top.

Now, the above isn't to say that Vote for Environment didn't mostly have some basis for its recommendations or non-recommendations (however sketchy South Shore - St. Margaret's may have been all along). But it does provide inescapable evidence that even a relatively sophisticated attempt to direct voters strategically simply can't be expected to anticipate how an election will actually play out. And the lesson is one that voters should keep in mind in deciding whether or not to put aside their actual party preferences when they go to the polls.

Expanding the map

David Akin writes about some interesting numbers from Alice at Pundits' Guide which highlight the "seats-plus-seconds" results for the federal parties. And notably, it's the New Democrats alone out of the national parties in Parliament that can point to gains in that department:

PunditsGuide.ca took a look at the number of seats each party won and added in the number of races in which that party came second. Looking at this "seats-plus-seconds" statistic can provide some insight about a party's staying power and its ability to compete.

The Liberal seats-plus-seconds has now declined precipitously over the last four elections and is an indicator of the weakening of the overall brand.

In 1997, when Jean Chretien was winning his second majority, Liberals won 155 seats and finished second in 106 races, for a total "seats-plus-seconds" of 261. The Liberal "seats-plus-seconds" stayed strong through the elections of 2000 and 2004, at 279 and 280 respectively.

But in 2006, when Paul Martin's Liberals lost, the seats-plus-seconds total plunged to 219. Last week, it stood at just 200...

(T)he Conservatives won or finished second in just 238 seats, a slight decrease from 2006 when their seats-plus-seconds total was 241. Nonetheless, both those results are a marked improvement from 2004 when the newly minted Conservative party managed to finish first or second in just 189 ridings...

The New Democrats, on the other hand, may be most heartened by the trend in their seats-plus-seconds total as they try to muster enough votes and seats to perhaps one day form an Official Opposition.

For the first time ever, the NDP won or finished second in 104 or the 308 races they competed in, better than one-third. That's a big jump from 2000 when the NDP finished first or second in just 38 races across the country.

Now, it's worth noting that the "seats-plus-seconds" numbers are at best a very rough approximation of future growth potential. Indeed, there are at least a few seats where the NDP finished third or even fourth which look to be far more fertile ground than some of the more distant second-place finishes.

That said, the numbers are telling as to just what kind of map the federal parties are generally working with. And the comparison beteen the New Democrats and the Cons is particularly interesting. The Cons seem to have managed only to push a few more seats into the winning column within ridings which were already within the Cons' sights - making for what looks to be an unusually high ratio of seats won to top-2 finishes. In contrast, the NDP managed for the second consecutive campaign to make gains in both the "seats" and "seconds" parts of the equation.

Of course, there's still a ways to go for the NDP in reaching the raw number of competitive seats now held by the other two parties. But it surely has to be happy with having set a new high in the seats-plus-seconds department - particularly given the greater degree of difficulty compared to elections such as 1988 when there were effectively only two other competitors for those positions. And based on these numbers, there should be far less distance to travel to put more seats in the New Democrats' column next time out.

On renewal

Having mentioned my prescription for the federal New Democrats this morning, I'll note that one of the more interesting questions on the federal scene is whether a party can better build itself up through party-based planning under popular continued leadership as the NDP enjoys under Jack Layton, or whether the competitive drive of leadership candidates will do more to bring new faces and organization into the fold (which would seemingly favour the Libs if any contestants manage to move beyond the party's past supporters).

That said, it's worth noting that following Lorne Calvert's resignation, Saskatchewan's provincial NDP has to be hoping to make the latter process work. And while we'll see who emerges from a long list of contenders to run for the provincial leadership, the more important question for the party may not be who competes and wins so much as how they go about the job.

If the race is simply a matter of choosing a winner based on competition among the party's current supporters and volunteers, then what should be a great opportunity for renewal will have been entirely wasted, and the NDP figures to be in tough to challenge the Sask Party in 2011. In contrast, if the leadership contestants push for support outside the party's current base and build organizations with strong loyalties to both them and the party in the longer term, then there's a real possibility of helping to move Saskatchewan back in the right direction within the next few years.

Needless to say, I'll be hoping for the latter - and doing my best to encourage it among all the leadership candidates. And hopefully the different paths to renewal will work for both levels of the NDP.

