Hands in our pockets

Translink. What are the first three words which come to mind when I say this? If you're anything like me, you probably thought of inefficient, mismanaged, and secretive.

Or you're probably a normal person, and thought slow, tardy, and under-serviced. Either way, you're probably fed up like me, and their latest proposal, backed by a majority of their Mayors' Council (made up of Metro Vancouver mayors), is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am livid, and when I tell you why, you probably will be too.

Back in June, the Mayors' Council decided (with Burnaby, West Van, and Maple Ridge opposing) that in order to fund all their pet projects, Translink would need $7.5B over the next 10 years. This would require Translink's operating budget to be increased from $1.4B to $2.2B per annum, a massive increase of over 50% to maintain and expand bus service, build a light rail to Surrey and a subway extension to UBC, replace the Patullo Bridge, and other odds and ends.

What wasn't clear was how they planned to fund this, since the province steadfastly refused to reallocate tax dollars. None of these are bad ideas, but this is the very epitome of spending money you don't have, which we can all agree is not a very smart thing to do.

Last month, the Council announced that they had found a solution. They would put it up to the good people of BC, in a referendum this spring, to decide whether or not to approve a 0.5 percentage point hike in the PST, which would then go toward their plans. By their calculations, that would add about $250M each year into the provincial coffers.

Herein lies the problem. Ten years multiplied by $250M/year is not $7.5B. It is not even close to $7.5B. It is so far off that even the pollsters who said the NDP would win a majority in 2013 are looking great. Translink and the mayors apparently operate in a fantastical land of pixies and stardust where $250M over 10 years magically turns into $7.5B.

Do you know what you get in the real world when you are 200% off, to the tune of 5 billion dollars? As Donald Trump would say, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Undoubtedly, Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson, the biggest backer of this plan, is trying to use this to fulfill a campaign promise for a subway line down the Broadway corridor to UBC. In the council's own report, this would take $2B, never mind Translink's history of projects going over-budget. By my calculations, the proposed PST hike would leave the city barely enough money to extend the existing line a couple of stations to join up with the Canada Line at Cambie St.

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan is right when he says this leaves more questions than answers. Questions like "[how] are we going to decide which line goes first? Will it be Vancouver with the new tunnel down Broadway or will it be a light rail line into Surrey?" West Vancouver mayor Mike Smith told reporters that if his municipality kept the money they gave to Translink, he could provide free bus service for his constituents.

Translink has long been known to be one of the most wasteful organisations in the province. The Independent Transit Commissioner describes Translink's funding formula as the best in the country, yet year after year Translink complains that they don't have enough money to support their operations. Why? Because they misallocate millions of dollars, not least of which goes toward 6-figure salaries for over 400 employees, including an extremely bloated board of directors, not including benefits. And that's only the beginning...

Constant harsh criticism has prompted Translink to respond, saying “[we] do not have the resources to investigate each one of [the] claims, nor is the public purse well served by going down such dirt trails when we have important operations and communications matters to pursue.”

Well, other people have now been so kind as to do it for you. The lack of any sort of responsible governing of Translink is appalling, and the provincial government is to blame as well. Translink operates with all the benefits of a public corporation, complete with tax funding, and none of the accountability. If these reports surfaced about any government department, heads would have rolled. Instead, it's business as usual for Translink, after which the directors vote themselves great whacking bonuses.

If you look at Translink's 2014 budget, you'll find to no surprise that despite the best funding formula in the country, they have a $52M deficit. The Golden Gate Bridge is losing money, and there's not a single word about the Port Mann. When we take away everything that could fall under the purview of the provincial government (i.e. only looking at Translink and transit costs vs. revenue from transit operations), that shortfall grows nearly tenfold.

The province obviously can't be trusted to fix this; they're they ones who let it degenerate to this state in the first place. It's high time to privatise Translink and leave them to the mercy of private citizens, and force them to streamline.

In the meantime, when that referendum comes out, BC voters need to say "NO!" No to flowery promises of unlikely new transit lines, no to the continued smoke and mirrors finances of Translink, and no to another hand in our pockets. If they do get the money, it won't be long until they tell us that it wasn't enough (as if we didn't already know that). Then, they'll tell us that since they started already, it's too late to stop, so could we very kindly, pretty please, with a cherry on top let them stick another hand or three in?

