haroldchorneyeconomist

The French language debate was a very interesting debate in some ways superior to the English language
debate because the issue of national unity was discussed in very revealing
ways and the issues of unemployment, poverty and social policy got a
better airing than in the English language debate.
 Was there a clear winner? No. But one has to say that once again Jack Layton did well on several
 issues and
Michael Ignatieff did very well on the issue of national unity and
scolding Gilles Duceppe for not moving with the times and understanding
there was little interest in constitutional questions in 2011. Duceppe had a good 
come back which is well documented in Quebec. 
 Things can change
very quickly. Since the PQ can easily become the Government of Quebec in a
year or two and remains committed to sovereignty this issue can arise
again. The debate on this issue revealed once again the potential pitfalls
of the deux nations strategy that all the federalist leaders have more or
less signed onto. When you say that Quebec is a nation its political
leadership expects and will demand the trappings of nationhood something
that will not go down well in English speaking Canada. On the whole though
his French is very serviceable, Stephen Harper in his effort to play a
quiet role was largely absent from the debate and in my view did not not
accomplish much in advancing the Conservative cause in Quebec. Duceppe
defended his turf reasonably well but I suspect that the debate will
weaken his hold on certain Bloc voters who might well defect to the NDP.
The Liberals probably held their own and Ignatieff might well be viewed
more favourably than before the debate although because of the residual
distrust of the Liberals after Gomery and the provincial Government's
unpopularity they have a steep hill to climb to regain their Quebec popularity.

A much closer horse race appears to be developing if the results of a new Ekos Ipolitics poll are accurate. The poll completed just prior to the English language debate shows that the Conservatives have dropped down to 33.8 %, the Liberals are holding firm at 28.8 %, the NDP are advancing to 19.1 %, the Greens steady at 9.0 % and the Bloc faltering somewhat at 7.8 %. If these results occurred on election day the Conservatives would still win a minority but they would definitely have fewer seats then they now have and the combined opposition parties have more seats. The polls are getting interesting as we approach the French language debate this evening. The debate will focus on priority issues for Quebec, unemployment and the employment insurance system, homelessness, critical infrastructure,including replacing  the Champlain bridge,  the health care system and federal transfers, compensation for harmonizing the sales taxes, the weakening but still strong presence of the Bloc, foreign policy with respect to aid and military intervention abroad, national unity versus the needs for autonomy for Québec and let us not forget the status of the close to one million francophones who live outside of Québec. and the nearly equivalent number of anglophones who live as a minority in Québec.  Duceppe has an advantage because French is his maternal language but the other federal leaders have seats to gain in Quebec that can affect the overall outcome of the election. So there should be some  intense exchanges.

Stephen Harper faced a barrage of accusations and criticism about his performance as Prime Minister last night but he stayed largely unflappable in the face of the severe criticism sent his way by Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. In televised debates perception is everything so despite the solid heavy body blows that the opposition leaders landed it is not yet clear how the debate was received by its television viewers. The various partisan spinners and spinners in disguise who work as newspaper journalists largely awarded the debate on points to either Harper or Jack Layton but many viewers may have a different sense of the debate.

However Michael Ignatieff suffered from a disadvantage in terms of his camera location and even the graphics background that was behind him. Ignatieff was located third over from the left as the viewers saw standing between Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. This tends to give the passive tv watcher the false impression that it is Layton who stood between Ignatieff on his left and Harper on his right who is the central figure to watch in terms of the opposition to Harper. In the French debate Ignatieff should insist that he switch positions with Layton to avoid this problem twice in a row. Harper also had the advantage of the sharpest and most clearly defined background graphic black and white bars while Ignatieff was largely televised against an NDP yellow and orange beige background which gave a less sharp impression. These observations may all seem petty and irrelevant but unfortunately as Mcluhan and others have shown us perception on tv is very different from perception in real life, particularly for the large segment of the population that is moved by imagery rather than substance. Harper also looked straight into the camera and therefore openly addressed the television viewer at home conveying the impression of an honest unflappable leader who is simply trying to take care of the people’s business while being unfairly harassed by these pesky opposition politicians who are emotional and distort the facts. Of course, this is all Conservative spin but the viewers don’t all know this. The debate in French should be  more advantageous to Ignatieff since his French is excellent although clearly Duceppe is the man of the hour in the French debate.

