09.30.2015 10:59 AM

KCCCC Day 59: we grow old, we grow old


  • Sorry I’m late with KCCCC today! Got in late, slept a bit. Maybe it’s old age, too. 
  • Speaking of old age, check this out. Quote: “For the first time ever, there are now more people in Canada age 65 and over than there are under age 15, according to Statistics Canada.
  • Wow. In political terms, that is huge. And for the Conservatives, it’s very good news. Their biggest constituency is older Canadians. And older Canadians vote more than any other segment. Younger Canadians increasingly don’t. 
  • It matches the intel I got from a senior (reputable) pollster last night. Said he: “Underlying numbers on best PM improving. Mood softening on PM. The other guys under more scrutiny. Choice on some key values issues becoming clearer. Choice on taxes and economy becoming clearer.”
  • I don’t see a CPC majority yet. But I don’t see how they can’t get a minority, at this stage. And what, dear reader, happens then? Gotta sleep more on that. 


  1. Don Wilson says:

    If the Libs & the NDP don’t find a way to approach the GG with a proposal to govern and take power away from the Conservatives if they win a minority, we are doomed. A Libertarian Hell will ensue.

    • ottawacon says:

      If you look at the seats the Bloc held in 2008 and their current level of support, then consider the NDP’s decline in Quebec, it won’t take that many more Quebec voters returning to the Bloc to make a Conservative minority able to pick up Commons support from the Bloc a real possibility. A full return to 2011 levels is not going to happen, but ~12-15 seats doesn’t seem impossible considering how quickly the NDP is losing support in Quebec, without it appearing to go to the Liberals.

    • MF says:

      Don, I think you need to read about what “Libertarian” means. Because it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

    • Alex says:

      I agree with Warren that the Cons are now the favourite to win a minority. As for what happens post-election if the Tories win? Well, you will have a lot of really angry Dippers who will be in no mood to help Trudeau, and many disappointed progressives who voted Liberal. They will all be looking for someone to blame.

      My hunch is that Mulcair, who is not loved by his party, will get the boot. Trudeau will discover that outflanking the NDP in a campaign is easy; being the opposition leader to Harper on a daily basis less so. JT will have to explain to the majority of the country who is anti-Harper why the progressive vote was split yet again. My guess is that his answer to this question will disappoint a lot of people.

      As for the Tories, they will wait out the chaos on the left for a time, and then call another election with a much larger war chest than their opponents.

    • e.a.f. says:

      Its sort of like this. Steve gave the G.G. his job and extended it. How do you think the G.G. is going to rule? Get read.

      Now Bill Tielman a blogger in B.C. writes an interesting article. Steve and his Cons could win the most seats of the 3 parties, but not have a majority. He gets to form government. He then doesn’t have to call Parliament in for one year. During that one year Steve gets to do a whole lot of stuff. Then at the end of the year he calls parliament together and the other parties get to put forward a vote of non confidence, but all Steve has to do then is call another election.

      It is important all citizens go out to vote, especially young people. Seniors may not want to vote for Steve. He had proposed a $38 Billion cut to health care. Steve has never liked Canada’s health care system. Just check his old rantings before he came into politics. How unCanadian is that.

      In my opinion Steve is a dangerous man. He ought to be voted out of office. Then he can go join his good friends in Communist China.

      • Vancouverois says:

        His good friends in China? Surely you mean Trudeau’s good friends in China.

        Trudeau is the one who expressed admiration for China’s dictatorship.

        • e.a.f. says:

          you forget Harper signed a 31 yr trade deal with China, which is of little use to Canada, given we lose a lot of our sovereignity. We can’t even get out of the deal for 15 yrs. You gotta be really good friends with another country to sell out your own, at least in my opinion that is what Steve and his Cons did.

  2. Michael Smith says:

    I agree, no Majority for any party… Cons need a Majority or will be booted, Trudeau/Mulcair despise him more than each other…

    • RogerX says:

      What everybody assumes, incorrectly, is that the capitalist Liberals would support a socalist NDP in a ‘coalition’ government, and vice versa just to eliminate the capitalist Conservatives.

      Not so, because neither the Liberals nor Conservative capitalist parties will prop up a socialist NDP government to give Canada a syphilitic dose of socialism!

      The NDP must win a clear majority if they are to govern unencumbered by capitalist party support. However if the Liberals won a minority would the NDP prop up a Justin government or would they vote non-confidence á la Jack?

      If the final election results are in this order: NDP — Liberal — Conservative, and the Liberals support the NDP, that will be the final demise of the Liberal party because they would split into Red and Blue Grit Liberal MPs and Justin would become irrelevant. Think of that!

  3. billg says:

    I did quick math a few weeks ago and didn’t see how the Conservatives couldn’t get close to 150 seats, minimum
    Yes, lots can happen over the next 20 days, but, there are 90 to 100 seats west of Ontario that I just don’t see go anywhere else.
    I work as a tradesmen for a living so, what the hell do I know, just a guess.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      With the right NDP/Lib splits, the CONS pick up 75-100 non-Toronto/Ottawa seats, 10 Quebec, and 5 Maritime seats. Before Central time, they are on their way to a majority.

      All that the CONS now have to do is pick up a few points and get enough folks who voted NDP in 2011 to do so again on October 19. With the nijab and Canadian Citizenship gifts this past week, that should not be a problem.

      QUESTION FOR TRUDEAU, TELFORD, BETTS: So the Nazi who was stripped of his Canadian citizenship by Chretien will get it back if you are elected?


      Yah, if you hadn’t expunged the Liberal Party of us old timers someone would have reminded you that your stance was not a Liberal policy. And if you followed Liberal policy, you could have differentiated us Liberals from the NDP, and not given Harper a majority.

      • Scott says:

        If the citizenship is obtained under false pretences it should be revoked like the Natzi dude. If a kid came over and twenty years later became a terrorist it shouldn’t be able to be revoked. If you weren’t butthurt over Trudeau you would get that.

        • MississaugaPeter says:

          Any asshole who comes to Canada and terrorizes Canadians came to Canada and became a Canadian citizen under false pretences.

          Your love for Justin has blinded you, or one too many tokes have clowded your judgement.

          • Mike says:

            You know Pete, I was never a huge Justin fan. Until he forcefully defended my citizenship.

            I’m sure that during “The Troubles” there were more than a few Irish Canadians who donated to the IRA. I’m sure there were probably 1 or 2 that went over and participated in terrorism. Was there any talk from conservatives about revoking their citizenship? Wonder what the difference is now?

            It sure does put the “old stock Canadians” slip of the tongue into perspective.

          • MississaugaPeter says:

            Who are you referring to as “old stock”? My family and I became proud Canadian citizens when you had to wait 5 years before becoming a citizen.

            The IRA supporters you are referring to were not conspiring to terrorize Canadians on Canadian soil, like the Toronto 18.

          • reader says:

            “comes to Canada”?? Harper is stripping citizenship from a 27 yr old man who was born in Canada but his parents immigrated to Canada years before he was born. Since his parents were born in Pakistan, they believe the man is either entitled to or has citizenship in Pakistan although he has never lived in Pakistan.

