This is scary...

Now, I am not 100% convinced that humans are the cause of global warming which puts me on the fringe of my party, however it is quite obvious to me that the science proves that there is such thing as global warming. The question in my mind is whether or not it is due to a natural warming phase of the Earth, human intervention or some combination of the two. I think it is clearly a combination of the two, but the next question is, how much of it is our fault? I am unconvinced that it is all our fault, and I think it may not even be largely our fault. However, I do agree with the majority of my party that we should act because, even if human contributions to global warming are minor, they are still contributions and we should try to curb them.

So, the moral of the story is, I am somewhat sympathetic to those who are skeptical about the politically correct interpretation of global warming. That is, that it is all our fault and we can stop it by cleaning up our act.

However, it is happening, whether we can stop it or not, and while we should clean up our act on the environmental side of the equation, bad stuff could and probably will happen as a result of the warming globe and it is incumbent upon us to prepare.

This is why I was a little bit scared to read the following mockery of global warming penned by the MP for Okanagan—Coquihalla in a local newspaper:

Hey who knows, maybe Al Gore is right.

Maybe all my constituents living high up on the West Bench, or Lakeview Heights, or the hills of Logan Lake will soon be sitting on lakeside property as one of the many benefits of global warming.

All I know is last weekend when I got home from Ottawa there was more snow in my driveway than we usually get in a year.

And I was begging for Big Al’s Glacial Melt when the mercury hit -24. Do not despair, my fellow dwellers of the Okanagan and Nicola Valleys.

If misery loves company then we had lots of it around our province. Matter of fact, at one point in the week some 22 towns and cities had broken all-time records for paralyzing frigid temperatures.

Rather than feeling badly for yourself, picture this. For every hour it’s that cold, millions of those nasty ravenous pine beetles who are destroying our forests are having their pesky little heads and jaws frozen, literally to death.

But brace yourself. We’d need about two weeks of that brain freeze weather to kill off all those burrowing bugs.

Are you up for it?

Just to remind you, the MP for Okanagan—Coquihalla is the Honourable Stockwell Day, who serves in the cabinet as minister for the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Very, very scary.

A closer look at the recent 'success' of the NDP

Or, why Jack Layton has been a miserable failure

In conversing with my friend Harrap by e-mail, we realized that we were on the same view with respect to Jack Layton's tenure as leader of the NDP. That is to say, it hasn't been as good as the NDP or the media have portrayed it. Harrap is in the process of doing an "electoral assessment" of each of the parties and the NDP is coming up next. He is going to talk about Bill Blaikie and how he should have been leader of the NDP. I would argue that Blaikie, though probably better than Layton, would not be as good of a choice as Lorne Nystrom.

So, why do I think Layton has been such a failure for the NDP when he has had such "strong" showings in the past two elections?

Let us take a look at the history of NDP (and its forerunner the CCF) in general elections:

CCF

1935 - 7/245 or 2.9% of the seats
1940 - 8/245 or 3.3%
1945 - 28/245 or 11.4%
1949 - 13/262 or 5.0%
1953 - 23/265 or 8.7%
1957 - 25/265 or 9.4%
1958 - 8/265 or 3.0%

NDP

1962 - 19/265 or 7.2%
1963 - 17/265 or 6.4%
1965 - 17/265 or 6.4%
1968 - 22/264 or 8.3%
1972 - 31/264 or 11.7%
1974 - 16/264 or 6.1%
1979 - 26/282 or 9.2%
1980 - 32/282 or 11.3%
1984 - 30/282 or 10.6%
1988 - 43/295 or 14.6%
1993 - 9/295 or 3.1%
1997 - 21/301 or 7.0%
2000 - 13/301 or 4.3%
2004 - 19/308 or 6.2%
2006 - 29/308 or 9.4%

So, in terms of proportion of the House of Commons, Jack Layton's best showing in 2006, we was about the same as Ed Broadbent's first and worst attempt. Now let us look at the broader picture:

Here are the rankings with interesting notes added:

01 - 1988, 14.6% - Tories hold majority
02 - 1972, 11.7% - Liberals slip to minority
03 - 1945, 11.4% - Liberals slip to minority
04 - 1980, 11.3% - Liberals win narrow majority
05 - 1984, 10.6% - Tories win large majority
06 - 1957, 09.4% (9.43396) - Tories win narrow minority
07 - 2006, 09.4% (9.41558) - Tories win narrow minority
08 - 1979, 09.2% - Tories win narrow minority
09 - 1953, 08.7% - Liberals hold government with smaller majority
10 - 1968, 08.3% - Liberals win move from minority to majority
11 - 1962, 07.2% - Tories slip from massive majority to minority
12 - 1997, 07.0% - Liberals slip to narrow majority
13 (tie) - 1963, 06.4% - Liberals regain power with minority
13 (tie) - 1965, 06.4% - Liberals retain minority
14 - 2004, 06.2% - Liberals slip to minority
15 - 1974, 06.1% - Liberal regain majority, David Lewis resigned for poor showing
16 - 1949, 05.0% - Liberals win massive majority
17 - 2000, 04.3% - Liberals win large majority
18 - 1940, 03.3% - Liberals win large majority
19 - 1993, 03.1% - Liberals win large majority
20 - 1958, 03.0% - Tories win largest majority in history
21 - 1935, 02.9% - first election attempt

