Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Those who do not remember history (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, December 1, 2010 1:14pm - 42 Comments

From the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Conservative caucus this morning, a slight adjustment to yesterday’s line.

As you all know, at the best of times, it is rare for governing parties to pick up seats in by-elections…

Indeed. While governments of the last 40 years have retained about 60% of their own seats in by-elections and won about 40% of by-elections overall, I count only a dozen pick-ups for the governing party of the day (four each for the governments of Trudeau, Chretien and Harper).

Tags: By-Elections, democracy, Jean Chretien, Ottawa, Pierre Trudeau, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

Didn't some amphibian come up with some metric by which his byelection performance looks good? Why not use that one?

Oh yeah, lying is fun! Tell your kids, Mr. Harper.

Mike T.

Although Harper has been in power shorter than either of those governments. And three parties could have the same record at something while that thing can still be rare.

madeyoulook

Hey, Crit! What do you charge as a speechwriter? Have you sent your invoice to the PMO?

Crit_Reasoning

One hundred dollars per word. Unfortunately, I can only invoice them for two words: "pick" and "up".

madeyoulook

Make it a million each, but make it quick! The Economic Action! Plan has a deadline coming up, you know…

Crit_Reasoning

I count only a dozen pick-ups for the governing party of the day (four each for the governments of Trudeau, Chretien and Harper).

Wherry, Bill Casey's old seat still counts as a pick-up, no? It was a seat held by an Independent, and it was picked up by the Conservatives. That brings the total to five.

Pat

Kind of a stretch don't you think?

Crit_Reasoning

Not at all. Bill Casey ran as an Independent in the 2008 election, gaining 69% of the vote against a Conservative candidate who got less than 9% of the vote. It's a pick-up, by any standard.

Wherry's count above is inaccurate, and he should correct this error.

Crit_Reasoning

I think some people here may be unclear on the concept.

Whenever a party gains a seat in a byelection that it didn't already hold, that's a pick-up. It doesn't matter if the seat was previously held by an Independent MP or a MP from a different party. It's still a pick-up.

You can't pick and choose which byelections count, and which ones don't.

In the 2008 federal election, the Conservative candidate for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley finished a distant third.

In the 2009 byelection, the Conservative candidate for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley finished first, and won the seat.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a "pick-up".

Wherry neglected to count this one for some reason. He is wrong. The record shows that Harper has picked up five seats in byelections–more than Chretien, more than Trudeau, and more than any other prime minister in Canadian history.

madeyoulook

Actually, the record more clearly shows that no one has a clue what a Musquodoboit is.
Dave

Duh. It's when you get a boit from a musquodo.
http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

As always an excellent read.

Thank you.

Best of luck with the nit pickers.

LdKitchenersOwn

I'm still not totally convinced that something that happens basically 20% of the time counts as "rare" (12 government pick-ups in the last 40 years in the 58 by-elections where an opposition-held riding was in play) but it's close enough that today's statement has the advantage of being more true than yesterday's.

So, in the last 40 years or so government's have won about 40% of by-elections, and about 20% of by-elections where the riding was previously held by the opposition. While this certainly speaks well of the current government's success, I'm not sure their ability to do either of these things counts as "rare" exactly. If it's "rare for governing parties to pick up seats in by-elections" because it only happens about 20% of the time, is it similarly true that British Columbians (13% of Canadians) are a "rare" form of Canadian?

It's true that we've all gone round and round on this much more than it deserves (though it is fun) but I don't think I'll ever wrap my head around the notion of referring to anything that happens more the 10% of the time (let alone more than 20% of the time) as a "rare" occurrence.

Mike T.

But if its a binary system (you lose or win a certain type of by-election) rather than choosing one of 13 types (a random Canadian being from a particular province or territory), I think 1 in 5 could meet the definition of rare.

LdKitchenersOwn

I'm not sure I agree. The British Columbian scenario is a binary proposition as well. You either ARE from B.C., or you AREN'T. The 20% chance that the answer to the question "Are you from B.C.?" is yes, is the same 20% chance you find if the question is "Did the government pick up a seat in the by-election?". Once again, the answer is "yes" 20% of the time. If the lottery (a binary win or lose proposition) had a chance to win the jackpot of 20%, would we consider it "rare" for one to win the lottery? I'd suggest that if one in five players of the Lotto 6/49 were winners, we wouldn't consider such a win to be a rare feat. Apparently, one in five Canadians develop arthritis. Are we to conclude then that contracting arthritis is "rare" because it only happens 20 times out of 100?

I know it's just semantics, but I really can't get my head around the notion that something that happens 20% of the time could be described as "rare".

madeyoulook

When I order my steak well done, and 20% of the time the juice is still red, that's rare. No?

LdKitchenersOwn

That is indeed rare.

It also suggests that maybe you need to find a better steakhouse.

madeyoulook

Yeah, but good steakhouses are rare. I'd say I am happy with only about one in five of 'em.

Oh, wait…

Blue

PM Harper was right yesterday when he said that the Conservative Caucus has increased and he was right today when he said that his governing party picked up seats. Those are basically the same statements expressing his satisfaction with the by-election results.

It is a pleasure to see Mr. Wherry continue to publicize the optimisim PM Harper is feeling these days.

kcm

'Those are basically the same statements…'

Except the aren't…no matter, you're basically correct.
Mike T.