            The law applies to anyone who has dual citizenship, whether they are born in Canada or otherwise. It would be safer for everyone if he is kept in prison in Canada if he is thought to be a threat. I don’t see the point of sending him to Pakistan where we have no control over him if he continues to be a threat to us

          • Ray says:

            Spot on, Peter.

          • Alan says:

            To reader: I saw the article and immediately thought “Charter Challenge”. Based on the case mentioned, I expect part/all of the law to be struck down by the SCOC. I always thought it would fail on the “no appeal” provision, but this would do it too.

            But not until after the election is long over.

            Does this mean that the law was simply part of the election long-game? Why else start invoking it in the middle of the campaign? A red-meat type of issue that rallies the base in time to vote, then dissipates in legal wrangling until overturned by the SCOC. The gov’t then shrugs, mutters to the base that they “did their best”, then drops the whole matter and gets on with the job of governing.

  4. Brent Crofts says:

    Sounds about right to me. As I’ve mentioned, when the election began I was ready to leave the Conservatives after voting for them since 2006 because I believed they had been in power for too long and were becoming stale. I was open to both the NDP and Liberals (I don’t care for the Greens and I wouldn’t vote BLOC even if I lived in Quebec). I found the NDP to be too ideological and loopy (Leap Manifesto, penis jokes about Auschwitz, ostensible aversion to the oil and gas industry etc.) although I actually view Mulcair as a serious centrist politician. I gave Trudeau the benefit of the doubt but he has disappointed me greatly with his hard left turns, sophmoric and contrived debate performances and recent positions on citizenship for terrorists, which I personally find reprehensible (although I concede that other people who I consider to be very reasonable disagree with me strongly on that point). Ultimately, this Liberal party is not the Big Red Tent Liberal party of Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chretien, and I’m not interested in it at all. So I now have no choice. I’m holding my nose and voting CPC just like I held my nose last year to vote for the Liberals in Ontario. This is certainly less than ideal, but the alternatives, as they were in the Ontario election, are simply unpalatable. I believe a lot of NON-PARTISAN people I know are leaning the same way. The partisans all made up their minds before the writ was dropped, as they almost always do.

  5. bobbie says:

    Headlines on Oct. 20th

    NDP blew it.
    Pollsters blew it.
    MSM blew it.
    Liberals regain official opposition status by a margin
    Harper majority or large minority.
    That thirst for change? Largely driven by those who blew it and those who think that it is THEY who call the ballot question.
    That Alberta protest vote? Misread completely by the NDP, MSM and polls.

  6. Scott Bowman says:

    The TPP, if signed this week, could throw a wrench into their rural Ontario plans. Dairy farmers may get spooked and some might vote non-conservative to “do something” to save their industry.

    • Matt says:

      Dairy farmers might not like it, but I figure dairy consumers will love it.

      We really do get screwed on milk, cheese and other dairy products price wise in Ontario.

      And if they remove tarrifs on manufacuring, minerals and commodities as CTV reported last night, that opens up a market of 800 million people for our manufacturing sector.

      • JAM says:

        Sure, but I don’t think people will cast a vote based (literally) on milk money. Milk farmers on the other hand…

        The more saliant point that might pull votes would be on the second thing you mentioned… the possible gains on manufacturing, minerals and commodities. Hard to say without seeing an agreement in principle.

      • Patrick says:

        Do you do realize that eliminating supply management will not guarantee lower prices for dairy? The price for dairy would become volatile like the price of gas. Who would everyone blame when the price starts to go up like it did in the EU and Australia?

    • Christian says:

      I would like to think so but more likely they’ll just resign themselves to their fate and sit on their hands rather than vote for an opposition party that either supports the niqab, won’t strip terrorists of Canadian citizenship or both. In either event – Harper wins.

    • Doug says:

      Most of the Dairy industry is located in Quebec. The number of farms under supply management is only about 18,000(some of which are actually poultry and eggs) representing about 8% of Canada’s farms. Supply management sounds like a big deal because it’s lobby is uber powerful but it really isn’t an issue that involves a ton of farmers in terms of raw numbers.

      • woody says:

        Except if the well off dairy farmers lose their quota they start converting to more cash cropping and drive prices up for all the other croppers.

  7. Jon says:

    I’m working on a campaign in Ontario. From the doorsteps, there are more people openly talking about voting strategically for ABC than I’ve ever heard. If the drift upward for the Liberals continues for the next week, NDP and Green voters will moved to Justin’s camp in significant numbers – efficient vote or otherwise. It’s not an October surprise, but it’s I would be that it’s coming soon, that it will be based on national polling averages and if it lends the Libs 1-3% in a given riding, it could be decisive.

    I don’t expect a major shift, but if the NDP reverses course sharply over the next week, the same shift could happen in the other direction.

  8. Vancouverois says:

    If it is a minority, I guess the main question is, when does Harper reconvene Parliament?

    If it’s early, the opposition parties may not have a deal in place for what happens if they unseat him. But if they do, he’ll have a hard time making the case that we need another election so soon when there’s another government ready to take over. BUT, a Liberal-NDP arrangement to vote down the largest party and install themselves may result in an outcry like the 2008 crisis, especially if the new coalition still depends on the Bloc…

    If it’s later, the opposition parties are far more likely to have hammered out a deal by then. But it will also be more plausible for Harper to say that we need another election, since it won’t be following quite as quickly on the heels of this one. Besides, the politics of the situation may change (as we’ve already seen in this election).

    Speaking of which, there’s still two and a half weeks to go — so this speculation may yet turn out to be pointless, since the CPC could shore up their support to majority levels in that time!

  9. Christian says:

    IF that happens Tom and Justin make nice (or else face the wrath of their respective parties and progressive voters everywhere), put some water in their wine, bring down the Harper minority after the Throne Speech and then walk arm in arm to go see the GG after he (hopefully being the Constitutional scholar that he is reputed to be) tells Harper to take his request for another election and stuff it, asks if there is some arrangement between the Libs and the NDP that will allow them to gain the Confidence of the House. That is what should happen and hopefully does. But. I still think Harper will get his majority and it will be based on the ‘Canadian Values’ narrative he’s been crafting and vote splitting between the Libs and NDP.

  10. Dork in East York says:

    The optimist me is hoping for a Liberal/NDP coalition. But Harper will do something snide to prevent that from happening.

  11. JAM says:

    It’s actually not huge… 15 year olds and younger (the age that it was compared against) can’t vote. I suppose you can think about it in future terms as being an advantage for Conservatives in the long run although I’m not sure that you can just automatically assume that as Gen-X ages the demographic advantage that the Tories hold over older Canadians will automatically transfer over.

    I don’t think I’ve seen any research that contends that peoples core political and social values change dramatically over time so the more likely outcome is that if it’s an advantage for the Conservatives in the long run it’ll be because the Conservative Party itself changes to reflect those values , which strikes me as likely although not assured.

    • Cory says:

      Well, the boomers/60s generation has dominated our culture and we can look at how that turned out since they started voting:

      PET (left) -> Mulroney (center right, cut spending) -> Chretien (cut spending even more) -> Harper (right)

      Seems like the trend has been that as the boomers got older, the parties in power became more and more “conservative”

      • JAM says:

        …and how many big things were actually undone by that string of leaders? Did Mulroney Stand up and say the State has a place in the Bedrooms of the Nation? Has Harper banned gay marrage? etc. etc.