The long awaited report of the Auditor General on the Canadian government’s spending on the G8 summit has become a potential very damaging problem for the Harper government. A leaked copy of an early draft of the final report yet to be formally released has made its way into media hands and become a headline issue in the media on the eve of the leaders’ debate in English Tuesday evening. The Report condemns the government for spending monies on undocumented infrastructure projects and misleading and misinforming Parliament about some of the 50 million dollars of infrastructure legacy spending that took place in the Parry Sound Muskoka riding of the Minister  of Industry Tony Clement . Michael Ignatieff , Jack Layton  and Gilles Duceppe were quick to pounce on the potential scandal involved which they argued shows that the Government is not transparent in its dealings with Parliament involving the spending of public money.  Ignatieff used the debacle to charge that the Conservatives had ”sprayed money around Tony Clement’s riding ” and took decisions about which projects to fund while” sitting around a bar in the Muskoka.” These kind of accusations will undoubtedly become a major talking point in the debate. The auditor general acting on her legal mandate refuses to release her final report until a new Parliament is chosen in an election and cautions the public not to jump to conclusions . So the Conservatives are caught in an awkward spot insisting that the final report is much less critical and there is no cause for drawing alarming conclusions. But politically this could turn out to be a quite damaging issue for them even if they try to defuse the issue by leaking a copy of the final report (assuming they have it and the public believes it to be the true and final report)provided the opposition capitalizes on it during the final weeks of the campaign. It is unlikely to defeat the Conservatives, since it simply feeds into the general cynicism about politicians and is a complex issue but it might very well prevent it from capturing a majority. A simple swing of  3-5 % points in the vote away from the Conservatives would accomplish this outcome.

The latest election polls in Canada show the governing Conservatives in the lead at about 41 % but not yet in majority territory with several blemishes breaking out over bad judgment in the appointment of senior advisors. The Liberals fortunes have improved slightly with them trending to 28 % plus while the the NDP has oscillated between 16 and 20 %. The bloc is at the 8-9 % range while the Greens hover around 5-6 %. (The  latest Nanos tracking poll shows the Liberals now at 30 % and the Conservatives  at 39 % and the NDP at 17%,the Greens at 4 and the Bloc at 8 %)Both the Liberals and the NDP have released significant platform details which will both attract and repel some voters. The NDP has a very interesting proposal to improve the Canadian pension system involving gradually over time increasing the payout to approaching replacement of 50% of income as compared to the current 25 %. this seems to be a good idea in principle which would involve relatively small increases in contributory payments and the elimination of certain corporate tax cuts over a period of time. As the economy recovers it is definitely an important policy idea that deserves careful study and improvement. The Liberals have released a red book style platform with a number of interesting proposals on increasing access to higher education through a four year program of annual grants to all Canadians seeking higher education, a special program dedicated to veterans that resembles the excellent post world war two program that I must say enabled my father who served in the RCAF during the war to go to university and complete a degree in pharmacy , a career path that had been denied to him during the 1930s because of the depression and his income deprived background and despite the fact that he was an honours high school graduate. They also propose scrapping the fighter jet purchase and retendering the project later in order to get a better deal on the terms of this necessary purchase.This seems sensible.

Unfortunately, I also have to say that there are strains, particularly in Michael Ignatieff’s press conference in Halifax of the old and discredited Liberal obsession with deficit cutting. Not what we need at this time. Far better to allow the growth in the economy and the return to lower unemployment to reduce the deficit to GDP ratio over time and avoiding inflicting long term pain for little or no gain. The Harper budget deficit is largely the result of the crash, subsequent recession and  sensible stimulus program that has worked reasonably well so far and should be beyond deficit hysteria at this time.

