Solid as a Rock? Probably

On October 11, Newfoundland and Labrador goes to the polls and as of now the election is the ruling Progressive Conservatives' to lose. The party is vying for its third win in a row, following the two elections successfully fought by Danny Williams. Importantly, Premier Kathy Dunderdale will hit the hustings knowing that this is an electorate which tends to give parties multiple mandates.

Premier Dunderdale's cause has been aided by the disarray among her traditional rivals, the Liberals (sound familiar?). Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones surprised many when she resigned as leader for health reasons, essentially on the eve of the election. A new leader, Kevin Aylward, has just been selected, and will now embark on a crash course on the issues in preparation for the campaign.

In contrast, the NDP offer up a relative sense of stability having been led by Lorraine Michael since 2006. However, this stability cannot make up for the fact that this has always been a 2-party province. The NDP have never won more than 2 seats in a provincial election.

So does this make it a slam dunk for the Progressive Conservatives? Probably. And if so, is there anything worth watching? Definitely.

1. Ms. Dunderdale is following the immensely popular Danny Williams. While she and the party continue to benefit from the strong levels of satisfaction and support he left them, there has been slippage. While this won't necessarily affect the outcome of the election, how she fares will become a big part of the party narrative over the next four years.

It is also worth noting that unlike Mr. Williams, she publicly supported the federal Conservatives in the last election and in fact a number of former members of the Williams government ran under Mr. Harper's banner. They did not fare well. How her support for the Harper Conservatives plays out in the provincial election will be interesting to see.

2. Could this be the election which sees the NDP make real gains? Stability at the top, the federal breakthrough still fresh in the mind (current challenges notwithstanding) and a growing concern about social issues in the face of an aging population could help the NDP make inroads. An NDP campaign which focuses on issues like health, home care, and the elderly won't give them victory, but it could just push them to second place.

3. Building on the point above, the Liberals are in disarray. A new leader has been elected and will have little time to prepare. Like their federal cousins, there has likely been a sense that if they are patient their time will come. It always does, right?

Perhaps before, but maybe not anymore. As the federal Liberals found out, Canadians are increasingly prepared to look beyond the two-party system. The Liberals may need to work harder for second spot than they expected.

4. Issues? Beyond areas of social policy it will be interesting to see how the Lower Churchill narrative plays out over the course of the campaign. The development of the Churchill Falls has always been a key element in Newfoundland and Labrador politics - it is a truly sensitive nerve. As debate in New Brunswick on the NB Power-Hydro Quebec proposals recently showed, the politics of power development can be tricky waters for a politician to navigate.

***

This election is Premier Dunderdale's to lose and to be honest, losing it would take some doing. However, below the headline of "who wins" are some interesting issues worth following. I will be focusing on what the election could mean for the Liberal and NDP brands in the province, and what issues resonate most with voters.

But more than anything, what I am interested in seeing over the course of the fall elections is to what degree we see commonality in the issues and views expressed. Why?

With a majority government in Ottawa, the provinces once again start to play a larger role. Depending on the results of elections they can become supporters of the federal government, or they can become the de facto "official opposition."

Thoughts?

Quite. A. Night.

So there it is. Canadians have finally spoken and #elxn 41 has provided results which offer up a lot of food for thought. The headlines are simple:

- the strong, stable Conservative majority that Mr. Harper sought;
- the rise of the NDP as the official opposition;
- the decimation of the Liberals; and
- the virtual elimination of the Bloc in Quebec.

But like so much in this campaign, the headlines only tell part of the story.

I am going to take a night to consider the results further, but there are some initial observations I would make.

1. The Harper majority would have been less likely had the NDP surge not occurred. The degree of vote splitting, particularly in Ontario, was decisive. In many, many ridings it took Jack to give Stephen what he wanted as many centrist Liberals went Conservative, presumably out of concern about the NDP.

2. What will Mr. Harper do? Expect to see over the next few years a continued erosion or scaling back in the role government plays in our everyday lives. Through tax cuts and a strong nod to provincial responsibilities, the ability of the federal government to act decisively has already been changed - this trend will continue.

3. What happens when the NDP wake up tomorrow? In their "break out" years, Reform or the Bloc each had about 50 neophyte MPs elected. The NDP have elected a sizeable number more. Are they ready to oppose? The good news, I guess, is that they will have 4 years to learn. It will be a steep learning curve for a party that is now effectively in the role of "government in waiting."

4. And what of the Liberals? Their base is eroded and public subsidies are not long for this country. As a result, their ability to re-build will be limited. This puts all questions on the table. Can they reassert themselves as a centrist party or are we now seeing the starting point for a re-alignment of the left?