        I would argue that all we see there is exactly what I mentioned… we don’t see parties in power really becaming more conservative we see what it means to be conservative becoming more progressive.

        It’s all relative.

      • Derek Pearce says:

        Fiscally I would agree, socially not agree. Canadians seem to mostly be close to each other in opinion on how the government should manage money. But there are also non-monetary issues that have been settled and in that case the large-C Conservative parties have had to move left, such as abortion and gay marriage (or even liquor laws and sunday shopping in decades past). I predict in 10 years this niquab brou-haha will be as forgotten and settled as turbans in the RCMP, ie no biggie.

      • Derek Pearce says:

        The parties have become more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal. There are a host of issues that are settled now where the parties all moved left–none of them will touch abortion, gay marriage, or even (to use decades past examples) liquor laws or sunday shopping.

        (Apologies if this is a repeat, first reply went down the wordpress comment hole).

      • ottlib says:

        What I see in that summary is just the 150 year old voting pattern of Canadians where they alternate between the Liberals and a Conservative party.

        We politicos need to remember that non-political Canadians really do not care or know the difference between Left, Right and Centre.

        I still remember having an argument with a friend of mine, who is one of those Canadians, about his intentions on voting for Mike Harris during his first election as leader of the PCPO. My friend stated that he was voting for him because he promised to reduce his taxes. I stated he could only do that by running a deficit and/or slashing social programs. My friends response was Mr. Harris promised not to do that. That was a face palm moment for me.

        A couple of years later Mr. Harris came up again. My friend was very upset with him for breaking his promise not to cut social programs. That was a double face-palm moment for me.

        The average Canadian is absolutely ignorant when it comes to politics and that ignorance is growing. So to attach some larger meaning to the pattern you indicate is probably not valid. It is just an indication of a habit. It is a habit that will repeat itself. My guess is it will happen this election but if it does not then it will certainly happen during the next one.

  12. MississaugaPeter says:

    Just pathetic!

    The amateurs/know-it-alls running the NDP (really, your still, communications director was telling the pope to F*** himself just 2 years ago) and Libs (who squandered 40%+ support for over a year) blew it. Now if they do not work together, they will not be working together after the election either. And both leaders and their entourages better deservedly get booted to the curbside by their respective parties when Harper gets a majority.

    It sucks that you know they are not going to do the right thing and work together, and the only hope is that there is a Harper scandal in the last 3 weeks.

    • Christian says:

      Agree. Couldn’t have said it better. The “progressive” parties had a HUGE opportunity and they blew it. Either thru hubris (i.e.: picking a ‘name’ over substance to be leader) or by being timid (i.e.: drinking the ‘deficits-are-evil’ kool aid). Its almost unforgivable. the only way they can make it up is by turfing Harper the first chance they get and coming to a workable arrangement in the event of a Conservative minority. Harper won’t make it easy tho (i.e.; calling a legitimate parliamentary action a ‘coup’ and a ‘slap in the faces of Canadian democracy’). So, I hope they have the balls to take him down. But I’m not confident of that.

  13. Matt says:

    Yeah, I’ve noticed in this weeks Abacus and Ipsos that as we get closer to E Day the “time for change” numbers are coming down and Harper’s personal numbers are going up.

    • ottlib says:

      Abacus actually indicated that Mr. Harper’s approval to disapproval rating went down in the ROC and while it went up in Quebec it is still well into negative territory and well behind that of his two chief opponents.

      The same poll indicated that 74% of respondents wanted change. I am not certain if you are aware of this but that is an unprecedented number. The last time we had a change of government at the federal level the desire for change never went above the 65% mark.

  14. tom paine says:

    If Stephen Harper wins a majority we will get five more years of

    fasciness: the gradual enactment of dictatorial laws by a government ruling as a false flag democracy.

    If it were a book it’s title would be

    “For whom the frog boils.”

  15. Matt says:

    Gotta love the hypocrisy from Unifor president Jerry Diaz.

    His union has been spending millions on anti Harper advertising claiming Harper is killing high paying union jobs.

    Now we hear Diaz had a secret meeting with Tom Mulcair to tell him to STFU and stop criticising the $15 billion deal the Harper government signed with the Saudi’s because it’s providing high paying union jobs for his members.


  16. Cory says:

    It will be interesting if the NDP are the official opposition again, though that is looking less likely.

    If that happens, the Libs would never prop up an NDP PM. On the other hand, the NDP would not prop up a Lib government that has less seats than they do.

  17. Sean says:

    To the best of my recollection, not a single poll predicted a Conservative Majority in 2011. I think a Tory Majority is still within reach. There is still 2.5 weeks to go.

    As much as I am dissatisfied with Trudeau’s team, there is a remote chance that they may accidentally stumble into a minority government ass backwards. In fairness, Justin’s hair cut is polling through the roof and does have the potential to move 60 + seats.

    If the Tories get a minority. I think Harper announces his resignation to take effect a year out and governs as a lame duck during the Leadership Process, ala Chretien / Martin ’03. Trudeau abstains or folds on every confidence vote.

    People seem to assume that if the Tories win a minority there will be a coalition with the NDP and Liberals. I think that is improbable. It is unlikely now that the NDP will have the most seats of the two losing parties, so the Liberals would be in charge of any such arrangement. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Mulcair will prop up Trudeau. He’d be drawn and quartered by his grassroots at Centreblock.

    So, I think we are in for more years of Tory rule.

    • zing says:

      The polls at the closing week of the campaign had Harper at 38%, which would predict a bare majority or a just missed majority. He obtained 39.5 and a bare majority. The polls are not ALWAYS wrong…

      • Doug says:

        Nope the polls were wrong, Ipsos being the closest though all underestimated CPC support….last polls during week before 2011 election for the CPC.

        Forum, 36
        EKOS, 34
        Nanos, 37
        Harris-Decima, 36
        Abacus, 37
        Angus Reid, 37
        Leger, 36
        Ipsos, 38

    • ottlib says:

      Polls cannot be used to predict the future. They are a measurement of opinion derived from a pollster asking specific questions and when the polling estimates are published they are already out-of-date. Remember that depending on the size of the sample most polls are often taken from 2 to 7 days before the estimates are published. During the compressed time period of an election campaign that can be crucial.

      As a result, most polls that are published on the eve of E-day are usually measuring opinion from 2 or more days before. That is extremely important because it is during the last couple of days of a campaign when alot of people make their final decisions on who they are going to vote for.

      In the last three elections those “late breakers” moved to the Conservatives, which is why their pre-E-Day polling numbers were lower than the final vote percentage.

      But before Conservatives get too comfortable with the idea that this might put them over the top it should be noted that for the 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2004 elections it was the Liberal share of the vote that was underestimated in the polls published on the eve of those elections. It was not until 2006 that the polls underestimated the Conservative share of the vote.