You'll notice that when the Liberals do well the NDP tends to do poorly and vice versa. In fact the top 9 showings are in cases of Tory wins or Liberals going into a subsequent term while losing seats. Thus, the 2004 and 2006 elections were ideal scenarios for the NDP yet Layton managed only the 7th and 14th best showings (out of 21 elections). This is not good.

A look at the ridings since 1979, shows that the NDP has actually won in a remarkable 74 different ridings! And there has been very limited growth for the NDP, in the past few elections they have merely been winning back seats that they had held in their stronger years of the past. In 2004, Layton picked up only one new seat (Hamilton Centre, although Windsor West, won in a by-election when Alex McDonough was still leader, was won for the first time at a general election). In 2006, he did somewhat better - in picking up 10 seats, 6 had never been won by the NDP before, though most were in areas where past lessons show they would be likely lost if the tides were to turn.

Layton's biggest failure has been his inability to appeal to the NDP base. This has always been the rural prairie. In a remarkable turn of events, Saskatchewan, which with BC returned a majority of its MPs wearing orange in 1988, and elected 5 of 9 NDP MPs in their disasterous result of 1993, has completely shut out the NDP in both of Layton's elections as leader.

History shows the NDP surges in cities when they are on the rise, but then lose all of those seats when the Liberals do well. Layton has eliminated the NDP rural base and, as a result, they may well be completely wiped out the next time the Liberals come to power. Moreover, Layton's "slick" appeal to urban voters is over stated, he has done no better in cities than the NDP has done in other good elections like 1945, 1972, 1984 and 1988.

The NDP would have been wiser to chose someone like Lorne Nystrom, who held a rural Saskatchewan seat from 1968 to 1993 for the NDP and then, after the 1993 disaster, was easily elected in an urban-rural Saskatchewan seat in 1997 and 2000 before Layton's leadership resulted in the aforementioned NDP shutouts in Saskatchewan. At the same time Nystrom had a common man's touch with the intellectual edge that urban voters value. With the ideal scenarios that 2004 and 2006 presented, the NDP, if led properly, should have a minimum of 50 seats today.

What a shame.

Jean Chrétien in Twenty-Ten?

As I was mentioning in my earlier post about my experience at the leadership convention, I mentioned how much I enjoyed Jean Chrétien's remarks and wanted to draft him as leader.

Maclean's online has a humourous story today about potential Dion successors. As a former Kennedy supporter, I have been advised very strongly by Gerard that he will not tolerate any support of anyone but the leader, so backing Kennedy in the hypothetical match up is not an option.

Here are the candidates that Maclean's proposes:

• Gerard Kennedy


• Justin Trudeau


• Martin Cauchon


• Mark Holland


• Martha Hall Findlay


• Belinda Stronach


• Michael Ignatieff


• Dalton McGuinty


• Scott Brison


• Brian Tobin


• Jean Chrétien

Israel has had relative success in its practice of reaching back to the past to bring former prime ministers and senior ministers to the forefront of politics after retirement in their 70s and 80s. In 2010, Mr. Chrétien will be only 76. I would have a hard time not backing him, actually I am tempted to buy draftchretien.ca right now!

Dion's shadow cabinet

For fun, I will predict this. I'll assume he doesn't appoint anyone from outside of caucus to the shadow cabinet, though it would make sense on some levels for him to do so for Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay, however, if he does that, he would have to do so for Bob Rae as well and then you have perhaps gone a bit too far, especially considering they are all from Ontario and there are a lot of Ontario MPs to choose from.

Outside of the shadow cabinet, I suspect that he will have a big appointment for Gerard Kennedy. Perhaps Deputy Leader of the Party? Certainly something charged with renewal and grassroots empowerment.

Inside, he was supported by only 10 MPs, which means there is certainly room to include them all. I have included most of them, some couldn't fit due to regional accomodations. I will run on the assumption that Dion, as I would, will appoint a lean shadow cabinet that mirrors the government cabinet so as to provide a more focussed opposition and appear election ready.

