Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Battleground smaller than you think

BRIAN LAGHI

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 5:59 PM EST 07/09/08

A few dozen ridings in three provinces are expected to help decide election outcome. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Locke One from Vancouver, Canada writes: So Brian, where are the BC ridings? This is a half-story!
  2. ron rogers from calgary, Canada writes: that was what happened last time, this time people will rember that harper told them he would not change the income trust act then he did, thats a lie , then he had no analysis to support his decesion thats stupidity, then the anaalysis was done and showed that the differece was immaterial to the goverment, as a result people lost billions, they will not forget. so maybe alberta and his own riding are not so sure.
  3. Buddy . from Away, Canada writes: "A few dozen ridings in three provinces are expected to help decide election outcome"

    Probably accurate

    Nova Scotia (and all of Atlantic Canada for that matter) voters will do what they've always done ...

    And they'll get the government they deserve.
  4. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: Writing this article without listing the ridings was pretty close to useless. For me, it was 100% useless, since I already knew that not every riding in the country was up for grabs. Try again.
  5. D B from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is either a teaser worthy only of the smuttiest supermarket tabloid, or just plain incompetent journalism.

    On polls, either report or cite all the data, or teach your journalists basic statistics. Your statistical stories are an embarrassment. The margins of error you are reporting are inaccurate or incomplete. The conclusions you report are based on data you haven't published or cited which much higher error than you report. It's simply wrong to combine the results of different polls as you have. The polls all have different, unreported methods, and were all conducted at different times with different sampling methods. The results just aren't comparable, and even if they were, the methodological errors would be additive.
  6. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Oh goodie, goodie! Let's see what would influence a poll. You go from Ontario, losing your auto-line job, to Alberta, where crime is high, homes are unavailable, and jobs are not easy to come by, unless you know somebody - good paying jobs. So you go to BC or Saskatchewan, and find the same thing. OHIP runs out. There's that nasty Healthcare burr in the NeoCon butt. You go to Newfoundland, but samething. Your tiny lumber town has shutdown, and you're going bankrupt. Thanks Emerson - US lumber lawyers will always thank you, but there's still ranching - oh no, it's flooded out. I hope they do stick with their 45 towns. A lot has gone on since the last election, and nobody is going to get a majority. Add that 306 million to the deficit, and the next one before two years from now. And watch for this too. Harper and the Liberals have alienated Canadians from our political processes. The Liberals by failing to oppose and abstaining from voting on key issues, repeatedly, and the PMO spin machine locking out a broad spectrum of news journalists to provide a less massaged news service. Just looking at the many polling companies coming back with 'No Opinion' or Don't Know' on many issues, that compete with the numbers in favour or not of whatever it dealt with. How can you really tell if 39% and 28% of anything is for real, when 29% won't even answer?
  7. Harold Alan from Victoria from Canada writes:
    This may be accurate, but its funny, isn't it, how actual events can sometimes snap back and bite u in the butt. Wouldn't it be delicious if the results hang on voters in Manitoba and Nova Scotia who will likely be totally ignored.

    Otherwise, if this is so, how about just holding an election in those ridings and leave the rest of us to H*LL alone.
  8. DON BARTA from Canada writes:
    - Ever since the G&M 'went liberal' the quality of your content has diminished.

    - Did all the experienced, qualified and expert people retire, quit or just move on?

    ~
  9. Bagkitty in Calgary from Canada writes: Further indication that there is something wrong with our first past the post system.

    Do us a service and point out how many of the remaining 250 odd seats were won by >50% 1 of the vote -- give us an even clearer picture why so many voters feel their preferences are ignored in the electoral process.

    Proportional Representation... it is the idea whose time has come.
  10. Dakota K from Canada writes: This election will financially cripple the Liberal party. Dion hasn't even paid off his leadership debt yet and will most likely be removed from his position before he does. Without corporate kick backs and payoffs, the Liberals will soon be as financially bankrupt as they are morally. Sadly for them, a Conservative majority is probably the best thing that could happen. That way they will have a least four years to try and pay off their ever growing debt before having to go begging for more.

    Is this the kind of group of people that Canadians want running the county? They can't even keep their own house in order let alone manage Canada's economy.

    We need strong leadership. We need Harper!
  11. stephen ottridge from vancouver, Canada writes: Vancouver Quadra is one such BC riding. Won by the Libs in a by election with a 151 majority, down from 10,000 in last general election.
  12. Sober Second Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: With flip-flop Flaherty running the finances of the country and our economy tanking, I think that the Ontario ridings will not go to the Conservatives. We've seen that bad movie before and Harper does not have any bench strength to give us a good finance minister.
  13. Canadian Cynic from Canada writes: Remember the income trusts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY

    Harper "Don't forget, don't forget this."

