An election compendium

For Election Day, let's take a brief stroll through the campaign that was as documented on this blog.

Few may have seen the NDP's surge into a dead heat for first place nationally coming. But it's difficult to say the party itself wasn't prepared, as its strong ads have managed to attract attention without turning off voters, while its messages about the need for change have managed to last through the length of the campaign.

Once the NDP started to rise in the polls, it of course faced more challenges as competitors realized they couldn't simply call for strategic voting to wave away the competition. But Jack Layton offered strong responses to the challenges to its platform, and the NDP was able to defuse the trumped-up distractions that inevitably popped up. And so the NDP is in a position to rise above the trench warfare that so many expected to dominate the campaign.

But of course, that was assisted by the weak responses from the NDP's opponents to the developing orange wave.

The Bloc was the first to notice something was happening, as evidenced by Gilles Duceppe's attempts to challenge Layton during the debates. But once voters stopped believing the line that they shouldn't aspire to vote for a party which could build a better Canada, Duceppe quickly ran out of useful material. And soon, the Quebec wave started developing into a nation-wide orange crush.

The Libs were the next to react to that development, going so far as to briefly abandon their campaign plan). But the results ranged from the counterproductive to the increasingly desperate. And that has to leave plenty of Libs wondering not just about the campaign, but about their earlier mistakes which helped the NDP to build strength.

Finally, after providing a regular supply of examples of what's broken in Ottawa as matters stand now and seemingly missing what was happening from inside their partisan bubble, the Cons scrambled to incorporate the shifting electoral landscape into a campaign planned to be run without deviation. But that too didn't always turn out as expected, with the result that the NDP ends the campaign within striking distance of first place nationally.

All of which leaves us asking what comes next. So let's once again take note of the warning signs that Stephen Harper won't accept defeat either in the election results or in the House of Commons - as well as the obvious opportunities for cooperation between the NDP and the Libs if today turns out as hoped.

That said, I'll call once again for voters to vote for what they believe in rather than falling into "strategic" traps or buying the obviously-flawed argument that an unaccountable majority is somehow a desirable outcome. And hopefully we'll be well on our way to a better Canada by this time tomorrow.

Election Day Links

Assorted content for your reading (and voting!).

- There are plenty of rumours going around about robo-calls trying to direct voters to the wrong place in a final, desperate attempt to stifle the vote. So if there's any doubt, go to the Elections Canada's website for definitive information as to where and how to vote.

- I'm surprised to see seat projections fitting into as narrow a range as seems to have happened, particularly in an election that's seen as many massive shifts in public opinion as this one. But most seem to agree that the NDP will double or even triple its seat count on its way to second place in the party standings, while a Con majority is a relatively unlikely outcome.

- After having been summarily removed from a Con event for the crime of having had her picture taken with Michael Ignatieff, Awish Aslam found out the hard way that Stephen Harper apologizes for nothing. Though I'm not sure anybody should have expected anything different.

- For all the NDP's rightful pride in doing more than other parties even while at a disadvantage in seat count, I'll have to acknowledge there's at least one area where NDP MPs don't rank at the top of the list:

Under the House of Commons rules, MPs are allowed to spend up to 3 per cent of their office budget on hospitality, which means the maximum ranges from $8,541 to $10,734.

The hospitality category includes meals when accompanied by guests, tickets for meals with non-partisan service groups or community events, food and beverages for meetings and non-partisan events, small token items such as buttons, pins and ribbons and gifts not exceeding $100 for people, events or organizations that have contributed positively to the MPs community.
...
The list of the top 50 highest spending MPs is dominated by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. The analysis found the top 50 include 22 Bloc MPs, 21 Conservative MPs, six Liberals and one independent. Portneuf-Jacques Cartier MP André Arthur — who has often bragged about how little he spends as an MP — had the 42nd highest hospitality tab, $8,946.

No NDP MPs appeared among the top 50 spenders.

- Dwayne Winseck is justifiably concerned about the massive gap between popular opinion and newspaper endorsements:

The basic idea behind the free press is that it is suppose to reflect a plurality of a society’s voices and political forces. If that is true, shouldn’t the range of editorial opinion in the press come at least somewhat close to matching up with public opinion?
...
Counting just the endorsements of specific candidates for PM (Harper, Layton, Ignatieff, Duceppe, May), we find a stunning 21 out of 22 backing Harper. In other words, 95 percent of editorial opinion has solidified behind Harper. This is almost three times his standing in the public mind, and the last election.
...
In Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Toronto, Montreal (but not Halifax and much of the Maritimes) and other major cities right across the country where these groups have dailies, editors are stumping for Harper. Even single major newspapers such at the Globe and Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press have weighed in strongly on the CPC side of the scale in Canada’s biggest cities and nation-wide.

This is not a free press. This is bad for democracy. The fact that a shackled press now stands to an extraordinary degree singing their praises for Dear Leader S. Harper from the same hymn sheet should give us pause for thought and reflection.

- Finally, CUPE's Paul Moist offers a platform comparison on the economy, pensions and health care.

Update:
- One more must-read for election day is Aaron Wherry's final version of the Commons on Jack Layton's campaign.

Election eve musings

A few thoughts which haven't yet found their way into full posts, but which seem worth noting before election day...

- Plenty has been made of the Cons' jump at the end of the 2008 election campaign which wasn't captured in polls or seat projection models. But is there any indication that pollsters haven't taken that development into account in adjusting their models in the time since? And is it possible that the radically different end to this campaign - with the Cons' chief opponent closing strong, rather than melting down as Stephane Dion was perceived to have done - might in fact lead to the opposite outcome?

