The latest comprehensive poll, by Ipsos-Reid (Oct 29) shows the Liberals still with a comfortable minority. The Liberals have rebounded to their 2004 election level in Quebec. For the complete forecast, including riding-by-riding forecasts, see the 2005-06 Election Page on my main site. The current forecast, based on the Oct 29 Ipsos-Reid poll, is as follows:

	2005 PREDICTED RESULTS - 10/29/05
	LIB	CPC	NDP	GRN	BQ	OTH
TOTAL SEATS	140	88	27	0	53	0
% OF SEATS	45.5%	28.6%	8.8%	0%	17.2%	0%

Note to Jack: It’s Democratic Reform, Stupid!
By Gregory D. Morrow

Jack Layton should be congratulated for trying to make the present minority government work. God knows – he’s the only opposition leader who has worked in good faith to deliver what Canadians expect of their parliament. He is doing exactly what he’s supposed to – representing the NDP supporters who elected him and his fellow MPs. And he’s holding Paul Martin to account. For years, the Liberals have siphoned off NDP votes by campaigning on socially progressive promises yet never fulfilling them. Jack Layton is merely asking Paul Martin to honor those past promises to ensure public healthcare remains as such, to ensure environmental stewardship is honored, to ensure young people aren’t financially burdened by wanting to get an education, and to ensure, in the year 2005, that people in Canada do not go hungry and homeless.

Despite Layton’s best efforts, sadly, Martin will only acquiesce to the NDP if he feels his party would lose a subsequent election to the Conservatives. Last spring, he did, and therefore succumbed to Layton’s demands. Right now, the electorate is indicating that it likes the status quo – an election anytime soon would likely result in a replay of 2004. So, we are in a holding pattern. In order for the NDP to hold the balance of power, the Conservatives must be in a position to win an election. Only then, will Martin partner up with Layton to save his government. This is the comedy of our current political climate.

Given this political holding pattern, it is curious that Jack Layton’s make-in-or-break-it demand was pulled out of the old NDP bag of tricks: a demand that the Liberal government do ‘something’ about private healthcare. It might be a valid point, but it not a winning point, otherwise the NDP would be in power by now. Yes, it is a clever move, in that it paints Martin as unfriendly to public healthcare. But, the NDP must tread lightly. Uncritical defense of public healthcare is no longer a certainty in the electorate. Given the Supreme Court ruling in June and no discernable progress on wait lists despite a new cash influx last year, the public is growing impatient. Polls are beginning to show signs that Canadians are not as uncritical about public healthcare as in the past. So, it is a risk for Layton to hinge his support on it. Canadians like the idea of public healthcare, but they also want it to perform, and increasingly recognize money alone won’t do it. No, what Jack Layton should do is much less risky, much less costly and will yield much more influence in righting the political malaise that clouds the country.

It’s Democratic Reform, stupid! Two years ago, Paul Martin, the man who solved the federal deficit, promised that he would also solve the ‘democratic deficit’ in Canada. And two years later, the Liberals have not introduced one substantive initiative on democratic reform. This is the issue on which Jack Layton should stake the future of this parliament. Layton should push for the creation of a public body charged with making recommendations on democratic reform, including electoral reform and senate reform, with a clear timeline for recommendations and a promise to hold a referendum on those recommendations. How can Martin refuse? After all, he cannot simply say that there is no money for it, as he has with his other reneged promises. It’s a tiny expense. Moreover, Martin’s refusal would expose him not as the defender of democracy but rather as the defender of despotism. It’s a winning strategy. What say you Jack?

(FYI, in case you aren’t familiar with the phrase, I’m not really calling Jack Layton stupid, but modifying the famous line used by Democratic strategist James Carville “[It’s] the Economy, Stupid!” in the 1992 U.S. Presidential election)

TORONTO STAR
Oct. 24, 2005. 01:00 AM

A lesson in top-down failure

St. Clair ruling shows city must consult citizens to ensure healthy, incremental change, says Gregory D. Morrow

The recent debate over the future of St. Clair Ave. is a classic case of entrenched positions and a bad planning process leading to an unnecessarily contentious battle.

Like Spadina Ave., the city wants the streetcars on St. Clair W. to have their own right-of-way (ROW) running along the surface, stopping at lights, but moving faster than congested traffic. But an Ontario Divisional Court ruling Oct. 11 halted the city plans.

Despite good intentions, the City of Toronto erred by not developing its plan with the community. There is no place today for top-down planning, where so-called “experts” make decisions without regard to local concerns — a lesson the city has been slow to learn.

