How deep a hole did the Liberals dig?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 1:25 PM - 0 Comments

Eric Grenier tries to put the Liberal party’s current standing in perspective.

When Canada last had a change of government, the Conservatives under Mr. Harper had turned a vote-share deficit of 7.1 percentage points in 2004 into a 6.1-point lead. But overcoming that 7.1-point margin in 2006 paled in comparison to the two previous changes in government. The Liberals had placed 11.1 points behind the Progressive Conservatives in 1988 before winning in 1993, while under Brian Mulroney the Tories had overcome an 11.9-point margin between the 1980 and 1984 elections.

But with 18.9 per cent support in the last election, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals finished 20.7 points behind the victorious Conservatives. If the Liberals overcame such a margin in 2015, it would be the greatest comeback in a federal election in Canada’s history.

The numbers underneath are maybe even less encouraging. The Liberals finished first, second or a strong third in just 114 ridings in the last election. By comparison, the NDP managed to finish first, second or a strong third in 232 ridings, the Conservatives did so in 240.

Or consider the splits on ridings in which the party’s vote increased in 2011 versus ridings in which the party’s vote decreased. The Liberals went up in 20 and down in 287 last May. (The NDP, by comparison, went up in 289, down in 19. The Conservatives improved in 208, fell in 99.) And the Liberals finished on the negative side of this split in each of the three previous elections, mirroring a steady decline in the popular vote that has seen the party go from 40.9% to 36.7% to 30.2% to 26.3% to 18.9%.

Seventy more

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar and Charlie Angus explain their plan to focus on winning another 70 seats.

We’ll hire more grassroots organizers and put them on the ground in key regions across the country. They will work with local activists to strengthen networks where they already exist and build them where they are non-existent. Our grassroots team will recruit new activists and help train the next generation … We’ll also give our caucus an expanded role as builders. We have an incredible and diverse team that has vast experience and passion. Under this plan, we’ll give our MPs the opportunity to show Canadians first-hand what a strong and deeply talented team we have.

I’m told the plan isn’t built on a list of specific ridings, but rather is meant to focus generally on where the NDP is strong and has shown potential for growth.

With the 103 ridings the NDP won in 2011, that sets a goal of 173 for 2015. How realistic is such a target? I suppose that’s a matter of opinion, but by the numbers the NDP finished second in 121 ridings last May. They finished a strong third in an another eight ridings. Add that up and that’s a general target area of 232 ridings.

For the sake of comparison, the Conservatives finished first, second or a strong third in 240 ridings. The Liberals finished first, second or a strong third in 114 ridings.

(Of course, 170 seats will be the new majority threshold in a 338-member House.)

Toke the vote

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM - 0 Comments

Liberal delegates voted in favour of a policy resolution this morning that recommendation the legalization and regulation of marijuana. So there’s your easy headline.

But, shortly before that vote, delegates endorsed an idea that one can actually imagine seeing in the next Liberal election platform: preferential balloting.

WHEREAS it is recognized that first past the post voting systems do not properly reflect the will of the people in a multiparty country;

WHEREAS the current system does not produce clear electoral victors (candidates seldom win with more than 50 percent);

WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Canada already uses a preferential balloting system in its own leadership and riding nomination contests;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada implement a preferential ballot for all future national elections.

By the numbers

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM - 0 Comments

Liberal party president Alf Apps has delivered his report to the party membership. The key portion would seem to concern fundraising.

Notwithstanding the improved financial position in which the Party finds itself today, its ability to compete politically between elections at the national level continues to be crippled by the fact that its basic fundraising capability is dwarfed by those of its principal opponent. As figure 2 shows, the Conservatives raised a total of $80 million in donations over the period from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2011 and are projected to raise more than $24 million this year alone. Our Party raised only $32 million nationally over the same period, or about 40% of the amount they raised, and approximately $9.4 million for the 2011 year. Our donor base has been growing steadily over that period but, at only about 40,000 donors today, is estimated to be about on-third the size of our opponent’s. More troubling, the gap is continuing to widen. Perhaps most troubling, fewer than 30% of Party members today are also Party donors. While progress is being made on this front, it has been far too slow. The Party is still a long way from achieving an organizational culture where ‘membership’ translates into ‘donorship’.