5. And finally, Quebec. The virtual elimination of the Bloc has the potential to be a watershed moment in the province and in Canada. Quebec remains effectively "out of the government."

So, some random thoughts as we look into tomorrow and beyond. I will be writing more, but would welcome other's observations and commentary.

Above and beyond what I have mentioned above, #elxn41 has served as an important reminder about engagement. The engagement we began to see in this campaign needs to be sustained, nurtured and grown. We owe it to ourselves to take the time now and invest in our democracy and the role we play as informed participants within it.

London Calling

The notion of life inside the Ottawa-bubble and outside of it has been discussed from time to time during this campaign. What captures the attention of people in Ottawa, or those who tend to follow politics, is often different than what seizes most Canadians.

With that in mind, your intrepid blogger has decided to temporarily pack-up and burst out of the bubble. Good-bye Ottawa and its "corridors of power"; hello London, Ontario and its suburbs, schools, farms and factories.

To borrow from the the Clash (who borrowed from the BBC), "This is London Calling."

There are three ridings in London (West, North-Centre and Fanshawe), and a number of others in the areas of southwestern Ontario that surround the city. Within the city, the three ridings are split evenly among the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Outside, it is more or less a sea of blue.

Over the next couple of days, I am going to do my best to learn what matters most to the people here. Do the main points of the Liberal narrative resonate - do people care about the contempt vote and the democracy questions? Are the priorities in the Liberal platform their priorities?

Conversely, is the Conservative narrative getting traction? Is this seen as an unnecessary election? Are people worried about a coalition? Do they feel that the economy would be jeopardized by a change in government and that we therefore need a Conservative majority?

Finally, is the NDP story that has been filling the political airwaves evident here? Do we see momentum behind Jack Layton and if so is it sustainable over the last week of the campaign? As of now we are not seeing it, but remember London was the home of David Peterson and it went NDP in 1990...

Right now, local polling and the sentiment I have picked up seems to suggest that London and the surrounding areas will vote more or less as they did in 2008. Interestingly, the few ridings that are considered too close to call are currently held by the Conservatives and could flip to either the Liberals or the NDP.

Some things to consider:

1. The university and college dynamic. There are lot of students in this area (Western and Fanshawe in London, plus Guelph, Waterloo and Laurier), and we are seeing evidence that the youth vote is more active in 2011. Whether and how this group votes could be very decisive.

2. Local issues. In London, there are issues concerning possible funding for a local aircraft manufacturer (Diamond Jet) which people feel may hinder Ed Holder's re-election as the Conservative candidate. In Simcoe-Grey, we have the Helena Guergis story. How issues like this play out on May 2 may have more impact than views on learning passports, corporate tax cuts and the G20.

3. Turn-out and ground game. I don't have the figures on turn-out in 2008, so I am not certain whether the city and area was above, below or more or less consistent with the national result of 58.8. However, the demographic in the area - London in particular - is interesting. We have a strong mix of seniors and youth, "born and bred" and immigrants, white-collar and blue collar. Which groups are engaged and decide to vote will be decisive, which puts pressure on the local riding associations to know who their voters are and to get them out.

So, with that in mind off I go to talk, listen and get a sense as to what we can expect from a part of Ontario that is conservative by nature, if not always by political affiliation. My sense is that the people of London and southwestern Ontario will throw us few surprises.

We'll see if I am right...

Poll Vault: The Story of the NDP

Up until now, the commentary on #elxn41 (including here in the ivory towers of A Guy Watching Politics) has focused on the battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals. One is the party of the government; the other the party of the government in waiting.

So far, so good. It all made sense.

While nothing has changed the fact that the next Prime Minister will come from one of these parties, events over the past seven days have changed the landscape.

The strength of the NDP was always going to be an important variable. We knew that going into this campaign. What's interesting is not that the NDP are an important player, it's the shift over the past week.

For the first two weeks or so, the NDP had a poor campaign. They received limited visibility and their message was being drowned out by the Liberal and Conservative campaigns. Heading into the debates, a major talking point was the falling levels of NDP support, particularly in vote-rich Ontario.

That was certainly the top-line story. Below this line, we also had the story of the NDP polling well in Quebec. Something that read well and was interesting, but perhaps not compelling given the broader national narrative.

Enter the debates.

I am the first to admit that I am not a fan of Mr. Layton. He's affable and passionate - I get that. However, his message and style don't resonate with me. I find it sometimes too flippant and the economics too idealistic. All said I'd have a beer with him, but I don't think I would vote for him.