So the battle continues more welcome policy debate will also continue and the electorate should be in a position to make a better informed choice come the election date.

I just got back from a fascinating energizing trip to America’s third largest metropolis, the city of Chicago. A city of fabulous architecture, extraordinary energy, friendly intelligent and largely progressive people, intriguing politics and a centre of dynamic culture, music and art.I spent a large chunk of my time at a convention of political scientists from a wide spectrum of academics from across the U.S. and a small but significant representation of researchers and scholars from Europe and Asia.The paper I presented there on quantitative easing and the rediscovery of Keynes after the crash can be viewed on this site. (  https://haroldchorneyeconomist.com/2011/03/page/2/  )        But over the four days I spent there I also managed to walk about a chunk of downtown central Chicago , marvel at the architecture and the metropolitan energy on display but also speak to a wide variety of people including sadly far too many homeless people or people in trouble because of the severe recession that the U.S. is slowly beginning to recover from. There were plenty of people in the streets asking for help. So Rahm Emanuel has plenty on his plate when he takes over(a pretty sure bet) as Mayor later in the year. One of the most urgent priorities seems to me to be an enhanced   program to aid the homeless and the poor, hopefully with federal help that could apply throughout America. The windspent shore of Michigan ave, the elegant and magnificent skyscrapers, the vast expanse of the railyards and the bridges over them that reminded me of my hometown Winnipeg, the Chicago of Carl Sandburg, Studs Terkel, Saul Bellow, Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama, 2nd city review and the Art Institute, and the homeless man who asked brother can you spare a dime on Wabush all deserve it.

Incredibly at a time when the world watches with horror the nuclear reactor disaster in Japan, the hidebound out of touch media leadership who clearly operate as if they were in the nineteenth century as opposed to the 21st have decided to exclude Elizabeth May the Green party leader from the leaders’ televised debates. A clearly dumb decision considering how importantly Canadians, and younger Canadians in particular view the environmental question. The environment is one of the  questions that unites the country around a common concern for our collective well being, the health of the planet and well being of the legacy we leave to our children, grandchildren and future generations. The Greens have consistently polled between 6 and 10 per cent and if we had an up to date modern electoral system they would hold seats in our Parliament. Seeking to exclude them from the debate is anti-democratic and stupid. Hopefully enough Canadians will complain to force the media consortium to reverse its decision.

There is a lot of loose diatribe and fear mongering among politicians , journalists and citizens about the danger of coalition government that reveals an appalling ignorance of Canadian political history and parliamentary government. The only criterion for becoming the government is that the party or group of parties commands the support of the majority of Members of Parliament. Coalitions have been a part of Canadian politics for a long time. Robert Borden governed after the 1917 election with a coalition of  Liberals and Conservatives. Mackenzie -King governed after 1926 with a coalition of Liberals and Progressives and his cabinet included a prominent Progressive. Bob Rae as a New Democrat participated in a quasi coalition government with Liberal David Peterson in the 1980s in Ontario.

Coalitions are often an alternative where there is no clear majority elected in Parliament.Think of the following plausible outcome in an election . The largest party wins 34 % of the vote and  gets 138 seats. But 154 plus is needed for a majority. The opposition vote is split among four parties. One gets 26 % and 80 seats, the third gets 23 % and 40 seats, the third receives 10 % but because it concentrates its vote it collects 48 seats and the last party 7 % and two seats. The largest party which is quite rigid in its outlook expects the Governor General to call upon its leader to serve as a prime minister. He or she agrees but because of ideology and rigid thinking is unable to recruit any members of the opposition to his/her  side. Parliament meets, the throne speech is read and a budget submitted but the opposition parties reject the contents of the budget and defeats it in a non confidence vote. The leader of the largest party seeks an immediate election.

