Featured:
Friday, November 20, 2009 02:49 PM
Steady as she goes
Let’s check in on our friends at ThreeHundredEight.com and see how their helpful rolling chart of all public domain polls is coming along. The latest version is shown above.
The basic message of this chart seems to be that the three national political parties appear to be levelling off at their new post-Ignatieff-election-call numbers. As we discussed last time we looked at this chart, the Liberals and Conservatives seemed to be duelling for first place in the mid-30s through the winter and spring of 2009, while the New Democrats held stolidly to their support, perhaps a point or two off their 2008 election numbers. In June (perhaps coincidentally after the Liberal leadership convention that confirmed the current leader), the Liberals began a slow drop in support, while the Conservatives slowly consolidated.
In September, Mr. Ignatieff announced that Mr. Harper’s time was up. The Liberals numbers promptly collapsed, while Conservative numbers soared into squeaker-majority territory. The New Democrats, meanwhile, cleanly returned to their 2008 election result. It is early to judge, but in recent weeks it would seem that while the reds and the oranges may have stabilized, while the Conservatives appear to have peaked and are also returning to the 2008 election result.
ThreeHundredEight.com also has some interesting regional charts – let’s look at a few of them.
It bears saying, to begin, that the wild swings demonstrate why it is important not to conclude too much from regional numbers in any particular poll. But the trends over time, aggregating all of the publicly-available polling, are more credible.
Link to this post
Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:18 AM
The numbers don't lie
A bit more on Monday's four by-elections.
Here is a useful chart, courtesy of the hard-working folks at Pundits' Guide , an invaluable resource for those of us who dote on election results:
Chart provided by www.punditsguide.ca
Let's begin with the raw vote. These figures show that on its face, by a country mile the Conservatives were the most efficient at turning out their 2008 general election vote. But that is a little deceptive given the turnout figure in the "rest" column -- presumably mostly Nova Scotian Tories coming home or not voting. The New Democrats turned out about two-thirds of their 2008 voters -- quite an efficient effort in the circumstances. The Liberals turned out a bit more than half of Stéphane Dion's 2008 vote, the Bloc less than half of theirs.
As widely remarked yesterday, the Liberals didn't come second in any of these ridings, losing a second-place spot Dion earned in Hochelaga last election. The NDP picked up that spot. The Bloc picked up a second-place spot the way you don't want to -- by losing an incumbent.
The total national poll has the Conservative improving by 13.1% over 2008. The New Democrats improved by 5.1%, the Liberals by 0.7%, and the Bloc dropped by 3.3%.
It still seems to me these results carry a triple message: that the Conservatives should be worried about British Columbia and urban ridings -- with full credit for returning into play in rural Quebec and getting their historically Tory rural Nova Scotia seat back; that the New Democrats had an encouraging night in B.C., in Nova Scotia and in Francophone Montreal (three well-diversified political theatres); and that there is nothing here to cheer up the red team, even on second look.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 01:28 AM
Middling, gaining and falling flat
Former Ontario Premier Bill Davis once summed up an Ontario election this way: there was a winner that was really a loser; there was a loser that was really a winner; and there was a loser that was really a loser.
He was talking about his own party (which won the election but failed to win a majority -- the winner-losers), the Liberals (who went from third party position to official opposition -- the loser-winners) and the New Democrats (who slipped from official opposition to third-party status -- the loser-losers).
A colleague of mine was remembering these words a few weeks ago. They still stung from his New Democratic perspective, 30 years later.
The truth hurts sometimes.
We have a similar result in today's four federal by-elections.
The Conservative Party are the winners who are really losers.
They won the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley -- a riding that has been Tory blue with only one break in the past 40 years. Somewhat more impressively, they picked up Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, a rural Quebec riding that should be solidly bleu and decided it would be.
However, arguably the biggest news in the blue column was the fact the Conservatives bit the dust in fine style in the British Columbia riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam, a first taste of the message Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his friend and ally Premier Gordon Campbell are going to get from B.C. voters the next time they have a chance to vote.
The Conservative government relies on British Columbia for 22 seats. They can afford to lose none of them. Their vote in Coquitlam dropped by about 10 per cent compared to the 2008 general election.
The Tories are also going nowhere in Montreal. Not an encouraging sign for a rural-based government that needs to break through in some urban ridings.