Here goes the shadow cabinet:

Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader of the Official Opposition

Hon. Sue Barnes
National Revenue

Colleen Beaumier
Veterans Affairs

Ken Boshcoff
Intergovernmental Affairs, FEDNOR

Hon. Scott Brison
Industry

Bonnie Brown
Human Resources and Social Development

Hon. Gerry Byrne
Fisheries & Oceans

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh
Justice

Hon. Ken Dyrden
Health

Hon. Wayne Easter
Treasury Board, ACOA

Hon. Hedy Fry
Citizenship & Immigration

Hon. Ralph Goodale
Finance, Wheat Board

Sen. Dan Hays
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

Michael Ignatieff
Foreign Affairs, International Trade

Hon. Marlene Jennings
Public Safety

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc
Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons

Nancy Karetak-Lindell
Natural Resources and Northern Affairs

Tina Keeper
Canadian Heritage

Gary Merasty
Aboriginal Affairs

Hon. Anita Neville
Western Diversification, Status of Women

Glen Pearson
Labour

Hon. Lucienne Robilliard
Public Works and Government Services, La Francophonie and Official Languages

Francis Scarpaleggia
Transport, Infrastructure & Communities, EDA-Q

Paul Steckle
Agriculture and Agri-Food

Hon. Bryon Wilfert
Environment

Hon. Joe Volpe
National Defence

Blair Wilson
International Cooperation, Sport

On prognosticating

So, as I usually do, I am revisitng my predictions to see where I went wrong.

On the first ballot, my mistakes were I think relatively common. I overestimated the strength of the top four and underestimated the strength of the bottom four.

In my prediction, I did state that I expected Martha to do better than I had projected but the others caught me off guard. It also seems I drank too much koolaid as I disproportionately overestimated Kennedy's support.

Here is where my predictions for each on the first ballot differed from reality:

Ignaiteff -1.9%
Rae -0.7%
Dion -0.4%
Kennedy -2.6%
Dryden +1.6%
Brison +1.3%
Volpe +0.4%
Hall Findlay +2.1%

I grossly underestimated the strength of Dryden, Brison and MHF (though I allowed for that) while I overestimated the strength of Ignatieff and Kennedy. Rae, Dion and Volpe were all roughly on the mark.

The rest of my predictions are essentially garbage. It is like when you are doing a complicated math problem, if you screw up the first step, the rest of the math may be correct but you still have a fundamentally wrong answer. This is the case here, if Kennedy had placed third, I suspect my prediction may have been fairly accurate, however he didn't and thus the rest of the thinking is flawed.

However, I was relatively close in my thoughts on how an Ignatieff vs. Dion ballot would break down. In Part II, of my leadership series, I said this is how an Ignatieff vs. Dion ballot would come to pass: (bold denotes notes added now)

Ignatieff vs. Dion - Too close, slight edge to Dion

Under this scenario, Ignatieff will not bleed very much support (correct) while Dion will have placed third in the final four and picked up a substantial amount of Kennedy's support (correct). However, a good number of Kennedy's delegates west of the Ontario/Manitoba border will have been uncomfortable with another Francophone from Quebec as leader and move to Ignatieff and Rae (incorrect). However, enough will move to Dion to allow him to place second in the final three.

On the final ballot, Kennedy's remaining supporters will spilt around 55-45 to Dion over Ignatieff however a strong number of Rae's supporters going to Dion should push him over the edge possibly winning in a very tight contest over Ignatieff by about 52 to 48 (roughly correct - it was 54-46), however it could go either way.

Thus, as usual, I've missed the mark but am not totally out to lunch.

Way to go Graham & co

I am quite impressed with this announcement today. Promise made, promise kept.

I don't have time to search for links right now, but I know I saw a lot of Tories both on blogs and in the media said that the Liberals would never be able to do this, that insurance reforms had worked, that the rates were down and that they'd go down no further because they were as low as they could go.

Well guess what? We were still getting hosed by the insurance companies and Shawn Graham, T.J. Burke and friends are saving New Brunswickers $50 million dollars a year on top of what they've already saved since rates started going down in 2003/04.

Moreover, young men will no longer be discriminated against and will pay the same as young women.

Well done!!!

Also, two other good announcements which I missed on Friday:

• the province is investing in tidal power, and


• minimum wage with raise from $6.75 to $7.25 by July 1, 2007

UPDATE: In the comments section, I was wondering about potential future rate increases. I hear that there is good protection against this in the plan. I understand the the Insurance Advocate is going to get more teeth AND they will be appointing a public intervenor (i.e. like Peter Hyslop at the PUB). Looks good...

Dionnedy

I was hoping for Kennedion, but Dionnedy sounds good too. This editorial cartoon is great, and ran front page on several editions of the National Post today:

Stephane Dion, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

(edited for typos, style content unchanged)

I am heading home now and am attempting to bring you this post from my Blackberry, something that hasn't worked well to date.