St. Clair residents, who organized under the banner “Save Our St. Clair” or SOS, are rightfully upset at the city for rendering judgment without local input, using the environmental impact study to justify its case rather than deal with legitimate community concerns.

On this account, SOS is correct in demanding a more deliberative process. Some of the SOS complaints are reasonable. For example, narrowing the sidewalks makes enjoyable outdoor cafés more difficult and the lack of bike lanes along such a busy street makes little sense for a city trying to promote sustainable commutes.

The city needs to develop a more collaborative charrette model; not where plans are merely commented on by residents, but where the community and city hand-in-hand develop a compromise with which both parties can live.

On the other hand, the SOS must be more honest about the proposed changes.

Its opposition hinges on two faulty premises: Car traffic will increase, and the area will become less attractive.

The city is not advocating turning St. Clair into an arterial roadway, which would increase hazards to pedestrians and generally detract from the character of the area. In fact, if past experience worldwide is any guide, the city’s plan will actually improve land values and also build upon and improve the area’s character.

By reducing the carriageway from six lanes to four and adding trees on either side of the right-of-way, traffic will slow down and the scale of the street will be reduced, which invariably makes for a more pleasant place to shop. Think about the scale of Queen St., Yonge St. or Bloor St. West.

At the same time, with their own right of way, streetcars will be more effective. More effective transit means more riders.

And since the streetcars stop at virtually every corner, shopkeepers need not worry about losing business. In fact, retail streets with smaller carriageways and effective transit universally outperform those located on wide streets carrying relatively high-speed car traffic.

Planners have the difficult task of mediating between short-term, local concerns and long-term, regional ones. Cities are not static things. All too often, neighbourhoods assume they are when they call for their turf to be protected.

But in a free and democratic society, we cannot build a defensive wall around Toronto, complete with checkpoints that guard against people moving into the city. Growth happens. And as the population grows, the need for new housing construction grows.

If you restrict the supply of housing — i.e., you “protect” every street in every neighbourhood from new development, as neighbourhoods demand — the result is obvious: The cost of housing rises and the poorest get squeezed out.

We know what happens when planning is reduced to using the courts to block change: The wealthiest neighbourhoods can resist change; the poorer ones cannot.

Rather than healthy, incremental change across the city, you see the loss of entire neighbourhoods, resulting in mass displacement.

So, while the SOS has effectively positioned itself as an innocent victim, there has not been the same sympathy for the countless people evicted from their apartments in other areas because of the kind of protectionism that St. Clair residents feel is their right.

The key is to ensure changes made in cities are made hand-in-hand with the neighbourhoods; not so that neighbourhoods can resist all change, all the time but rather so that everyone can live with incremental change and the city can accommodate the growth that it has no choice but to receive.

Gregory D. Morrow is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles and most recently a lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at MIT. He has written a forthcoming book on the origins of city planning in Toronto.

Given the recent news that the NDP is considering ‘Faith and Social Justice Caucus‘, I thought I would dig up a piece I wrong a few months ago - it was largely written for an American audience, but it references the NDP and can apply equally in Canada…

April 27, 2005

Where is the Christian Left?
By Gregory D. Morrow

In the wake of the gathering of Evangelical leaders (and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist) on Sunday – calling for the appointment of social conservatives to the Supreme Court – I can’t help but ask: where is the Christian Left? As one parishioner of the Living Hope Church in Laurel, MD said: “Democrats in this country are seeking vetoes for people of faith.” Focus of the Family leader Dr. James Dobson went on to link the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision to Nazi death camps, claiming that decision has resulted in the murder of 44 million people – the “biggest holocaust in world history.” Such rhetoric contributes to a targeted campaign to erroneously label Democrats as anti-religion and Republicans as pro-religion (Recall the images from the 2004 campaign of Republican flyers on car windshields in Virginia church parking lots that claimed Democrats would ban the Bible). I think this is wrong in principle (because it turns Americans upon one another) and wrong in fact (79% of Democrats attend Church, according to George Barna, one of the leading religious pollsters). The Christian Left has a long history and needs to re-emerge as a voice for the Left in this country.

The Christian Left has been so absent over the past thirty years in America that “Christian” is now automatically assumed to be inseparable from “Right” (i.e. the Christian Right). Why has the Christian Left dropped from our collective consciousness? One factor might be attributed to McCarthyism. Beginning in the 1950s, the Christian Right successfully labeled their Left counterpart as “socialist”, on account of the Christian Left’s faith in social values. In an era of the second “Red Scare”, espousing social values was akin to “communist”, even though they are quite different. Socialism is, of course, an economic system (a way of distributing goods and services) while communism is a political system (one which is anti-democratic). By equating socialism and communism, the Christian Left was also equated to anti-democratic practices.