However, putting aside my views, I think during the debates (particularly in French) he did come across as natural - impassioned, interested, and at times above the fray. I think that resonated with voters in Quebec who are tired of the same old struggle, and with voters in Ontario who had moved Liberal in the first two weeks.

The result is that over the past few days we have seen an NDP "poll vault." They have reversed the losses in Ontario (at the expense of the Liberals) and have made gains in Quebec (at the expense primarily of the Bloc, but also to the detriment of the others). Add to this the resonance that the anti-HST campaign is having in BC and you have the potential for something meaningful.

Today Angus-Reid had the Liberals and NDP both at 25% nationally. Other polls show a similar resurgence, though not a tie with the Liberals.

The two weeks left are an eternity. The NDP numbers nationally may not mean much in the grand scheme of things. However, the NDP numbers in Ontario, Quebec and BC could be significant. The question is how?

Will this last? Will it result in greater vote-splitting on the left, allowing the Conservatives to come up the middle? Or do the polling numbers translate into NDP seats? Put another way, how is the Conservative quest for a majority affected by a resurgent NDP? What does this mean for the Liberals?

Tell me what you think. How will this affect the final two weeks of the campaign?

At least you have your health...

With a little more than two weeks to go before voting day, the issue of health care has been generating more and more attention. This should not be surprising.

- Health care has remained near or at the top of the list of issues Canadians have deemed the most important to them.

- At a time where government austerity of some sort is going to be needed to address the deficit, how government spending on health care might be affected is a topic that needs to be on the table.

- With two weeks to go and the Conservatives still polling strongly, the Opposition parties will look to tap into public concerns about health care and possible funding cuts to gain support.

Let me start with the following observation: it should not take an election to prompt discussion of our health care system, how it is funded and the upcoming challenges we are facing.

This is already the single largest draw on provincial revenues. And transfers to the provinces from the federal government related to health care represent the largest share of government transfers.

Canadians value it. Provinces are responsible for it. All governments pay for it.

Add to that the demographic realities we are facing and the only surprise is that it took nearly three weeks for health care to "rise up" to the top of list of issues being discussed in #elxn41. Yet there it is, featuring in attack ads and duelling talking points and tweets. Here are some of my thoughts.

1. I would start by noting that the Health Accord - the agreement struck between the Martin Liberal government and the provinces - will expire in 2014. As I noted in a blog post last year, if you thought saving GM and Chrysler were expensive wait until the bill comes in for the next iteration of this accord.

The fact that this Accord is: (a) soon to expire; and (b) the big ticket of big ticket items was apparently not sufficient for it to feature prominently in the platforms of the Conservatives and Liberals. As a result, we have seen the parties simply reaffirm their commitment to the Accord and its funding during scrums. As Andrew Coyne has noted, we are essentially making policy on the fly.

While I favour a commitment to funding, I have to admit that I am dismayed by the lack of discussion about how Canada is going to address the challenges demographics will present to our system. In effect, we are committing funding without having really discussed the demand, the needs of tomorrow. This is not the best way to make policy, and all parties are guilty of going down this path.

2. Despite this being identified as their most important issue, I am not sure Canadians really understand how the system works and how it is funded. In a 2009 posting on this blog (*sigh* has it been that long?), I wrote about the division of powers and how we have the system we have - http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-get-this-i-get-that-division-of.html.

We have a system in which responsibility for delivering health care resides with the provinces, but the core means for generating the funds necessary for running it reside with the federal government. One has the responsibility, the other the cash.

Over the years, this has been addressed through funding agreements (cash and tax points) from Ottawa to the provinces. Unfortunately, from my perspective previous discussions and the subsequent agreements have focused on cash being the solution. The dialogue almost seems to be along the lines of: "If there was more money available, the current problems (wait times, access to equipment, etc.) would go away."

Money is only a solution to problem if you have properly and honestly considered the problem, and discussed all solutions. I am not sure that this has been done.

The result? Commitments to funding, accusations focusing on past behaviour and warnings about future agendas. Sadly, none of this will do anything to address health care. None of this is showing the public that there is a real willingness to do something about the area we have said matters most to us.

3. Building on the point above, we also have the Canada Health Act which essentially lays out the principles the federal government expects the provinces to adhere to in exchange for federal money.

But do Canadians really understand the Act, what it says, how the provinces interpret it? Again, I am not sure they do. Yet this is what is raised to them during campaigns and speeches. It would be more meaningful when one says they will "defend the Canada Health Act" if the audience knew what that meant.