      So the question that will be answered on October 19 is whether this time will be like 2008 and 2011 when late breakers moved to the incumbent party or whether it will be like 2006 when they decided it was time for a change and moved to the party they found to be the most viable alternative to the incumbent.

      My gut is telling me that they will not break to the incumbent this time.

  18. Jack D says:

    Turns out the extra long campaign is working in Harper’s favour after all. Not in the way he expected it to though. Instead of just trying to drain his opponents of their resources he’s ended softening the appeal of change just a little bit. I guess what really helps Harper is him being away from the Hill and his prime-ministerial responsibilities.

    On the other hand, this really means shit-all. If the hunger for change has receded a bit with 20 some days to go, its still very much possible for that desire to ramp up again closer to the 19th. So I wouldn’t say Harper is succeeding at winning voters over, just succeeding in not reminding voters why they dislike him so much.

    I’m a little awed at Conservatives rejoicing at the idea of a Harper minority. I feel as if Conservative supporters aren’t grasping the ramifications of a minority for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. In fact, I’m surprised Harper is hammering the “strong, stable majority” line this time around. A minority government would erode so quickly under the Conservatives because the opposition will take the first chance to topple it. The Conservatives under Harper won’t/can’t work with the opposition so a throne speech is out of the question. All in all, we might be headed back to the polls very soon despite some prognostications being made about party finances.


    • Vancouverois says:

      A minority government would erode so quickly under the Conservatives because the opposition will take the first chance to topple it.

      …and replace it with what, exactly?

      If the opposition parties topple the government without first coming to an agreement on who will take the Conservatives’ place, they will plunge the country into another, unwanted election. Which is tantamount to inviting Canadians to return another Conservative majority.

      So what agreement would they come to? Would the Liberals support an NDP minority? Would the NDP support the Liberals? Would they create a coalition, in spite of opposition within their own parties?

      The final seat counts will affect what happens, of course.

      Note that while Trudeau and Mulcair have each sworn not to “support” Harper continuing as Prime Minister:

      1) Trudeau and Mulcair are each proven liars (for example, witness Trudeau’s “open nominations” and Mulcair’s recent claim that he was “at home” during the big federalist rally in the 1995 Referendum)

      2) They can weasel out of a confrontation by having their parties abstain in confidence votes, and then claiming that an abstention doesn’t count as “support”. (Yes, I know. They could still do it.)

      3) If Harper makes a commitment to resign after a year (or, say, after the nation’s 150th birthday celebration in 2017?), the opposition leaders may declare themselves satisfied with that.

      4) If election night goes badly for them, either opposition party leader may resign right then and there. That would very likely let the Conservatives stay in power at least until a new leader is selected, and maybe even longer depending on the new leader’s platform.

      The bottom line is that each party leader will do whatever he thinks will advance his party’s fortunes, promises be damned.

      So I would not be too quick to believe that a Conservative minority will fall at the first vote of Parliament.

      • MississaugaPeter says:

        Well thought out Reply, with the exception of a word in the line:

        The bottom line is that each party leader will do whatever he thinks will advance his party’s fortunes …”

        Should read:

        The bottom line is that each party leader will do whatever he thinks will advance his OWN fortunes …”

  19. Ted H says:

    I am a senior, I always vote, but there is no f******* way I would ever vote Conservative. There is nothing in their platform of any real substance for me or my grandchildren. I am embarrassed for my country with them in power and what’s more, they seem to relish in their ignorance and that of their base of supporters. In term of really moving the country forward and improving it for future generations, they are a know nothing, do nothing bunch of con men and women.

    • J.S. says:

      Ted H: The country is doing rather well under the Conservatives. That is not enough substance for you and your grandchildren? Under the NDP or Liberals your grandchildren will inherit a much larger debt to pay. That is, unless they position themselves among the takers rather than makers.

      • Ted H says:

        The country is doing rather well because the country is doing rather well, it has nothing to do with the Conservatives. Perhaps without them the country would do rather better. Am I afraid of a debt for my grand kids if the Liberals or NDP formed government? No, the Conservatives are not so great with the economy as they like to make people believe and Conservative governments both Federal and Provincial have run up large debts, Harper himself spend lavishly all of the surplus the Liberals left him, NDP provincial governments have run balanced budgets. No, the Conservatives by nature of their political philosophy have no lock on sound fiscal management and the constituency that puts them in power are often the takers, not the makers, you know, the famous corporate welfare bums. Cut expenses, lower taxes, hold firm, it that all the Conservatives can offer? I am afraid so. I want politicians who will invest in the future, take some well considered risks and make the country thrive, not just do rather well.

        • J.S says:

          Well, soon you might get just what you want. In my opinion, this is one of the “root causes” of misery: decision made on the basis of what one or a group want, instead of what is within reason and demonstrably correct.

    • KBab says:

      Ted H, I really enjoy your posts. They are rays of light in Canada’s Dark Age. Somehow, just knowing there is someone with thoughts like these out there makes the political miasma we exist in a little more bearable.

      I was thinking today, as I walked the dog along the river, how utterly unbearable and pitilessly hopeless life must seem and has been for political progressives during most of Russian modern history.

      If Harper was a kettle, he’d still call Putin black. The irony is evident. No need to hit anyone with a frying pan.

  20. Steve Warnar says:

    Good News
    Polls are erratic
    Pollsters,Pundents, Politicians don’t know what to make of it.
    Canadian Voters are winning !!!

  21. lou says:

    The privacy of voting booth is an incredible place. It is at that moment that you get a voice in determining your future. As we saw in BC, internal polling is far more accurate than the jumble fed to us in the media. You want to know who is winning, watch for desperation. The NDP and the Trudeau’s are rolling out announcements that are so contradictory that it is obvious they are losing the race. Poor ethnic numbers, lets increase immigration. Eco-hippies are upset? Say no to pipelines (while saying yes to more trains? DUH!!). Only one party has been consistent (poorly consistent, but consistent). While it is true they need a spanking, just as in BC, a whole lot of well paid union workers are going to walk in there and vote against their leadership desires. The longer this goes on, the bigger seat count I see Harper getting. He owns the west, and he is climbing in Ontario (Thank You Ms. Wynne) and Quebec (Niqab). I cant wait to see the sad face on Mr. Mansbridge when he announces 175 seats for the conservatives.
    As an aside… This whole thing with Justin Vs. Pierre. Either he accepts that the only reason he is in this position is because of his name, which is shallow, or he actually thinks that he is in this position on his own merit, which is deranged. Yup, the laughs from a FRIENDLY audience said it all. Insert joke here.

  22. Adam says:

    I enjoy the banter on this blog – definitely not a talking point regurgitation station which is nice….

    For record, I’m a proud Tory. I think all governments, as human constructs, make mistakes and this one’s no different. But I think they get the big things right and that in general, we’re moving in the right direction. I think a majority is a very real possibility and I’ve thought that since the beginning.

    All parties ignore the very real issue coming down the tracks and that is the (now official as noted above in W’s post about Stats Can) demographics issues we’ll continue to face and the burdens it will put on our already stretched, inefficient and pitifully silo’d social programs.