In the context of the ‘permanent campaign’ environment which has persisted since well before the 2006 election to the present day, the Party simply has not had adequate resources to fund a modern and technologically-enabled political outreach infrastructure to communicate effectively with Canadians and activate their support.

Internet 1, Old School Discretion 0

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM - 0 Comments

Via Twitter, Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal has announced that the ban on reporting election results before all polls have closed will be rescinded.

The original purpose of the ban was to prevent Western Canadian voters from knowing results from the Atlantic Provinces before casting their ballots.  At the time, there was a four hour difference between the closing of the polls in Atlantic Canada and in British Columbia.  To address this gap, Parliament introduced staggered voting hours in 1996 which ensures that the outcome of any general election cannot be known before polls close anywhere in Canada. 

“We’re in the 21st century,” added Minister Uppal. “The ban, which was enacted in 1938, does not make sense with the widespread use of social media and other modern communications technology.”

America the democratic

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 12:16 PM - 0 Comments

JJ McCullough looks enviously to the south.

Last Tuesday, Mitt Romney eked out his narrow victory in the Iowa caucus with a total of 30,015 votes. That slim tally in a single, Midwestern state is nevertheless only slightly fewer than the 31,150 votes that elected Jack Layton leader of the national New Democratic Party in 2003, and much greater than the 16,149 that elected Stephen Harper leader of the federal Conservatives in 2004…

What makes these comparisons particularly odious is that Canadian party leaders aren’t really even analogous to U.S. presidential candidates — they’re much more powerful. Should Romney eventually emerge as the GOP flag-bearer, he will have precious little power to influence much of what his party supports or believes. As we’ve seen over the last three years, the President of the United States is in many ways a very weak figure subordinate to the authority of 535 free-voting Congressmen.

Crank yankers

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 12:06 PM - 0 Comments

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record traces mischievous calls made during the election to the Conservative party.

The complaint filed by Joe Nowak, president of the Kitchener-Conestoga federal Liberal association, was obtained by The Record and includes the phone number Siopiolosz traced. When called, the number goes to a voice mail for the “Conservative Party.” The message asks callers to leave their name, number and a detailed message and says the party will get back to them within three business days. [Fred] DeLorey, director of communications and deputy director of political operations for the Conservative Party of Canada, confirmed in an email “that the number was ours.”

Numerous complaints about crank calls were made during the spring campaign.

The Conservative party has now released a statement explaining its side of the story. Continue…

What the Conservatives promised

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 10:43 AM - 0 Comments

The new health transfer model apparently comes with no strings attached.

Like the six percent promise, that seems at odds with what the Conservatives promised during the campaign. This from the party’s election platform (emphasis theirs).

Canadians expect and deserve timely access to high-quality health care services. To help achieve that goal, we will work collaboratively with the provinces and territories to renew the Health Accord and to continue reducing wait times.

In our discussions we will emphasize the importance of accountability and results for Canadians – better reporting from the provinces and territories to measure progress, and guarantees covering additional medically necessary procedures.

In the spirit of open federalism, when renewing the Health Accord we will respect the fact that health care is an area of provincial jurisdiction and respect limits on the federal spending power.

Recognizing asymmetrical federalism, we will follow the precedent of a separate agreement with the Government of Quebec regarding the implementation of the renewed Health Accord.

Accountability was a favourite word of the Conservatives after the campaign too. The Health Minister invoked it as recently as a week ago.

What Jim Flaherty said

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

After the Liberals and Conservatives exchanged campaign promises in April, Jim Flaherty was interviewed by Kathleen Petty on CBC radio’s The House. Here is my transcript of the portion of that conversation that dealt with health care transfers and the six percent increase.