- In the past, the Libs have notoriously had a fairly weak voter turnout structure. But this time out, they're bragging about a strong ground game which they argue will make up for part of their losses in popular support - and it'll be well worth watching whether that materializes, particularly to the extent the ridings being targeted for full-on turnout efforts have changed since just a couple of weeks ago.

- Conversely, the NDP will go from being known for a strong ground game in its target ridings, to relying on voters to turn themselves out in a number of ridings (particularly in Quebec, but potentially elsewhere as well) which haven't yet seen much development on the ground. It remains to be seen how many candidates will be able to win despite weakness on the ground - but any gap between popular support and ground game may also offer a ready opportunity for further NDP growth regardless of how tomorrow's results turn out.

- Finally, is anybody else surprised that the Cons don't seem to have matched their late-campaign pivot against the NDP on economic issues with so much as an online ad focusing on the contrast they've tried to draw?

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your pre-election reading.

- Torontoist endorses the NDP, nicely summing up the positive message which has propelled the NDP to its surge in popular support:

Much of the NDP's platform is not only tolerable; it is excellent. Only the NDP have any sense of ambition for what government can do to improve our environment, both in terms of a climate change strategy and in possessing an interest for a 21st-century renewable power grid. The NDP's crime policy proposals are realistic, defined, and compassionate. Their immigration policy intelligently addresses many of the issues with our current system, including the opportunity for immigrant families to sponsor a single non-close relative, while still accepting that crackdowns on immigration consultation and updating our professional certification programs for immigrants must remain priorities. Their cultural policies promote homegrown content and recognize the massive return on investment that smart cultural funding can generate. Of the three major national parties, theirs is the only one with internet and technology policies relevant to the needs of modern Canada. The NDP's take on national defence is very well reasoned: Layton's announcement that his government would focus on the shipbuilding program that the Tories have been dragging their heels on, including a renewed focus on the oft-delayed Joint Support Ship program, is commendable indeed. And the NDP have committed to ending our deployment in Afghanistan—a mission our military has undertaken with skill and dignity, but one which increasingly appears to be a lost cause and which Canada can no longer afford.

More important than any of that, though, is the NDP's commitment to political and electoral reform. Both Jack Layton and the party as a whole are determined to do their best to reform Canada's electoral system away from our outmoded, obsolete first-past-the-post structure into something modern which better reflects the true intentions of Canadians through more proportional representation, be that through party list voting, single-transferable vote, or mixed-member proportional representative voting. This reform is something our country desperately needs. Similarly, the NDP's proposals for preventing the abusive use of the proroguing power and Layton's suggestions for governmental bodies to audit proposed legislation are good ones. The NDP's proposed abolition of the Senate is drastic but not without its appeal, especially in the wake of Conservative use of the Senate as an anti-democratic tool to prevent the passage of popular legislation.
...
(I)t is idealism, at this time, that Canada needs. We have had almost a decade of cold, callous government from Stephen Harper's Tories and to a lesser extent from Paul Martin's Liberals before them. The Tories see government as an impediment; the Liberals all too often use it for inducement, to bribe voters into supporting the Grits rather than offering a coherent platform, as evidence by Michael Ignatieff's scattershot campaigning in recent months. The NDP looks upon us and tells us that we are Canadians: that we are a society that believes in helping one another, in helping the downtrodden and weak, not because it is economically expedient or eventually profitable, but because it is right, and that this is worth fighting for.

That is why Jack Layton and his party have skyrocketed in the polls. That is why they deserve your vote, and our endorsement.

- But the NDP surely won't complain if Haroon Siddiqui is right in describing the election as a referendum on Stephen Harper:

Who says elections are a nuisance? Stephen Harper and the media. The latter also parroted his pronouncement that this campaign was “unnecessary,” being the fifth since 2000. It’s a waste of money. It’s boring, to boot.

Canadians have proven them wrong, being fully engaged from the first week to the last, turning up in record numbers to the advance polls and dragging Harper onto a knife’s edge for Monday night.
...
However, Canadians quickly caught on to Harper’s politics of division, his contempt of Parliament, his bully tactics (symbolized by students being thrown out of Tory rallies), abuse of power and misuse of the treasury in showering tens of millions of dollars on ridings and groups with the sole purpose of advancing the partisan Conservative cause.

Ordinary citizens have turned the election into a referendum on Harper — specifically, on a Harper majority. Their answer to his fanning the fears of “reckless coalition” post-election was to forge one at the grassroots level, now.

- And Parker Donham notes that public dissatisfaction with Harper should have been obvious for some time:

(S)upport for Layton may be new, but dislike of Harper and his autocratic manner is not. To re-phrase Harris’s question then, how did the cream of Canada’s national press corps miss the anti-Harper mood?

On issue after issue, press gallery reporters have, wiuth few exceptions, been quick to accept the Harper squad’s assertions that, “The public doesn’t care about parliamentary technicalities.” “No one wants this unnecessary election,” “Canadians don’t expect us to coddle Afghan terrorists,” “The public has no love for the long form census,” “Talk of contempt is just partisan bickering,” etc. Faced with these airy dismissals, the gallery has too often shut down coverage of important news stories that reflected badly on the Harper government.

Reporters have also accepted unprecedented and humiliating restrictions on their ability to put questions to the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and now the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in an election campaign.