Apparently, Translink thinks we're all idiots. If we let them have their way, this just might be the one thing they've ever gotten right.

Open letter

Dear student leaders:

For some reason, the people protesting with you seem to actually respect you. Validate them.

Two days ago, you accepted the government's overtures and agreed to opening dialogue. Do not use the scuffles with anti-protestors as an excuse to renege on this. The government had nothing to do with that, and you know it. These are people who are frustrated that Hong Kong has been brought to a standstill. And you know what? They, too, have a right to express their opinions.

I know, you believe that you were pushed to these drastic measures because of what the government has allegedly done (or failed to do, it's hard to know with you lot). But now that the government has offered to talk, Hong Kong's continued paralysis is as much your responsibility as the government's. Going back on your word like this is exactly what you have repeatedly accused the government of doing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Politics is a game of give and take. It also takes place in the real world, not whatever fantastical land you seem to think exists, where everything is exactly as you want. Take what you can get, certainly; otherwise, learn to cut your losses. You may think you're winning the PR battle right now, but dragging this out cannot possibly be in your interests. The frustration of the public will only grow, and at some point, it will become indiscriminate in its target.

You say you're doing this for the future of Hong Kong. You say you love Hong Kong. Well then, I challenge you this: lift your blockade on the daily lives of average, honest, hard-working people in Hong Kong. Show some real leadership, and walk up to the negotiating table.

Yours,

A disgruntled observer

The Hong Kong Question

Or, Why the Beijing Proposal is More Practical

Let me say, first of all, that in principle, I am in favour of holding general elections for the Chief Executive.

Let me also say, however, that I am NOT in favour of achieving this by means of Occupy Central, or boycotting school, or striking. Before you bring out the pitchforks, allow me to expound.

The current atmosphere of politics in Hong Kong is best described as fractious. If Beijing allowed open nominations, everybody and his uncle are going to run for office. The result of that will be a campaign of so many contrasting platforms, of such chaos, mudslinging, and extremes that the reputation of any candidate is going to be irreparably tarnished.

At this point, even the eventual winner will be so damaged that he will have lost his mandate to govern before he even takes office. Open nominations for the top job in a city-state is a recipe for perpetual lame duck Chief Executives. Each one will have no political capital to push the often necessary but bitter pills through for the betterment of Hong Kong. What the citizens want and what the citizens need are not always the same things.

What follows is a vicious cycle of incompetency and "quick fix" candidates; winners by virtue of being against the government, and not their own solid plan for the future. Hong Kong will descend into a death spiral, at the end of which lies the cesspool of the failed state.

Occupy Central will not convince Beijing that this will not happen. In fact, it will only strengthen this view, and Beijing's resolve to prevent this fate. If Hong Kong grinds to a halt in protest, it alone will suffer. Its economy will stall, the markets will fall, the entire city will be poorer, and Occupiers will be no closer to their goal.

If they hope to bring Beijing down with them, they are misguided. Hong Kong is but a drop in the bucket to Beijing. They will not be affected, they will not have to back down, and they will not back down, especially with much of the populace also against Occupying. Not only will Occupy Central be ineffective, it will ultimately be self-defeating.

On the topic of police brutality, there were likely faults on both sides. When protestors continue to attempt rushing government buildings and police barriers after repeated warnings, the police are going to react. Do I believe the protestors were mostly peaceful? Yes. But not all of them were, and unfortunately, violence begets violence. It only takes one spark.

At the end of the day, the police are only there to do their jobs. However, they are the easiest to vilify with media, especially social media, for perceived brutality. Were they slightly heavy-handed? Probably. But a violent suppression of the completely innocent? It was not.

Political reform is a complex issue requiring mutual compromise. You wanted the right to choose your own Chief Executive. You were afforded this right. You don't need 5, 6, or 10 candidates. Even the Americans usually only have 2 choices.

