1.1B before and after...

Before, 1.1B was the amount the Harper government was spending on G8/20 security.

Now, the new and improved 1.1B is the exact amount that the G8 will pledge for maternal health in the global south.

You thought 1.1B was ill-spent. Now you know 1.1B is being spent on women in poverty. Got it?

Good.

Harper statistically tied with hypothetical LPC-NDP Coalition Government

Listen up!

Deep in the recesses of the poll released by EKOS today is the question: If you were forced to choose between a government led by Stephen Harper and a coalition government made up of Liberals and New Democrats and led by Michael Ignatieff, which would you prefer?

Harper Government: 38.8%

LPC-NDP Coalition Government: 38.6%

No Response: 22.6%

Support for a coalition government led by Ignatieff is strongest in Quebec. Respondents in Alberta and Saskatchewan/Manitoba strongly favour a Harper government (no surprise). However, support for a coalition government vs. another Harper minority is a statistical tie within the margin of error for respondents in BC, Ontario and the Maritimes. Of those who would prefer a Harper government, 40.3% had an education of a high school diploma or less compared to 34.4% who have a post-secondary education. A "three-times a charm" Harper government also garnered the most support from people aged 65+. Coalition supporters came largely from those who are university educated (50.7%) and found the most support from people aged 25 and younger. Perhaps It seems to me that there is certainly a generational aspect to this poll that ought to be explored further. Do these trends indicate that by the time I am between the ages of 45-64 coalition governments will be a staple of the Canadian political economy?

However, the circumstances by which said coalition government would form would definitely have an impact on the 22.6% who did not give a response (my theory: those who had no response wouldn't care as long as the process to determine the next PM and the parties that govern is transparent and legal).

So, does this open up the "merger" talk again? Maybe. But that being said, the question was not "who would you vote for between a CPC candidate and a hypothetical Liberal-Democrat candidate?" so we cannot really use this poll to support merger talk.

We can, however, also get a glimpse at what a single-transferable-vote electoral system would yield: more LPC and NDP candidates with fewer Conservatives and BQ MPs. Among Liberal voters 38.7% would vote NDP as their second choice; while 30.4% of Dippers would cast their second ballot for a Liberal candidate.

And for some comic relief: 51.1% of Conservatives do not have a second choice between the LPC, NDP, GPC, Bloc, nor any "other" party that could potentially be on the ballot.

To my surprise, the GPC did not pick up more second choice votes. The Greens' highest block of second-choice votes would come from New Democrat voters at 22.8%. Meanwhile, only 26.3 of Green voters would list the NDP as their second choice (which was well above the 15.3% the LPC received and 10.9% the CPC garnered). Green voters had the second highest "no second choice" of all committed voters at 36.5%.

And, believe it or not, 61.1% of undecided voters had no second choice.

Coalition governments, electoral reform and Iggy as PM... oh my! Lots to comb through in this week's EKOS poll. This will give me plenty to rant about for the next 7 days.

Shorter Fillibluster: Foreign Policy doesn't matter

I'm a little stunned by Fillibluster's popular post today which blasts Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for talking about foreign policy.

Oh ye of little faith.

Apparently, foreign policy isn't "on the radar" of Canadians. According to the Nanos list, neither are Afghan detainees - but don't tell progressives that or they'll have a fit. Indeed, there are as many Canadians who are "unsure" as to what the most important issue should be, as there are those who feel that the environment is the #1 concern. So... theoretically, foreign policy could outrank the environment in the next election. Or education. Or Taxes. I'm just saying.

If you ask progressive voters, and I'd go so far as to say past-Liberal voters, foreign policy has to be on their list of priorities for any Canadian government. Moreover, if you were to ask the average Canadian to what extent they believe Harper has improved Canada's image abroad (on issues such as poverty, climate change, security) they might not give the current government a passing grade.

Enter the Liberals.

The Liberal Party is a foreign policy party. Well, old-school Liberal governments were foreign policy minded. Moreover, even Mulroney's government was interested in foreign events and Canada's role in the international community. This began to fade under Chretien (as domestic issues such as the 1995 referendum and the Mulroney debt) and has fallen into a coma under Harper. Indeed, Harper struggles overseas. He is fumbling the G8/20 meetings right now. He cannot talk about climate change anywhere outside Ottawa or Alberta. Afghanistan is a quagmire for his party. The only thing he wants to talk about with other leaders - the only international platform he wants Canada to stand on is the bank tax. Taxes.