The gallery collectively underestimated Canada’s appetite for thoughtful coverage of the nuts and bolts of Harper’s burgeoning autocracy. That is the failure unmasked by the last two weeks of the 2011 election.

- All of which helps to explain the continued gains for the NDP - with the last EKOS poll of the campaign showing the party at 31.6% and within 3 points of the Cons. And that in turn has led to the point where the end of Stephen Harper's reign is in sight.

On stability

With a Harper Con majority looking less and less likely, it's worth taking a quick look at how the Cons' campaign spin fits with any real desire for stability following an election.

After all, even leaving aside Stephen Harper's interest in provoking yet another constitutional crisis, it's the Cons who have chosen to raise confidence showdowns at every turn, refusing to make any concessions which might result in any certainty of avoiding an election for longer than a given sitting of Parliament. And there's little reason to think that motivation will change after tomorrow.

In contrast, the NDP has already indicated its willingness to enter into a longer-term arrangement to move past the constant election speculation we've faced ever since Harper took power. And a government led by Jack Layton will surely have every interest in breaking the cycle of a new confidence threats every couple of months.

So part of the choice ahead - both for voters tomorrow and the Libs if the election produces the anticipated result - will be whether people recognize the positives in moving past the Cons' constant brinksmanship. And if people think through how any actual desire for stability fits in with the NDP's commitment to working with other parties, the Cons' campaign message may prove to be their undoing.

On strategic considerations

A word of caution to Murray Dobbin and others pointing to strategic voting sites in hopes of stopping the Cons. While I'm not a huge fan of the concept generally, I'll strongly suggest that anybody wanting to vote strategically at least take into account the changes in party preferences and campaign momentum (which are all too often disregarded by defensive voting advocates) in deciding how to cast a ballot.

After all, a close two-way Con/Lib race from 2008 probably won't have held its shape now that the Libs have declined further and the NDP has boosted its popular support across the country. (Indeed, most of the closest races from 2008 were in ridings which weren't seen as strategic voting targets before that campaign began.) And in many cases, there may be a better chance of building a plurality of support based on the NDP's surge than of getting anywhere throwing ballots at a declining Lib vote total.

As cases in point, let's take a look at Buckets' list of recommended ridings and compare the recommendations to how votes actually figure to be switching.

In Guelph, the Libs and NDP both ran slightly behind their provincial average in 2008 (32% to 33% and 16% to 18%, respectively). But with the latest polls showing the NDP somewhere between even with and slightly ahead of the Libs in Ontario as a whole, one would expect a similar dead heat in Guelph. So one can just as easily argue that the strategic vote is NDP if one believes (as seems to be the case) that momentum built during a campaign is more likely than not to continue to election day.

Likewise in Kitchener Centre, both of the parties were roughly even with their provincial polling averages - meaning that the logical starting point based on current support levels is to figure that they're about even, and vote based on who's more likely to add momentum during the campaign.

And plenty more ridings on the list could tip into the NDP's column if its late-starting Ontario momentum builds into a few extra points tomorrow, while showing little possibility of going to a Lib party which has lost a quarter of its Ontario support from 2008.

Indeed, the biggest reason why the Cons are in trouble now is that they've tried to re-fight the 2008 campaign while Canadians' preferences have changed in the meantime. And it would be downright tragic if Harper is able to win his desired majority thanks to progressive voters who make the same mistake.

So the best advice in such ridings looks to be to ignore the murky strategic possibilities and vote for one's actual preference - because a vote will be doubly damaging if it's cast for what one perceives to be merely the lesser evil, but also ends up backfiring from a strategic standpoint.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your election eve reading.

- Yes, the party polling is positive enough for the last day of the election campaign: Forum places the NDP at 33% (to the Cons' 35), Abacus Data places the NDP at 32% (to the Cons' 37), and Nanos finds the NDP at 31% and within 6 points of the lead - all signalling that a relatively small continuation of the campaign's growth trend can push the NDP into a clear first place.

- But perhaps the most telling numbers are the Nanos (warning: PDF) - which have Jack Layton not only overtaking Stephen Harper once again, but also reaching new highs overall and in trust and vision even after his opponents have launched about all the attacks and smears they'll be able to land during the court of the campaign.

- So will the NDP's popular support translate into an equally strong wave at the polls? It'll certainly help if voters take up Susan Delacourt's challenge to show at least part of the enthusiasm we put into building up our Olympic athletes into our democracy.

- That said, citizen engagement can't and shouldn't end at the ballot box. And Michael Posner's article on citizen panels offers one way of making sure that the kind of interest that's been building over the last month gets channeled into better policy outcomes.

- Finally, while I hope Colby Cosh is wrong in his seat projections, at least one of his points is well worth highlighting:

The shift to the NDP isn’t a result of appeals to particular economic sectors or social groupings that might vary from riding to riding. It is a personality-driven shift; a true mass movement. It is, in part, surely driven by universal human reactions to (Jack) Layton’s courage. He is fighting an election he might easily have avoided.

In fact...Layton faced a choice: fight an election now, which is a squalid and exhausting task for a healthy person, or take time to recover from cancer and a broken hip in relative peace. This was as a free a choice as can be imagined. Nobody on the face of earth would have blamed him for taking a break. He decided not to, and whether he did it for the advantage of the party or for the interests of the country, the decision boils down to “He did a brutally difficult thing because he thought it needed doing”. If you ask me, it’s pretty damn admirable even if he just thought selfishly that this was his best chance at being Prime Minister.