Strategic planning

With most of the talk about post-election strategy centering on the Libs, let's take a few minutes to discuss what the New Democrats did well this year - and how they'll want to build on that going forward.

Despite the NDP's gains in seats and vote share, the party's most important victory may not have come at the polls. Instead, the most significant positive development likely lay in the media' general acknowledgment that it was the NDP which boasted the best-run campaign when considering advertising, event management, and the rest of the national air war. Having shown themselves capable of running the best national campaign organization, the New Democrats should hopefully find the media at least somewhat less likely to marginalize the party, encouraging both additional reporting on the party's activities and increased discussion of what the NDP is up to.

Which makes for an important opportunity - but also more pressure to make sure the party's message is as timely and well thought-out from here on in as it was during the campaign. Fortunately, though, the strategy to do that looks to be a gimme.

Particularly with the Libs apparently moving to the right, the NDP figures to be the lone national voice pushing progressive message in opposition to Harper. Which should result in both prominent placement of NDP responses to any controversial policies which figure to stay in the news, and a massive opening to take the lead in pushing for left-wing causes.

Of course, the 2008 campaign also signals that no matter how effective New Democrats are in front of the cameras, they also have plenty of work to do in order to continue building the party behind the scenes. And it's there more than in public messaging that the NDP should follow the lead of the Obama campaign. Rather than counting on top-down party messaging to bring voters into the NDP camp, the key now has to be to build a broad, well-trained, self-sustaining organizational base.

As in Obama's case, this would involve some risk in temporarily directing attention away from the immediate priorities of fund-raising and direct voter contact - which may seem especially problematic within a minority Parliament. But this year's campaign serves to highlight to at least some extent the limitations of the NDP's current structure. And again with the Libs veering to the right, there may never be a better opportunity for the NDP to position itself as the hub of organization and support for progressive voters which it needs in order to form government.

You know the Cons have gone over the line when...

...even John Gormley slams their efforts made to make voting more difficult:

(A)s Elections Canada tried to address voting security, if the reports of dozens of people being turned away from polling stations for lack of identification are any indication, they might have gone too far. If someone is not on the voters' list, some tough standards may be needed. But for people already on the list who show up to vote with a voters' card, why not make one generic piece of ID suffice? It's highly improbable that a fraudulent voter could steal a voters' card from the mailbox and also happen to swipe an ID with a matching name.

Not that I agree entirely with Gormley when it comes to "tough standards" for voters not on a list, as that figures to make matters even worse for transient voters who are far too easily excluded. But it's certainly worth pointing out that the Cons' suppression efforts aren't even supported by their media base - and working to ensure that as many of them as possible are reversed by the next federal election.

Regressives

With the 2008 election results in the books, there can't be much doubt that left-wing Canadians need to take a close look at how best to advance their values. But for those still under the impression that the Libs offer any meaningful chance of doing so, there's a fairly instructive set of choices on tap within the party which claims to be the default option for progressives.

So far, the leading candidates to succeed Stephane Dion as the next Lib leader include:
- an Iraq war supporter and torture apologist who wants to define the Libs as a "party of the centre" rather than working with anybody to his left;
- Stephen Harper's choice for "bipartisan" cover to extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan, who criticized as too left-wing a platform which underfunded areas like First Nations development and child care in favour of massive corporate tax cuts; and
- a bank executive who only plans to run if he's on the receiving end of "lobbying from some of Canada's most senior businessmen".

Based on that starting point, it looks like the Libs are sending a strong message to progressive voters that they can count on being ignored even more than usual under a new leader. Which should offer an ideal wake-up call that it's time for left-wing Libs to turn to a party which will actually make sure their voice is heard.

Go time

It would certainly be tempting to join leftdog in encouraging Stephane Dion to stick around as the Libs' leader based on the continued opening it would offer the NDP. And I can understand the reasons why some Libs would support it - based largely on cost of another leadership race, and the fact that he's already past the worst the Cons figure to have to throw at him. But there are a couple of reasons why I don't see it happening.

First, as I mentioned last night, there's the fact that the Libs themselves apparently not trusting Dion with accurate information about his own campaign. After that, there's simply no way for Dion to trust that the party apparatus is giving him the full story about anything - making the Libs' already-glaring internal problems from the campaign look like a picnic compared to the distrust they'll have to deal with if Dion retains notional control.