So at the end of all of this, here is what I see:

- it's valued;
- it's expensive;
- different levels of government are responsible for it; and
- it's about to face some serious challenges - in the context of our fiscal position and more importantly in the context of our changing demographics.

In the end, we have to talk about it. Together. It can't be a line in a scrum intended to take the issue of the table. It can't be an attack ad. It has to be a discussion.

Are we prepared for it?

A Modest Proposal (for the debates)

The two debates scheduled for #elxn41 have been concluded, though we still have 18 days to go. It struck me the other night that we can do better.

Putting aside all of the problems with "the consortium" (is it supposed to sound so nefarious?) and the way the debates are actually structured in terms of questions and topics, isn't it time we looked at the number of debates that are held and the location of the debates?

On Tuesday night, as the English language debate started in Ottawa it was 4:00 in the afternoon in Vancouver! Think about that for a moment. We hear so much about the growing importance of British Columbia, and the need for parties to make real gains in the province and break the typical 3-way split.

So what do we do? We hold the debate - one of only 2 times to see the Leaders engage with one another and lay out their vision for the country - while most people are at work or on a commute. It was not much better for Albertans, as the debate kicked off at 5:00 pm there (though Alberta is far from being a battleground given Conservative hegemony).

With that in mind, a proposal for next time:

- A minimum of three debates (two in English and one in French)
- One English debate to be held in Ontario, the other in British Columbia
- Debates are scheduled over three successive weeks; no more of this 24-48 hour turnaround

I would also propose the following, which is perhaps more controversial.

The first say 75 minutes or so would feature only the Leaders of the two largest parties - barring the unforeseen the Conservatives and the Liberals. These are the only two Leaders with any real chance of becoming Prime Minister. Let's hear from them about their respective visions for the country, and let them make their pitch to lead.

For the remaining 45 minutes the Leaders of the other main parties would be invited to participate. This would include those with representation in the House of Commons at dissolution (in the current scenario the NDP and the Bloc), but also those with significant levels of national support (the Greens in this scenario).

I know that for many (read: the NDP) this would not be acceptable. However, whether we like it or not Canadians are being presented with a choice between two prospective Prime Ministers. I for one want to hear them debate one another.

If this has to come at the expense of parties which may hold the balance of power, so be it. It's a trade-off/sacrifice I am prepared to make.

Finally, I would like to see the moderator(s) more engaged. There should be an opportunity for them to call the Leaders out on inconsistencies (we see enough of these through the fact checking and reality checks in play), personal attacks, etc. They should be more than timekeepers.

What are the odds of any of this happening? Likely pretty slim. Networks are being asked to give up air time for these debates and will therefore want to continue to control the structure. Parties will also favour the conservative approach currently used - it's safer.

I just think we deserve a better opportunity to have the choice presented and argued before us. What about you?

Democracy...it's more than an inconvenience

The first of the debates scheduled for #elxn41 concluded last night, and this morning the papers, blogs and twittersphere are filled with commentary, reaction, spin and pronouncements about winners and losers.

Like many, I watched the debate and did not see anything that I thought would move a sizable number of votes one way or the other. Bases were shored up, though I am not sure much more occurred.

With this in mind, I opted against using today's post to prepare my own summary and instead want to focus on one of the discussion points that struck me.

Throughout the debate when topics such as Parliament, coalitions and the contempt finding were discussed, Mr. Harper conveyed what to me was essentially a tone of irritation. It was a consistent non-acceptance of the views expressed by the majority of the House of Commons.

"I don't accept these truths" was one of the lines used by Mr. Harper in response to points raised about the contempt finding. Not, "I don't agree" or "we have different views". "I don't accept."

Democracy is more than an inconvenience. It should not be portrayed as an irritant, or something that gets in your way. Yet this is basically what Mr. Harper was saying.

Democracy takes work and demands compromise. To function properly it requires information and transparency - they are like oxygen. Within our system of government the notions of accountability and responsibility are supposed to be paramount.

These principles are not meant to be a high standard we hope our leaders attain; they should be the bare minimum we accept from the people we elect to make decisions on our behalf, to spend our money, to commit our troops, to be stewards of the public trust, and to govern us.

I did not hear that last night from Mr. Harper. I heard irritation and a sense of being inconvenienced. I heard that he wants a majority so he doesn't have to be bothered or distracted from governing how he wants to govern.

He wants to do his job - fine. But he did not accept that the debate, dialogue and compromise so sorely lacking from our political process is a fundamental part of his job.

These are not "nice to haves", and are not impediments to managing an economy or considering how to provide sustainable health care. On the contrary, they are pre-requisites to governing.