Part of this campaign, carried out in part by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), successfully labeled members of the Christian Left (with their social values) as un-American – a practice that today is being extended to a good portion of the Left, including many of those opposed to the Iraq War. If conservatives can label Democrats as secularists, and demonstrate how secularism is un-American, then it follows that Democrats are not ‘real’ Americans. This tactic was used effectively by Karl Rove in 2004.

This hijacking of faith by the Right constitutes a threat not only to the functioning of a democratic institutions (by discrediting the only opposition Party on the grounds they are anti-religion), but also the functioning of religious institutions (by equating religion with conservatives, thus driving the Christian Left from the Church).

This assault on the Christian Left is made even more possible by the complete absence of a ‘social democratic’ party in the United States – perhaps the only industrialized country lacking this important section of the political spectrum. In most developed Western countries, social democratic parties are associated with the Christian Left.

For example, Canada’s social democratic party, the NDP (the New Democratic Party), has traditionally been associated with the United Church of Canada. Moreover, the NDP is a credible social democratic party with a substantial base, having formed governments or official oppositions in 60% of Canadian Provinces or Territories. The ‘father’ of the NDP was a Baptist Minister (Tommy Douglas), who joining forces with another Party (CCF), itself founded by a Methodist Minister (J.S. Woodsworth). Today, one of its most prominent members (Bill Blaikie – the longest serving MP in Parliament) is a United Church of Canada minister. Thus, spanning across different Christian sects, the Christian Left in Canada has allied itself with a major political party.

What is interesting is that in Canada, the Christian Left has translated social (even religious) values into public policy. So despite Canada supposedly being a more ‘secular’ country than the U.S. (a lower percentage of people attend church), its public policies reflect the religious beliefs of the Christian Left. Thus, important principles of Christianity (“The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common.” - Acts 4:32) are translated into public policy as universal public healthcare and universal public education, two pillars of the Canadian socio-economic system. Ironically, the over-hyped debate in the U.S. about the ‘separation between religion and government’ is not particularly pronounced in Canada. Debates about funding faith-based organizations are not present – the Canadian government has long funded faith-based organizations of all religious beliefs. Thus, I would argue that Canadian social values (and social programs) are built upon fundamental social values of the Christian Left.

By contrast, in the United States there is a deeply-rooted suspicion with social values, that is, with ideals about the common good (and the government’s role in ensuring the common good). What’s more is that conservatives have managed to equate capitalism with the religious Right and socialism with the secular Left. Obviously, one of the fundamental premises of capitalism is the action of individuals in a marketplace. Thus, by claiming ownership of capitalism (and labeling the Left as socialist), the Right has also staked claim to individualism (hard work, pursuit of happiness, etc) and individual freedoms, with the Left implicitly (if not explicitly) supposedly running counter to these basic American tenets. In so doing, conservatives have managed to make the link that conservatives = religion = capitalism = individual rights = democratic practices, while establishing the opposite association for the Left, that liberals = secular = socialism = anti-individual = anti-democratic practices. Thus ‘liberal’ has become a pejorative label that most Americans on the Left eschew.

This targeted campaign to discredit the Christian Left specifically (and the Left more generally) as socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-individual, and anti-democratic caused many on the Left to abandon faith as a central part of their platform, which has, over the past thirty years resulted in the gradual transformation of the South (with the highest percentage of people of faith) from Democrat territory to Republican territory. In its place, the Left has successfully used secular means – namely, legal proceedings involving Constitutional Rights – to achieve its social values. Given the ‘Biblical’ status (ironically) of the Constitution, progressive change has been achieved by so-called ‘activist’ judges who interpret Constitutional Rights differently than the Christian Right would like. This, of course, brings us back to the present day attack on the judiciary by House Majority leader Tom Delay and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist.

Political pundits like Bill O’Reilly would like to sell the current state of affairs in America as a ‘culture war’ between the “progressive secularists” and “traditionalists” like himself. By fusing ‘progressive’ with ‘secular’, O’Reilly fails to understand the history of the Progressive movement, which very much grew out of the Christian Left. This is especially true in Canada, where the “Progressive Era” as it is known in the U.S, was more commonly referred to as the “Social Gospel”. Thus, it is entirely possible to be ‘progressive’ (i.e. ensuring the common good) and be religious. O’Reilly’s misinformed campaign to link ‘progressive’ and ‘secular’ is entirely consistent with the conservative labeling machine over the past three decades.