And then there's the little matter of the Green Shift. All evidence seems to be that the Libs have no appetite to try to sell a carbon tax again, regardless of who's in charge.

Now, it's enough of an issue that Dion's signature policy has landed in the trash heap. But that's doubly problematic since to the extent the Libs managed to spread any positive story about Dion, it was that of a politician principled enough to try to sell an unpopular policy for the greater good. After all, if the Libs thought Dion was a difficult sell originally, how much tougher would it be to win over voters pitching him as having purged his only positive trait?

On sore losers

Others have pointed out Rahim Jaffer's refusal to accept defeat in Edmonton-Strathcona. But it's worth noting that he's not the only Con trying to kick and scream his way out of unfavourable election results, as the Cons' Manitoba president is trying to attack Jim Maloway's 1,700-vote victory in Elmwood-Transcona with a laundry list of complaints which wouldn't have any realistic chance of affecting a substantial number of votes.

From that starting point, I'll be curious to see how many more challenges emerge - and particularly how many of those originate with the party which would seem to have the least reason to want to undermine the election results.

While one would think a remotely competent government would have more important matters to deal with, I wouldn't be surprised if there are indeed more attacks on the election to come. After all, the Elmwood-Transcona challenge in particular seems to be aimed at developing a Republican-style culture of belief that the Cons are entitled to whatever seats they target, such that any loss makes for irrefutable proof of somebody else's wrongdoing. Which would in turn provide the Cons with both an excuse to clamp down even more on access to the polls to try to lower opposition turnout, and a way to motivate their base by claiming to have lost unfairly.

And if the cost is to undermine not only the perception of fairness in Canada's elections, but also the reality of it as Elections Canada is drawn into more and more political attacks - well, the Cons have shown over the past couple of years just how much concern they have for that.

In contrast, for those looking for an example of how to accept defeat graciously, here's Nettie Wiebe's reaction to her painfully close loss in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar:

"I'm afraid I won't have the great privilege of representing this great constituency in Ottawa," said Wiebe, who also ran a tight race in the 2006 election, but came up short to Conservative Carol Skelton.

"We ran a proud and vigorous campaign (but) it looks like it was not quite enough."

While NDP supporters nibbled on fingernails and cheered at every incoming poll that gave Wiebe the edge, the candidate herself said she calmly watched the numbers come across the television screen.

"I am a deeply committed democrat and on election day I give that decision over to the people," Wiebe said. "That doesn't mean I think it's the right result."

Irresponsible

The consensus seems to be that Stephane Dion's stay as the Libs' leader is done with in the wake of the Libs' election losses. But it's worth noting just how little faith the Libs apparently had in their leader even before the results were in - and how their public message contrasted against their own concerns about Dion:

Dion rejected advice from some Liberals on election night to immediately announce his resignation as Paul Martin did in 2006, when his minority Liberal government was defeated by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who prevailed again this time with another minority government.

Dion was not prepared to make such a dramatic move because he was reeling from the election outcome, having been told only shortly before the polls closed that the Liberals were about to take a hit. He was protected from the bad news to keep him pumped during a final cross-Canada sprint on election eve to ridings where Liberal candidates were in big trouble.

Particularly in the context of the campaign which the Libs were actually running, the last paragraph should be a stunning one. For all the talk about Dion micromanaging the Libs' campaign, his handlers apparently kept him far out of the loop, insulating him from negative polling numbers on the assumption that he wasn't capable of dealing with them.

Now, if the Libs figured that were true of their leader, it would be a problematic situation at the best of times. But the 2008 campaign was something else entirely: even as the Libs were trying to shelter Dion from political reality for fear that he couldn't handle it, they were publicly trying to sell Dion as the leader best positioned to deal with an economic meltdown in progress.

It's worth noting that the problem may not be with Dion personally: given the judgment of the Libs generally, it's entirely possible that they were wrong in their assessment as to how he'd handle the information. But the fact that the Libs fought to put Canada and its struggling economy in the hands of a man who they didn't trust to deal competently with even a small dose of bad political news shows the degree to which they were willing to gamble Canada's future to serve their own interests. And that mindset offers reason to be relieved that the Libs didn't succeed in the effort.