I hope that this theme is picked up tonight in the second debate and in the commentary that follows over the remainder of the campaign, though I am not sure.

In expressing his views the way he did, Mr. Harper is counting on possible election-fatigue as being a factor for voters. He is also counting on voters seeing these things as "Ottawa issues" and not mainstreet issues.

Is he right? What are you prepared to accept?

Making Character a Question

So, we've now had 12 days of official campaigning. From my perspective they have been a surprisingly full 12 days.

We've seen policy choices tabled and debated. We've seen a Liberal campaign team that has exceeded expectations (perhaps they were too low) and demonstrated a strong degree of professionalism and organization. And we've seen the Conservatives move from avoiding the word majority, to actively using it to tap into what they see as public election fatigue and fears of a "socialist-separatist" coalition.

Yet, for all of this after 12 days we may be starting to see character and comportment emerge as real issues.

Now for those of you (ok, both of you) who read this blog with any regularity, you may be surprised to see that I am raising this as an issue. A big focus for me over the 18 months or so has been the importance of highlighting the issues Canadians need to face as we look to position our country for the future - things like health care, the environment, productivity, and innovation.

While it has been great to see these topics getting an airing (some more than others - we need a real health care debate if only to get clarity on each party's position on the future of the health accord with the provinces!), the events of the past week may just be coming together to frame a character issue. Let's review:

- the allegations surrounding Bruce Carson
- the decision by the Conservatives to limit questions and engagement with Mr. Harper
- the treatment of perceived "non-friendly" attendees at Conservative events

Taken together, these points are providing the Liberals, NDP and BQ with real-time examples of what they have been criticizing the Conservatives for since the last election. Importantly, these parties now have what I will lazily call "non-Parliamentary" examples of what they see as the true character of the Conservatives.

In a campaign, it was unlikely that issues like obstruction in Committees, transparency, accountability, Speaker's rulings, document dumps and the like were going to resonate with the average voter. For many, these are Ottawa stories; procedural matters. This was the Conservative message.

However, in the space of a week we now have examples that voters can identify with...

- why was this man hired and who knew about his past?
- why are the reporters being kept back and their questions not being answered?
- what do you mean they kicked out a student?

The election was called following a vote of contempt in Parliament, yet the Liberals spent week one more focused on policy. Week two has started to gravitate towards the character issue, but not because of what the Liberals, NDP and BQ have done. It's because of the actions of the Conservatives. Ironically, they have made it an issue.

Through their actions they have now given the other parties the chance to link campaign actions to the more Ottawa-focused narrative. They can say, "This is what we have been talking about. This is a Conservative government."

Will any of it matter?

Ultimately, it will be the voters and not the politicians who frame their ballot box question. They will answer the questions they ask themselves more than the questions the parties ask them. Have recent events made character, comportment and attitude the question for a larger number of voters?

For me, I go back to something I wrote earlier this year about government and our attitudes towards politicians. Canadians recognize that we live in challenging times and we continue to see uncertainty around us, in Canada and around the world.

The challenges and opportunities we are facing demand the best of government (policy) and not the worst of politics (attitude, character, comportment).

So, what will it be Canada?

The Liberal Platform - offering a choice; tacking left

The Liberal platform was released yesterday, generating a lot of discussion and commentary. While I am not planning on presenting a full proposal-by-proposal assessment, I think there are some themes and initiatives worth highlighting.

1. The notion of choice

Go back 12-18 months ago, and you would have seen a Liberal Opposition that had not done much to frame an alternative vision of Canada. It was not clear what they stood for or what a Liberal government would look like.

Now fast forward to today and you have your answer. Through this platform, which the announcements of week 1 were designed to build up to, the Liberals have given themselves definition. They have moved from presenting a "we're not the other guy" argument towards "this is who we are and what you can expect."

Canadians are now better placed than they have been in some time to ask themselves which party is more aligned with their priorities. This doesn't mean they will suddenly vote Liberal. But it does mean they can make a more informed choice.

2. Clarity of message

Taking a page from the 2006 Conservative campaign, the Liberals have opted for a focused message which highlights their core priorities. The goal here is simplicity and clarity. You can't be everything to all people; you can't do it all. You want what you stand for to be memorable, to be suitable for an elevator conversation or a chat when you are waiting in line. The "Family Pack" theme ticks this box. In fact throughout week 1 the Liberals have largely been on-message.

3. Know your audience

Women voters are key to Liberal hopes. While the Conservatives have a strong grip on the middle-aged male demographic, women are another story. This platform, with its focus on families and education, is geared towards this demographic.