Let it not be said that Beijing chooses incompetent people. They may be corrupt, but even democracy is not without corruption. They may be friendlier to Beijing than you like, but do you really think a Chief Executive openly hostile to Beijing can get anything done?

If you grab a handful of cookies, your hand might get caught at the neck of the jar. If you let go of a couple, you might just find you can have your cookie and eat it too.

New Brunswick votes

New Brunswick is going to the polls today, and I've been too busy to follow too closely, but I can't resist making a call anyway. Premier David Alward's Progressive Conservatives are the incumbent government, having won the last election in 2010 by a landslide with 49% of the vote and 42/55 seats. They're seeking re-election to avoid being only the second NB government in history to be relegated to a single term. The opposition Liberals, led by rookie leader Brian Gallant, are seeking to redeem themselves. Meanwhile, Dominic Cardy took over an NDP holding 0 seats and are hoping to change that. On the fringe are the Green Party, and the People's Alliance which I've lumped in with the "Others."

For most of the campaign, it looked as though Brian Gallant was cruising to a landslide victory in a new, streamlined legislature of 49 seats. Their poll lead was often 20+ points, and nothing seemed to shake it. In the final week, controversy over shale gas, fracking, and abortion saw the Liberal lead drop to about 10, but it seemed they were on track for victory nonetheless.

As this was happening, however, Brian Gallant gave an interview with the CBC where he fudged the figures to his own party's tax policy. Subsequently, in a disastrous retake of the interview, the CBC (known to be Liberal-friendly) grilled Gallant mercilessly, generating a massive amount of bad press. Forum then released an eleventh hour poll just last night showing a dead tie, and if they are right, this massive blunder could potentially have been the turning point of the entire election.

And so, the raw numbers:
NBPC   38-43% [median 41.0]  20-30 seats [median 26]
NBLP   39-44% [median 41.6]  19-29 seats [median 23]
NBNDP   9-13% [median 10.8]   0- 1 seats [median  0]
Green   4- 7% [median  5.0]   0- 0 seats [median  0]
Other   0- 3% [median  1.6]   0- 0 seats [median  0]

Whatever the result, this promises to be a very interesting night, with both parties able to form government. It really looks like it's too close to call. However, for the sake of integrity...

The Politically Uncorrect final call: PC MAJORITY of 3.

Ontario Final Call

Last update, it looked as though the OLP might have been heading for a bit of a comeback under Kathleen Wynne. Then the debate happened, and Hudak stopped the bleeding. A barrage of polls were released, up until the final hour before the publication ban, and the picture remains as unclear as it was when the election began. The numbers, as they stand:

OLP    34-39% [median 36.6] ( = ) 34-53 seats [median 44] (4)
OPC    35-40% [median 37.8] (0.9) 37-52 seats [median 44] (3)
ONDP   18-22% [median 20.5] (0.3) 15-23 seats [median 19] (1)
Green   2- 5% [median  4.1] (0.2)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.4)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)

There are two camps which the polls have split into:

IVR (EKOS and Forum): They have the Liberals ahead by a fair margin, possibly enough to eke out a majority government, and the NDP relatively low (below 20).

Online (Abacus, Angus Reid, Ipsos Reid, Oracle): They have the PCs either tied are slightly ahead, but the NDP rather higher (near 25).

As it stands, I'm going to go with the online firms on the PCs and Liberals, and edge closer to the IVR firms for the NDP score. There are several reasons for this. Having supporters that actually vote is key in elections where turnout is getting lower and lower. The Tories traditionally have that edge here, and I envision it continuing. That said, this effect will be somewhat counteracted by the bonus that incumbent governments usually get, and the PCs will probably just barely edge the Liberals in votes.

Regarding the NDP, they caused an election that nobody wanted, and voters won't take too kindly to that. Add to the fact that Horwath has been criticised for being too right wing, and NDP supporters might not feel inclined to vote. The fly in the ointment is, these NDP supporters may instead vote Liberal to block the PCs. However, in such a close race, I believe the PCs themselves will be motivated to come out and try and win this thing.

As it stands, the ranges for either frontrunners fall just short of a majority, but it's not out of the question (just highly unlikely). Tomorrow evening promises to be extremely interesting.