The New Democrats are the "losers" who are really winners.
With about 49 per cent of the vote in Coquitlam, the NDP has increased its support in an historically tight riding by about 20 per cent (they got 41.8 per cent in 2008). Voters in that province are turning to the NDP as their best alternative to Conservative rule at both the federal and provincial level.
Almost as good, the NDP solidified its position as the principal opposition to the Conservatives in Nova Scotia. And the Néo-Démocrates have stepped up to be the principal opposition to the Bloc Québécois in French-speaking Montreal.
Hands down and with no room for spinning no matter how artful, Michael Ignatieff's Liberals are the losers who are losers.
Monday, November 9, 2009 10:18 AM
What we're remembering
It is Remembrance Day this week, an important day I think. An occasion to remember and honour Canadians who have served in our armed forces in the past. An occasion to honour and think about those serving today. And an occasion to consider our own responsibilities towards those soldiers.
In our family, remembering and honouring Canadians who served starts with this man:
His name was John Reilly, my great-grandfather.
On October 9, 1915 he filled out his attestation papers. He reported that he was married (to Annie Reilly, my great-grandmother), lived in Granby, Quebec, and worked as a "tobacco worker." He was in fact a master craftsman, specializing in the now almost-lost art of preparing plug tobacco. The attestation papers fail to note that he was also the father of three children, and was the sole breadwinner in their household. He was born on May 9, 1875, and so was signing up to be an infantryman at age 40. A Canadian Army doctor who should have known better, and who signed his name illegibly on the form, certified him as fit for the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force.
He enlisted with the 73rd battalion Royal Highlanders of Canada, the Montreal Black Watch. He is wearing their uniform in that photo, including the famous Black Watch cap badge with its latin slogan Nemo me impune lacesset ("No-one attacks me with impunity", perhaps better translated as "mess with me at your peril"). His cap, badge and epaulettes have passed down in our family. I showed them to members of our local cub pack on Remembrance Day for a number of years.
He might have been responding to posters like this:
The Montreal Black Watch had a hard time of it in World War I. The regimental web page notes that during that conflict "11,954 officers and enlisted men fought in the three battalions of the Canadian Regiment, winning twenty-six battle honours. Of those who served, 2,163 were killed, 6,014 were wounded and 821 were decorated. Six of the decorated members were awarded the Victoria Cross." That is a 68 per cent casualty rate.
Not surprising, considering the unit's First World War battle honours, which include Ypres (1915 and 1917), Vimy (1917), Gravenstafel, Arleux, St. Julien, Scarpe (1917 and 1918), Festubert (1915), Hill 70, Mount Sorrel, Passchendaele, the Somme (1916), Amiens, Pozieres, Drocourt-Queant, Flers-Courcelette, the Hindenberg Line, Thiepval, Canal du Nord, Ancre Heights, Pursuit to Mons, Ancre (1916), and Arras (1917, 1918). In other words, most of the significant sanguinary nightmares fought on the western front by British forces.
John Reilly never said a word about his experiences in World War One, a silence that was respected in our family. I came to understand him a little better after filing an application to see his service record, which you can do for any relative who served in that war by application to the National Archives of Canada (you can find out how here).
There is a lot of interesting information in that file. For example, Annie Reilly received a $20 payment once a month between November, 1915, and March of 1917 to help her and her children during the absence of her husband, each cheque meticulously noted in a different hand on a tally sheet. And then on April 1, 1917, these payments were halted. There is also a hard-to-follow sheet calculating the family's "war service gratuity." The bottom line seems to be a final additional cheque for $119.
He was, the file revealed, discharged on August 14, 1917, for "medical unfitness due to neurasthenia." Neurasthenia was a common diagnosis in World War One. It has other names, like "shell shock."
There is a great deal of other detail in the file, but the bottom line is that he reported a crippling, growing list of symptoms (heart palpitations, trembling, dizziness) that forced him to fall out of route marches. In a series of reports from various medical boards, it is clear that it gradually dawned on the investigating medical personnel that they were dealing with an under-sized, over-aged father of three who had no business being in the infantry. And so the boards gradually and surreptitiously inflated his age on their reports (he is eventually reported as being 47 years old), and in due course they eased him onto a ship and back home.