    One thing though I think needs to be debated is this notion that if CPC wins a minority they’ll automatically be defeated. I just don’t get that. If the NDs and Libs #1 priority is to remove Stephen Harper what does that say about their policies and their true motivations? If power is all they care about, why didn’t get merge yet? Why not lay it out for voters? What is Harper is 5 seats shy of a majority? He’s gone? Don’t think it will be that easy. Say whatever you want about Stephen Harper; personally, I’ve never understood the vitriol given his program and record is largely moderate, centre-right save for a roasts of delicious CDN beef to the party faitfhul (justice reform to me is the clearest example of that which I agree is debatable).

    My main point is I don’t think the Harper haters have thought through just how they’ll unseat him. I heard Throne Speech, etc., but I just can’t see it. Had Harper on the ropes once and the foot was taken off his throat. It was, in my view, the last time he’ll misread his position in a minority situation. And given the denials of coalition by Trudeau, I just don’t see them being able to defeat a minority gov at the very first opportunity they have without looking blatantly power-hungry and opportunistic. And wait too long, we’ll be into an election again.

    • Michael Bluth says:

      Great point about what happens after a Conservative minority.

      I think a lot of it depends on the makeup of the house after the election.

      Who gets to be Prime Minister in such a coalition?

      Can you see Mulcair subjugating his ego to serve under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? What if the NDP get more seats than the Liberals?

      My guess is we’ll be back in 2006 with a more experienced Harper as PM.

    • Vancouverois says:

      I totally agree — see my reply to Jack D, above.

    • Mike says:

      “what does that say about their policies and their true motivations? ”

      Adam, you do realize the political parties sole reason for existing is to gain power? Do you think Harper and the CPC have some more noble purpose than to gain power? Because the reality is that no matter how good or bad a party’s policies are, they can not implement them unless they are in power.

  23. Adam says:

    ‘Scuse the typos. Waiting to fight a parking ticket.. GRRR.

  24. fan590 says:

    Biggest story so far is how Mulcair has under performed. His “Father knows best” style of speaking is good for the house but simply annoying outside of it.

    Expect Quebec to vote Liberal and the 905 will go Liberal.

    • JAM says:

      If by Quebec you mean the greater Montreal Metro then yes… I would expect that. But highly unlikely for QC and the rural areas.

    • Jack D says:


      That approach has come off more condescending and boring than comforting. He’s been trying to sell the NDP as a safe option but ended up getting lost in his own “loveable grandpa” tone. Now the NDP is going full-out Conservative in their attack ads on Trudeau now. If there was ever a war-room in complete disarray, its the NDP’s war room.

      But what I find so amusing is whats going on right now in Quebec. There is a huge shift taking place in the narrative towards Thomas Mulcair. French media is starting to pick up on contradictions and incongruities in Thomas Mulcair’s message in a way that english media never has. There are a lot of questions being raised on his record as a provincial minister and questions about his credibility. Its almost exactly the opposite of what happened to Jack Layton in 2011 at this point in the election.

      If Duceppe nails the TVA debate, expect to say big gains to the Bloc in nationalist heartland at Mulcair’s expense.

      • fan590 says:

        Jack D,

        Excellent post.

        It wasn’t long ago that Warren was telling the Dippers to calm down and stop measuring the drapes. I also posted similar warnings.

        Mulcair isn’t an experienced battle tested “Smil’in Jack”. He comes across poorly, and lacks any pizzazz and NDP are lucky to be over 20% come election time.

        This is Justin vs. Conservatives ‘get out the vote’.

        • Jack D says:

          Right you are.

          They let themselves get caught up in their own hubris and glee after the Alberta election and got scared into running a half-baked front runner strategy plus they totally miscalculated the tenacity of the Grits. It was complacency that did them in.

          I was listening to a podcast by Evan Solomon today with David Coletto of Abascus Data, and he questioned why the NDP are now attacking Justin Trudeau and Liberals when their problem in Quebec is Duceppe and the Bloc. This just goes to show how out of their element the NDP is. The NDP isn’t going to succeed in shoring up their support by becoming Conservatives.

          This race is shaping up to be what it has always been: a race between Liberals and Conservatives. The NDP aren’t up to primetime.

          • Vancouverois says:

            Ah, but how would they attack the Bloc?

            If they take a strong federalist/anti-language-law/pro-multicultural stance and condemn the Bloc’s positions, they only alienate the voters they’re trying to win back. But if they try to out-do the Bloc by adopting pro-separatist/pro-language-law/anti-multicultural stand, they alienate voters in the rest of Canada even further.

            Basically, the NDP’s shameful duplicity on all these issues is coming home to roost. The only way they can expand is by taking Liberal votes.

  25. JBG says:

    As a betting man, I see Team Harper well on its way to approx. 150 seats thanks to superior voter ID, a huge war chest, and generally excellent organization to GOTV. They could easily hit the magic number of 170 with some unfortunate vote splits.

    In my view, a CPC majority is very possible even if their national popular support remains mired in the low 30s. Presuming national voter turnout of 60% (a reasonable assumption), at what point do we become concerned with 1 in 5 adult Canadians granting a party – ANY party – a majority government for the next 4 to 5 year? Bring on electoral reform.

  26. Christian says:

    Harper’s narrative.


    Of all the parties running, he’s really the only one that has an actual narrative. No other way to put it. Its ugly. “Us vs. Them”. Its not the way I want to think Canada has become or this is how enough people in this country now think that it will give the Tories another win but after enduring 4 years of Rob Ford who despite everything was and is STILL popular, I’m afraid its the way it now is. I think progressives finally need to come to terms with this fact, stop tilting at windmills, get serious, get together and assemble an alternative narrative that can defeat this.

    • KBab says:

      Trudeau has a narrative, its called lets rebuild Canada and the future with it.

      Lets invest and protect.

      Lets put the House back in order.

      Make Parliament a place of good governance again.

      Harper is anti-narrative.

      He is “The nabob of negativity,” to quote my father.

  27. zing says:

    Yes, as of right now, the Conservatives will “get a minority”. But then…so will the Liberals and the NDP. Doesn’t do SH any good at all.

  28. !o! says:

    I think it’s still close between a minority LPC/CPC outcome– the NDP vote is starting to collapse– given that the anti-Harper sentiment is quite strong amongst the non-CPC core, this could cause (and may already be causing) a coalescence around the LPC as the party with the greatest chance to beat the conservatives.

  29. ottlib says:

    While the demographic data from StatsCan certainly has implications for policy makers going forward I am not so certain that it will have as much impact on the election as some think. It has been my experience that seniors are the most loyal of voters. They have voted for the same party for decades regardless of who is leader or their policies and that such loyalty tends to be split rather evenly.

    My own sources have had some fascinating things to say to me.

    According to them all of the Conservative held ridings in the Ottawa area, except the Kanata one, are in play. Even Pierre Poilievre seems to be in a dogfight with a very strong Liberal candidate. I would be surprised if he lost but in the previous three elections he practically ran away with the victory so it is interesting that this time he seems to have to work harder for it. There is a strong possibility that the Liberals could pick up several seats here.