It is also very much focused on the left. The Liberals had a decision to make. Do we try and take from the Conservatives or from the NDP? They have opted for the latter, and are trying to do so in two ways.

First, they are intent on communicating this as a 2-horse race with the Liberals as the only party capable of stopping Harper. This was the message after the by-elections in the fall and it's the message today.

Second, they have adopted policy positions clearly more attractive to an NDP voter. Roll-back of corporate tax cuts, training, the learning passport, child care...the list goes on. If the NDP had released this document, no one would have been to shocked with the main elements. In some parts, I actually felt like I was reading New Labour from the UK.

For better or worse, they have tacked left. Time will tell whether this was the right decision.

4. Where's the fix?

If I were to choose one area where I was disappointed, I would likely go with the limited focus on the erosion of our democratic institutions. This has been the one theme on which all of the opposition has focused consistently for 2 years. We have been told that Parliament is broken and that our institutions are in jeopardy. The election was actually brought about as as result of a contempt finding.

So, where's the fix? Yes, this theme is discussed and some novel ideas are presented. But compared with the substance behind the Liberal's other proposals, I found the discussion in the platform thin. I am hopeful that this issue gets more airing in a debate.

***

Those are some of my initial observations. What are yours? Has the platform influenced how you are looking at this election?

Interestingly, despite the plaudits the Liberals have received for their week 1 performance the Conservatives are continuing to enjoy a very healthy advantage in every poll I have seen. We'll see if week 2 and the release of this platform changes anything.

Thoughts?

Week 1. Done.

Well, the first week has finished and the national polls are not showing us anything dramatically different. Done and dusted? Not at all.

What I find interesting is that there are actually a number of different conclusions to the first week of elxn41 (did I mention I am growing to love twitter shorthand and hash-tags?). Depending on what you read / who you follow / what you hear, the first week could be summed up as follows:

1. Harper maintains strong lead, growing support in key provinces. A majority is possible.

2. Harper performs poorly in the first week. PM appears on the defensive and not looking like the seasoned campaigner.

3. Liberals out of the gate strongly and making important gains. Ignatieff a clear winner after week one.

4. NDP struggles to get message out after first week.

5. Bloc cruising in Quebec.

If the above were possible answers to a multiple choice question, you could be forgiven for looking for the "all of the above option." Why? Because in many respects, they are all true.

The Conservatives continue to enjoy a healthy advantage, both nationally and in key battlegrounds, particularly in Ontario. This despite Mr. Harper having a poor week in which he has been criticized for (a) his rhetoric and tone (b) his relationship with the media and (c) his lack of engagement on policy.

The Liberals continue to trail nationally and in key provinces, despite the fact that they have had a strong week. They have demonstrated election readiness, an openness to engage and a commitment to presenting themselves as a option.

The NDP did cede ground to the Liberals during the week. There is a danger that any further slide could make this election an explicit Harper-Ignatieff choice among voters.

Finally, the Bloc did what it does. It cruises in Quebec and points to real and imagined imbalances between how the government of the day treats Quebec relative to other provinces. In this case, the issue is the Lower Churchill development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, with that in mind what are my conclusions?

First, Mr. Igantieff will be pleased with a dialogue that focuses on a 2-horse race. While it is true a PM would only come from either the Conservative or the Liberal party, the fact that this is being more explicitly framed after only one week is important. If the Liberals are to have any success, they need to attract NDP voters, as well as centre-left Tories.

He will also be pleased with a week that has shown his ability to campaign and to offer a choice. His ability to connect with voters was a big question mark at the start of the campaign - the past week will have done a lot of good for the morale of his team and slate of candidates.

Second, Mr. Harper has spent a lot of time making the notion of minority Parliament something to fear. Interestingly, days 1-4 were more "coalition" focused in terms of his rhetoric. Days 5-7 transitioned (slightly) away from coalition and towards the suggestion that we need to end minority Parliaments.

It's the "let's put an end to unnecessary elections" argument. The fact that nearly 50% of Canadians are not averse to a majority would constitute some traction for this line of messaging. This should be followed closely. If this trend continues, Mr. Harper could move the yardsticks enough in those key swing ridings.

Third, the issues are getting an airing. The Liberals released large elements of a family- and education-focused platform. The Conservatives highlighted their budget and then followed that up with the income-splitting proposal. These are substantive issues, all worthy of discussion. More please.

So, those are some initial thoughts. Tomorrow I will blog about what I will be looking to see in week 2, and as well on the Liberal platform (issues!). In the meantime...

...Thoughts?

Questioning Quotas for Questions

As we close out Day 6 of #elxn41, I am happy to say that we have started to see issues come more to the forefront.