Yesterday was an amazing day in politics, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to particpate in what may well have been the most exciting and dynamic convention in Canadian history.

I'll give you a bit of a run down on my thoughts as the process unfolded.

First ballot

We were over at a Kennedy party in the Hyatt Regency lounge on Friday, all waiting to hear word of what the results would be. A CBC reporter came by and we spoke to him briefly. He said the party had advised the media that the results would be announced at 12:05. I made my way over to the TV in the bar, several others were already there, and tuned it to Newsworld.

Peter Mansbridge and Keith Boag were on and waiting for the results. They came in at about 12:15. They showed Ignatieff in first at 29%, I figured if he didn't have 35% on the first he was toast but he ended up doing much better than I expected later on. Rae's support came in where expected. Then they put up Dion's name and there was a big gasp, some Dion delegates who'd come to the party were standing next to me, they were understandably excited.

Then, adding to the drama, the CBC cut out and went to static. We sat there in awe for several minutes not knowing how far behind Gerard was. When the signal returned, we were relieved that we were only back by 2 and essentially "tied for third" as the media had labelled us since 'Super Weekend'. Some people were bitter as apparently there had been a last minute appeal by Rae and Dion that had disqualified 17 Kennedy alternates from Alberta (and a good number of Ignatieff ones as well) from being upgraded to delegates.

Second ballot

As we lined up to vote, we were pretty optomistic.

We were frustrated to see Martha go to Dion as we'd been offering her a lot of moral and real support at the convention. A lot of Kennedy delegates, including myself, were wearing MHF buttons and we had finished fourth in part because we'd encouraged some ex-officios to vote for her to help her in her quest to pull ahead of Volpe.

Anyway, in line, I started to realize we faced a greater challenge than I knew. We were in fourth place, not "virtually tied for third" as I'd tried to spin it. It sunk in to me in line that fourth was fourth, regardless of the margin. I spoke to a Brison delegate who was from Alberta. He'd followed Brison to Rae and was sporting a Rae button. I asked him why he'd not gone to Gerard and to my surprise he pulled a GK button out of his pocket and explained that was his plan but he didn't want to go to a fourth place candidate he'd have to leave later anyway. My stomach sank, this was the first time I really realized we were in trouble.

When the results actually came in we were disappointed but optomistic. Though Dion had widened his lead from 2 votes to 90, he had received the endorsment from the widely loved and 130 vote strong Martha Hall Findlay and rode the momentum of his jump to third. I thought we'd be ok. Then came the big shock.

Candidates had 20 minutes to take their names off of the ballot. It took 18 minutes for Dryden, who'd been forced off, to announce his intentions. We thought he may endorse Gerard and knew many of his supporters, including almost all of his Ontario and youth would. Ken stood on a chair in his box, immediately next to Gerard, and announced that he was releasing his delegates, he would go to another candidate but told them to vote for whomever they prefered. He went to Rae. Gerard, whose box I was standing right behind acting as something of a cheerleader for our delegates, huddled with his key supporters and then left the box to head for Dion - I was devastated as were many of us. I had just grabbed a handful of GK scarved to go and try to poach Iggnatief delegates - their candidate, at 31% now, was far behind even where he'd expected to be on the first, I would have argued, come to us now or it will be Rae or Dion. I only got a few steps away when I saw Gerard make his move.

Third ballot

I was shellshocked, people were screaming, no one understood why this had happened. A good number around soon sported green Dion scarves on top of their red Kennedy ones.

I was torn, first I was convinced Gerard was going to win, second I was angry he had left before he had to and still thought he'd had a chance to pull ahead of Dion.

I had always planned to go to Dion and had promised many Dion supporting friends that I would. But I also thought Rae was more electable. A few of my fellow New Brunswick Kennedy delegates were going to Dion and explained why. They had good reasons and moved me closer to that decision.

I wandered the hall aimlessly for while in a daze. I was trying to find some of my other Kennedy people to talk to them about it and my Dion friends. I was approached by lots of Ignatieff and Rae delegates who I knew and didn't know and they tried to lobby me. The Rae people were very respectful but the Ignatieff were angry, agreessive and pushy. One girl yelled at me for 10 minutes in a desperate attempt to convert me.

I was approached by a CBC producer and agreed to do an interview live with Diana Swayne. As I waited, for about 10 minutes before they got me on, the clock for the third ballot was ticking. We had a great chat on air and my blackberry buzzed from friends all over. I explained where my mind was but during the wait I had almost completely prepared myself to vote Dion.

After the interview with about 5 minutes left on the poll, I did so and felt good about it. I couldn't find any Kennedy delegates outside, of Saskatchewan, that weren't going to Dion and thought we'd get him almost to 40% (our combined total was 39.6).