Petty. Now let’s talk about health care because Stephen Harper, this week, along with the Liberals and we know the NDP as well, have all agreed to maintain health care transfers to the provinces to six percent as the escalator year-over-year after 2014, which is when the accord expires. But it’s not found in the platform, it’s not found in the budget, except as an assumption in 2015-16 that says that it’s subject to discussion or review, so I’m not quite sure how this is all being costed out.

Flaherty. Well, it is, I can assure you that the six percent increase is built into the fiscal track. That is, we go forward when we budget and make certain assumptions. We have assumed six percent on an ongoing basis for the Canada Health Transfer and we’re committed to that.

Petty. For how many years?

Flaherty. Well, until 2014 and then thereafter. Now, we have to negotiate…

Petty. But what’s thereafter? That’s the part I’m asking.

Flaherty. Thereafter’s at least two years…

Pause. So there’s the caveat to the six percent promise, right? Well, there might’ve been the caveat, except for the fact that the interview wasn’t over and Mr. Flaherty wasn’t done explaining himself. Continue…

Small world

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM - 0 Comments

The polling firm implicated in the campaign against Irwin Cotler did work for at least 39 Conservative candidates in the last election, including Andrew Scheer.

A Citizen analysis of Elections Canada records shows that Campaign Research was involved in at least 39 candidate campaigns during the spring election, and was paid nearly $400,000 for the work.  Not all Conservative candidate returns have been filed so the figure could be slightly higher still.

As @kady notes, one of the campaigns that used Campaign Research was that of the same Andrew Scheer who found no breach of privilege. His campaign paid more than $8,000 for their services in aid of his run for the roses in Regina – Qu’Appelle, before he was elected Speaker. Scheer does not appear to have mentioned this in his ruling or, uh, anywhere else.

What did the Conservatives promise on health transfers?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM - 0 Comments

The Harper government is apparently eager to cap increases to health transfers after 2016 and is apparently willing to argue that their election promise to increase transfers at 6% per year was limited to two years. The Ontario government seems to think that’s not quite what the Conservatives promised.

… Ontario government officials pointed to an interview Mr. Flaherty gave to the CBC during the campaign. “We will keep it at 6 per cent for whatever the duration of the agreement is,” Mr. Flaherty said last April, adding that the length of the new accord will be negotiated with the provinces. “It could be two years, five years, whatever.”

During the election—on Friday, April 8, to be specific—Michael Ignatieff promised to maintain the 6% increase and challenged Stephen Harper’s willingness to do likewise. The Conservatives duly responded. Continue…

Gender equality and democracy (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM - 0 Comments

Dan Arnold troubleshoots Paul Dewar’s proposal to increase the number of women seeking office.

Of course, as with any incentive scheme, there are unintended consequences. To begin with, the easiest way for a party like the Liberals to cash in on that 90k a candidate would be to run nothing but women across Alberta and in other unwinnable ridings. Luckily for the Liberals, there are plenty of unwinnable ridings to choose from.

Other parties trying to cash in may not be quite so lucky. To reach these quotas, many parties (especially the Conservatives) would likely resort to appointing dozens of female candidates in unheld ridings. Sure, having more women in politics is an admirable goal, but is it worth overruling the will of local riding associations? And what about the lack of aboriginals, visible minorities, and youth in politics? This proposal does little for them.

Dan suggests raising the election expenses rebate for female candidates as an alternative.

Gender equality and democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 12:19 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar wants to restore the per vote subsidy, but link it to gender equality.

Under Dewar’s plan only parties running a slate of at least 50% women candidates would be eligible for the full $2 per vote financing. Parties running 40-49.9% women candidates will receive $1.75/vote and parties running 30-39.9% would receive only $1.50/vote. Parties that are unable to run at least 30% women candidates on their slate would not qualify for public financing.