By labeling the Left as ‘secular’, conservatives align Democrats with “big government” and thus hoping to tap into American mistrust of Federal power. Of course, the U.S. political system was established to effectively limit the role of government, particularly the Federal government (“Freedom is freedom from government”). This is reflected in the allocation of rights: in the U.S., all matters were deemed States rights unless otherwise specifically designated a Federal right. An interesting counter-point is Canada where all rights are Federal unless specifically designated a Provincial matter. In Canada, the Federal government was envisioned as strong and the provinces as weak, while in the U.S., the States were intended to be strong with a weak Federal government. Ironically, the two countries have “flip-flopped”: the Federal government in Canada is relatively ‘weak’ (despite what many Canadians might think) and the Provinces are strong (healthcare and education are delivered by the provinces) while the Federal government in the U.S. exacts much more influence on the daily lives of Americans than do States. So, despite the historical roots, the irony is that Canada has a weak Federal government yet has a stronger social system, while the strong U.S. Federal government (i.e. “bigger government”) has not ensured a strong social system.

Given Canada’s experience of delivering values of the Christian Left through the Province level, rather than explicitly at the Federal level, perhaps the most effective strategy for the Christian Left in the U.S. (and the Left more generally) is to simply let the conservatives have the Federal government and instead build a strong base at State levels. As the conservatives weaken the Federal role (i.e. weaken their own influence), liberals at State levels would become more important in delivering social programs. By all means, slash the Federal budget down to a few national departments and cut taxes to a minimum – and raise State taxes in order to deliver progressive social programs at the State level. Ironically, the Federal conservatives would have to trample over the States to overturn progressive legislation – and they would do so at their own peril. I am sure their own conservative base, let along the electorate as a whole – will not stand for running roughshod over States rights. But in order to build a strong base at the State level, Democrats must engage with communities at the local level and make a renewed commitment to include the Christian Left as part of its core principles.

Both the Left and Right are complicit in the present crisis: through a concerted effort to discredit their Christian counterparts, the Christian Right has co-opted religion for the Republican Party, leading the Democratic Party to abandon the Christian Left in favor of pursuing its political aims through a secular judiciary.

So, as we watch on the sidelines as conservatives lay claim to religion, to American values, to capitalism, to democracy and freedom, tossing their counterparts to the margins of American life, I ask again: where is the Christian Left? We need the Christian Left in this country to awake from its thirty-year hibernation and make its case to the people. And they need to do it from the ground up.

***

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, What are you doing for others?” – Martin Luther King Jr.

The latest comprehensive poll, by Environics (Oct 20) shows the Liberals still with a comfortable minority. The Liberals have rebounded somewhat in Quebec and the NDP has made gains in B.C. and Ontario. For the complete forecast, including riding-by-riding forecasts, see the 2005-06 Election Page on my main site. The current forecast, based on the Oct 20 Environics poll, is as follows:

	2005 PREDICTED RESULTS - 10/20/05
	LIB	CPC	NDP	GRN	BQ	OTH
TOTAL SEATS	139	80	33	0	56	0
% OF SEATS	45.1%	26.0%	10.7%	0%	18.2%	0%

Today, a follow-up to yesterday’s post. Obviously, the suggestion to campaign on economic conservativism and not socially conservatism is a contentious issue. Many do not agree. In response to yesterday’s post, one person said the following:

If this was true, we would already have won power. Social issues have not been a part of conservative policy in Canada for a very long time, and we have not been able to break in to Ontario. Note also that the first conservative MPs to win seats in the Ontario stronghold were social conservatives.

Thousands of people showed up on Parliament Hill to rally for marriage and prolife issues, but only a fifty showed up to protest gas taxes.

I have heard your argument over and over again…and seen all kinds of numbers flashed around which supposedly support the theory that social conservative policies should not be created. But the proof is in the pudding.

All of the effort we have expended to purge social conservatism from our party has resulted in very little movement at the polls.

The wedge issues which will drive Liberals to vote for the CPC are not economic, they are social issues.

Until we realize that, we will continue to lose.

This is a logical position, but one which I tend to disagree. Here’s my rather long-winded rebuttal:

The recent CPC strategy has been to try to have their cake and eat it too. This is not the same as a centrist position (which I take as being socially progressive/economic conservative), but rather ‘cherry-picking’ which social issues they will fight for (gay-marriage) and which they won’t (abortion). So, your statement that “social issues have not been a part of conservative policy in Canada for a very long time” is only partially correct. On some issues, it is present (to the chagrin of moderates) and on others it is not (to the chagrin of so-cons).