Through their announcements over the past few days, the Liberals have started to do their part to offer Canadians a choice. With their full platform to come on Sunday, we should have plenty to talk about next week, particularly as the other parties follow suit.

Putting that aside for now, I think it is worth discussing the different strategies being employed by the Liberals and Conservatives in regards to taking questions and allowing for the uncertainty that comes from unscripted and less tightly controlled events.

I raise this because their respective approaches also offer Canadians a choice - a choice in terms of what they should expect from their prospective leaders. Let me start with the following observation:

If you went to a job interview and limited your prospective employer to 5 questions, it's a fair bet you wouldn't get the job regardless of how strong a candidate you were.

Yet, this is what we are seeing from the Conservatives. With a limit of 5 questions per event, the Conservatives are not offering media much of an opportunity to engage Mr. Harper on the issues, on the campaign, on, well, anything.

Now to be fair, this is not being done because they are hiding something. This is about control and safety. More questions equals more opportunities to get off message, to face the unexpected, to stumble.

As the front runner, employing a safety-first approach is not atypical. I suspect a large part of their thinking is that the comparative openness of the Liberal campaign will inevitably result in some misstep; one on which the Conservatives can pounce. A hit them on the break approach.

So yes, tactically, I can see the point. But I go back to my opening observation about applying for a job - in this case the highest job in the country. While you can argue that Canadians know where you stand after over 5 years in office, it is reasonable for the electorate and the media to expect more opportunity to hold you to account for your record, and to question you on the issues of today and your party's plans for tomorrow.

By contrast, the Liberals have opted for a more open campaign. Events feature both the standard stump speech moments, but also the chance for voters to ask unscripted questions (yes they are - no one would script some of these rambling questions). Media also has far greater access to Mr. Ignatieff, to ask multiple questions.

Where the Conservatives are playing it safe, the Liberals have to take some chances - hence the more open campaign. Mr. Ignatieff needs to reverse the damage done by negative ads against him and by early performances that simply did not connect with anyone. He also needs to define a clear choice for Canadians; to offer up quite concretely what a Liberal government will mean. He needs definition.

To date, their approach has worked. By all accounts, there is good energy at events and he has found his legs (the summer 2010 bus tour was a wise investment). He has remained on message, without coming across as being fully scripted. He has also handled potential missteps, in the form of unhappy voters, well. Early polling suggests that the Liberals may be seeing some dividends from this approach.

As you can no doubt tell, I favour a more open campaign. I have no patience for quotas on questions.

Canadians deserve an opportunity to hear more from the people who aspire to lead them. We cannot lament voter apathy, poor turnout results, and a mistrust of politics if we are not prepared to do something about it. That should start with a campaign - the ultimate Canadian job interview (non-hockey related).

So what do you think? Will safety prevail? Should Liberal fortunes improve will we see a change? What can we expect in the coming weeks?

Thoughts?

Character Debate (well actually, 140 characters)

The 41st federal election is being called Canada's first social media national election. Four days in, we are seeing heavy use of blogs and Facebook to comment, generate awareness and get the message/spin out. But what has really struck me in these early days is the use of the instrument of brevity and immediacy known as Twitter.

I am going to trust that anyone reading this blog (as always, fingers crossed!) will know what Twitter is and how it works. So moving beyond that, let's take a moment to consider the impact that it may have on #elxn41.

Twitter offers its users an opportunity to share and read tweets - 140 character messages - with virtual immediacy. In an election environment it can be a powerful tool. Briefly...

- For the general public it offers a chance to stay informed by connecting with a wider network of information sources (importantly, without having to search - once you have set yourself up a good list of people to follow, you have a virtual news / spin feed).

- For journalists it offers an opportunity to report and disseminate information in real-time, be it from a studio, the hustings, the bus, wherever.

- For political parties it offers an opportunity to get the message out, to challenge opponents, and promote initiatives to a wider audience, again in real-time.

It's the last point on which I want to focus for a moment. Above and beyond what a party may do via Twitter, the potential for supporters to engage in the debate, share their views, etc. has the effect of creating multiple spokespersons.

What I have noticed in the past few days is the increasing frequency with which party advocates are tweeting and re-tweeting...

- Talking points
- Favourable articles about their party of choice
- Negative articles about their opponents
- Their own spin about how an event went, including video and photos

Now, without question a number of these people are involved with their party of choice. However, I suspect a sizeable number are not. What they are is engaged. They have views on the issues and the parties, and for really the first time have the technological ability to share those views with the express intent of influencing.