In the campaign office, where I went not knowing what to do after voting, Gerard arrived and spoke to those of us who'd gathered there. His voice was hoarse and he was nearly crying. He explained why he'd done it - they'd crunched the numbers and thought it was 99% sure we'd be dropped on the next ballot, that the campaign was not about him but about Real. Liberal. Change. and that Stephane would make that a reality. He asked us all to follow him, as most of us had, many were crying including myself.

Someone shouted "next time" and he sternly discouraged that kind of talk. He reminded us of his speech which said that we must be united and he would not condone any "Kennedy Liberals" and told us to back the leader.

Fourth ballot

The results showed Rae in third. I was expecting him in second, and I thought that that made it a foregone conclusion that Stephane would win, maybe with 65-70%. I was shocked instead by the number of prominent Rae supporters going to Ignatieff. This was going to be close.

I began telling people it would be 55% or less for one or the other. A bunch of us went back to the Kennedy box, now full of grassroots Kennedy people holding GK signs buit wearing Dion scarves, pins and hats. It was a unifying experience and I was glad we did.

Whenever GK was swown on the monitors we'd cheer and chant and the rest of the time we were showing our love for Dion.

Mr. Chrétien spoke and we all agreed that we missed him and wondered, half jokingly, if it should have been him we were electing.

I got a call saying that CBC was calling it the "Dion-Kennedy campaign" vs the Ignatieff campaign. We were excited. The results were as close as I expected but, thankfully, in our favour.

The End

We all got good and drunk and there was a reception back at the Kennedy hotel. We hung out in a room chatting and playing cards until after 3.

Some of our group left to go to the Dion party, but I wasn't in the mood for a big crowd and figured my two votes were a strong sign of support anyway.

First Ballot result vs prediction

For those of you who haven't yet seen the results of the first ballot, here they are:

Ignatieff 1412 (29.3%)
Rae 977 (20.3%)
Dion 856 (17.8%)
Kennedy 854 (17.7%)
Dryden 238 (4.9%)
Brison 192 (4.0%)
Volpe 156 (3.2%)
Hall Findlay 130 (2.7%)

A real nail biter, which sees Dion edge out Kennedy by 2 votes. I admit I didn't expect this, but considering that the voting took place largely before Gerard's speech and by delegates given a ballot with only the name of their candidate of choice on it, the fact that Dion has been swamped by positive media attention in recent weeks, the perception that Kennedy had a great speech and Dion had a mediocre one, things are still looking good for my boy Kennedy. After all, Kennedy lost the Ontario leadership in 1996 to a guy who placed fourth, so maybe fourth is better than third?

Prediction check

I predicted all of the ballots number by number a while back, let's take a look:

Ignatieff 1448 (31.2%)
Rae 977 (21.04%)
Kennedy 942 (20.31%)
Dion 843 (18.16%)
Dryden 152 (3.26%)
Volpe 131 (2.81%)
Brison 123 (2.66%)
Hall Findlay 26 (0.55%)

(Disclaimer: I personally think Martha Hall Findlay will do better than this, but couldn't think of a proper way to massage the numbers to make it so.)

Considering my disclaimer, I did pretty good excpet for having Kennedy too high.

GK speech

CPAC has a standalone video of Kennedy's speech, I highly recommend you watch it.

He had all kinds of people crying during a story about his early food bank days and really laid out a strong case for why he has the qualities to be leader.

Jason Cherniak, who is clearly afraid, criticizes GK for having been light on policy. Anyone here has noticed that the Congrès is littered with copies of GK's detailed policy proposals.

Kennedy Convention TV

Here are some fun videos from the past few days. Enjoy...

One member, one vote defeated

WHU HOO!

I was strongly against this measure. This convention is a perfect example of why.

We've all seen the way people win in one member one vote races - Stockwell Day eclipsing Preston Manning with massive church sign ups, Bernard Lord beating Norm Betts with a few kegs at U de M and so on. It is a bad way to choose a leader.

In this sort of race in particular, when it requires a lot of deliberation and people moving to their 2nd, 3rd and even 4th choices by the time the balloting leads up. Some deride deals on the floor but it is more than that.

I have encountered delegates here in Montreal who have said, of all the big four candidates, that they were impressed or disappointed to get to see them up close. These delegates are going to make informed decisions that could never be made under OMOV and the party will have a better leader for it.

From the missing blogger

Despite my best efforts, I have failed in live blogging. Here is something I tried to send last night at 2:33 a.m. Montreal time...

My apologies for being MIA. I have been crazy busy but having fun at this convention.

A few thoughts.

On tonight's speeches: Bill Graham was excellent. I am continually impressed by Shawn Graham's continued improvements. It was too bad that Frank McKenna was just introducing Howard Dean, in an introduction he did not have the same fire he usually does. Dean's speech was good, but the video that introduced him was WAY over the top and turned a lot of people off. He spoke with well practiced French which sparked thunderous cheers and applause from the crowd.