Nobody said he was lying when he stated the caucas had increased.

Mabye this is why he likes to lie. He likes to watch his supporters fall all over themsleves, in defiance of logic and common sense, to support him.

Blue

……….or maybe he enjoys watching his opponents analyse his every word and then take extreme positions like calling him a liar when a rational person can see he is simply stating the obvious.

I suspect Harper knows that his extremist opponents will attack his every word—–It`s probably part of his larger plan to let the people decide that the CPC are the new centrist party.

LdKitchenersOwn

I know this is a silly hill to be fighting on, but I still really don't understand in what sense something that governments tend to succeed at 20% of the time is considered a "rare" event. It's just semantics I suppose, but to me, something that happens one time in every five just isn't that rare. To my mind, if government's picking up seats is rare, then Canadians developing arthritis is "rare" as that also happens 20% of the time. I don't think anyone would call arthritis a "rare" disease though, or find it particularly noteworthy that they had developed arthritis.

hollinm

You're right. It is a silly hill to be fighting on but feel free to join your buddies who want to hold the PM to a higher standard than other political leaders.
LdKitchenersOwn

Are there really a lot of people out there who DON'T think that the Prime Minister of the country should be held to a higher standard than other political leaders? I wouldn't have thought so.
hollinm

Oh so now that's the line. The PM must be held to a higher standard while the guy who wants to be PM is given a pass. Good line but foolish.
LdKitchenersOwn

I'm pretty sure I never said anything about giving the other guy "a pass". I just don't think it's so totally crazy to hold the person who's actually in charge of the government to a higher standard than the people who aren't. I wouldn't have thought that to be a particularly controversial or partisan position.
Blue

And I don`t seriously believe Harper trys to bait his opponents on every word he says. I just think it would be wiser of his opponents to leave some things alone instead of attacking every miniscule, pointless, thought he may have had.
As one of the more reasonable ones here, I`m sure LKO would agree.
LdKitchenersOwn

I don't really disagree with any of that, though I do think that you have perhaps overestimated the focus of "Harper's opponents" on this. Wherry wrote two blog posts (the second really a response to the first) and a bunch of us Macleans regulars have hashed some numbers and rolled around some metrics and generally argued over semantics.

If more than 100 people in the whole country are even aware that this discussion is happening at all I'd be pretty surprised.
Blue

I wasn`t just referring to the latest bit of nitpicking by Wherry and Company and that company includes the Liberal Party of Canada. Attacking a PM for something as stupid as this latest whinefest is only continuing a long line of silly points from puffins to wafers to body bags. People are sick of these constant complaints but carry on if you wish—-I just think it`s a self-defeating strategy for the LPC.

If the LPC are disillusioned by the fact that their lack of support shows them to be third rate Party, it may be because they are acting like one.
LdKitchenersOwn

So, are there no second rate parties, or are you casting the CPC in that role? :-)
Blue

Let`s put it this way: There are no first rate parties.

Calgay Junkie

Must … keep … beating … this … dead … horse ….

hollinm

I have no intention of repeating my comments of yesterday which I am sure will please the anti Harper crowd on this board. Suffice to say you are absolutely right Calgary Junkie….lets make sure we dissect every word that comes out of the PMs mouth to ensure he is 100% accurate. A standard that Michael Ignatieff is not held to I would hasten to add.

Calgay Junkie

" A standard that Michael Ignatieff is not held to I would hasten to add. "

A really good example of that double standard, was the discussion on here about what Ignatieff meant by saying that Liberals would "build more schools and fewer prisons."

Many of us pointed out the obvious, that education is a povincial responsibiliy, But Iggy was mostly left off the hook, by one observation, that he was "speaking metaphorically".

Maybe Whery can do a statistical analysis of how many schools former Lib PMs built.

kcm

Maybe that's because the federal govt does have shared responsibility in education?

hollinm

I thought the fed responsibility was limited to post secondary education. Am I wrong?

We know Ignatieff wants to send all the kids to school free of charge.
Calgary Junkie

My understanding is that post-secondary education is a shared responsibilty between the feds and the provinces. Grades K to 12 (or 13) are the sole responsibility of the provinces.

Make your own determination, from sections 91,92 and 93 of the BNA Act:
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/docs/1867.htm
hollinm

If post secondary education is shared responsibility then once again Ignatieff is blowing smoke. Does he think the provinces are going to agree with allowing all kids who qualify to go to university free?When I suggested in a previous post that the Libs keep saying the education system is broken I was reminded that education is provincial responsibility.
Thanks for the information.
DBM

I don't think that's true.

However, that doesn't mean the federal government can't give money to the provinces for the purpose of building schools.

hollinm

I think Ignatieff is always speaking metaphorically. He can't mean what he says most of the time. However, the Harper haters on this board want Harper to be absolutely precise when he speaks. Otherwise they feel it is their obligation to point out when he falls short.

LdKitchenersOwn

When you don't always seem to be too precise, accurate (or, dare I say it, honest) on the big things, when you deign to speak at all, people tend to start focusing on the small things as well. If we didn't have the deficit we were never gong to have again, necessitated by the recession that wasn't going to hit us, I doubt people would even notice the smaller spinning.