According to your logic, if they consistently applied a socially conservative position, then a wave of so-con supporters will come out of the woodwork and lift the CPC to victory. I don’t deny that there is an untapped market there (’though your anecdote about parliament hill protests illustrate that the so-con group is passionate about their issues, but is not sufficient to demonstrate there is a vast untapped market, nor does it dispel the claim that a CPC appeal to the so-con market will be damage their centrist vote).

What I am postulating is that a socially conservative turn will cause as man people to abandon their CPC vote in the tight suburban ridings as new voters who are rallied by the social cause. In part, the 2004 CPC vote was less than the combined 2000 CA+PC vote due, in part, to the loss of socially progressive conservatives from the old PC party (the CPC lost 20% of the combined vote). In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that this segment of the population didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like the ‘perceived’ CPC social agenda and were loathe to vote Liberal. In other words, the untapped old PC market is likely as big as the untapped so-con market.

And I do say ‘perceived’ social agenda above. This perception is driven not only due to the inconsistent social position of the CPC (sometimes present, sometimes not), but because the media has a natural inclination towards the greater drama. So, while Stephen Harper might respond to a reporter’s question that the CPC will not introduce anti-abortion legislation (which is not the same as making a strategic policy announcement saying the same thing), Cheryl Gallant is holding a rally that compares abortion to terrorist beheadings in Iraq. Obviously, the media will give more attention to Gallant, since this is the greater drama. This feeds the perception that the CPC is socially conservative, even though it is only half true. Sure, this is a problem of a sensationalist and perhaps biased media, but if you argument was true, it should actually help, not hinder the CPC. If there was a large group of so-cons not voting, why doesn’t Gallant’s show rally more to the cause? Perhaps it did. But, the one factor you are not considering is the NDP voters who shift their vote to Liberal to prevent the adoption of socially-conservative policies.

My argument is that the CPC could go one of two ways, both of which would give them a more consistent message on social issues than at present (and force them to abandon the ‘have your cake and eat it too’ mentality): 1) make a social turn – put forward a socially conservative agenda – reverse gay marriage, prohibit abortion, prohibit stem cell research, etc. or 2) make an economic turn – campaign on an economic platform – giving provinces more power and money (which would make in-roads in Quebec!), lower taxes for the middle class, cut wasteful government spending, etc. The issue isn’t whether the CPC already does #2 (it does so, but only hesitantly for fear of being perceived as too conservative, or for fear of fueling the unity debate), it is about crafting a consistent message that focuses on a few things that resonate with people. To date, the CPC has not been able to take ownership of issues that sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Liberals. Yet, in the three above economic issues, the CPC and the Liberals have a different position. Stand up for them and make a case!

So the two markets for CPC growth as outlined in my two ‘turns’ are:
A) social-turn: socially conservatives who are not voting because the CPC ‘cherry-picks’ its social policies
vs.
B) economic-turn: NDPers who shift their vote to Liberal + moderate Liberals who are concerned about economic issues + former PC members who abandoned the CPC because of a perceived socially conservatism

Clearly the market for B is bigger. Yes, there is a market for A, but in doing so, you probably lose some moderates, especially in Ontario. At best, it is a trade-off. Strategy B will not only help bring moderate Liberals and former PCs into the CPC tent (i.e. socially progressive, economically conservative), but also mitigate against the NDP vote gravitating towards the Liberals (since NDPers are generally more sensitive to socially progressive policies than state-led economic policy). Last year, with only a middle-of-the-road CPC socially conservative policies, 2-pts moved from the NDP to the Liberals (the NDP polled at 17 but only got 15).

Again, do the math – clearly you hate this but it illustrates my point that strict ideology is not a great election strategy (otherwise, given the vast liberal bias in central Canada, the NDP would do much better!). Let’s say that the ‘base’ support right now for the CPC is 28 pts. And that the Liberal base is 37 pts (a debatable, but reasonable assumption based on past elections). Let’s say a ‘cherry-picking’ middle-of-the road social strategy, as presented in 2004, yields a 2-pt plunder from the Liberals – 30-pt total. Under this strategy, the Liberals lose 2 to the CPC but gain 2 from the NDP, so get 37-2+2=37. The NDP base is 17, but losing 2=15. This is the 2004 result: LIB 37, CPC 30, NDP 15, BQ 13, GP 4, OTH 1.