He enlisted bravely in a unit that saw some of the toughest fighting on the western front. He had been running a one-chance-in-five of being killed and about a three-chances-in-five of being wounded -- long odds for a family man. He, his wife and his children were lucky his medical boards took pity on him and on them.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:03 PM
No dance if there's no partner
Michael Byers floats a familiar idea in Monday's Toronto Star -- how about an electoral pact between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party next election, with no other conditions, in order to ensure the defeat of the Harper Conservatives?
There is some precedent in Parliamentary history for arrangements like this, notably a series of off-and-on Lib-Lab pacts negotiated in Britain to attempt to defeat U.K. Conservatives.
There is a fundamental and immovable obstacle to ideas like this, however -- and that is that there is no dance partner.
To be specific, there is not the slightest evidence of any interest in the team currently running the Liberal Party to explore any ideas like this. The closest this latest red-team leadership group -- the Toronto blue Liberal establishment -- has ever come were the campaign slogans from their last runner (Paul Martin), to the effect that it was the duty of every New Democrat to stand down and let the Liberals win. There is obviously no basis for any kind of concerted action there.
Fellow Globe blogger Norman Spector might have put it best in a brief comment he appended to a similar discussion here last spring (between myself and Les Campbell). At the end of the day, the red team probably needs to suffer another crushing defeat at the polls before being ripe to accept that the good old days are over, possibly for good.
That being so, the task before New Democrats now is to do the best job they possibly can to construct a viable alternative to Mr. Harper and his government, and to focus on the Conservative opponent to the extent the Liberals permit the NDP to do so (leaving no shot from them unanswered). Somebody has to, since (barring some fundamental change in federal politics) the red team will head back into the repair shop and will focus on talking to itself for many months to come after the next election. We'll see what (and who) emerges then.
Friday, October 30, 2009 03:55 PM
Another chance to invest
And now, an update from Report On Business, the political blog edition.
Readers will recall that my partner and I offered to buy the broadcast assets of Canwest Global in this space a few days ago.
Our offer was $1 Canadian, or its equivalent in U.S. currency (judging from the prime-time lineup, probably the preferred form of payment).
A progress report:
--- A remarkable over-the-counter market has developed in shares of Tigger Productions LLP, the purchasing entity. Interest is high; this equity opportunity is heavily over-subscribed.
My partner and I have therefore agreed to release 49 per cent of our needed capital to the marketplace, and we have allocated shares in this unique opportunity proportionately to the tenders (the average placement is 3.859 cents Canadian).
--- Our counsel are engaged in preliminary discussions with the current owners. My partner, who is overseeing this detail, reports optimism on our team that our offer to purchase will close quickly.
And now, a new Canwest opportunity has emerged for our firm and our community of investors.
The National Post is being re-merged with the rest of Canwest's newspaper properties, which are in turn being segregated from the broadcast assets.
Like the broadcast bits, the print entity will then apparently go into bankruptcy protection.
And so, we are pleased to announce that we are offering an additional $1 Canadian for the National Post and Canwest's other newspaper properties.
Things we will do, once the detail of having this offer accepted is accomplished:
--- Keep the bright, enthusiastic young reporters and the headroom to report thoughtfully and in detail on the news.
One of the nice things about the fact that the early National Post didn't have any ads was that reporters had to write lots of stories, and long ones.
Further, as a new outfit they did something very unusual in today's news business -- they hired a lot of new people.
They were therefore an energetic, friendly and needy bunch of reporters to talk to (I spoke to them a lot during the mid to late 1990s, because of my then-boss' extended period as chair of the provincial premiers' conference).
They were curious about what we were up to; asked lots of detailed questions; and most of what you told them ended up (more or less) in the paper. Who knew you could do that?
Keep that.
Things we won't keep:
--- I cancelled my National Post subscription the week the editors of that paper cranked up their campaign to free Augusto Pinochet from a Spanish court, set to try him on multiple charges.
It was the final straw in the American republicanization of that paper -- so painfully reflected in its editorial and opinion pages. I like reading Conrad Black. But all of his Manhattan, Georgetown and Florida friends, not so much.
As a subscriber I could only cast one vote against the decidedly minority views of the paper's quirky founding publisher and his successors. It would seem substantially all other Canadians did the same.