    We won't Mr. Harper, believe us, we won't.

    This was probably one of the stupidest things this government could have done.
  14. stephen ottridge from vancouver, Canada writes: The investors who were overweighted in the energy trusts are the ones crying over the income trust change. Many income trusts are higher than they were on October 31st 2006, many are lower. Flaherty was right, can you imagine Royal Bank and BCE as income trusts, talk about income tax distortion?
  15. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: every one of these articles continues to play to my theory that Harper's election call is purely out of desperation and not opportunism. The opportunistic vote is for the Liberals to win and thye may just do that by sidelining the Dippers, appealing to Quebeckers "green" side and leaning left the whole election campaign.
  16. Canadian Cynic from Canada writes: There were other ways these income trust taxes could have been handled so as to offset the losses to investors. This tax hit all those and especially seniors who were holding income trusts in their retirement portfolios, especially so, given that many increased their holding of income trusts after hearing the promises by Harper that he would not tax income trusts.

    The loss in future income taxes as a result of the sale of many of these companies whose shares dropped to foreign companies is far greater than the loss of corporate income tax. This income would have eventually been taxed in the hands of Canadians at far higher rates than corporate taxation rates.

    It was so badly handled by the incompetant Flaherty, who was a bumbling fool when he was in the Harris goverment and he is even worse now, because his bumbling decisions affect all Canadians now.
  17. M. Owens from calgary, Canada writes: DON BARTA from Canada writes:
    - Ever since the G&M 'went liberal' the quality of your content has diminished.

    - Did all the experienced, qualified and expert people retire, quit or just move on?

    Don, when did they "Go" Liberal. I thought they always were......
  18. David Stevens from MONTREAL, Canada writes:
    These are not CONSERVATIVES!

    ($) 8.8 BILLION WAYS TO BUY MY VOTE WITH MY OWN MONEY

    HARPER IS A HYPOCRITE
  19. Ed Moore from Vancouver, Canada writes: If the CPC wins a majority of seats it won't be because their ideology appeals to the majority of Canadians, it doesn't. The overwhelming majority of our population is ideologically left of centre, which is one of many reasons why proportional representation would be a better way of electing our representatives. Another reason is highlighted in this article. With proportional representation, a party cannot ignore most of the country while trying to buy a few seats in the hopes of winning a majority. Minority governments based on consensus tend to work better than majorities, and they are kept more honest by the opposition parties.
  20. Ed Butts from Guelph, Canada writes: That's odd. First Harper slashes funding to the arts, then in his attack ads he provides Canadians with some works of pure fiction.
  21. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: So, what happens to a political party if it goes bankrupt? Is such a thing possible? How much debt are they carrying? It's hard to imagine that Ivan Fecan couldn't pass the hat and get it paid off.
  22. Jo L from Moncton, Canada writes: I agree with some of the above posts, proportional representation is needed. It's the only way every vote counts. It's the only way we can get a gov't that truely represents the policy people want. Too often with first past the post well liked local characters are elected to end up whipped by the party, and the Party that wins is not generally supported by the majority of the people.
  23. Fuzzy Bare from Canada writes: Jo L from Moncton, Canada writes: I agree with some of the above posts, proportional representation is needed. It's the only way every vote counts. It's the only way we can get a gov't that truely represents the policy people want. Too often with first past the post well liked local characters are elected to end up whipped by the party, and the Party that wins is not generally supported by the majority of the people. --------------------- ------------------ ---------------- - *** Jo L ... Gotta agree, if that is what people want. No worry about majority goverment with P.R. Lots of variety in the HOC, instead of the 4 political parties we have now, we could have 6 or 8, maybe more parties in the HOC. With no majority party in Parliament, the smaller parties hold the balance of power. The party(s) trying to form the government, may have to do considerable negotiation with other parties for support. Could be costly if more than one political party is in position to form a government. There will be lots of competitive negotiation to get the support of the smaller parties to form a coalition government. When the negotiotiations are completed, the highest bidder will form the government, with the taxpayer picking up the tab to pay for the pet policies of the Green, NDP, BLOC, Canada Action Party or The Rhinos enacted. The $6 Billions that Paul Martin spent to get NDP support for his budget may look like chicken feed by comparison .....That P.R. is sure the answer and the added bonus is, we may get an election at least once a year, if not more often. The government may want to raise taxes to pay for new programs, the coalition may object and the choice is Deficit or back to the polls. When the coalition government fails, it is another election until we get have MPs together to form a government. It is possible, in a few years, we will have voters pining for the good old days, before P.R. when we had the stability of majority government.
  24. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Note that the article is assuming that none of the seats currently held by the CPC will be lost to any other party. This isn't so. Clement is toast. Flaherty may survive, but I doubt he will. Baird is also toast. Vgancouver-Kingsaway sure isn't going to vote CPC. Most of the ridings the CPC will focus on will not be particularly receptive to them. OOOPPS.
  25. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Germany has a system of PR which works very well. If no party has a majority, they must enter into coalition and a smaller party. This also means they cannot offer just lip service and agree on occasion, but the smaller party will fill some of the ministerial portfolios. The german system of government is very stable, even in minority situations.
  26. M Warren from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ottawa West-Nepean, the annoying calls from Baird's campaign office have already started. Handing out 'environmentally-friendly' bags at the local grocery stores, disgusting when you consider the policies he promotes. You know, the Conservatives won here by only 4500 votes or so against Lee Farnworth, a relatively unknown Liberal candidate. Since then, we've had a litany of scandals and postures by the CPC showing off their block-headed demagoguery at home and puppet act abroad, and I won't be voting 'third-party' this time, at least. Neither will many other NDP supporters here who don't want Baird back. Go Pratt!
  27. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Brian Laghi is wrong. I think his 40-50 seats is high. This election is likely to be decided on 30-35 ridings.