    In Leeds-Grenville, where I grew up, a friend of mine has stated that they are getting a much better response at the door than in previous elections. As well, he related a story to me about one of his relatives calling him up a few days ago rather upset because a Conservative campaign worker had just told him that the Liberals are planning on reinstating the long gun registry. Unverifiable hearsay to be certain so I am not putting too much stock in that story but if it is true then it is telling.

    I went on reserve duty again this past weekend and the number of Liberal signs in Belleville and Trenton, Ontario, and in Prince Edward County outnumbered the Conservative signs by a fair margin. Counting signs is not the best way to gauge party support but it should be noted for the last decade that riding has been a sea of blue, both provincially and federally, so it is significant that this time there is more red than blue.

  30. Matt says:

    The NDP are rumoured to have just purchased a massive ad buy to attack Trudeau.

    • JAM says:

      Massive? I heard ad buy but not massive ad buy.

      Hey Warren, you’re more inside baseball then anyone else here… is that a good move? Strikes me as risky. Can’t say I can ever recall the official opposition putting out ad buys against the third party in the HOC so I have no historical reference on whether that works.

      • Matt says:

        The Libs were the third party in the last session of parliament.

        Most polls are now showing the NDP in third in this election.

        They have most likely resigned themselves to not being able to win even a minority, so they now have to focus on keeping Official opposition.

        • JAM says:

          See, that’s just it… that’s what I think, and that’s what you think, and it’s probably what many others will think. That they’re playing for 2nd place. But ask yourself this… if you we’re a swing voter are you really all that likely to swing towards the guy that doesn’t seem in it to win it? That’s why I think it’s a risky move.

          I gotta think that if this was a solid play that someone would have done it before now.

          • Vancouverois says:

            How does attacking the Liberals imply that the NDP isn’t trying to win? They want as many seats as they can get — and those seats don’t have to come from the Conservatives, as long as the NDP’s final total is higher.

          • JAM says:

            It’s the optics of it. That he’s more concerned with beating someone other then the Prime Minister.

            When I think of a hypothetical NDP-Liberal swing voter I picture someone whose vote motivator is “change from the status quo” he’s running the risk of not being seen as the guy most seeking said change by not engaging said status quo.

            I mean, a seat is a seat is a seat, that is true… but if this wasn’t a risky move wouldn’t we have seen this strategy from campaign day 1?

          • Vancouverois says:

            I think that early on, the NDP failed to attack the Liberals because that would have accepted the premise that Trudeau was a real threat, and the NDP didn’t want that. They wanted to ignore the Liberals completely, and present themselves as the only realistic alternative to the Tories. Hence Mulcair refusing to attend any debate that Harper didn’t also attend. They wanted to give all a choice between only a blue door and an orange door, as it were.

            Now that the Liberals are even with or perhaps even ahead of the NDP, the NDP can no longer pretend that they aren’t a threat. So instead they’re attacking the Liberals full on — as perhaps they should have from day 1. They no doubt expected that the Conservatives would do the dirty work of knocking Trudeau down, so the NDP wouldn’t have to, and that the result would be to drive more Liberal voters to the NDP than to the Conservatives; but that doesn’t seem to be what happened. So now the Dippers have to get their own hands dirty.

            You may have noticed that the Liberals are returning fire, by the way. If it is a mistake, both parties are making it.

          • JAM says:

            I havn’t heard that… link?

            Regardless, I didn’t say it was a mistake I said it was risky… and yes it’s risky for both sides.

          • JAM says:

            Incidentially, I watched the At Issue panel on CBC yesterday… Coyne & Hebert were basically of the same opinion (that it looks like playing for 2nd place).

      • Vancouverois says:

        Makes sense to me. However you look at it, the NDP has always been competing primarily against the Liberal party for votes. Of course they’re going to undermine Trudeau and the Liberals as much as they possibly can. What do they have to lose?

        I don’t think there’s any sort of problem as far as their relative standing goes. Is anyone seriously going to complain that it’s beneath the dignity of the Official Opposition to attack the third party, or something? Doubt it.

        The Liberals as Official Opposition may not have attacked the NDP much in the past (aside from those desperate last days of the 2011 election); but the dynamics then were dramatically different.

  31. Luke says:

    It’s anybody’s guess. Really, I could envision six different outcomes that don’t seem too unlikely: majority or minority for any of the three parties. Because (1) I don’t get it, but lots of people seem to fall back on the Conservatives; as it stands now, they are obviously in minority territory, and they don’t need that much of a shift in public opinion (or favourable voter turnout demographics) to get a majority; (2) conceivably, those of us in the dump-the-Conservatives camp might clue into a main alternative and vote accordingly. If so, that could lead to either NDP or Liberal majority; and (3) if option 2 happens but in muted form, a minority NDP or Liberal government is easily imaginable.

    In conclusion, no one has a clue and everyone is full of shit (me included), so we should hedge our bets and guess that every vaguely conceivable outcome could happen. But I think I just sucked the fun out of it. What an asshole.

  32. Kelly says:

    Well, I’m seeing a lot of Liberal signs in areas of Winnipeg that have supported the NDP. I think enough NDP voters will swing to the Liberals at the last minute if the NDP is around 5 to 7 points lower than the Liberals in the Polls a day before the election. I admit I despise Harper’s brand of conservatism (it isn’t really — it’s actually corporatist, reactionary, authoritarianism.) so one could say I’m just demonstrating wishful thinking, but I don’t think I am.

    I work in marketing, including market research, and I can tell you that polling is a mess. There’s isn’t enough good data out there anymore to correct for selection bias in the samples — for example 20% of Saskatchewan census towns are “gone”. There wasn’t enough data collected to build an accurate profile. Similar numbers in other provinces. So there are fewer choices available for polling companies to correct their samples. A lot also depends on how well the Liberals can activate the younger vote and get them out. Some of their web communications are pretty decent, making it easy to ensure you are properly registered, getting directions and rides to polling stations, email and text reminders, etc. It might have an impact. I hope it does, but I don’t think anyone knows, for sure.

    If the cons do win — and especially if they win because of a deliberately bigoted campaign strategy — then we really have nothing to say for ourselves. We will be guaranteed a future of endless war, rising violence and poverty at home and a government more emboldened to push us around. Harper can’t keep you safe. Anyone can attack anyone anywhere, any time, any way. He will just tap your phone, read your e-mail, and spend your money enriching arms dealers and securing his own power while pretending to “protect you”.

    I’m not exaggerating and I’m not just being bitter in advance. If you want less security, more risk, and more of your money wasted on bombs and guns, and less of it spent on the common good then vote Harper. Otherwise if you are inclined to vote NDP and the Liberals are more than 5 points ahead of the NDP on October 18 — hold your nose, just this once, and vote Liberal. Don’t sit it out, either, get out and vote. A big enough shift will get us a Liberal Minority and the NDP can work with that. We got Medicare, CPP, OAS and more because of that kind of co-operation in the past. Governments matter. Let’s get rid of the good for nothing one we have now.

    • Windsurfer says:

      Finally, a voice of reason on this blog. The rest of the 60 posts have been depressing to say the least.

      I agree with Diefenbaker that poles are for dogs.

      There is a momentum building in this country but nobody can put their finger on what is happening.