I speculate that a socially-conservative turn may cause a 3-pt CPC increase, but this would likely be offset by losing the 2 pts plundered from the Liberals. Net result = 28+3= 31, a 1-pt gain over 2004. But the Liberals gain even more. They would lose 3-pt due to the new-found CPC so-con support, but they will gain their 2-pts back from the CPC and they would likely gain an additional 2-pts from the NDP (4-pt total, out of fear of socially conservative policies), resulting in 37-3+4=38. The overall result is the same for the CPC. Result: LIB 38, CPC 31, NDP 13, BQ 13, GP 4, OTH 1 – another Liberal minority.

On the other hand, if they go economic, not social, they could gain an additional 2 pts from the Liberals (4 pt total) and another 2 pts from former PCers would didn’t vote, resulting in 28+4+2=34. Moreover, in addition to losing 4 directly, the Liberals would lose 2-pt due to the new-found PC support, and would likely only gain 1 from the NDP (since the CPC policies are less threatening to them), resulting in 37-4-2+1=32. Result: CPC 34, LIB 32, NDP 16, BQ 13, GP 4, OTH 1 – a CPC minority.

So, you cannot simply look at where the potential CPC support lies, you need to look at the entire landscape of voters: so-cons who voted CPC, so-cons who didn’t vote at all, socially progressive/economically conservatives who voted Liberal, formers PCers who didn’t vote at all, and yes, even hard-core NDPers who shift their vote to the Liberals. When you consider all these myriad factors, I’m afraid that the numbers just don’t add up for moving the CPC to a more socially conservative position.

I thought this was an interesting exchange that I came across today on FreeDominion.ca. So much so, I had to reply. The first, person A, is someone who is advocating the social conservative position:

Our way of life?

“Cultural conservatives” understand that when we treat all cultures as equally “Canadian” (or “American” or “British”), we cease to have a culture at all, and lose all sense of our roots, our identity, and our values.

“Christian conservatives” want their children and grandchildren to grow up in a society where the Judeo-Christian tradition is treated as the foundation of public policy rather than as one religious viewpoint among many that is to be kept “separate” from real-life decision-making.

“Racialist conservatives” want Whites, who underwent seperated evolution 100 thousand years ago, to live in isolation, because they know we will disappear otherwise. They believe that the biological make-up of Europeans was helpful in the construction and perpetuation of the above two social constructs.

All three of these conservative philosophies are NOT mutually exculsive. All three have intertwined narritives.

All three define our way of life.

To which person B, replied:

wow. a racist threadjack.

*clicks ignore*

back to the topic at hand

I agree with the sentiment that we need to campaign with a populist message. If we want to ensure that we will take back our BC seats, we will need some work.

To which a third person, C, replies:

Wow a lefty threadjack!!

To which I replied:

…and in this small exchange lies the identity crisis of the Conservative Party of Canada. Does it want to be a party of the West, that seeks to reverse the multiculturalism seeds sown in the urban centres of Central Canada, or does it want to be a national party capable of making in-roads in the very heart of the evil to which Westerns speak? Should it be a party whose goal is to assert an ideology held by a minority of Canadians or a party whose goal is to govern a large country which competing interests? It would seem that person B prefers the former while person C prefers the latter.

Politics is less about ideology and more about mathematics. A turn towards social conservativism gains the CPC little or nothing — it already holds the so-con base in the Prairies and B.C. Interior, and most of these seats would still go CPC even if 20% of the CPC base didn’t show up. A turn towards economic conservativism, on the other hand, could easily draw right-leaning Liberals in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and Suburban B.C.

Consider this hypothetical. Let’s say that a social-turn results in a 5-pt loss in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and suburban B.C. (and a 5-pt gain in B.C. interior/Prairies) while an economic-turn results in a 5-pt gain in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and suburban B.C. (and a 5-pt loss in B.C. interior/Prairies). Here’s how that would play out, based purely on the 2004 election results:

Social-turn
Prairies: +2 seats
B.C. Interior: +1 seat
Ontario: -19 seats
Atlantic Canada: -4 seats
Suburban Vancouver: -6 seats
NET = -26 seats (73 seats total)
(And if the Liberals pick up 20 of them, they get a majority)

Economic-turn
Prairies: -5 seats
B.C. Interior: -2 seats
Ontario: +19 seats
Atlantic Canada: +4 seats
Suburban Vancouver: +2 seats
NET = +16 seats (115 seats total)
(And if they are Liberal seats, they fall to 119 seats, a virtual dead-heat)

So, if this hypothetical is even remotely close, the economics of ballots illustrates why a turn towards social conservativism hurts the CPC’s chances of governing, while a turn towards economic conservativism improves those very chances. The missing part of the above equation, of course, is Quebec (25% of the country’s seats), where the CPC base is so small it’s insignificant. And you can bet a social turn will destroy that base while an economic turn may lay the seeds for future success.