On the campaigns: It is really early to tell. Many delegates have not arrived (the lion's share are expected tomorrow, the deadline is 9am Friday). The big four all had demostrations as their candidates arrived and registered as delegates. The Ignatieff group was by far the largest while the Rae, Kennedy and Dion groups were of similar size. (Spin Alert) This bodes well for Kennedy as one assumes Quebec delegates have arrived disproprtionately to other regions and Kennedy should be way smaller. Only Ignatieff and Kennedy seem to have public campaign offices and Kennedy's is far more accessible. I am surprised by the number and enthusiasm of Ignatieff delegates. Perhaps his people are not as turned off as some have speculated.

On the convention: The convention hall, first opened up for the Dean speech tonight, was much better than I had expected. It is a flat room but they've done a great job with it. The candidate's boxes leave a lot to be desired however with only 3ft curtains separating them, it makes it difficult for the candidates to have private conversations. I am told that as of end of today over 2300 delegates had registered. Sounds as though this will be well attended considering that most registrations are not yet expected.

Live blogging starts soon

I will be leaving later today for Old Montreal where I will be attending the Liberal Leadership Convention until Sunday.

I will probably not have a lot of opportunity to read your comments but I will try my best and will be "live blogging" from key events at the convention. I hope you'll enjoy.

Calgary Grit has a very helpful convention blogroll listing all of those who will be blogging from the convention.

An exciting night in politics

Watching the by-election returns now. Very interesting to see Elizabeth May (Green) and Glen Pearson (Liberal) duking it out for first in the early returns. Conservative "star" is training in fourth behind the NDP!

UPDATE 1: Liberal pulls a bit further ahead, Tory breaks into third.

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 30.5%
May (G) - 27.8%
Haskett (C) - 21.6%
Walker (N) - 19.2%

UPDATE 2: Liberal narrows again, could be a long night.

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 31.2% (+0.7)
May (G) - 29.1% (+1.3)
Haskett (C) - 21.2% (-0.4)
Walker (N) - 17.7% (-1.5)

UPDATE 3: I think we can call Repentigny a Bloc hold, lead consistently at 35 to 40 points ahead of a distant Tory.

UPDATE 4: Liberal lead seems to be stabalizing but still only 75/253 polls reporting. Acutal numerical lead is ~350 votes.

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 32.3% (+0.9)
May (G) - 28.1% (-1.0)
Haskett (C) - 21.4% (+0.2)
Walker (N) - 17.4% (-0.3)

UPDATE 5: Liberal lead seems to be growing very slowly, the trend is positive for the Grit.

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 33.0% (+0.7)
May (G) - 27.8% (-0.3)
Haskett (C) - 21.6% (+0.2)
Walker (N) - 16.7% (-0.7)

UPDATE 6: Upward Liberal trend continues...

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 33.5% (+0.5)
May (G) - 27.8% (± 0)
Haskett (C) - 22.4% (+0.8)
Walker (N) - 15.4% (-1.3)

UPDATE 7: I am almost ready to call this for the Liberals. Actual lead now over 1500 votes, 170/253 polls in.

Results so far
Pearson (L) - 34.1% (+0.6)
May (G) - 27.4% (-0.4)
Haskett (C) - 23.1% (+0.7)
Walker (N) - 14.7% (-0.7)

UPDATE 8: 250/253 polls in. Pearson at 9999 votes, more than 2000 ahead of May. I declare this a Liberal hold and a Pearson victory.

Results so far (not margin over last update but from last election)
Pearson (L) - 34.4% (-5.7)
May (G) - 27.0% (+22.5)
Haskett (C) - 23.6% (-6.3)
Walker (N) - 14.3% (-9.5)

This is a huge set back for the Tories in my view. Despite having the power of government and a well known former mayor candidate who is running against a newcomer (who parachuted in from the next riding) instead of a 6 term incumbent and cabinet minister, they have lost 6.3% of the vote and the Liberal vs Tory margin has actually grown by 0.6%.

This is my last post unless May shocks me and somehow surges ahead.

How can they be doing this?

I am sitting here watching the vote on the now infamous motion. The Bloc caucus just finished voting. The looks of glee on their faces was telling. Duceppe looked squarely in Harper's direction, smiled and saluted. Bloc House Leader Michel Gauthier gave the Tories a thumbs up.

How can we be doing this?

Kennedy shows true leadership

The following statement was released by Gerard Kennedy today:

I cannot support the Harper-Duceppe motion currently before the House.

The Prime Minister's responsibility is to protect the constitution and the unity of the country. This motion does neither. It is wrong for Canada.