To put it another way, one thing the Post always made very clear was its faith in the market, which has now passed its judgment on their views.
But as owners and publishers, my partner and I can make a decisive difference for the better.
Business updates will be posted here as they occur.
Who knows? If we pull this off, perhaps my partner and I can even get ourselves named to the British House of Lords.
(Disclosures: "Tigger Productions LLP" is a jointly-owned entity. Its 51-cent majority share capital is currently owned in a pooled partnership by Topp, Brian and The Cat, Tigger).
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:55 PM
Why no election?
Tories around 40. Liberals around 25. NDP around 17. Why hasn't Stephen Harper called an election?
He did so about a year ago, in the face of a political correlation less enticing than he faces today. And Michael ignatieff gave the Prime Minister excellent cause to call an election again this September.
There seem to be at least two parts to the answer as to why the Conservative government didn't give the Liberal Leader his wish.
First, the Conservatives seem to have thought that the election was going to happen all by itself.
It seems clear the Tories did not believe that Jack Layton and his New Democrats were capable of the strategic flexibility demonstrated this fall. The government expected the opposition bench to hand them a helpful election on a silver platter instead.
Second, it's a pretty good election window for the government, now closing -- but not a great one. The national numbers mask underlying realities.
An election this fall would return fewer Conservatives in British Columbia -- conceivably, many fewer. British Columbians are waiting for the next electoral opportunity to let the Harper Conservatives and the Campbell Liberals know what they think of tax harmonization -- a gift to the NDP that will not be going away any time soon, given that Mr. Ignatieff's Liberals stand with Mr. Harper on this issue.
Higher polling numbers don't produce more Conservative seats in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- the Tories already have a lock on those provinces.
Mr. Harper will struggle to keep his Quebec caucus whenever he next meets the electorate. A good result would be to defend half of it.
Atlantic Canada holds few prospects for the blue team. They are anathema in Newfoundland. The New Democrats have the momentum these days in Nova Scotia. Very little is in play in New Brunswick or PEI.
So, in sum, the government would likely enter the various battlegrounds in Ontario down ten, perhaps 15 seats from their current caucus. They would have to make all of those up in Ontario, plus win another fifteen or so there for a workable majority.
Which explains all the love being sent Ontario's way these days from Tory Ottawa.
How do things look in the various Ontarios?
Friday, October 23, 2009 05:49 PM
Touche pas la patente
I wrote a few weeks ago that Parliament is witnessing a collision between three visions of what it should be about. Let's check in on them and see how they're coming along.
The latest Conservative vision might be summarized as touche pas la patente ("don't touch the thing" -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it).
It seems clear that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government take the view that the longer they can remain in office without doing anything really dumb, the better their support will be. Just to make sure that's true, they have been spending millions in public money on partisan government advertising to pump that support. Steady as she goes... no more dumb mistakes... make it to the G8... make it through the Olympics... and then off to the races off the next budget.... perhaps, depending on the numbers.
So far it seems to be working out pretty well -- except that the numbers probably aren't there yet for a majority victory.
It's true that Jean Chretien squeaked out a bare majority in 1997 with 38.5 per cent of the vote -- about where the Conservatives are now. But he did that with a perfect Progressive Conservative-Reform split and a temporarily feeble New Democratic Party still dragging around its unfortunate record in provincial government in Ontario -- a province that therefore gave Mr. Chretien 101 out of 103 Ontario seats in that election. The same 38.5 per cent today probably doesn't do that for Stephen Harper. Too many votes wasted in Alberta, the Prairies and rural ridings. Plenty of viable opposition party MPs holding on to incumbent seats in Ontario.
As long as that remains true, the Conservatives will probably be wise to keep jumping up and down on the diving board, waiting for the pool to fill some more.
Hopefully, it won't.
The New Democrat vision is "try to make the place work".
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 09:05 AM
Re-learning bitter lessons
In his book My American Journey, former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell writes about the Vietnam war: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors and lieutenant-colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support."
He writes later in his book: "Have a clear political objective and stick to it. Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes. Decisive force ends wars quickly and in the long run saves lives."
There is much to debate in the "Powell doctrine" - and much it leaves out of the discussion. But there is also a basic thread of common sense in it as far as it goes.