The CPC is like the NDP — it must decide whether it wants to be a governing party or an ideological debating club. Building its message upon fiscal conservatism has a chance of success in the parts of the county that will determine the next governing party. Building its message upon social conservatism, on the other hand, does not.

The latest comprehensive poll, by Pollara (Sept 29) shows the Conservatives narrowing the gap on the Liberals - a virtual repeat of the 2004 election. For the complete forecast, including riding-by-riding forecasts, see the 2005-06 Election Page on my main site. I will update the rolling average results tomorrow. The current forecast, based on the Oct 7 Pollara poll, is as follows:

	2005 PREDICTED RESULTS - 10/7/05
	LIB	CPC	NDP	GRN	BQ	OTH
TOTAL SEATS	129	91	26	0	62	0
% OF SEATS	42.2%	29.2%	8.4%	0%	20.1%	0%

NDP Strategy, Part III: Develop Party Policies from the Grassroots
By Gregory D. Morrow

If there is one thing that Canadians – from Quebec to Ontario to Alberta – have in common, it is cynicism towards politics. Certainly, some of the cynicism is due to the daily dose of bad behavior witnessed each day in Question Period. Certainly, this cynicism is fed by the sponsorship scandal and politicians crossing the floor when a better opportunity arises (Ms. Stronach, we’re talking about you!). And for some, the cynicism comes from knowing that no matter what happens, the Liberals will be in power. And for some, this cynicism arises because they see how our electoral system badly translates votes into seats, rewarding big parties while shutting out smallers ones, rewarding regional parties while shutting out national ones. However, I would suggest that one of the biggest factors that feeds this cynicism is the way that parties and governments themselves behave.

The Canadian political system is supposed to be one of “good government”, whereby the government of the day can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of the “public interest”. To be sure, governments have always acted in their own self interest. But in the past, governments were also willing to make unpopular decisions that were in the best interests of the nation’s future. Today, that trust in government to put aside partisan legislation in favor or the common good is under serious duress. In the past, Canada was a small country, with a largely shared British and French heritage. It was easier to go talk to your local MP. Canada has doubled in population over the past 50 years. Its population has been enriched by people from around the world. Things are more complex today and there is a wider range of views held on any given issue.

And today, governments make decisions that smack not of the public good, but of the party good. Today more so than at any time in our history, politicians are disconnected from the people (the Monte Solberg blogging types being an exception). Try it yourself: try writing or emailing your MP and see what kind of response you get. I can say from personal experience that you would be lucky to get any response, let alone one actually written by your MP, or one that is anything but a form letter. Today, governments solicit comments from Canadians. But the onus is on individual citizens to make all the effort to ensure their voice is heard, and even then, it is largely after the fact. You see, in Canada, consulting with the public means showing Canadians what the government has in mind and you are free to comment on it. If people object to a specific piece, the government might tinker with that piece, just so they are absolved of criticism. This is a very different strategy from having members of the public at-large actually help craft solutions to problems. And it is in that distinction that Canadian public life must evolve. Parties and governments must be more activist in their approaches. They must engage with Canadians, working with them to craft new approaches. This goes beyond simply conducting public opinion polling. It means developing new approaches to the development of public programs and party policies.

And while developing these new approaches to legislation or government programs will take time, each party has it within its power to reform the way it crafts its policies and election platform almost immediately. As ‘consumers’ of policy choices, voters are typically presented at election time with a bundle of policy choices crafted by all-knowing policy wonks who, squirreled away behind closed doors, have unilaterally decided what is in the best interest of Canadians. This top-down approach to policy-making is decidedly a product of the centralized, mid-twentieth century power structure that has little place in a diverse, multicultural society such as Canada today. Such top-down, centralized decision-making, I would argue, contributes more to voter apathy than anything other factor, including the outdated electoral system. We can – and should – reform the way we translate votes into representatives, but if parties themselves continue to operate in a top-down way, it will change little.