For the first time since the start of this blog, Politically Uncorrect projects...A TIE?!

Ontario Liberals may earn 4th term

The polling volatility really hasn't improved much, although the gaps are starting to become tighter for all voters. The glaring difference is still Ipsos Reid, which continues to show large PC leads among likely voters. The end result is a very tight race, vote-wise, but of course the OLP has an advantage with distribution (changes from last projection):

OLP    33-40% [median 36.6] (3.7) 35-59 seats [median 48] (9)
OPC    33-40% [median 36.9] (1.6) 32-53 seats [median 41] (6)
ONDP   18-24% [median 20.8] (2.9) 11-22 seats [median 18] (3)
Green   2- 6% [median  4.3] (0.7)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.4] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)

The ranges are still a bit large. They'll contract as the election draws nearer. Looking at broader trends, it looks like momentum was with Premier Wynne for a couple weeks, but recently Hudak seems to have stemmed the tide. Horwath is making no headway at all, and her election gambit is looking increasingly foolish.

Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL MINORITY, short 6.

After one week: it's a horserace!

Last week, Andrew Horwath of the NDP looked at the Liberal budget and decided they could not support this government any longer. As Tim Hudak and the PCs have long refused to support the Liberal minority, Premier Kathleen Wynne requested a dissolution, and an election was called.

I've waited a whole week to do this because the pre-campaign polls were giving zero clarity on the picture, and unfortunately, the campaign period polls are all over the place as well. The only thing I can say is this:

The Liberals or the PCs will either place first or second, plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

With polls either registering anywhere between a 6 point Liberal lead and a 14 point PC lead (although I suspect Ipsos might have put out a bit of an outlier), the best guess right now is the weighted rolling poll average. And so (changes calculated from last election):

OLP    28-38% [median 32.9] (4.8) 22-52 seats [median 39] (14)
OPC    34-43% [median 38.5] (3.0) 35-66 seats [median 47] (10)
ONDP   21-26% [median 23.7] (1.0) 19-27 seats [median 21] ( 4)
Green   2- 6% [median  3.6] (0.7)  0- 1 seats [median  0] ( =)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.3] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] ( =)

After blowing a wide lead last election, one has to wonder how much good will Tim Hudak has left from his own party. Failure to win this time, with a Liberal government that is widely perceived as old, tired, and corrupt, will be fatal to his leadership. Tim Hudak only has one goal for June 12th: win 54 seats or more. He must convince centrist voters that the PCs are no longer the scary/nasty party.

Andrew Horwath's NDP is performing its best in the polls since the Rae victory, but has actually dropped back from their position last year of second or occasionally first. There is a sense that Ontario voters haven't fully forgiven them for the disastrous Rae government, but are almost ready to do so. Horwath must convince voters that they are a serious party that is ready to govern once again. Short of securing the official opposition, Horwath's tenure as leader may be threatened.

Kathleen Wynne's future is less clear. Since taking office, she has sought to distance herself from the McGuinty years, to mixed success. The lower hanging fruit for her will be to the left, in soft NDP voters. She must present her party as the only viable option for government. In other words, she needs to scare the centre away from the PCs and tell the left that the NDP can't win. If this election results in another hung parliament, she may attempt to hang on as premier as long as the OLP finishes either ahead of or only a couple seats behind the PCs.

For now, Politically Uncorrect projects PC MINORITY, short 7.

The aftermath: utterly defeated

The election is over, with all ridings declared. Now is a time to take a look at how the projection ranges matched up to actual results:
PQ     25-30% [actual 25.4] (-1.6) 32-50 seats [actual 30] (-10)
PLQ    37-42% [actual 41.5] (+1.5) 60-78 seats [actual 70] ( = )
CAQ    21-25% [actual 23.1] (+0.6)  8-18 seats [actual 22] (+ 9)
QS      7-10% [actual  7.6] (-0.4)  2- 3 seats [actual  3] (+ 1)
ON      0- 1% [actual  0.7] (-0.1)  0- 0 seats [actual  0] ( = )
PVQ     0- 1% [actual  0.6] (+0.1)  0- 0 seats [actual  0] ( = )
Other   0- 2% [actual  1.1] (+0.2)  0- 1 seats [actual  0] ( = )
Black is for within range, red for out of range, differences calculated from median.