      Let’s see if the Trudeau rally in Brampton this Sunday is a barn-burner. If not, 4 more years. If yes, then Bessie Bar The Door. As in, real electricity for the last 3 weeks of this endless trip to the dentist.

      I’m auditioning for a comedy role, somewhere.

      • MississaugaPeter says:

        Of course Brampton is going to be a massive turnout for the Liberals. Unfortunately it means nothing more than any other 15-30 second clip on television.

        What matters are the tv/radio/web ads the last 15 days. And the email/Facebook messages and Thanksgiving Day dinner table discussions the last 15 days.

        If the NDP did just now make a big media buy, their election team including communications director better get dumped right after the election. That means that they more likely than not got all the crap spaces. It reveals again that they are not ready for prime time. A professional run campaign would have made the ad buys a long time ago to get the choice positions.

    • dean sherratt says:

      “Otherwise if you are inclined to vote NDP and the Liberals are more than 5 points ahead of the NDP on October 18 — hold your nose, just this once, and vote Liberal. – See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/09/kcccc-day-59-we-grow-old-we-grow-old/#comments

      The phrase I want to concentrate on it “just this once”. The Liberals have regularly “asked” the NDP to deliver up its seats and popular vote to the Liberals to ward off the Conservatives. In 1974, in 1980, in 1988, in 1993 and now in 2015, they want NDP voters to swallow their beliefs so that the Liberals, Canada’s Natural Governing Party, can form the government. Once or twice it is like heroin, pleasant, even euphoric and you have saved Canada in the process but more, you permanently stunt the existence of third parties who deserve to grow in accordance with their policies.

      • Scotian says:

        This is factually true, but unlike those prior times we have now seen a “conservative” PM the likes of which this nation has NEVER seen before, and for those that are NOT Harperites what we are seeing, be we Lib, Green, or Dipper, is horrifying and massively damaging to our sense of our nation and ourselves as a people. So this time it carries more weight than normal, regardless of the way it was used/abused in the past, the real question is how well this will be seen and accepted in this election by those that would normally not swallow this line again.

        Personally, I think the numbers that will be the real early indicator of where this election is going on E-day are the turnout numbers. If we see a heavier than usual for the last few elections, then I think we can safely presume the change dynamic is in play, otherwise it is a total crap shoot with alas Harper currently looking to be the one most likely to roll his bones.

      • KBab says:

        Nothing grows under Harper. Unless its corporate, privatized, or tar with sand in it.

  33. Craig McKie says:

    Re: “For the first time ever, there are now more people in Canada age 65 and over than there are under age 15, according to Statistics Canada.“

    I find this mildly amusing since Statistics Canada had me traveling all over the country with a road show canned speech predicting this certainty 20 odd years ago and urging people to get ready for the change of circumstances.

    I think it is important to remember that the people now 65-70 were the same folks who formed the basis of the new left, The Weathermen, The Waffle, and associated other Left organs in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I often take some comfort from reading the obits in the local paper these days…because the roster is filled with newly expired reflexive Tory zombie voters in their late 70s and 80s plus. My own judgement is that the critical split point is birth in or after 1943. The mentality disjuncture has always been there for me with people born just a couple of years before me and I was born in 1944. Growing up, I met Leftists of all sorts from the mildest of Methodist do-gooders to members of the Moscow line party. Never disturbed me one bit. Something about dealing with people as individuals and not members of some sinister social formation. However, I will make an exception for the Harper CPC… it really does resemble a sinister social formation with its dogmatic theocrat backbone.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Nonsense… there are lots of us Reagan/Thatcher Conservatives that grew up as voters in the 1980’s… for us, Mulroney was a pale imitation and Joe Clark was a brain fart. By the 80’s, most 60’s and 70’s hippies, had already sold the VW camper buses, moved to the suburbs and bought Volvo Station wagons and corduroys. Mulroney won both elections with huge margins as a result. Like Churchill is ascribed with saying (but really didn’t) “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain”. 🙂

      Chretien governed to the right of Mulroney and was very popular for it (fiscally at least although the occasional leftward or anti-american outburst drove us more conservative minded folks nuts) and when it seemed like Martin was going further right, he was at atmospheric levels in the polls.. and he was able to knock off Chretien without Canadians casting a single vote. The Alliance and Conservatives were hopeless. He then tried to be everything for everybody when he started going left, right, left, sideways and when his ratings fell the Liberals imploded into recriminations. When it seemed like Harper had a better plan, the Conservatives won. The NDP with its left wing policies never cracked 20%.

      That’s why I always laugh when I hear talk of the Liberals and NDP joining forces… if that ever happened, the Conservatives would then have room to move even closer to the centre. Once that happens, enough Blue Liberals will leave the new Dipperal party and join the new more “Progressive” Conservatives who would then rule for generations. This has always been Harper’s end game. As much as the left demonizes him, he’s not and has never been a far right social Conservative.

      I believe this is why he’s been perfectly comfortable in his own skin and hasn’t panicked despite being third in the polls for much of the election. It’s almost a guaranteed win/win for him either way. He knows that if he stays the course fiscally and keeps the base satisfied he has 30% of voters who would rather die than vote for the current Liberals or NDP – and that gets him at least a leading minority based on seat distribution where his voters are compared to the rest. Ideally, he just needs 5-10% of the rest to govern with a majority which would very probably knock the remaining two parties into joining forces once and for all. Even if he doesn’t get his majority and he isn’t crafty enough to hang on until the next election (and I’d NEVER underestimate him on that front), the Liberals/NDP will have to join forces at least informally which will very likely cause at least one of them to implode to or join the other formally and from that mess, he (or his replacement) will be able to move closer to the centre and pick up enough disaffected supporters to come back and form a strong majority that will last for generations. He’s always thought of the long game.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Absolutely. I have some quibbles about your characterization of Chretien, but your conclusion that Harper is playing the long game is spot on.

  34. Ridiculosity says:

    Liberal win.

    Ignore the polls.

    Most ordinary, everyday Canadians do.

  35. Joe says:

    Over heard at the mall food court the other day. A bunch of high school girls were eating their lunch and talking about school. One of them joked that she felt like Justin Trudeau regarding an up coming test, “She just not ready”. The group laughed and one said, “You have nice hair though”. I didn’t think the Conservative ads would have that kind of impact on non political teenagers but ….

    I suspect the Conservatives will gain a majority. The other leaders are just that bad. I think the campaign started with a need for change but has become a change to what? Jihadi Justin? Tommy the Commie? Boozy Betty? No thanks I’ll stick with what we have. However going forward I believe that before the next election we could nave a completely new set of leaders to deal with.

    • KBab says:

      Oh Joe, I see you love alliteration too.

      Here’s a Godwinism of my own, since you open the door so wide.

      Heil Harper.

      Read it and bleep.

  36. Lou says:

    Im no Lib , I come hear because W.K. knows his politics and has great strategic vision…Also , I read the Tyee . BC”s leftie rag , even though its like volentarily choking on a chicken bone….and I do regularily to see the other views out there …. SO , this is the best and most realistic path that would take place if Harper wins the most seats…. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/29/Tories-Path-to-Power/

    • KBab says:

      Jeez Lou, last I checked, choking is involuntary.