[Edit: moved strategic voting discussion to its own post.]

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Saturday reading.

- If it weren't for Stephen Harper's attempts to unilaterally rewrite Canada's constitution to fit his current political interests, we wouldn't need a reminder what the rules actually are in an election where no party wins a majority. But since a refresher is in order, Peter Russell provides it:

Until Parliament meets, we won’t know who has its confidence – and commanding the confidence of the House is the licence to govern in our system of parliamentary government. Mr. Harper has the right to carry on as Prime Minister whether or not his party has more seats than the Liberals but only as a “caretaker government” that can take no initiatives. It would be intolerable if Mr. Harper were to follow the example of Joe Clark, who, after the May 22, 1979, election, formed a minority Conservative government but then waited until Sept. 10, 140 days after the election, to test whether his government had the confidence of the House.

When the House does meet and no party has a majority, there are basically three ways of forming a government. First, the Conservatives can simply carry on as a minority government hoping to win support, issue by issue, from opposition MPs. Second, either the Conservatives or the party that finishes second in seat numbers can form a legislative alliance with one or more other parties that would agree to support them on the basis of a shared legislative program. Such an agreement between David Peterson’s Liberals (who finished second to Frank Miller’s Conservatives) and Bob Rae’s NDP gave Ontario a stable minority after the 1985 provincial election. In this option, the parties supporting a Liberal or NDP government would not have cabinet positions. The third option is a coalition government in which two or more parties form a government and share cabinet posts.
...
If the Conservatives don’t win a majority on Monday, Mr. Harper isn’t likely to try to form a coalition government or make a legislative alliance with any opposition party. So what would happen if his government fails to win the support of any opposition party when the House meets in late May or early June and is defeated on the Speech from the Throne?

At this point, constitutionally, Mr. Harper has two options. He could resign and advise the Governor-General to invite the leader of the party with the second-largest number of seats, either Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton, to form a government. Or he could advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and call another election.

It’s the second case that lands us in a “constitutional crisis” similar to the Byng-King affair of 1926. The principal that the Governor-General must be guided by in considering Mr. Harper’s request is that a prime minister’s advice (even if the prime minister has lost a confidence vote in the House) should be rejected only if doing so is necessary to protect the integrity of our parliamentary system. Calling an election, the fifth in seven years, just a few weeks after the last election when there’s a plausible alternative government that can command the confidence of the new Parliament may well be such a situation.

- Chandra Pasma nicely lays out the opportunity costs of continued corporate tax slashing:

Health care is at the top of the list for issues many Canadians worry about. If we invested $3 billion in health care, we could create more than 54,000 jobs, while the effect on GDP would be in the range of $4.8 billion. We would also have improvements in health care, such as possible reductions in wait times, more family doctors, and more access to specialized equipment.

Canada currently has an affordable-housing emergency, as identified by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing. Investing $3 billion in affordable housing could result in more than 47,000 new jobs and a $4.5-billion increase in GDP. Many of the 1.5 million Canadian households in core housing need (with housing that does not meet standards of adequacy, affordability, and suitability) would also have access to safer, more appropriate, and more affordable housing.

More than one in 10 Canadians live in poverty. In 2008, the poverty gap – the amount of money needed to bring everyone in Canada up to the poverty line – was $13.1 billion. If the $3 billion were transferred directly to low-income Canadians through the tax system as a guaranteed annual income, it could generate nearly 56,000 new jobs and a $5.1-billion increase in GDP. It would also reduce poverty by nearly 25 per cent, bringing new-found dignity and security to the lives of many who struggle with the day-to-day challenges of putting food on the table and paying the rent.

Now it is true that the Finance Department, like Jack Mintz, suggests that the benefits of corporate tax cuts will kick in over the long term. But remember, tax cuts happen annually. So this $3 billion investment is not a one-time thing – we are choosing where to invest our $3 billion every year. So while we are waiting for our 100,000 jobs to materialize from business tax cuts at the end of seven years, we could have invested $21 billion in physical or social infrastructure.

- Meanwhile, Erin highlights the conclusion of the Conference Board of Canada that our past corporate tax cuts haven't produced the investment benefits that are supposed to justify their existence. And thwap is rather less restrained in calling out the corporatist spin.

- Trish Hennessy releases a special version of her Numbers in advance of Monday's election.

- Finally, the Leader-Post editorial board weighs in on the importance of voting:

The best reason to vote is not out of fear or starry-eyed idealism (though that is not unimportant), but out of enlightened self-interest.

Many Canadians fought long and hard in the past to widen the franchise because they understood the desirability of having a government chosen by as many people as possible, rather than a few. Canadians defended this concept, even at the cost of their lives.

Put simply, this country and its political system work best when as many Canadians as possible take a part in the construction of future governments.

Canada bestows many benefits on its citizens. Paying it back by voting is a small price to pay for what we have been given. Voting is a good thing for a citizen to take.

But embarrassingly enough, George Jonas and Lawrence Solomon are both working hard to suppress the vote.

On proportional benefits

Following up on the question of what the NDP can put on the table to encourage the Libs to support it as Canada's government starting on Tuesday, let's note one more option (being discussed as a possibility by some already) which will look more and more plausible as a selling point as the Libs' vote and seat numbers fall.