As you can see, the polls (and hence, the vote share projection) did extremely well, with everything falling inside the margins. The Liberal majority was also very accurately predicted, with exactly 70 seats. The third QS seat was also within range.

Clearly, however, errors were made with the PQ and CAQ seat projection. Last week I said, "As for the CAQ, incumbency could really be a huge factor for them, especially now that they're on a clear upswing. It's highly likely that the CAQ will save more of their seats than most people expect." It was with this reasoning that I had the CAQ at 13 seats, or between 8 and 18, even as other predictions had them at a maximum of 11. It turns out even that was not enough.

Not only did they save their seats, they actually increased their seat count over last election, even while losing several seats to the Liberals. The size of the PQ collapse allowed Legault to pick up more than enough seats to make up the difference. This is because, even though the CAQ actually dropped 4 points of the popular vote from 2012, the PQ lost nearly 7 points, even worse than expected.

Perhaps, however, the greatest indicator of the magnitude of the PQ defeat was Pauline Marois' loss in her own seat by nearly 800 votes. Her resignation was swift, but notably, Pierre Karl Peladeau was first to make a speech broadcast on television and offer congratulations to Couillard. Words of congratulations to another party leader are normally only spoken by a party leader. Was Couillard signalling his intentions to replace Marois?

There are painful days of soul-searching ahead for the PQ, with a potentially divisive leadership campaign between the traditional unionist wing and the possible "PKP wing" of the party. In this light, I would not be surprised if Legault and the CAQ takes the de facto role of Official Opposition, both in legislature and the eyes of Quebecers, in the following months.

Sovereignty is down, and Canada can breathe a sign of relief. Now the question is, is it out?

Quebec final call & scenarios

Forum has, once again, come out with a shocking poll at the last minute. It shows the PQ vote collapsing (24) and the PLQ gaining (44). The CAQ is again much higher (23) and is nipping at the heals of the PQ. Angus Reid also did a poll, their first in Quebec in several years now, showing a similar close race between the CAQ (25) and PQ (27), but with a much lower Liberal score (39).

With these figures, the PQ once again loses seats in the projection:
PQ     25-30% [median 27.0] (1.4) 32-50 seats [median 40] (5)
PLQ    37-42% [median 40.2] (0.9) 60-78 seats [median 70] (1)
CAQ    21-25% [median 22.5] (1.6)  8-18 seats [median 13] (4)
QS      7-10% [median  8.0] (1.3)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 1% [median  0.8] (0.2)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 1% [median  0.5] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

There are several alternate scenarios which could play out, by decreasing likelihood. The main projection is, of course, still the most likely scenario.

1) Angus Reid was the top performer in the many federal and provincial elections. They're right again, and the CAQ vote ends up very close to the PQ:
PLQ 65-71, PQ 33-39, CAQ 16-20, QS 2-3
The PQ edge in efficiency keeps them well ahead in seats.

2) Liberal ballot box bonus, a la 2012 (or, Forum is right):
PLQ 82-88, PQ 24-30, CAQ 9-13, QS 2
Massive Liberal majority, PQ disaster. Liberal strength keeps CAQ down despite vote over 20%.

3) The PQ completely collapses, CAQ carries momentum to finish ahead (in votes). In this situation, the Liberals also drop a bit:
PLQ 59-65, PQ 29-35, CAQ 25-31, QS 2-4
Liberal majority in question, as well as who gets the Official Opposition. PQ weakness also opens up a third and fourth seat to QS. Most exciting situation.

4) Completely defying momentum and trends, the PQ recovers (obviously least likely):
PLQ 53-59, PQ 51-57, CAQ 11-15, QS 2-3
Government formation impossible to predict, CAQ important with balance of power.

Because of the whirlwind end to the campaign, and the CAQ rebounding to dark horse status, there could be a lot of surprises tomorrow night. Once again, we are reminded that campaigns DO matter.

The Politically Uncorrect final call: LIBERAL MAJORITY of 15.