But note the election which has taken place only six weeks earlier has delivered 66% of the vote to the four opposition parties and only 34% to the now defeated largest party. Let us further assume that these four parties and their leaders have agreed to co-operate on a common program in the public interest as they understand it and are willing to offer a stable government through the device of a coalition by emphasizing cooperation, grass roots communication and feedback and dialogue. Should we really expect the Governor general to overlook them and insist on dissolving Parliament and calling a new election. It would be outrageous if he were to do so, for in so doing he would be rejecting the expressed vote of almost two thirds of the electorate.If he did so he would be placing a greater value on the views and preferences of 34 % of the electorate than on the clear majority of 66 % . It would be politically very odd arithmetic for a democracy.

Several new polls have come out including a Leger poll, an Ekos poll and an Ipsos poll that show the Liberals at 18% in Québec. This is much better than the 11 % reported in an earlier CROP poll. The Tories are at 22 % the NDP at 16 and the Bloc at 38 %. in one poll and in another the Tories are at 16, the New Democrats at 20 the Bloc at 41 and the Liberals 18. So with a good campaign in Québec the Liberals should be able to build on this base and hold on to their Montreal base, perhaps capturing an additional seat or two in Québec. On the other hand, at the national level the latest forum research poll has the Conservatives at 41 %, the Liberals at 24 % and the NDP at 19 %. Because of the methodological problems in disparate polls the best way of minimizing interpretative error is to average them and understand their built in error factors.TCNorris in his excellent blogspot blog comments on an insightful ABC news report http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2011/03/study-raises-new-questions-for-opt-in-online-data.html that calls into question the validity of internet polls that rely on an opt in pollable on line audience.They conclude that there are too many problems with this technique sto trust it as an accurate guage of public opinion. Canadian media need to point this out in their reporting of the polls, some of which use this methodology. So we need more polls  and more transparent analysis before we leap to any conclusions.

But if the Tories scored over 41 % and the Liberals and the NDP each  below 25 % and the bloc held on to its 38-40 % share in Québec on election day  this might well approach   a razor thin Conservative majority. So there is plenty of work to do on the Liberal and NDP parts to increase their share of the vote. But as TCNorris points out in order for the Conservatives to win a majority they need to do even better than they did outside of Québec in the last election. Their vote last time outside of Québec was 43 .3% . The Liberals scored 27.1 %, the NDP 20.3 %, the Greens 7.9 % and others 1.3 % So the Conservatives  have a fair and tough distance to travel to get a majority if their Québec vote is around 20 % or below.

Michael Ignatieff appears to be having a good campaign although he is quoted in the Toronto Star criticizing the Tories for having run a small deficit prior to the recession as if this were bad policy. If I were him I would avoid excessive fiscal conservatism even if it seems electorally popular since what he and Ralph Goodale  appear to be complaining about is a very small pre recession deficit as a percentage of the GDP that involved sensible investments in the economy and /or were fiscal impulse responses to a slowing growth rate.

Britons in very large numbers reminiscent of the great trade union and peace marches of the early 1970s turned out for a march and demonstration in central London against the cuts now underway in essential social services and public spending. It was almost entirely peaceful, creative and solidarity building. A few 100 more extreme and violent actors ,possibly including some police undercover people, caused considerable destructive property damage at a number of fancy shops and hotels for which they will be prosecuted.

In no way should their extreme actions take away from the import of the vast number of peaceful protestors who represent the majority of the British population and their profound distrust of the Osborne foolhardy and divisive strategy of reactionary budget slashing before economic recovery has properly taken root in the British economy. Ed Miliband addressed the crowd, praising their solidarity and compared the march to the great movements for peace and progressive social change of previous decades. He also apparently and in my view, unwisely suggested that some cuts were necessary. He was booed by some for saying this. After suffering through the OsborneCameronClegg experience these Britons are in no mood to support budget chopping of any sort in the midst of an economic crisis. They are in economic policy terms correct. It is both needlessly cruel and foolishly counter-productive to impose austerity during an economic downturn and prematurely before full recovery has taken place.

Harold Macmillan, British Conservative  Prime Minister (1957-1963) well understood this. Unfortunately most of this new generation of British Conservatives appear not to.