    Yes we get the government we deserve, as we continually vote whatever old boy network is installed in our ridings. Taking a note from south of the border - how many times in your riding that the local dominant party can run a pig with the appropriate lipstick (blue or red) and it will win regardless of the quality of the opposing candidate.

    European examples with PR - forget it. A government forms a coalition and shies away from poltical decisions - the economies tend to run themselves.

    If we wanted some type of PR, I'd go with the Scottish system which mixes first-past-the-post and PR. I won't explain it, but it does give more legitimacy to the party winning the most ridings - look it up yourself if you have time.

    For me, I will likely vote against the pig in lipstick locally.
  28. John Lemay from Burns Lake, Canada writes: The electoral system is a problem, want to do something about it,
    put FairVoteCanada in search and join up with other Canadians who want change. Nothing can be done by whining in media comments.

    On topic, if this story is true why are the conservatives desparate for an election? My guess, they would not want to go to the polls having to defend next years news.
  29. J Kay from Canada writes: Dakota K: Enough with regurgitating the talking points. Your incessant trolling is really annoying and pathetically childish. The liberals managed the economy quite well for 13 years Dakota, taking a nearly $49 billion deficit and reversing it into a $13 billion surplus, making the biggest debt repayments in Canadian history and the ONLY gross debt repayments of any party in the last 40 years.

    They lowered corporate and personal income taxes and were planning to continue lowering them when Harper took office. In fact Harper's corporate tax cuts are EXACTLY the same as the Liberal ones planned by Martin and Chretien but only sped up.

    So yeah the Liberals were very good economic stewards and they were good for individuals and business.

    That the Liberal party has debt HARDLY means they will be incapable of managing the economy, indeed they have a far better record than the Conservatives, not that the Conservatives managing of the economy recently has been horrible and it's somewhat true that the government can only have so much impact.

    So cut the crap and your sycophantic, obsequious, toadying. It's nauseating and really pathetic. The gross partisan politicking on either side - and you've shown yourself to be one of those blind partisans for the Conservatives - is destructive and idiotic.

    Now I know you wont Dakota, you don't seem to have the level of maturity necessary for a grown up adult political discussion, instead you'll continue your sycophantic nonsense, like others, and nothing of policy will get discussed; just more crap being flung.

    I have ZERO fear about the Liberals ability to manage the economy any more that I do with the Conservatives. The Liberals have proved their ability for the 13 years and did a damn good job, and dont even dare regurgitating the BS talking points about EI, or transfers, etc since you don't ever know what the hell you're talking about. Learn something for once.
  30. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: Imagine if reporters did such in-depth articles on policies and voting records of the various parties. It is a pity they are so lazy that they just write endless speculation stories about strategy.
  31. Josh S from Vancouver, Canada writes: >>>For the Tories to reach a majority, they will have to win 28 seats more than they currently have.

    Pardon me, I believe it really 29 more seats.
    Traitor Emerson's Vancouver seat will be lost.
  32. Derek Lambert from Edmonton, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Dakota K: Enough with regurgitating the talking points.