The result of an election seeing the NDP rise to a strong second place and the Libs drop to a distant third would be to create the perception that Canada's political scene is polarizing into left- and right-wing parties with enough strength to form government, leaving little room for a centrist brokerage party. Which means that as part of their effort to define themselves for the future, the Libs will face the question of whether Canada's current electoral system is conducive to their very existence once they can't rely on strategic voting pitches to win support to their side.

And that looks to be an ideal time for the Libs to revisit electoral reform, making it either a demand of an NDP government or at least a perceived benefit if it's offered.

After all, a party that's being being squeezed out of a polarized FPTP system would surely see plenty to like in a PR system which places them around the median of any conceivable Parliament - allowing for a better prospect of carving out a substantial amount of space at the centre of the political spectrum, and likely ensuring that they'll both hold at least the types of seats that stay in their hands by Tuesday, and earn the opportunity to participate in governments for the foreseeable future.

As always, there figures to be some pushback from some who enjoy the possibility of winning 38% majorities in an ever-more-distant future. But for the Libs' remaining MPs and supporters alike, now may be the absolute best time to consider putting the party's frequent musings about PR into effect - as much for their own benefit as for that of Canada's democracy.

On non-answers

There are some questions that can reasonably be left unanswered before election day.

The Prime Minister's willingness (or lack thereof) to accept Canada's constitutional means of transferring power is not one of them.

Good on Terry Milewski for challenging Stephen Harper to make it absolutely clear whether or not he'll accept the Governor General's authority to ask another party to form government. And as long as Harper refuses to answer, we have to assume the worst as to how far Harper is willing to go - and how much damage he's prepared to do - in clinging to power regardless of the will of Canada's voters and elected representatives.

Update: After serving as one of the Cons' chief cheerleaders through most of the campaign, even John Ivison can't help but to see serious problems in both Harper's evasion and his party's attempt to intimidate Milewski and the rest of the media:

CBC Television’s Terry Milewski asked whether Mr. Harper would respect the Governor-General’s decision, if he called on a second-placed party to form government after a Conservative minority was brought down. The Prime Minister said he wasn’t going to speculate on what might happen after the election, despite the fact his whole campaign has been based on conjecture about what might happen post May 2. Mr. Milewski accused the Conservative leader of ducking the question and repeatedly asked him to answer. By this point, the assembled partisans felt it their duty to jump in for their man. “Shut down the CBC,” shouted one man. Another behind Mr. Harper was screaming, gesticulating and visibly upset. To be fair to Mr. Harper, he gestured for calm and maintained his composure. In days gone by, he would have responded to such a challenge by attacking the source.

Quite why the press conference needed to be held in front of a hostile crowd is not clear, unless it was an attempt to intimidate journalists. Other parties hold the presser in a separate room after the event.

Party spindoctors suggest Mr. Harper likes the visuals of being surrounded by supporters but it lends the appearance of a lynch mob when the inevitable happens. One suspects the visuals of this morning’s episode will be replayed on newscasts across the country and confirm many people’s impressions of the Conservative Party as the home of anger, intolerance and blind partisanship.

Update II: Mark Kennedy nicely summarizes the stakes:

His refusal to answer the question Saturday raises fundamental questions about whether Harper might provoke a constitutional crisis in the wake of an election.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The good news from the polls just keeps on coming, as Angus Reid and Ipsos-Reid both show the NDP at 33% across Canada (within 5 points of the Harper Cons). But perhaps more importantly, both also place the NDP in second place in Ontario - signalling that any damaging vote split has either already resolved itself in the NDP's favour, or can easily do so by Monday.

- Judy Rebick calls for Canadians to join the NDP's people-powered wave of support while noting the effect of social media in spreading the message:

People are fed up with politics as usual. That’s the sentiment that brought Rob Ford to power in Toronto and as strange as it seems, it’s the same sentiment fueling the NDP vote. Just as economics have been taken over by corporate shills, politics have been taken over by cynical operatives who see elections as number crunching and spinning (another word for lying).
...
...I do like Jack and I’ve known him for 30 years. He is a passionate, committed, politician who believes in equality and social justice and has fought with all his energy his whole life for what he believes in. People can see that, which makes him the choice of those who want to get rid of Stephen Harper. Once Quebec broke to Harper, everyone else started to see that the strategic vote and the heart vote was one and the same.

But more importantly, Jack is riding an unprecedented wave of democratic participation. Not since the 1988 free trade election have we seen a greater participation of citizens in an election campaign. Not since the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 have we seen a more profound revolt against the political elites of this country.

But unlike 1988 and 1992, no organization or individual is leading this revolt. It is happening through You Tube, through Facebook, through Twitter, through Vote Mobs, through web sites, through the creativity, humour, audacity of mostly young Canadians. It is the first time we have seen the dynamic of networked politics, which I wrote about in Transforming Power: From the personal to the political work in Canada

No-one over 40 who has a progressive bone in their body can fail to be inspired by the energy and passion of those vote mob videos. And thanks to the willingness of the people of Quebec to take a risk, Jack Layton and the NDP are now the most viable option for those of us who would do anything to get rid of Stephen Harper and his desire to be President for Life of Canada.