Out in the open

After his election in 2006, it took Stephen Harper until his cabinet's swearing-in ceremony to start breaking promises. This time, he isn't waiting anywhere near that long, as Harper hasn't even needed a day after the election to start unveiling the Cons' real platform which is radically different from their positions during the campaign.

More arbitrary (and economically damaging) spending cuts which Harper considered a "ridiculous hypothetical scenario" way back in the dark ages of last week? Now, they're suddenly on the table.

Dozens of patronage appointments to the Senate in the name of better democratic representation? Harper is just looking for an excuse.

An economic pseudo-plan which combines elements he dismissed as "panicked" when they came from another party with statements of the glaringly obvious? Harper can't take credit for it fast enough.

Not that Harper has ever given Canadians reason to think he could be trusted. But the fact that he's managed to accumulate three strikes in a single day after winning an election has to serve as an awfully ominous sign of what's to come.

On toeholds

Following up on yesterday's post, the New Democrats' campaign ended up reaching only the first level of historic results - featuring the party's first-ever general election wins in Quebec and Newfoundland to go with a broader seat base than ever, but unfortunately not matching the late-campaign polls when it came to the NDP's share of the popular vote. So what does that mean for the future?

The good news is that the results raise a strong opportunity to build off the party's new geographic base. From CBC's national map, the NDP's wins in Churchill and Northern Ontario have at least given the NDP responsibility for opposing Harper in a greater proportion of the country than any other party.

And that should be far from the limit for geographic growth. With seats now in NDP hands in Alberta and Newfoundland, the door should be wide open for the NDP to start building new regional bases there as well, to go with a work in progress in Quebec which nearly pushed more seats into the New Democrats' column.

On the downside, the results for southern Ontario in particularly look to be a significant disappointment. Instead of turning the region into a three-way race, the NDP largely remained at least a few points behind the second-place Libs in the country's richest area for seats. Which not only means that the New Democrats took less ridings than one would have hoped for this time out, but also that it'll take some more movement to start pushing races the NDP's way in future elections.

In addition, even the national share of the vote has to be something of a mixed blessing - particularly when even an increased share won't mean additional subsidy money due to a decline in absolute votes.

All in all, last night's results offer only some moderate gains on the NDP's road to power. And the success of the rest of the journey depends on how effective the party's new MPs are at gaining ground for fellow New Democrats from their newly-won strongholds.

On absent Liberals

Comparing the final 2008 vote totals to those from 2006, it's worth noting that the main theme for most of the parties was actually a remarkably stable number of voters. The Cons, New Democrats and Bloc each lost between 80,000 and 150,000 votes - making for some slight disappointment in turnout, but certainly not a major change from the last election.

Which brings us to what looks to be the largest factor in both the changes in the parties' share of the popular vote and voter turnout, as roughly 850,000 Lib voters stayed home this year compared to 2006. Now where could they have picked up the idea that it's fine not to show up to vote when it counts?

Timely questions

Does Josee Verner's failure to vote for her own party (and indeed herself) say more about the incompetence and disorganization of yet another Quebec cabinet minister, or about the sheer lack of enthusiasm for the Harper government? And doesn't either offer a strong reason not to reward the likes of Verner with the responsibility to run the country?

Strategic complications

For those relying on Vote for Environment's final riding projects as their basis for strategic voting, let's take a moment to note a prime example of how dangerous it may be to rely on third-party projections.

In the B.C. riding of Newton-North Delta, Vote for Environment projects a three-way photofinish, with the Cons, Libs and New Democrats all finishing within 700 votes of each other. Which surely has to make it a worthwhile effort to try to encourage either of the challengers to take down Con candidate Sandeep Pandher.

But by relying solely on the assumption that its projected third-place finisher is nothing more than a source of votes for the projected second-place finisher, Vote for Environment simply suggests throwing all votes toward the Libs - risking the possibility of undermining the position of the party which is actually best positioned to take down the Cons. And that danger is particularly obvious when one considers that Vote for Environment's projection may itself be off: for example, democraticSPACE projects the NDP to finish second with a 2-point advantage over the Libs.

Which means that voters who follow Vote for Environment's advice by voting Lib rather than NDP in Newton-North Delta may only wind up helping the Cons to sneak up the middle. And given the obvious opportunity for an NDP pickup as well, voters who have a real preference between the New Democrats and the Libs are surely best off voting for their actual preferred party - not blindly following what looks to be a potentially disastrious combination of an uncertain projection and unduly strong advice.