The closing stretch: is the Liberal advantage as solid as it seems?

The campaign is drawing to a close, and all the new polls are pointing at the same thing: a large PLQ lead with the CAQ on the rebound. This projection will likely be the second last one, with the final one coming on Monday morning or so, with all the final adjustments made.

The numbers are here:
PQ     27-31% [median 28.4] (6.2) 41-53 seats [median 45] (8)
PLQ    37-41% [median 39.3] (2.1) 61-75 seats [median 69] (3)
CAQ    19-23% [median 20.9] (7.4)  6-15 seats [median  9] (5)
QS      7-11% [median  9.3] (1.0)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 1% [median  0.6] (0.2)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 1% [median  0.6] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.8] (0.2)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Now is the time to investigate whether the Liberal lead really is as strong as it looks. On paper, a 10+ percentage point lead seems somewhat insurmountable. Alison Redford overcame a small 2pp lead in the polling average, and even Christy Clark "only" overcame an 8pp margin.

The first thing to look at is "likely voters." As many elections have shown us, the people who answer polls may not be the same people who vote. That said, both Ipsos Reid and EKOS have included a "likely voter" formula, and neither shows a bounce for the PQ. I've used their "likely voter" numbers in the poll projection either, so hopefully turnout won't throw this off as far as previous elections.

Looking at recent trends, the PLQ is clearly stagnant or even declining slightly from their peak position. Two weeks ago, they were forecast between 39-44%. Now, that has decreased to 37-41%. A Couillard majority is NOT guaranteed.

However, in the same period, the PQ has had a disastrous stretch, from a forecast of 32-37% to just 27-31%. Those ranges don't even overlap! The only thing that the PQ can hope for now is an incumbency bonus. Usually, incumbent members or governments get a bounce at the ballot box, and they perform better than polls suggest. I may tweak the numbers slightly to account for that in the final update. At this point, though, it looks like the Liberal lead is fairly safe. It would take a small miracle for Marois to pull out a victory now.

As for the CAQ, incumbency could really be a huge factor for them, especially now that they're on a clear upswing. It's highly likely that the CAQ will save more of their seats than most people expect. The same thing happened with their predecessors, the ADQ, in the 2008 election. The projection accounts for that, and so the CAQ seat count is a bit on the high side. That number might rise further by Monday. Legault's second debate performance really saved his hide.

For now, though, Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL MAJORITY of 13.

Week 5: lose-lose

With attack-style politics thoroughly entrenched in Canada, politics is a blood sport at best, and an all-out war of attrition at worst. Elections are seldom won, but often lost. Such is the logic behind the saying, "oppositions can't win elections, governments lose them."

And yet, oppositions can most certainly lose elections as well. Most recently, Adrian Dix lost the BC election by waffling over Kinder Morgan, opening to door to vicious attacks by the Liberals on his economic platform. Even "winners" can also lose. Marois herself had to settle for a razor-thin 4 seat minority last time because of a lacklustre campaign, even while Charest was well and truly f**ked by the Charbonneau commission on corruption.

In fact, the last time someone actually won an election was when Mulroney fought the 1988 election over NAFTA. His record-setting 211 seats in the 1984 election? That was all Turner making gaffe after gaffe.

So, it's not about winning, at all. Rather, it's all about not losing.

And that brings us to Quebec campaign. The question this week: who can survive?

Couillard's performance in the second debate can be described by one word: limp. He was attacked on all sides on the question of integrity. Perhaps the person who swung hardest was Legault, who has been bleeding support to Couillard over concerns of a PQ majority.

Meanwhile, a bombshell dropped today when allegations surfaced that Marois' husband, Claude Blanchet, accepted illegal donations for her leadership bid from a donor who wanted access to Marois. Although she's strongly denied this, the shadow has already been cast over her integrity. What's worse is, she's been trying all campaign to pin the integrity issue onto Couillard. This could make her look like a crook and a hypocrite.

There has been a lack of polling last week, save for a Leger poll confirming the situation before these two events. Expect the next batch of polls to show declines for both Marois and Couillard. Entering the final week of this campaign, whoever drops less is key.