The motion creates an unmistakable expectation by giving official legitimacy to the "idea" of nation, without defining it. This is an irresponsible step, as there has never been greater need for honest dialogue between Quebecers and the rest of Canadians. Rather than improving national unity, the motion will exacerbate divisions and generate misunderstanding in Quebec and across Canada. It is for this reason that throughout this campaign I have consistently opposed the "officialization" of the notion of Quebec as a nation.

Canada is a united country that must be constantly defined by our common values and a shared purpose. The introduction of this resolution contradicts this need and instead sows division over uncertain symbols.

I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it. Further, this motion does nothing to recognize, and potentially takes away from, aboriginals, Acadians and other official minority groups with a distinct culture and heritage within Canada.

I deplore that anyone would use this as a wedge issue for political gain. As Liberals, we have to understand that there is no easy way to rebuild the party in Quebec but we must stay resolute in our vision for the entire country. I want Quebecers to know that as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada I will forge a common understanding of the best way for Quebecers and all Canadians to work together on our real challenges: globalization benefiting all families not just a few; an aging population and the growing divide between rural and urban regions.

Out of respect for the interim leader Bill Graham, I am not requesting that any caucus member supporting my candidacy change their vote to reflect my position.

Canadians will know that I do not feel bound by this vote or this process.

Before people say this is reflective of a candidate without a lot of support in Quebec who does not understand Quebec. This motion is opposed by both Justin Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau and by Senator Serge Joyal, a Quebec minister in Trudeau's government and constitutional expert who has said it is a "dangerous, big mistake" which will create "more stress, more tension, more blackmail and less trust" and "open the door for additional claims for any other province to get something from the federal government".

Also, Maclean's has a perpetually updating thread on this that is worth checking out.

I hope you agree that Kennedy has done the right thing here and think that Liberals will view the same. If so, please go to CTV's site and vote on their question "How will Kennedy's opposition to the Quebec motion impact his chances at the Liberal convention?".

UPDATE: Apparently Michael Chong has resigned from the cabinet over the nation motion? He was one of my favourite ministers and also the guy in charge of provincial relations. If this is true, it is a very significant blow to those supporting the motion. Perhaps he'll cross the floor if Kennedy wins the leadership?

UPDATE 2: Ken Dryden has also come out against the motion... will he now endorse Gerard after the second ballot?

Good luck tomorrow, Charles

Spinks has a good post up on Charles LeBlanc's trial tomorrow.

In summary, Charles is an activist and blogger who, though slightly off of his rocker, has done a great deal to bring attention to the over prescription of Ritalin for ADD/ADHD children and a broad range of other issues effecting the down trodden.

Whether you are a fan of Charles or not, I think we can all agree that the case the Crown has on him is one of the weakest things ever brought to trial. Moreover, this is very interesting to watch due to the precedent it could set in terms of bloggers being deemed members of the media with all of the rights the Charter and other laws.

Good luck tomorrow, Charles!

UPDATE: Charles LeBlanc wins

LibLead III

Finally, here is the third installment of three in my series on the Liberal leadership race.

In Part I, I guessed how well each leadership candidate would do as leader in a general election. To read it, click here.

In Part II, I explained that I thought each of the "big four" could realistically win the leadership race and I explained the scenarios as to how this would happen. To read it, click here.

Finally, here is Part III, which I described in my earlier post as:

A bit of the suspence for this one has been ruined as I have already said I think Kennedy will win. I will spell out why in a ballot-by-ballot guesstimation of the results.

So, here we go. For the first three ballots, I used a lot of data from the EKOS survey of delegates, which is the only opinion poll taken during this race that measures a relevant sample of people to determine the outcome of the leadership.

So, here we go.

First Ballot

For numbers, I used the results of the delegate selection meetings (excluding backfills, which would be too difficult to compensate for) and the ex-officio numbers from Wikipedia (which stood at: MI213, BR81, GK112, SD121, JV7, KD47, SB35, MHF3, Und/Neutral 476 when I prepared this).

Using the EKOS poll, I assume that 93% of Ignatieff delegates, 92% of Rae delegates, 94% of Kennedy delegates and 86% of Dion delegates will show up to the convention. I assumed that 60% of delegates for the bottom four and 75% of undecided delegates would show up. (This is elected delegates only).

For ex-officios, I assumed that 90% of those that had endorsed a candidate would show up and 75% of those who had not would show up.

For undecides, both elected, ex-officios who have not made endorsements and declared neutral delegates, I broke them down using the following logic. It is easy to endorse the frontrunner, so most who want to support him have done so. Thus, the undecides were broken down 10% for Ignatieff, 25% for Rae and 32.5% each for Kennedy and Dion.