    Amen to that line.
    I'm gonna bust anyone representing any partiy this election if they try throwing talking points or rhetoric around. I'll tell them they should get a job selling Amway. So brutal.
  33. Misery No one from Angus, Canada writes: And this is one battle ground we don't want to lose any more boy soldiers on.

    Make it count here so we don't lose the count there.

    Bring out kids home.
  34. David Jenkins from Kelowna, Canada writes: The time for change to our electoral system is well overdue. A previous poster mentioned the FairVoteCanada website; an excellent source of information. They have a link to the 2004 Law Commission Report on Electoral Reform; an excellent document that lays out the options and the benefits they would have.

    A current FPTP system just perpetuates proportional misrepresentation on a grand scale. Lets keep the math simple: one party gets a majority with 42% of the popular vote with a voter turnout of 66.7%. This means they form a 'majority' government with the support of only 28% of eligible voters; not a democratic mandate by any stretch of partisan rhetoric. Nearly 3 out of 4 Canadians will spend the next 5 years without any voice in the HoC and even those that voted for the winning party will find their local MP is completely toothless as all power is concentrated in the PMO.

    It is time for change and one way to get this started is the ensure that the CPC and Liberals are kept in what they will consider 'minority hell' after this election. By my count there are 36 ridings that will decide this election and the people living in them need to firstly, vote, and then vote very strategically to keep the weak minority parliament alive. For those of us where the incumbent is a certain winner, do not stay home. You cannot complain about the inadequacies of our current system if you are not prepared to vote. If there is a local candidate from another party that appeals, vote for them. If not, mark your ballot 'None of the above' and have it counted as a spoiled ballot. The politicians need to hear from us loud and clear that we do not trust them to govern.
  35. M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: J Kay - let's use a longer historical perpective: where did that deficit in the '80 come from? Trudeau and Chretien spent wildly in the '60 and '70! Trudeau's economic theory was that deficit spending was OK because the debt would be repaid in dollars made cheaper through inflation - resulting in 12% inflation and 18% mortgage rates. This is what Mulroney inherited. Mulroney eventually balanced the operating budget but the interest payment on the debt were more than 30 billion, so he still had an overall deficit. Then Chretien balanced the total budget by cutting transfers to the provinces. What a hero - he caused the mess in the first place.
  36. J Kay from Canada writes: M K From Ottawa: Sure M K lets use a longer historical perspcetive. Trudeau was in power from 1968 until 1984, with a 9 month hiatus for Joe Clark. From 1968 until 1975 Trudeau ran balanced operating budgets and a couple completely balanced budgets. During that time the debt to GDP ratio went from 26.7% when he started in '68 to 18.9% in '74, the lowest level achieved since WWII.

    It was ONLY in 1975 onward that Trudeau started racking up significant deficit spending and why, because of the oil shock that caused EVERY single major western country - all G7 and most OECD - to rack up similar budget deficits during this time, so Canada and Trudeau were hardly unique, they were caught by the same economic conditions that resulted in massive inflation and interest rates - recall interest rates and monetary policy is set by the BOC and the BOC monetary policy was NOT at all helpful and exacerbatted the situation - and falling/stagnating revenues. One mistake Trudeau made which had a serious impact on the revenue side of the budget was to introduce inflation indexed tax brackets to avoid the significant bracket creep that tax payers were being subjected to. This significantly stagnated budget revenues and high inflation, falling employment caused the expenditure side to balloon. Can you name any legislation Trudeau brought in in this time that caused massive additional unnecessary spending?

    Trudeau was followed by Mulroney and I doubt one can say he represents good fiscal management either if you're going to lay all the blame at Trudeau's foot, which is absurd. Mulroney left the government with $49 billion dollar deficit in 1993. Yes the debt left by Trudeau was significant and Mulroney ballooned it hugely thereafter, had 9 years and never balanced the budget, cut inflation indexing of the tax brackets in '85 thereby raising taxes passively by 35% over his 9 years in power. So sure lets look back a long time. The right bears Mulroney who performed subpar
  37. J Kay from Canada writes: M K: Another fallacy of yours which I'd like to address is that Chretien balanced the budget by cutting transfers to the provinces. This is garbage. Chretien inherited a budget shortfall of $39 billion ($49 was meant to be $39) and balanced that in 3 years. Now considering that the government cut transfers to the provinces by $4 billion in the first year of transfers cuts and then by an additional $2 billion, I'd love to know how that $6 billion in transfer cuts over two years eliminated nearly $78 billion dollars in budget shortfall over those two years all by itself? And also lets not be dishonest because those transfers to the provinces, didn't entirely hurt the provinces, since they themselves turned around and cut transfers to the municipalities.