Based on bitter personal experience as a field commander in Vietnam, he urges that missions be clear, achievable, for some essential and valid purpose, and be pursued through means that can work. Otherwise another generation of troops are left to face the fate his generation did.
As General Rick Hillier's memoirs confirm, these considerations were the furthest thing from the minds of our government when it committed Canada to our current combat role in southern Afghanistan.
Indeed, Hillier confirms this commitment was made over the objections of our military commanders.
My fellow blogger Norman Spector writes that there seems to be a conspiracy of silence over these facts between the blues and the reds in Ottawa. This is no surprise, since the Conservatives and Liberals are equally complicit in the blunder that is our commitment of brave Canadian soldiers to that futile mission.
But here's betting that silence won't last.
That mission will end soon. And a full accounting of the billions spent and the lives wasted is owed - for what result?
Monday, October 19, 2009 04:16 PM
A modest proposal
Dear Mr. Asper,
Please accept this letter as our formal offer to purchase the Global Television Network.
We offer to assume ownership and to accept responsibility for all debts, in return for one (1) Canadian dollar (C$1) or its equivalent in U.S. currency as you almost certainly prefer (being 0.96 cents U.S. for the purposes of this offer to purchase, minus currency conversion and other costs which we propose to fix at 10 per cent, i.e. a final purchase price of $0.864 U.S.).
Pray have your bankruptcy team contact our office to finalize these arrangements.
Dear banks, hedge funds, credit card issuers, bondholders, preferred share owners, suppliers and producers (in that order, unless the court orders otherwise),
Let's talk.
Subject to the formality of Mr. Asper accepting our offer to purchase, my associates and I (being me and our family cat Tigger, since my wife and children declined to participate in this venture) have been thinking carefully about why one of Canada's private networks finds itself bankrupt and without net value. Sure, there was the deal with Conrad. And then the deal with Alliance. But then there are the fundamental operating issues.
Our diagnosis is implied in our plan to turn things around:
* We're going to reinforce our local news shows.
Global local news is the leading program in many markets -- the true "local programming." As our predecessors know well, this franchise is suffering a temporary revenue problem due to the recession. But by building on our advantages (nimble coverage and a sunny, optimistic tone in stark contrast, on both fronts, to our CBC competition) we know that this business has a great future.
The plan: we're going to review pay and benefits for our local reporters, editors and staff to make sure we retain our best people and keep them focused on beating the competition.
* We're going to fight -- really fight -- to win prime time every night.
To do this, we're going to re-allocate the funds that our network is currently spending on American shows -- shows that viewers will increasingly be able to get without watching our network.
Instead, we're going to invest much of what we used to spend in Hollywood -- let's say $150-million a year, as a start -- into programs written by, directed by and starring Canadians . Great shows that can only be found on our network, so that we're competing in the 900-channel universe with something only we provide.
To do that, we're going to reach out to Canada's stars (living in and out of country) and challenge them to step up to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do their best work. Colin Mochrie, Wendy Crewson, Paul Gross, Sarah Polley, Eric Peterson, Keifer Sutherland, Sandra Oh, Gerri Hall, Tonya Lee Williams, Colm Feore, Mark McKinney, Rick Mercer, Peter Keleghan, Graham Greene, and more and more. This is it. This is your chance to pitch the comedy, the drama, the variety show, the mini-series you've always wanted to make. And star in.
Let's turn the lights on in this place.
We know our network owes you a great deal of money.
Unfortunately, you've probably figured out by now that a television network that fundamentally does nothing but rebroadcast other people's shows has no real assets and has built no real value.
So let's talk deferred payment. And let's talk trying a new and better plan.
Our people will call your people, as soon as our cheque for 0.864-cents (U.S.) has cleared the bank.
Hopefully yours,
Tigger Productions LLP
Brian Topp Contributors
Brian Topp
Brian Topp is executive director of ACTRA Toronto. He also serves as chair of the board of Creative Arts Savings and Credit Union, and is a member of the board of directors of ROI Fund, a venture capital fund. He previously served as a senior vice-president at Credit Union Central of Canada, the national office of Canada's credit union system outside of Quebec. He served as deputy chief of staff to Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow. He co-ordinated the federal NDP's campaign war room during the 1997 and 2004 federal elections, and served as that party's national campaign director during the 2006 and 2008 elections.