This gives us the following results for the first ballot:

Ignatieff 1448 (31.2%)
Rae 977 (21.04%)
Kennedy 942 (20.31%)
Dion 843 (18.16%)
Dryden 152 (3.26%)
Volpe 131 (2.81%)
Brison 123 (2.66%)
Hall Findlay 26 (0.55%)

(Disclaimer: I personally think Martha Hall Findlay will do better than this, but couldn't think of a proper way to massage the numbers to make it so.)

Second Ballot

I assume that Dryden and Brison will choose to drop off and Hall Findlay will be forced to. Volpe I expect will remain on the ballot due to the way he has stubbornly approached the race and due to the rumours I have heard about the "deal" he wants in order to endorse a candidate.

Based on the EKOS poll, some pledged delegates to the big four do not want their candidate of choice to win. For Ignatieff, 11% want him to lose, for Rae 12%, for Kennedy 7% and for Dion 18%. For the second ballot, I have moved these people away from their pledges and allotted them to other candidates based on their second choice from the EKOS poll (undecideds excluded from the results).

For Volpe, I estimated 40% of his delegates would dessert him and assigned them to the second choices from the poll, undecides excluded.

For the three that dropped, leaving undecideds in the equation, I moved those who had made up their minds for a second choice to the big four. Then I moved all of their undecideds to who I thought they would endorse.

Based on everything I read in the press, I decided to have Dryden and Hall Findlay endorse Rae and take their undecided delegates (50% and 52% respectively) with them. For Brison, I had him endorse Kennedy - per my previous thoughts on this, click here - taking his 50% undecided in that direction.

This gives us the following results for the second ballot:

Ignatieff 1391 (30.08%)
Rae 1146 (24.79%)
Kennedy 1075 (23.26%)
Dion 920 (19.9%)
Volpe 91 (1.97%)

Note that on this stage, the only judgment calls I made were with endorsements. Other movement is based on the EKOS poll. Therefore, unless Ignatieff gets an endorsement from someone who drops off, and the EKOS findings hold, he is guaranteed to slip between ballot 1 and ballot 2 as the EKOS poll finds more people would bleed from him than would come to him from other campaigns. I found this very interesting.

Third Ballot

I begin this ballot by assuming that Volpe, who would be eliminated, "releases his delegates". Therefore I have accorded his delegates based on the EKOS findings of second choise, less undecideds. This means 60% go to Rae, 15% to Kennedy and 13% each to Ignatieff and Dion.

Then I assume that Ignatieff supporters, some of whom are with him because he is the winner, would give up. I estimate he would lose 15% of his delegates at this time, which is consistent with history of what happens when frontrunners stall. Of the delegates that leave him, I send 90% to Kennedy - as I suspect those leaving at this point would want to stop at all costs Rae and Dion who have attacked their candidate - and project that the remaining 10% will not vote or spoil their ballots.

Also, because Rae and Kennedy have both broken the psychological barrier of 1000 votes and Dion has grown, though not substantially and remains bellow both the 1000 vote and 20% barriers, 10% of his supporters move to other candidates. Of these, I move 10% to Ignatieff, 20% to Rae and 70% to Kennedy based on media reports of synergies and alliances between these two campaigns. I also projected that 10 Dion delegates would not vote.

This gives us the following results for the third ballot:

Rae 1219 (27.67%)
Ignatieff 1203 (27.31%)
Kennedy 1153 (26.18%)
Dion 830 (18.84%)

Fourth Ballot

At this point I would expect a lot of Ignatieff supporters to be frustrated and scared due to his not only having stalled but having also slipped to second place, I project a 30% bleed of his supporters. Of these, I project 70% go to Kennedy, for the reasons above, and 20% go to Rae, while 10% do not vote on the next ballot.

In Dion's case, he has dropped off, I suspect that Dion will endorse Kennedy based on the media speculation and other words heard on the street. However, I am not convinced he could deliver all of his delegates, especially when I already moved 7% of his delegates to Kennedy on the last ballot. I project 60% would follow Dion to Kennedy, while 30% would go to Rae and 10% to Ignatieff.

This gives us the following results for the fourth ballot:

Kennedy 1651 (40.83%)
Rae 1468 (36.29%)
Ignatieff 925 (22.88%)

Fifth Ballot

Ignatieff is eliminated here and per previous arguments, I suspect the lion's share of his support would move to Kennedy. I have 75% of his delegates moving to Kennedy, 20% to Rae and an additional 5% not voting.

This gives us the following results for the final ballot:

Kennedy 2345 (58.66%)
Rae 1653 (41.34%)

KUDOS TO THE NB LIBERALS!!

As promised, in my post of just five days ago, I am giving kudos to the first of our two major parties to get their website up.

As Scott pointed out in the comments of that last post, eerily this is not the first time I have seemed to effect a change on the Liberal website. Back on September 1st, I caught the Liberal leader's blog as being way out of date and shortly there after it was back with a vengence.

Cool.