Yes, sometimes it reads like an odd, disjointed argument. But for me, the more important element is the decision these people have taken to participate in the political process, regardless of their views or political stripe. They are engaging in debate with people across the country on a range of issues - some possibly trivial, many substantive.

In many ways Twitter is a great leveler. The technology is widely available, it is easy to use, it doesn't discriminate based on wealth or location (internet access being the only real impediment). Most importantly, we all are limited to 140 characters.

Thoughts?

Day 3 - A little less coalition, a little more on the issues please

Day 3 is winding down in Election 2011 (#elxn41 for those in the Twitterverse), and it seems that the issues are slowly starting to make an appearance. Yes, Mr. Harper is still referencing the coalition frequently in his remarks. However, with the Conservative's announcement of their income splitting initiative we saw debate on a matter of policy. Cue the applause.

This is an interesting, and potentially expensive proposal. Allowing families to shift income from higher to lower earners offers the potential for a family to lower their overall tax burden. So far, so good right?

Yes, but there is some fine print:

- proposal would not be implemented until 2015-2016, once the deficit has been eliminated (and potentially after the mandate we are currently being implored to provide has passed).

- proposal would favour families with only one earner and those which currently have one earner in a higher tax bracket.

- proposal would not apply to single-parent families.

These limitations do not necessarily make this a bad idea. What they do is open up a topic for discussion. Let's hear your thoughts!

1. What are your views on the idea of income splitting?
2. To whom should it apply?
3. By when and under what conditions?

Share your comments, start a dialogue...

As an aside, for those of you who have not read Susan Delacourt's blog lately, please do so (http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/). In commenting on social media and good humour shared among those covering elections, she noted that those of us who close our eyes and jump in will get to share in this humour. Today was a great example, as comments on the 2015-2016 start date for this proposal flooded Twitter (thanks in particular to @scottfeschuk).

So with that, a little less coalition, a little more on the issues please.

Thoughts?

A Social Media Election for Canada

This election will be tough on me. More to the point, it will seriously test my ability to unplug or tune out for more than a passing moment. Why? Because this will be our first real social media election.

You see, I spent a fair bit of time yesterday and today on line or staring at my ipod, getting the latest from parties, journalists, bloggers and their respective followers. I probably spent more time than I should have (or at least that was the suggestion made to me) keeping up to date and real time. This was the not the case for me in 2008.

Of course we had Facebook, Twitter, BlackBerry's, blogs and the like the last time around. However, since 2008 these tools and others have grown in prominence becoming for many a crucial source of real time information, messaging, analysis and spin.

So with that in mind I have some questions for you, the reader:

- How will you avail of social media during this campaign?

- How will it compare with your use of more conventional (perhaps traditional is a better word) sources of information?

- Will you use it to simply inform yourself, or will you use it for advocacy and to raise profile for the issues that matter to you?

Finally, to the right of this post you will see the list of some people/blogs I follow. I would welcome your suggestions for others who I should read and profile here on this blog.

Thoughts?

And they're off!

Take one historic vote of contempt against your government, add a short walk to Governor-General's residence, mix in one hyperbolic speech et voila - the 41st federal election has begun. Canadians will go the polls May 2nd (Easter weekend for those seeking an advance poll), being asked to shape the country's next Parliament.

It did not take long for things to get..feisty. A short re-cap:

- Before Mr. Harper had made his way to the GG's, Mr. Ignatieff released a statement saying that a coalition was not in the cards.

- Mr. Harper spent the better part of his first campaign speech rallying against coalition forces, suggesting in no uncertain terms that Mr. Ignatieff was not telling the truth.

- Mr. Duceppe quite explicitly stated that Mr. Harper's assertion that the Conservatives never considered a coalition or partnership with other parties was a lie.

- Mr. Layton made it clear that Mr. Harper needs to be replaced.

And yes, this was basically all before 11:00 am.

(Note, if "coalition" was a drinking game where one had to consume a beverage of choice every time the word was uttered, I would have been in rough shape by the end of this morning.)

It really is unfortunate that the Conservatives have chosen to make this such a significant element of their campaign narrative. Yes, the other theme they are highlighting is the economy, but even that is tied back to the "spectre of a coalition." To be honest, they did not sound like a government or like the party apparently with a healthy lead. Their offensive sounded...defensive.

It will be interesting to see how much traction this theme gets, particularly if the Liberals find their legs and get into a positive rhythm early. By many accounts, Mr. Ignatieff has delivered a very strong speech in Ottawa this afternoon suggesting that he is up for this campaign.

So, thoughts on day 1? What issues do you want to see covered?