Correction: fixed Con candidate name.

Under the B, 14 (hundred jobs lost)

One would think that candidates for a party which built its main attack strategy around the dangers of gambling - and which surely had to expect at least some counterattack in similar terms - would have the sense not to locate key campaign offices in a bingo hall.

But not Rahim Jaffer's campaign. And with any luck, Jaffer's unwitting reinforcement of the gamble associated with more Con government will help ensure that he and other Cons will soon be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

History in the making

For all the talk about today's election results potentially changing nothing in Parliament, it's worth noting that for the New Democrats at least there's a strong chance of plenty of historic outcomes.

Even on a relatively modest result based on the last week's polls, the NDP figures to win a Quebec seat in a general election for the first time, win seats in more provinces than ever before, and come closer to the Libs' share of the popular vote than it ever has.

Based on the latest numbers from Canada's most highly-regarded pollster, the NDP should top its previous highs in percentage of the popular vote.

And if the NDP holds its Nanos numbers in the popular vote and/or gets a reasonable strategic vote in its favour, it has a strong opportunity to top its best-ever federal seat total.

What's more, all this is possible in an election likely to produce another minority Parliament. Which means that incremental gains in vote and seat totals will meaningfully affect the balance of power in the House of Commons, and allow the New Democrats a stronger position both in the next Parliament and in elections to come.

All of which is to say that while the other parties may be doing little more than hoping to tread water, there's ample reason for New Democrats to be excited about the possibilities.

Note that comments are now moderated for election day. I'll close by joining in the chorus encouraging all readers to get out and vote - and hope that the NDP will be able to check off many or all of the historic markers from the above list by tonight.

Heck of a phony

Shorter Stephen Harper in the Cons' final attempt to make him seem even faintly sympathetic before the election:
If I can set a new world record for most platitudes crammed into a minute and a half, surely that'll convince Canadians of my sincerity and force them all to like me. Right?

Strategic choices

It's striking that in the midst of an election where strategic voting has received more attention than in recent memory, the main potential beneficiary of the false assumption that past performance will predict future results is distancing himself from the term. And that raises some interesting followup questions: is the problem that the Libs themselves don't think the term is one they want to be associated with? Or is it that people simply aren't buying the idea of Dion and company being linked to strategic thinking?

On bookends

Jack Layton started the election campaign by taking his challenge to the Cons into Stephen Harper's riding. And to highlight the fact that Layton's focus on Harper hasn't wavered, it's appropriate that one of Layton's closing moves is to take the campaign directly to Harper's finance minister:

Layton, in turn, took aim at one of Harper's chief cabinet members in his first appearance in Oshawa on Monday.

Speaking in the home riding of Conservative incumbent and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Layton insisted Harper has shown in the past five weeks he and his government are out of touch with the concerns of Canadians.

"Nobody knows that better than the people here in Oshawa as we've watched some of the best jobs in this country disappear because of a complete lack of policy, or strategy or even a sense of caring about the issue from our government, including from the Conservative member here," Layton told supporters.

The NDP leader said his party was best equipped to protect the interests of Canadian families in times of economic uncertainty.

"I think that's what this election's boiling down to — who's going to be on people's side? Who's going to be on your side?" he said.

As in the case of Layton's stop in Calgary, there's little indication that the effort to take the NDP's message to Whitby-Oshawa is based on an expectation that a New Democrat will take the actual seat. Though it's worth wondering whether anti-Con voters might find Brent Fullard to be a loopy enough alternative to send their votes the NDP's way.

Whether or not Flaherty's seat is in play, though, Layton is once again making clear that he won't let the Cons go unchallenged in putting the interests of corporate Canada ahead of those of working Canadians. And the fact that Layton has made sure that even Harper and Flaherty had to face that message on their home turf can only confirm that he's the best choice to keep up the fight beyond the election campaign.

Hear, hear

Dr. Dawg puts together what looks to be pretty much the ideal editorial endorsement for the New Democrats. Go read - and even more importantly, compare the positive reasons for voting NDP to the negative ones on tap in most of the corporate media's grudging endorsements so far.