- Meanwhile, Glen Pearson is absolutely right in noting that a key driver of the NDP's surge has been the fact that Jack Layton has performed well in response to a genuine opportunity to define himself which the Libs' contenders have lacked ever since the Harper ad-bombing strategy became the norm:

Which I think helps to define Layton’s rise in the polls. Is he a good man? Absolutely. Does he care for people? For sure. A good leader for his party? Yup. His rise in popularity comes in part because Canadians have been permitted to judge him with a collective open mind – something that should come standard with any political campaign. I bet you the Conservative Machiavellian types in their war room now wish they had spent millions passing their untruths on to the Canadian people about the NDP leader. But it’s too late; they, like the rest of us, didn’t see it coming. They are now scrambling, realizing that they’re not so smart after all.
...
I’m glad for Jack, to be truthful, because every leader deserves a fair shot at power. His rather obscure rating at the beginning of the campaign has now provided him with an open field to display his skills – he was never placed in a box. Every party leader should have been afforded that opportunity, and in Canada that used to be a given. Jack deserves his freedom; Ignatieff should have had that right too. Regardless of the this election’s outcome, the best thing that could happen wouldn’t just be an opposition win as it would be a sending of the Republican strategists back across the border and a Conservative government humbled by the Canadian people for its deeply devious way of treating its citizens.

- But Adam Radwanski notes that whatever the end result, the election campaign should indeed result in some substantial change for the better in how political parties approach Canadian citizens:

Stephen Harper’s push for a majority government has revolved around the idea that to most voters, the “air war” – the party’s communication efforts, their exchanges with each other, the media’s coverage of it all – is just a lot of white noise. So he has made no effort to engage us collectively. On the contrary, the Conservatives have tried to foster indifference with a stultifyingly boring and repetitive central campaign – all the better to allow them to micro-target just enough swing voters in just enough ridings to win a majority government.

Many pollsters, and some insiders from other parties, entered this campaign sharing the belief that the vast majority of voters aren’t really in play. It was a depressing experience to listen to them explain why, beyond motivating their bases to come out and vote, parties really just had to worry about targeting a relatively tiny number of swing voters in swing ridings.
...
(T)he Conservatives, who thought they had this election fully gamed out, have not been nimble enough to respond (to the NDP's surge). They have watched as anti-Harper support has consolidated behind the NDP, putting in jeopardy some of the seats they were counting on, and until the last few days seemingly refused to believe it was happening. And because they didn’t think it was worth speaking to most self-identified supporters of other parties, they’ve been unable to woo many of the disaffected Liberals leaving that party in droves.

None of this is to say that Mr. Harper won’t get his majority. The vote splits could still break that way. And if they do, the strategists will no doubt pat themselves on the back.

But they cannot seriously claim any more to have had the electorate all figured out. And in future campaigns, all parties will know better than to treat us as quite the automatons the Conservatives thought we were.

On endorsements

Like their personal counterparts, I'd generally classify newspaper endorsements as relatively inconsequential except to the extent they differ substantially from what one would expect. Which means that while the predictable effort by most of the corporate media to circle the wagons around the Harper Cons doesn't mean much, the Star's endorsement of the NDP is the one worth taking more seriously:

The New Democrats have been reinvigorated under the leadership of Jack Layton. After Monday, they may well challenge the Liberals as the principal national standard-bearer for the roughly two voters in three who disagree fundamentally with the course charted by the Harper Conservatives. Progressive voters should give them their support on Monday.
...
New Democrats have shown at the provincial level that once in office they can square their social conscience with fiscal responsibility. They are the party of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow — pragmatists with a vision and a heart. Now that a much more significant role beckons at the federal level they must accept the challenge of developing that approach nationally as well.
...
Elections are about the future, and the Liberals have not made a persuasive case for themselves as the alternative in 2011.

Fortunately, this time there is a real choice. Voters who believe Canada should aspire to something greater than the crabbed, narrow vision offered by the Harper Conservatives should look to Jack Layton and the New Democrats on Monday.

Musical interlude

Let's make a positive appeal from an NDP supporter into the last musical interlude of the election campaign.

Geoffrey Stone - Anthem for the NDP



[Update: Fixed link.]

On distractions

Lest anyone try to make too much of Fox News North's desperate plea for attention, I'll guess that the direct effects woun't figure to be all that strong in either direction. Yes, the story actually fits nicely with the NDP's call to fix politics as they stand, but I'd expect that to roughly balance out the intended effect of smearing Jack Layton.

That said, though, the indirect effect looks to be far more important.

With the Cons having taken their time even beginning to answer the possibility that the NDP might be able to form government, their closest media ally has now ensured that their choice of anti-NDP messages will be receive limited discussion as election day approaches. Which doesn't necessarily mean the NDP will benefit in the end - but may mean that we shouldn't expect much to change from the support levels and trends already in place today.

Friday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to end your week.

- Toby Sanger puts the NDP's track record as Canada's most responsible party in balancing budgets into handy chart form.

- Anna Jarvis offers her case for the NDP:

Jack Layton and the NDP have earned their opportunity. Layton, who heads the latest leadership survey measuring vision, trust and competence, appears genuinely passionate about his social democratic beliefs. He has connected with Canadians across the spectrum and reinvigorated voters. He started this campaign after cancer and hip surgery. As usual, the race was framed as between the Conservatives and Liberals. But Layton persevered.

People were told to vote strategically. He said vote for whoever you want.

Coalitions? He said he'll work with whomever Canadians elect.

I like the NDP plan to end tax cuts for large corporations (whose profits don't always stay in Canada and whose CEOs make obscene salaries) and instead use the money for tax breaks for small businesses. The party has at least identified health care issues such as home care, long-term care and prescription drug costs. It's the only party with a firm plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions. It's offering much more for pensions. Layton is already doing what nobody else has: bringing Quebecers into the fold.
...
(Con Jeff) Watson delivered a lot of money to this region (or the Conservatives did to shore up his seat). But despite "delusions of grandeur," according to observers, he's not likely to get even a minor portfolio. He'll always be a backbencher.