Are Canadians concerned about our image abroad? I'm sure of it. Do they want the Afghan combat mission extended? I don't think so. However, would Canadians mind Canada contributing to global security as peacekeepers? I'll bet they do. If progressive Canadians could choose between our foreign policy being aimed at trade agreements with states that are committing gross human rights violations; or directed towards helping the poorest of the world's poor in Africa; I'd guestimate that they might lean towards the latter.

I suppose the question I'd like Nanos to ask is: do Canadians want Canada to be a global leader in the 21st Century?

Now, you can put that up against: is health care a greater issue facing Canada than foreign policy? And I'm sure health care would win. But that doesn't mean Canada, or the Liberal party, or any federalist party shouldn't put out a foreign policy platform.

Progressives should be mindful that Harper doesn't have a foreign policy. And that this has contributed to our embarrassment on the world stage. We've lost our place in the world and I think it's about time the Liberals stepped up and have claimed foreign policy as one of their issues to champion. If it brings back former-Liberal votes, it'll win half a dozen close seats lost to the CPC in 2008. If it's strategically placed within a comprehensive platform that hammers away at Harper's mismanagement of the country, it could bring them back (albeit by minority) into power.

EKOS delivers good news for progressives

While the Liberals are stalled at 26% (plus or minus 2) and the Conservatives keep slipping as the summer session draws to a close (from 31.7 to 31.4 to 30.5) the most encouraging part of today's poll from EKOS is that Canadians no longer equating the success of the country to the current government.

The poll also suggests that close to half of Canadians (48.9 per cent) feel that the country is moving in the right direction while 38.6 per cent say it is moving in the wrong direction.

Similar to previous weeks, more than half of Canadians (51.5 per cent) feel the government is moving in the wrong direction, compared with 36.6 per cent who say the government is moving in the right direction.

Since June 3 - the beginning of the end of Harper's insurmountable lead over the LPC - the number of Canadians believing that the country is heading in the right, and those who feel it is going in the wrong, direction have roughly stayed the same.

In the last two weeks, support for the direction of the country has gone from 49.2 to 48.1 to 48.9. Those who believe the country is going in the wrong direction have gone from 39.1 to 39.4 to 36.6.

Yet, support for the direction of the government has dropped from 38.9 to 38.4 to 36.6. While angst over the antics of the government have grown from 48 to 48.6 to 51.5. No longer is the "new" Conservative government the savior of the country.

The name of the progressive campaign game has to be all about Harper's mismanagement, misrepresentation, and misdirection. The country is recovering despite the efforts of the Harper government. Hardworking Canadians can pat themselves on the back for this and they should be leery of Conservatives taking the credit. We, as a country, as Canadians, worked together to climb back from the worst recession since the 1930s - and Canadians deserve a parliament that works together. Not a parliament "led" by a government shrouded in deception. Leadership goes beyond covering your ass. Leadership goes beyond micromanagement. Leadership goes beyond having the country on election standby.

Leadership means change. Changes to our social safety net to make things more fair.

Leadership means vision. Vision for our domestic economy and our place in the international community.

Leadership means action. Action towards a greener planet, a safer world, and broadening trade with our neighbours near and far.

Competing visions and competing ideas of leadership should drive the next election. Some may call this competition a "war." Some may say this competition goes so far as to try and define who we are as a people - as a distinct place in the world with a distinct identity and culture.

All we need to do is wait for the next statistical tie in the Fall.

Pulling the ripcord, and THEN jumping out of the plane

This is getting out of hand. And Conservatives everywhere have to be killing themselves laughing. Gearing up to the most expensive G8/G20 Summits in the history of the meetings, "anonymous senior members" of the Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada are seriously entertaining the idea of merging the two parties. And why, pray tell? Because Ignatieff is in the process of being written off as a leader who can win an election against Harper.

I want to know, where this is coming from? Glancing over all the EKOS polls published by the CBC, the Conservative's watermark for the year 2010 is 34.4%. And that was just a few weeks ago! The latest poll, which puts the CPC at 33.9 and the LPC at 25.7 (+/- 2.1%) had over 14% of those polled say they didn't know who they were going to vote for!