Tout le monde en parle...parfois

By all indications, Jack Layton's appearance on Tout le monde en parle seems to have gone extremely well. See Charles' comments on a previous post, as well as French coverage from Carl at democraticSPACE and one entertainment source.

But it's certainly worth noting the difference in coverage between Layton's appearance and that of Stephane Dion earlier this campaign. While the reviews weren't positive for the most part, Dion's time on the show received at least some mention in media ranging from Macleans blogs to the Globe and Mail to the Star to Canoe.

One would think that the show would be no less "wildly popular" - and thus relevant to the campaign - with Layton appearing rather than Dion. And indeed it would seem to make for a particularly important contrast if Layton put up a strong showing in a setting where Dion left the audience cold.

But for now, it looks far too doubtful that Layton's appearance will receive anything close to the attention given to Dion for doing exactly the same thing. And if not, then we'll have to hope that enough viewers saw the show and formed their own opinions to overcome the lack of followup in the press.

Surreal

If we needed a late-campaign reminder of just how little interest the Cons have in basing their politics on anything resembling reality, the story about Axel Kuhn's flier bashing Boris Wrzesnewskyj.

After a year of the Libs propping up the Cons' government through abstentions and absences, and in the middle of a campaign where the Absent Liberals theme has found its way into the public eye, it surely couldn't have been anything but the simplest of tasks to assemble examples of Wrzesnewskyj's non-appearances which would have been soundly based in fact. But that wasn't good enough for Kuhn's campaign, who apparently found the need to start inventing committee assignments (and in one case a committee which doesn't actually exist) in order to try to smear Wrzesnewskyj.

Needless to say, the fact that the Cons have no qualms about basing a campaign on obvious fictions even when the facts could have supported their argument offers yet another reason not to take them at face value at any other time. And perhaps more than anything else, that complete disdain for objective reality offers the strongest reason why it's long past time to make sure Harper and company are removed from any position to make decisions which will affect the lives of Canadians.

On firewalls

There's little doubt that the Nanos polling numbers over the last three days (all showing the New Democrats at 22% nationally) offer ample reason to figure the NDP is headed for significant gains. But Stockholm at Rabble raises an important point about just what role the New Democrats stand to play in Ontario based latest numbers placing the party at an impressive 26%:

It remains to be seen if the NDP actually does that well in Ontario - but I will say this - if the Nanos was right and Ontario split its vote C35, L33, NDP26 and G9 - it would be a very similar vote split to what we saw in the 1975 Ontario provincial election when the Ontario popular vote went PC36, L34, NDP 28 - and that produced 51 Tories, 36 Liberals and 38(!!)NDPers.

I think that if this scenario unfolded, it would mean that the NDP would go beyond winning the "low-hanging fruit" from '06 (ie: all those seats in the north, plus Oshawa, B-EY and Welland) and might have some surprise wins in places like Essex, Sarnia, Guelph, Davenport, York-South-West etc.

What's particularly worth noting is that in this scenario, it's the NDP's share of the vote and associated seat count that would serve as a definitive barrier against a Con majority. With Quebec substantially out of play, the Cons obviously need at least 20 or so additional seats in Ontario to have any hope of reaching 155. And any chance they have of pulling that off depends on the Libs reeling in NDP voters to limit the number of parties capable of holding back Harper, while bleeding support to the Cons on their right over the last couple of days.

But while that's entirely possible if the Libs manage to polarize the race, a three-way split in Ontario votes and seats would lead to an entirely different story. With the Libs likely to hang on to a number of their safe seats, a continued NDP surge would ensure that there simply aren't enough ridings for the taking to allow the Cons to get their majority in Ontario.

All of which means that with the polls where Nanos now places them, there's every reason for Ontario votes to stick with - or move to - the New Democrats as the best chance to keep Harper in check, as well as the strongest voice opposing his agenda. And if the end result is to send the Libs the message that they need to work with the NDP in a coalition in order to remove Harper from power, then all the better for progressive voters.

On work environments

Stephane Dion has picked up on the "quitter" label for Stephen Harper which the New Democrats have been applying since before the campaign began. And it's certainly a plus to see the Libs rightly taking aim at an obvious Harper weakness.

But it's also worth noting that the criticism carries an awful lot more force coming from somebody whose track record doesn't involve ordering his colleagues not to show up for work. And a focus on how the respective leaders have handled their jobs can only work to Layton's advantage as the campaign draws to a close.