Put me down for an alternative.

- Meanwhile, Susan Riley sees the possibility of replacing the Harper Cons as the start of a new opportunity for growth in Canadian politics:

it will not start raining frogs if Layton has more influence in a postelection Parliament. It is nonsense to suggest he would embrace environmental measures if they would bankrupt the economy and even more absurd to suggest that the watchful, cautious Michael Ignatieff would start raising taxes willy-nilly.

Here is what could change, though, at least for non-Conservatives: the big dark cloud that hangs over federal politics might lift with Harper's departure.

A Liberal/NDP coalition -admittedly still a less likely outcome than another Conservative government -would bring confusion, but might also inject much-needed optimism in public life, and, we can only hope, more co-operation.

Whatever happens, spring is a good time to clean house. And the first thing to go should be those outdated myths, distortions of history that obscure any vision of a happier future.

- Finally, no Lib swoon would be complete without some public infighting. And for all their other failings, Jane Taber and John Ibbitson at least provide that:

But as Liberals try to refocus in these last crucial days, the infighting is beginning with some senior Liberals blaming a disconnect between the leader and his national campaign team.

They blame the polling – arguing that it misdiagnosed the concerns and attitudes of voters.

But pollster Michael Marzolini said “it’s news to me.”

“How do they think I have misdiagnosed? The only thing I failed to predict was Layton’s debate performance – and that kind of prediction isn’t my job.”

Others are blaming the flurry of confusing messages.

A senior Liberal complained, for example, that while the party’s health-care ads were being run on television, Mr. Ignatieff was talking about “rising up” and calling the Tories anti-democratic. He was repeatedly blown off message and seemed to come up with new themes almost daily, from concern-for-democracy to health care to wasted spending on the G8 and G20 summits. This confused voters.
...
(S)o far, the Liberals are not yet directly blaming Mr. Ignatieff – there is a view that he has done an admirable job. The blaming may come on Tuesday, however, if the polls are correct.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted material for your Friday reading.

- The latest in great polling news: EKOS has the NDP building on its previous support levels, making 30% nationally and 40% in Quebec into the new normal. Nanos suggests the highest NDP vote share yet at 31%, with the possibility of moving much higher if the party can break a statistical tie with the Libs in Ontario. And CROP has the NDP winning multiple seats from the Cons' Quebec base in Quebec City, and even reaching a dead heat in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding where Josee Verner has previously won up to 58% of the vote.

- Chris Cobb offers an explanation for the NDP's orange crush:

(T)he pundits all underestimated the Tao of Jack and his Walking Stick — the crutch that has become a Churchillian-like symbol brandished with increased frequency in Layton's public battles against his political enemies.
...
"He struck an emotional chord just by the way he faced up to his setbacks and went about his work. He appeared in the House of Commons after his hip surgery and showed he was a fighter. People developed an emotional relationship with him that wasn't there before."
...
Crucially, added Gauthier, the walking stick has helped Layton differentiate himself from other leaders, especially Stephen Harper.

"In many ways, he has become the foil to Harper," he said. "His body language is different, his appearance is different, and his voice and language is different.

"You have one leader (Layton) reaching into crowds and talking to people versus another whose handlers have barricaded him. The contrast in image between the two is quite remarkable."

- All of which helps to explain why it's being noted that the Cons can't beat the NDP on personality. (Though the Cons' efforts to avoid demonstrating any may have something to do with that as well.)

- Meanwhile, John Geddes highlights an Innovative Research poll to the effect that the NDP has done nothing but bolster its standing both on individual issues and on general appeal to the middle class:

Early in the election, 31 per cent rated the Conservatives “somewhat better” or “much better” for the middle class, 25 per cent preferred the Liberals, and 23 per cent the NDP. By the Easter long weekend, the Tories were down slightly to 29 per cent, the Liberals off about five points to 20 per cent, and Layton’s NDP up a very substantial 10 point to 33 per cent—vaulting into top spot.
...
On impressions of Layton’s underlying attributes, Quebecers also seem to have warmed to him the most. On which leader they associate with “strong leadership,” Layton’s score rose to 31 per cent in Quebec from 14 per cent near the start of the campaign. In the rest of Canada, the climb was to 22 per cent from 14 per cent. Similarly, Layton’s image on attributes like “having the best plan” and “caring about people like me” rose smartly in Canada as a whole, but more markedly in Quebec.

When it came to probing voter attitudes on specific issues, the NDP made big gains during the campaign on protecting the middle class—a major thrust of Latyon’s stump-speech rhetoric and his party’s TV ads—and on understanding the needs of “people like me,” maintaining high ethical standards, and health care.

- The Star offers a pre-endorsement of its own, rightly concluding that the Cons shouldn't receive another term in government.

- And finally, as many others have noted, Peter Russell goes much further in condemning the Harper Cons for their belief that Parliamentary crime pays:



[Edit: Added Nanos result.]

On consistency

Jim Flaherty, speaking as Canada's Minister of Finance, declares that low interest rates are to be preferred, or that interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Response from commentators to the fact that a politician is commenting on the Bank of Canada's monetary policy: zero.