By Alice Funke’s numbers, the NDP led all parties with 40.3% of nominees being women in the last election. Under Mr. Dewar’s system, they would’ve been the only party to qualify for the $1.75 rebate. The Greens, at 32.8%, would’ve qualified for the $1.50 rebate. The Liberals (29.2%) and Conservatives (22.1%) would’ve failed to qualify for anything.

Rejected by voters, paid for by the public

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Irwin Cotler notes that the Conservative candidate in his riding now works for the government.

Mr. Cotler said the Tory candidate, now employed in the office of Heritage Minister James Moore, is performing the duties of a member of Parliament. He said ex-opponent Saulie Zajdel is now offering to help municipal politicians in his Montreal riding secure federal grants and services.

“We have had information conveyed to us that, in fact, he has had meetings with mayors and councillors in this riding, in which he has held out to them that he, in the course of his work, can confer a benefit upon them,” Mr. Cotler said in his office Tuesday. “What has he been hired to do and what is he, in fact, doing? … The question is whether a defeated candidate seeks to perform the duties of an MP, as a kind of shadow MP on the public purse.”

See previously: Puppet MPs

Innocent until, and even after, proven guilty

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM - 0 Comments

New Democrat MP Mathieu Ravignat asked yesterday whether the government would be pursuing the Conservative Party of Canada for the rebates it received as part of the In-and-Out scheme. Pierre Poilievre answered for the government.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the honourable member was rising today to apologize on behalf of the NDP. Just last week the NDP had to admit that it broke the Canadian election law, that it violated the law in attempting to use the power of the political donation tax credit in order to fund a third party organization. It did so in violation of the law. It has now had to admit it. On this side of the House, every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has now been cleared. We are very pleased with the outcome. We will continue to stand by the fact that we followed all the rules.

In the case of the NDP’s violation—offering the party as a conduit for donations to the Broadbent Institute in Jack Layton’s memory—the commissioner of Elections Canada has confirmed that all improper donations were returned by the party.

Outstanding balance

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 11:32 AM - 0 Comments

Glen McGregor wonders if the Conservatives will refund the $187,298 they were reimbursed as a result of the In-and-Out scheme.

Elections Canada says none of the 17 have returned their reimbursements.  Asked if it will take steps to recover the money,  Elections Canada spokesperson Diane Benson said, “We would follow the normal administrative process for the recovery of any debt owed to the Crown.”

Conservative Party spokesman Fred DeLorey responded in an email,  ”The question of reimbursements will be dealt with in the ongoing civil proceedings.” By that, he means the case the Tories brought against Elections Canada, which will be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Democratic rights

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 3:51 PM - 0 Comments

Elizabeth May is joining an attempt to challenge the first-past-the-post electoral system as a violation of the Charter.

The case would argue that the Constitution protects the right of Canadians to have “effective representation,” which goes beyond having the right to cast a ballot. The two groups, the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Rights and Fair Vote Canada, have also earned an endorsement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

“The key issue is not that it’s unfair to the Green Party,” May said Tuesday at a news conference with representatives from the two groups. ”It’s unfair to democracy. It’s unfair to voters, and I think it’s a big reason for the decline in voter turnout.”

Ms. May argues that voter turnout is higher in countries with proportional representation. Going back to some numbers I posted last year, that’s somewhat true: all of the countries listed there, with the exception of Canada and France, use some kind of proportional representation. So while proportional representation is present in Denmark, Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands (all with turnout over 80%), it is also present in Portugal (under 60%) and Switzerland (under 50%).

Vote first, solve other problems later

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 11, 2011 at 4:50 PM - 0 Comments

Kate Chappell considers the Occupy movement and the act of voting.