Over 50% polled believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and 48% of those polled said the government was headed on the wrong track.

The majority of the year, from the looks of things, puts the LPC and CPC around the 31-29% range +/- 2% points. The message: no one is particularly attractive to voters. The result of the next federal election is likely to be decided by fewer voters than in 2008 and is most likely going to produce a minority government.

Yet, people concerned with politics rather than the country are plotting. This is what happened when the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives "merged" in 2003. Winning became the biggest goal, and in 2004 Harper was one of the "losers" as the Liberals formed the government for the fourth time in a row.

In 2005 Harper went on the BBQ circuit and dressed up like a rodeo clown to court voters. Going from neck-and-neck with the Grits when the election was called in November, his party trailed in the first half of the 2006 election and then... BAM! The NDP called in a favour from the RCMP and the next thing you know, Goodale is being falsely accused of insider trading and the CPC is up 8 points in the polls. Overnight. Yesterday's man, Stephen Harper. "Mr. Nobody-Will-Ever-Vote-For-You-to-Govern" became the guy to beat. Martin strummed a guitar and delivered his resignation three weeks later.

While the idea of a merger is nice and all - this is not the time. It'wasn't the time before 30 Liberals abstained from the budget vote and it wont' be the time after the G8/20 meetings.

Nanos analyzed electoral cooperation. Looked good from both the New Dem and Liberal supporters. Conservatives hated it. I say, let's go from there.

(And while we're at it, why not make Saanich-Gulf Islands a two horse race: May vs. Cannon.)

Chretien was Smarter. Period.

When I first heard that the 2002 G8 Summit was coming to Kananaskis, Alberta, I thought to myself, "Let's see those hippies torch a Starbucks now!" Chretien was on point when he sought the pristine Alberta mountains to host the G8 leaders for a number of reasons.

First, it was remote. While this is good for the politicians attending the event, it also has security benefits. Security was easy to restrict seeing as how there's pretty much one road in and one road out. Furthermore, it was unlikely that large numbers of protesters would bushwhack their way to the resort causing a wake of environmental damage on their journey. Second, it was easy to restrict airspace over the resort. Lastly, it showcased the natural beauty of Canada.

The total security tab for the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis: 300 million. So much for those "big spending" Liberals.

Contrast this to Toronto, where Harper is hoping to grab a seat next election (check that: any election).

The G8/G20 Summits are not only excruciatingly expensive, but they will disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people going to work, school, a baseball game or to the grocery store. Should a top-secret, glorified photo-op be this much of an fiscal and social inconvenience for North America's fifth biggest city? I dont' think so. Neither did 2002 Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Days spent hosting 20 world leaders: 4.

Cost to securitize Toronto: 1 billion.

Fake Photo-Op Pond and indoor "Experience Canada Ally": 2 million.

Accusing the Liberals of being big spenders: PRICELESS.

Pat Martin and I finally agree

"I think the Conservatives can't wait to get out of here and change the channel and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts we never come back," Mr. Martin told The Hill Times. "Sometime late in the summer or early in the fall, Harper will meet the governor general and say he's lost the ability to govern and we should go to the people."

Bingo. Steve's gonna try and party like it's the pre-recession summer of 2008.

Let's just hope Iggy doesn't fumble and pass him the clicker.

Ignatieff understands Legitimacy

Finally! Iggy comes clean on his stance on coalition governments and the latest rumors of an LPC-NDP merger.

Sticking to the "coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" stance, Igantieff reiterated that he'd only enter into a coalition agreement if that's what was "in the cards." In other words, if voters respected the coalition government proposal and wanted it to govern.

As much as I wanted Dion and Layton to force Harper's hand in 2008, with the proroguing of parliament it was a clear signal that the GG would not have granted a coalition between the Dion Liberals and Layton New Dems the chance to form the government. We would have faced an election and the way the polls were leaning, it would have been a massive Harper majority. Proroguing parliament was the best thing that happened to progressives in Canada because it gave us some ammunition to aim at Harper all the while avoiding a crushing defeat at the polls.

Steve should have asked for an election and skipped the prorogation BS and rolled the dice that perhaps Jean would have granted the LPC-NDP a six month stint as the government and then rallied an election around one word: legitimacy.