I hate to say it, but political parties must begin to think less like policy wonks and more like marketing gurus. After all, parties want more people to ‘buy’ what they are offering, only using political instead of monetary capital. And what political parties are ‘selling’ is information – ideas for how to solve the problems of our time. To do so, you need to understand your market better and what it is the people want. I am not at all convinced that political parties do this. Since parties in Canada – all except the Liberals – are so steeped in ideology, they loath to give the consumer what he or she wants. No, that would probably result in messy compromises and ideological contradictions. Instead, parties are beholden only to their party membership. And given that the kind of people who are “hard-core” enough to go to a party convention to vote on party policy, this process reinforces rigid ideologies. The platforms that result from this process are not necessarily what Canadians want – they are forced upon them by policy-makers and the most extreme of party members, rather than crafted hand-in-hand with potential voters. It is a curious thing. You would think parties would be interested in knowing what the electorate thinks. Chances are, if you craft party policies hand-in-hand with the voters, they are more likely going to vote for you.

This hand-in-hand process of arriving at solution is not new, nor is it a utopian dream. It is done all the time. Grassroots organizations across the country are continually working with communities to reach solutions to pressing problems. It is a particularly successful method used in urban planning to bring together a wide range of interests to solve local problems. Urban planning is a great illustration of how a changed method of arriving at decisions can bring infinitely more legitimacy. Urban planning in the 1960s was top-down. Beginning the 1970s, it began to change to a bottom-up process. This change was slower in Canada than elsewhere, however, as we hung onto the notion that the public sector was wise and objective. But things have changed in Canada over the past decade.

These hand-in-hand meetings in the urban planning world are called “charrettes”, and they are ideal vehicles for parties to reach out to potential voters across a wide range of interests in order to draft policies. This would be welcome change from the insular corporate model that all of the major political parties currently employ. If the NDP is supposed to stand up for (and with) the little guy and eschew the big impenetrable corporate model, then it should be all over this idea. It is about connecting with our communities, going to the people. The NDP is the party of the people, not of the corporate and political interests, after all. A ‘charrette’ consists of a series of short meetings, held in a short time span on evenings and weekends, where key problems are quickly identified, solutions are brainstormed, and a succinct strategy to address those problems is produced – by the stakeholders themselves (with so-called ‘experts’ on hand to help with technical details, if necessary). These meetings are not mere rant sessions where people voice their displeasures. The goal is to synthesize a strategy that can implement change on a given issue. Imagine the fresh ideas that a system such as this would yield if every city and town conducted a charrette on healthcare reform, a charrette on electoral reform, a charrette on implementing Kyoto, among others.

Implementing a series of policy charrettes would encourage more people to become involved in politics. And, as a happy by-product for a party like the NDP, it has the potential to transform the NDP in the wider public’s eye. At present, the party operates much like the very insular corporations with hierarchical power structures that it claims to eschew. It is an opportunity for the NDP to get back to its grassroots origins. Charrettes would turn this corporate model upside down, connecting people within communities and across communities. It would bring new ideas to the table. And – yes - it would very likely bring more people into the party and result in more votes on election night. Everyday Canadians want to play a greater role in the affairs of government – not only at election time, but between elections and in crafting party policy.

Most importantly, the policy positions that result from these charrettes directly reflect the desires of the people. Even if voters choose a different party at election time, they will know that the NDP is listening to them. I believe there can be no better strategy for reaching out and expanding a party’s base than to do what every Canadian expects of it: to listen to its concerns and to craft policies that respond to their needs.

The NDP can be that party. It only needs to take the lead. A series of national charrettes to develop pary policy from the bottom-up, from the grassroots, is an idea whose time has come.

As I mentioned last month, I will post seat projections for both the latest poll and a 5-month rolling average (which tends to even out the poll results). The 5-month rolling average ending with the Oct 3 Ipsos-Reid poll show support as follows:

	Voter Support (June-Oct 2005)
	LIB	CPC	NDP	GRN	BQ	OTH
NATIONAL	36.2%	27.8%	17.0%	5.0%	12.0%	-
ONTARIO	44.6%	30.0%	18.4%	5.4%	-	1.6%
QUEBEC	26.6%	6.8%	10.6%	3.0%	52.2%	0.8%
BRITISH COLUMBIA	38.6%	25.0%	27.4%	7.8%	-	1.2%
ALBERTA	24.8%	56.8%	12.2%	6.0%	-	0.2%
SASKATCHEWAN/MANITOBA	33.4%	37.0%	24.8%	2.6%	-	2.2%
ATLANTIC CANADA	45.2%	31.4%	18.2%	3.6%	-	1.6%

Using the above data, I ran the election forecast model, with the following results that very closely resemble the Oct 3 Ipsos-Reid poll:

	2005 PREDICTED RESULTS - Rolling Average
	LIB	CPC	NDP	GRN	BQ	OTH
TOTAL SEATS	143	75	25	0	65	0
% OF SEATS	46.4%	24.4%	8.1%	0%	21.1%	0%