A sign I saw this weekend at the Occupy Ottawa camp said something to the effect of voting as an institution being broken. But if the majority of us do not engage in the activities required of us by this institution, how can we fairly and accurately assess its effectiveness? I argue that we cannot begin to do so. It is ironic that the Occupiers’ main message calls for an end to inequality. Voting is the activity most blind to socio-economic status and a free, convenient means of registering one’s preferences..

Many of the Occupiers seem to be partial to anything but what we have now. In fact, many seem partial to an anarchic or communistic system. But let’s back up a minute. What if they had all voted in the last federal election? We would likely have a different prime minister.

Jeff Jedras previously quibbled with the suggestion the the Occupiers would simply be better off voting.

How a campaign is spent

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 11, 2011 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

Alice Funke reviews the financial returns for last spring’s election.

The Liberals also outspent the Conservatives in advertising, $11.9M to $10.6M, when considering both broadcast (TV + radio) and “other” (likely print and/or online). However, the Conservatives concentrated their ad spending on the broadcast side where they outspent the Liberals $10.4M to $8.3M.

The NDP’s spending on advertising fell somewhere in between, coming in at $9.5M for broadcast ads and $10.9M overall.

In and out and settled?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM - 0 Comments

(This post last updated at 8:24pm.)

Both the Ottawa Citizen and CTV are reporting word of a settlement in the in-and-out case, possibly in relation to the charges against four Conservative party officials. Full history of the in-and-out controversy here.

Update 1:18pm. Canadian Press has details.

The party is set to agree to what a caucus source called “administrative imperfection” for the way it handled advertising spending during the 2006 federal election. As a result, sources say charges against four senior Conservative officials – including two senators – for breaking the Elections Act are being dropped.

Update 1:24pm. Glen McGregor’s FAQ is probably the easiest way to get up to speed. Last March, the House passed a motion deeming the financing scheme to be “an act of electoral fraud.” Three years ago, chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand explained his view in detail before a parliamentary committee.

Update 2:46pm. The Globe confirms.

In return, the Conservative Party of Canada and its fundraising arm are pleading guilty to lesser charges that characterize what took place as a mere error instead of intentional misconduct. At the same time, the charges against four Conservative officials – two sitting senators – are being dropped.

CTV reports the party has been fined $50,000. The Supreme Court will still apparently hear the separate dispute between the Conservative party and Elections Canada.

Update 3:24pm. A statement from Elections Canada. Continue…

Election night in Saskatchewan

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 7, 2011 at 10:13 PM - 0 Comments

Early returns give the Saskatchewan Party 49 or 50 of the province’s 58 seats.

That would be the biggest win in a Saskatchewan election since the NDP won 55 of 66 seats in 1991. Nine (or ten) would be the lowest New Democrat total since 1982.

Occupy democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM - 0 Comments

Jeff Jedras questions the suggestion that Occupy protesters would simply be better off voting.

Yes, they should get involved, but we should also reform our political system because, the fact is, it is viewed as irrelevant and ineffective by many Canadians, and not just the young folk. If we want greater engagement by citizens of all ages, we need to start doing something differently.

Off the top of my head, I’d suggest loosening the oppressive yoke of party discipline, empowering individual MPs to have personalities and agendas and represent their constituents and causes, and making the policy development process in political parties actually connected to their election platform instead of an exercise in pointless tedium. For starters.

Journalism or politics?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 11:45 AM - 4 Comments

From the recent Ontario election, The Agenda convenes a panel of journalists who decided to run for office.

The patient is unresponsive

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM - 1 Comment

Jane Hilderman argues that people won’t vote if they don’t think the system is truly accountable.

As we are learning from our focus groups, more important to Canadians, who are less likely to participate, is a government that listens when a problem arises, works to fix it, and keeps promises it made. On this they were resoundingly clear: improve the legitimacy of our existing institutions (and by extension politicians, too) through better responsiveness and accountability. The rest will take care of itself.

On that note, Mark Dance has some thoughts on opening Parliament up to the digital word here, here and here. The second of those posts proposes what Mark deems a “Digital House.”