Igantieff understands that the Dion-Layton agreement was sound in principle, but not among the majority of Canadians. Polling did not indicate 62% approval of the coalition deal, meaning that there were Liberals and Dippers that did not believe Dion should be PM and that the New Democrats should have their hands on the cheque book. It's unfortunate that this was the electorate's position, but that's that.

Will Harper play the coalition scare-tactic in the next election? Sure he will. Will Igantieff and Layton counter with the British example? They'd be smart to be united on this front to give voters the chance to see that cooperation is possible. (That is, if the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK is successful.) Will this mean soft Liberal votes will go to Harper? I doubt it. Cooperation will probably sway Green votes to the Liberals or NDP in strategic ridings (as this has been the trend in the last two elections despite the GPC being the only party to gain votes in the two previous elections).

Ignatieff needs more face time in Parliament and his Liberal Party needs to put out press release after press release during the summer to initiate discussion on the issues that matter most to Canadians: the economy and health care. He needs to hammer the government on their maternal health debacle and stand strong on climate change mitigation. Instead of waiting for juicy soundbites from the Conservative caucus ('cause Lord knows there are plenty of 'em) the LPC needs to be about sound, principled, pragmatic policy. When Canadians ask themselves: who is the most practical leader right now? They need to answer: Igantieff.

His position on coalition governments and mergers is just the first step in this direction. Let's hope there aren't any sidetracks between now and September.

Harper places abortion and climate change on the same level

According to the stagnant Conservative government they've managed to dodge "thorny" issues such as abortion and climate change at the G8 and G20. Now, I understand that there is a certain unpleasantness surrounding the abortion debate. I get that it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue for nearly every government and elected official on the planet. Therefore, the easiest issue is to hide behind some smoke and mirrors and pat every activist on both sides of the debate on the head as much as you can.

Despite framing the maternal health agenda as being a health issue, Harper cannot seem to shake his pro-life supporters from inserting their moral agenda into the G20. Straight up, he's afraid of alienating his base even though he has a great way out in framing abortion as a health issue.

Similarly, one could frame Canada's action against climate change. The government says that it will act towards mitigating climate change as long as it does not hurt the G20 economies. Alright, so this is an economic issue. And perhaps it ought to be.

However, if climate change goes unchecked - if abatement does not start immediately for the developed world; then the costs could be as high as 1.9 trillion annually in 2100. At current growth rates, that is 3.1% of global GDP, or, 1.8% of US GDP/year in 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, etc. A 1m level in sea rise would be disastrous for American, Chinese, Indian and Canadian coastal cities: not to mention low lying areas in Europe and the developing world. What would the cost of new levees in New York, Boston, Miami, Halifax, and Vancouver be? What about hurricane damages? Increased droughts in the developing world, placing pressure on international assistance?

The target most countries are talking about today is 0.5% of GDP. Putting this amount towards climate change mitigation efforts right now is still 0.2% less than our commitment to the developing world agreed upon at Glen Eagles eons ago.

Will 0.5% have an effect on our economy? You bet it would. Would it be better or worse than a nearly 2% effect 90 years from now? We can only speculate that future generations will be wealthier, but I doubt the wealth of the Canadian population in 2100 would be great enough that committing 2% of our GDP would be a drop in the bucket. Moreover, the action required in 2100 without changes to developed and developing industry practices would mean excruciatingly expensive measures in 2100 like building levees, accommodating population movements, etc. Moreover, it would be unlikely that the risks associated with new green technologies would simply go away at a time of crisis - therefore, making it harder for populations and governments to invest.

Framing is everything, but Harper just cannot seem to figure that out when it comes to real issues and not smearing his opponents for political gain. If you were to ask the CPC to spin the issue of Ignatieff teaching at Harvard - they know exactly what to do. If you ask them how to spin parliamentary conventions (such as Coalition parliaments) they've got the tools to convince the public it's a coup d'etat.

Ask Harper to frame maternal health and climate change? One is a health issue limited by moral shout-downs from his base, and the other is an economic issue cooked up by dishonest scientists and Europeans to cripple the "West" - regardless of the non-partisan scientific and economic research to the contrary.

Harper cannot get out of election mode and it is to the detriment of the country. Would things be better if he had a majority and then he would not need to lean on his cushy 25% legion of supporters? I doubt it. If anything, we'd get more stalling, more brazen arrogance, and even less action to save our children's future.