    In fact they cut spending across the board and then maintained growth at near or below inflation levels, which were in the 1-2% range for nearly the entire time.

    As I said don't bother mentioning EI either. It was Mulroney in '85 under the advice of the AG who eliminated the separate EI fund, making EI revenues part of the general revenue, and thus just another form of tax. At least under Chretien, that tax fell every years from 1994 till today.

    Understand MK I've read every budget and financial report of the government of Canada for the past 20 years and a number preceding that time period so I am very well informed. I've also done extensive analysis of the budgets and the economy during those time periods, so I don't get my information from so blog of dubious value but instead based on my own analysis - which I'm quite qualified to do - and knowledge of the data. So I'm quite well informed and know what I'm talking about, not regurgitating blog talking points like so many do.
  38. Dale Brown from Victoria, Canada writes: What Canada does not need is a majority Conservative government. The Conservative backbench is heavy with Christian fundamentalists. The government's minority status has necessitated keeping the right-wing religionists under wraps but give this party an unchecked mandate and it will be a different story. We will have Republican-lite in Canada in both domestic and foreign policy. We do not want to go down the theocratic path being followed by the U.S.
  39. M Warren from Ottawa, Canada writes: M K and J Kay, it's an interesting discussion you're having there. My own opinion is that Pierre Trudeau's economic sins belong to a different time and a different world, and to judge him without reference to the actions and inactions of his contemporaries is sheer nonsense. As if Nixon, Heath, D'Estang, Mao, and Brezhnev were geniuses on this count...sheesh!
  40. Bagkitty in Calgary from Canada writes: With all due respect to FairVoteCanada, supporting their lobbying and information campaigns is not enough. Press your candidates, will they commit to some form of proportional representation or not. If they won't, don't vote for them. We need a debate over which particular PR model to adopt (and I like the suggestion of Mixed Member Proportional (some FPTP old style MPs and the balance of seats distributed to ensure party proportionality)) -- but this will never happen until voters start being bloody minded about it. Essentially we are going to have to turn into single issue voters until the system changes.

    Of course the Cons will try to deflect the issue by talking about electing the senate, the Libs continue to day dream about getting into the high 30s and sneaking into a majority situation, the Dippers have it as policy (but have lots and lots and lots of policies... for every occasion even if some are contradictory), the Bloc doesn't care, and the Greenies are more concerned about perfecting the brand....

    I wish the leaders debates could be in town hall format, so that someone who cares about PR could try to pin them down to an answer...
  41. J Kay from Canada writes: M Warren: Thank you and I agree. Trudeau existed in different time and one is difficult to assume directly applies to today but what is often lost when looking at Trudeau is the role that the bank of Canada played at the time, which was very much key in the unfolding economic malaise in Canada. While the government has an advisory role, they don't usually direct the BOC moentary policy and it is that policy that can have a profound impact on the underlying economic situation of the country.

    As you note and I alluded to, the contemporaries of Trudeau also suffered similar budgetary conditions, with ballooning deficits, due to ballooning expenditures and stagnating revenues. While indexing income brackets against inflation certainly was a very good idea, especially from a tax payer perspective, doing so in 1975 exacerbated the government's budgetary pressures. Trudeau was hardly perfect but judging him against his contemporaries is required to get a reasonable measure of his performance.

    Doing otherwise would be akin to looking at the budget deficits and deficit spending during WWII, ignoring the underlying economic and political reality at the times and claiming that the PM and party in power during that time we poor fiscal managers. Without context, such statements are useless.
  42. w sykora from Canada writes: stephen ottridge, no I can't imagine Royal Bank as an income trust, because banks were never even a remote possibility. I believe the possible conversions of BCE and Telus were causing Flaherty to pee his pants, even though neither was paying corporate taxes at the time (Flaherty had obviously not checked this), and BCE would not be paying corporate taxes for years to come.

    I could easily imagine BCE as an income trust, with unit holders paying income taxes at their marginal tax rate to all levels of government. Instead, BCE will be taken private, loaded up with debt, never to pay a cent in taxes, ever, at a loss of 800 million dollars to all Canadians. This is not counting the 2.5 million seniors that permanently lost 20% of their savings, nor the BCE bondholders that were royally screwed when their bonds became junk grade.

    Flaherty is probably the most incompetent finance minister this country has ever experienced.
  43. David G from Toronto, Canada writes: And now Flaherty faces the president of the association of income trust investors in his own riding. How I envy the voters of Oshawa-Whitby, especially those who owned trusts on Oct. 31, 2006.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Federal Election 2008 coverage

Back to top