      Voluntary choking on the other hand would be voting for a government that is so partisan and so pro-corporate that it is anti-government. Well, unless you feel governance is really only a platform to eradicate all opposition, campaign constantly (with tax$’s), gerrymander specifically, deceive continually & obfuscate absolutely.

    • Matt says:

      I LOL’d at that article.

      They called Peter MacKay a “right winger”

      He’s as red as a Red Tory can be.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Yep. How can such people expect anyone to take them seriously? Do they really not understand that their overblown rhetoric completely destroys their credibility?

        Then again, from some of the comments on this blog, it seems they don’t.

    • Vancouverois says:

      Alternatively, if it’s a strong minority Conservative result, he could just summon Parliament immediately and essentially dare the opposition to overthrow the government right away.

      If they do, he gets to make a bunch of noise about how it’s another illegitimate coup; when the unnatural Liberal-NDP alliance collapses a few months later and a new election is called, the Conservatives win a decisive majority.

      If they don’t, the opposition parties look weak and alienate their most devoted supporters. Harper ends the session before they change their minds, and doesn’t reconvene Parliament again until he has to. By that time, even if he loses the next vote of confidence, it will have been over a year. Parliamentary convention will favour holding a completely new election.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Great article… even more fun reading the hysterical comments from the Left about it. Thanks! That said, I’ve found that Warren’s site is my go to place now because of the respectful and measured discussions that occur here on all sides. Yes there are the occasional blatantly partisan outburst (I’m sure I’m guilty once in a while myself!) but by and large, it is great to have a place where we can debate the fine points of policy and strategy without being called a troll or having 200 robot votes thumb up or down us. Having Warren inject his considered wisdom and kick off the starting blocks for discussion just adds to the fun. What are we all going to do with ourselves if there is a majority? 🙂

  37. ottlib says:

    Overheard this joke this evening at a restaurant.

    Man telling joke says:

    “My friend says that the Liberals are going to win the election but I tell him it is not trudeau.”

  38. James Calhoun says:

    Hello all,

    I’m a lurker here, (and a Tory voter in the suburbs of BC) and I’ve really enjoyed reading the vast majority of the comments on this blog: they’re literate, literary and astute. I wish all political discussions were as interesting as what appears here. Okay…enough smoke blowing….

    I have a question/premise I wanted your collective opinion on –does the success of the Jays have a potential effect on the election? If they get through the first round there is going to be wall to wall coverage of them across the country. I’m already seeing way more baseball in my twitter/facebook feeds, and I imagine it will seriously bump the election from the front pages (or whatever the online equivalent is) as we all jump on the bandwagon. If the first opponent were New York, and the Jays managed to beat them the nation will be thrilled. And not as engaged with the election as they might otherwise be.

    Round two of the playoffs would then see the Jays play on Saturday the 17th and the day of the election, being games two and three of the series. I think this scenario has got to drive down the turnout, as extremely casual voters will be rushing home to watch the game, not queue at polling stations.

    This would seem to make the organization to get out the vote to the early ballots even more critical than usual. Is that fair?

    I’d also suggest this will skew the voting patterns even more in favour of older voters, as younger ones who aren’t especially engaged skip the vote for the game.

    I’m trying to think of other cultural/sporting events that captured/distracted the entire nation’s attention for (potentially) the last two weeks of an election. I’m flummoxed. Any precedents? Thoughts?



    (Oh, and I wish you lot had picked the astronaut. You’d have had my vote).

    • Yukon Cornelius says:

      I lean Conservative but I don’t love Harper. Martha Hall Findlay, Marc Garneau, Bob Rae – any one of those would have made me take a serious look at the Liberals. Obviously Trudeau has lots of fans but me, I don’t see it.

      • Vancouverois says:

        I followed the leadership contest with great interest. When it started I favoured Garneau, but I was very favourably impressed by Martha Hall Findlay.

        I think it’s a damning indictment of the Liberal party that not only did they not choose one of them; those two were never even in the running.

    • bobbie says:

      I think you’re on to something….tend to agree with you.

  39. fan590 says:

    It’s interesting that Trudeau is going to win this thing with a “jobs, jobs, jobs” message.

    Maybe Brian M. was right in saying not to underestimate JT.

  40. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Things definitely appear to be in melt down for the NDP in Quebec…


    Three “more” NDP candidates breaking ranks with Mulcair on niqab issue.

  41. Funny to read all these elaborate analysis based on absolutely nothing. This being said I’m not going to throw a stone in our glass house. There’s no reason to blame armchair pundits when professional pundits do exactly the same thing.

  42. The Observer says:

    Forum poll confirming Warran’s insider info. But what of Nanos? Well just have a look at the cross tabs at the end. They weight the 18 plus age group roughly the same as the 50 plus group. That’s not a poll for gauging actual outcomes, that looks like a poll to gin up a horse race narrative. Few 18 yr olds will get off their x-boxes and iPhones and go vote. The vast majority of 50 yr olds will.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Niall polling firms have their strengths and weaknesses. Nik’s approach to a rolling three night poll so that you can see trends is very useful but also means his final numbers are a bit off if there is much change in the final three days. If you look at yesterday’s numbers, he had the Conservatives and Liberals pretty much dead even with the Liberals slightly ahead. Today the potions have swapped and you can tell by the magnitude of the change with respect to the other days that for some reason in the last two days the Conservatives got a bit of a bump. I used his poll in the last election to say that the Consrvatives were going to get north of 39% worst case even though he had them at 37 because I could see the momentum was going there. The media however doesn’t think that hard and just slaps stupid headlines on his polls like the last two days. The real news is that the Conservatives seem to have picked up momentum and the Liberals are losing their bounce and Mulclair seems to have bottomed out. This means NOTHiNG two weeks away from the election. Remember what happened to poor Dion with his disastrous CTV interview. He blew it in the last three days. Any one of these guys can do that (or have a bozo in their party do it to them).

  43. BillBC says:

    I’m going to advance an idea, with the caveat that it’s based on nothing but my own thoughts…I keep wondering why the people who hate Harper are so vehement about it…the Herr Harper meme, etc. I wonder if it’s because the drift of Canadian political history has been towards Left/Progressive goals for quite a long time. The last time I remember a real jolt in the other direction was when PET invoked the War Measures Act, and that was a long time ago. The L/P freaked out then too. Harper has strengthened the Criminal Code (no more faint hope clause; no more kill as many as you like but get only one sentence, which is why that *## in Moncton got 75 years), Bill C-51 etc etc. For those of the L/P persuasion, this seems not only wrong, but unnatural. Tough on terrorists? Making First Nations chiefs disclose their salaries? Not Progressive, and therefore evil. Thus the Harper=Hitler meme.

    Any sense in this? Feel free to lambaste me

  44. Cory says:

    I think the analysis that the niqab/citizenship issue hasn’t hurt the Liberals is wrong.

    If we look at the trends it appears that the NDP are dropping, the Libs are holding and the CPC has a bit of an increase.

    My own opinion, is that both the NDP and Libs are losing voters.

    Blue Libs are moving over to CPC but this is hidden by NDP voters moving to the Libs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.