Unleashed

There may be another important internal factor facing the Cons based on Stephen Harper's talk about stepping down, as it also figures to have loosened the reins on current party figures who can hope to avoid retribution if they can hang on longer than Harper. And Con MP Luc Harvey offered a classic example of why Harper has used his command over the party to keep Cons from doing anything in public:

A Conservative MP crashed a Bloc Québécois campaign event in Quebec City today, haranguing Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who was shaking hands and meeting voters at a local market.

Conservative candidate Luc Harvey narrowly won by 231 votes in the riding of Louis-Hébert in 2006, and is fighting for his political life in the face of polls that predict a Bloc victory in his riding in Tuesday's election.

As Mr. Duceppe talked to farmers and clients at the Marché Public de Sainte-Foy, Mr. Harvey walked up from behind and asked Mr. Duceppe to say what he has accomplished since his election in 1990.

“Tell us about your record,” Mr. Harvey shouted.

Mr. Duceppe refused to enter into a discussion as Mr. Harvey continued to pester him. After a few seconds of loud exchanges, Mr. Duceppe called Mr. Harvey an “imbecile” and asked his RCMP detail to “move him over,” before exiting the scene and entering his campaign bus.

Visibly pumped after the brief encounter, Mr. Harvey told reporters said he saw the Bloc caravan at the market and decided to stop by.

“I'm in my riding here. This is the riding of Louis-Hébert, and this is Luc Harvey's riding,” he said. “Next time we ask him to defend his record, I hope he won't say that all Quebeckers are imbeciles.”

Now, it's understandable to a point why Harvey would feel the need to change the direction of the race by any means necessary. Having already had his likelihood of re-election already damaged - possibly irreparably - by the Cons' central command, Harvey almost certainly needed to try to shake things up somehow. And the possibility that Harper might be gone soon surely raised at least some possibility that Harvey wouldn't face retribution for doing so.

But it's telling about the Cons' attack-only mentality that Harvey's preferred means of trying to change the race's momentum involved crashing another party's event, relishing the fact that he'd done so, and then lying to the media about what happened. And there's no other way to read Hervey's attempt to pretend that Duceppe's comment about him personally was somehow aimed at "all Quebeckers".

With so little time left in the race, Harvey's stunt figures to wind up hurting not only his own hopes of holding his seat, but also the Cons' chances of salvaging other seats which are now slipping out of their hands. And the fact that he's stuck with a caucus made up of the likes of Harvey and so many other Cons who can't be let out without adult supervision might explain why Harper is so willing to gamble his leadership on the election result.

Battle-ready

With the campaign winding down and the two other federal leaders imploding in different ways, it's worth noting that the New Democrats are peaking at just the right time judging from the results of Jack Layton's latest Quebec rally:

More than 600 NDP supporters repeatedly shouted "no more war" as party leader Jack Layton spoke yesterday at his largest Quebec rally yet.

In these final days of the campaign, Layton made a last-ditch push yesterday to sway voters to his team and in particular delivered a message not to waste ballots on the Bloc Québécois.

Layton's anti-war message and his call to bring Canadian soldiers home from Afghanistan has been well received in Montreal, which has a long history of opposing war.

"My first anti-Vietnam war protest was held right here in the streets of Montreal when I was at McGill (University) so there are long and deep (anti-war) roots here in Quebec," he said.

Now, it's noteworthy enough that Layton's campaign is reaching a high point in both numbers and energy just in time for Tuesday's vote - raising the likelihood that the New Democrats will similarly be able to hit highs in support at the polls.

But perhaps even more interesting is the contrast between the warm reception for Layton, and the protesters who greeted Harper as he tried to salvage seats in Quebec. And the difference in direction and supporter enthusiasm between the two parties raises a substantial possibility that by this time Wednesday, the New Democrats may hold more seats in Quebec than the party which once mapped out its road to a majority through the province.

Update: Here's another great point of comparison from Harper's Quebec City event today:

(T)he event had an odd flat air to it, as the crowd of about 350 was subdued, not revved up. And there was no wrap-up, no finale, no flourishing finish. Harper and his wife appeared somewhat at a loss as to where to turn next.

Your Harper campaign at the moment: flat, subdued and directionless.