Jack Layton, speaking as a leader in an election campaign, suggests that interest rates ought to stay low while confirming that he won't interfere with the Bank of Canada's discretion. Response from commentators: "ZOMG!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! GET THE SHOTGUN SHELLS AND EMERGENCY RATIONS AND MEET ME IN THE DIEFENBUNKER!!!".

Not that we should expect anything different.

[Edit: fixed label.]

On dilemmas

No, it isn't much of a surprise that the Cons are desperate enough to have based their campaign's closing argument on a single false tweet.

But it'll be especially interesting to see what happens now that the calls they're directing to Jack Mintz aren't producing the desired outcome. Will this be the point where they finally have no choice but to admit to having been wrong? Or will they once again double down on repeating what they know to be incorrect - even as it only highlights the dishonest and delusional politics so many Canadians are eager to replace?

Thursday Evening Links

Assorted content for your end-of-week reading.

- Harris-Decima is the latest pollster to confirm the NDP's momentum, this time with a poll carrying responses from over a week ago which nonetheless places the NDP at 30% and gaining on the Cons.

- Alison takes Patrick Muttart's dismissal from the Harper campaign as a much-needed opportunity to point out the links between Muttart and the Cons' U.S. Republican cousins.

- Paul Wells highlights some of the lasting impacts we can expect from the NDP's surge:

The rise of Jack Layton’s NDP was the story of the campaign’s fourth week. At this writing I have no way to guess whether the NDP will keep rising, or fade away as it has done more than once before. But at any rate, the Layton phenomenon is hardly the only way Canadian voters have stubbornly refused to stick to their assigned role. Conversations are breaking out all over, honest-to-goodness debates, and all the campaign pros in all the war rooms won’t be able to herd us back into our tidy demographic stables again.
...
Layton is not perfect. His ideas for the country will leave many unpersuaded. But he rises because he at least acts like a guy who would rather fix problems than fix blame. Even if he fades in the stretch, something permanent will remain. A whole country has remembered that it does not like to be told what it may talk about and how it may react. And when a country gets its back up the way this one has, it will not go back to sleepy predictability any time soon.

- Meanwhile, Rick Mercer's brilliant campaign summary includes this damning tidbit on the Harper Cons' duplicity:

To get a feel for the Harper campaign you only need a few hours. The differences from one event to the other are minuscule. In English Canada they start each event by singing “O Canada,” and Stephen Harper tells the crowd he’s proud to lead a party that starts every event this way no matter where they are in the country. In Quebec they skip this part and they hide the Canadian flags in the plane.

Mercer also wonders whether the leader's tour is nothing more than an anachronism - which makes it particularly interesting to note that the NDP has pushed ahead with a full-on tour as part of its successful campaign even though there may have been reason to expect otherwise.

- Finally, "Steve Shutt" on Babble raises an idea which could tell us in a hurry whether the Libs will work on replacing or joining Stephen Harper next week:

I'm wondering how best to get pledges from the Liberals who might survive to not pull a David Emerson, the former Martin Liberal from Vancouver, who between E-Day and the cabinet swearing in had a conversion from the Liberal banner he was elected under to the Harper Conservatives, who were now the one's in charge.

I think it would need to focus on the wide policy differences between the Tories and the Liberals (at least on paper both Jack and Iggy had, until the surge hit, pointed to the commonality between Liberal and NDP platforms) so that voters know that they don't have to worry about voting for the "red" door and getting their MP walking through the "blue" door.

On party interests

Scott Reid is probably right in describing what he thinks the Libs' strategy is driving at as our election campaign draws to a close. But let's take a step back and ask what it says about the party's desperation:

The least conventional ballot question in Canadian history is taking shape: Do you care about the Liberal party's future?
...
Harper and Layton may discover that many others dislike the idea of overlooking an institution that offers a reliably sensible and centrist option.

They may learn that Canadians are none too eager to reduce future national debates to twin poles of extreme opinion.

They may find that in the quiet of the ballot box, there are many voters who decide they value the Liberal party and will vote to preserve its ability to positively influence their future. Just as it has their past.

Leaving aside Reid's own personal stake in the Libs, let's turn the question around.

If, in an election where there was a close race between the Libs and Cons for government, the NDP had ever ended a campaign by declaring that voters should ignore policy, principle, leadership and strategy alike, and vote simply based on a desire to preserve their party's brand...

How well would that have gone over as a direct appeal?

And perhaps more importantly, how savagely would it have been shredded by a Lib party declaring that it proved the NDP wasn't interested in stopping a mutual opponent?

In effect, Reid's analysis looks to be the next stage of the Libs' culture of entitlement. Having failed in their effort to dictate that nobody else could stop the Harper Cons, they're now asking that voters put on hold every real consideration at play in the current election campaign - every prospect of replacing the Harper Cons with a better government - solely for the benefit of a party which has shown it can't win support on the merits.

Now, one might point to cases where a relatively similar message has fallen flat (anybody else hearing an echo of Ujjal Dosanjh's plea to at least allow for some B.C. opposition in 2001?). But Reid's pitch looks to be even less justifiable, since he's trying to make the case in an election whose outcome is actually in doubt.

If there's any saving grace for the Libs, it's that enough Canadians may have tuned them out that the message isn't certain to reach all of the voters who may yet vote Lib out of habit. But if "save the furniture" is now the Libs' public appeal rather than merely their internal rallying cry, then there's reason to think there are plenty more votes for the NDP to win as the campaign reaches an end.