Week 4: monumental cock-up?

When Pauline Marois called this election, she did so because she thought she could win a majority. As we enter week 4 of the campaign, all signs now point to that having backfired.

Spectacularly so, if we're to believe Forum Research, who once again have muddied the waters with a ground-breaking opinion poll showing a completely different race. Their firm has, in previous elections, also shown somewhat dubious numbers, to a mixed degree of success.

That the PQ campaign is struggling is not in question. The trends in other polls reflect this too. Recently, they have had trouble staying on message, and have lurched from issue to issue trying to find their footing. They have even gone so far as to suggest students from other provinces are trying to hijack the election through voter fraud. The demographic which is least likely to vote. Within hours, the chief electoral officer debunked that myth.

However, what is doubtful is that the Liberals have suddenly opened up a 13 point gap (instead of about 5 like everybody else is showing) and are cruising toward a victory. Fortunately, this is where the weighted rolling poll average comes in to smooth the wild swings:
PQ     32-37% [median 34.6] (1.1) 42-61 seats [median 53] (5)
PLQ    39-44% [median 41.4] (2.1) 58-76 seats [median 66] (5)
CAQ    12-15% [median 13.5] ( = )  2- 5 seats [median  4] (=)
QS      7-10% [median  8.3] (0.4)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  0.8] (0.3)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 1% [median  0.5] (0.3)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.1)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

The Liberals have once again picked up 5 seats at the expense of the PQ, although they may come back down a bit once new surveys are released. The Greens failed to put up a full slate of candidates, and the new numbers reflect this.

One question remains, though: is it the PQ or Forum who are headed toward a monumental cock-up?

For today, Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL MAJORITY of 7.

Liberal momentum builds ahead of debate

Two new polls (CROP & Ipsos) agree: Most Quebecers do not want another sovereignty referendum, but believe the PQ would hold one if they win a majority, therefore, they are moving to the Liberals. Couillard has, so far, successfully managed to frame the PQ as focused on another referendum. He has picked up support from the nervous voters previously in the CAQ camp, because they see the Liberals as the best shot at stopping the PQ. Of course, PQ candidates attacking kosher or halal foods and comparing circumcision and baptism to rape didn't really help Marois.

To that end, the recruitment of PKP as a candidate has come back to bite Marois in the rear. The move was hailed as a game changer; and it may yet be, just not in the way Marois envisioned. She's trying to reframe her party's message around the controversial secular charter. That was evident when she sent minister Drainville out to talk exclusively about it. That will, no doubt, be part of her game plan in tomorrow's debate, on top of attacking the PLQ as the party of backroom deals and stuffed envelopes (a la Charest). Although, since this is the Couillard era, and not Charest, one wonders how effective that line of attack will be.

Look also for Francois Legault to attack Couillard more than Marois. He pretty much knows he's in no position to form government, and will now be simply trying to re-attract support. Given that a lot of that is moving to the Liberals, Legault will be swinging hard at Couillard.

This election looks increasingly likely to be determined by who sets the agenda, and not by the actual policy. If Couillard can keep the focus on the PQ's separatist roots, he will have the upper hand. The same can be said for Marois if she manages to redirect the message to secularism. Should Legault manage to worm himself in and talk about the economy, he may be able to prevent anybody from winning a majority and salvage a few seats.

For now, though:
PQ     33-38% [median 35.7] (1.7) 49-66 seats [median 58] (5)
PLQ    37-42% [median 39.3] (1.9) 52-70 seats [median 61] (5)
CAQ    12-15% [median 13.5] (0.8)  2- 5 seats [median  4] (=)
QS      7-10% [median  8.7] (0.7)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  1.1] (0.2)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  0.8] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Politically Uncorrect now projects a LIBERAL MINORITY (short 2).

Week 3: debate prep

Leger released a poll last Friday which I didn't get a chance to put into the projection, but it basically confirms to close race. There's a little bit of good news for everyone, except the CAQ.

So, the numbers:
PQ     34-40% [median 37.4] (0.2) 55-74 seats [median 63] (=)
PLQ    34-40% [median 37.4] (0.2) 45-64 seats [median 56] (1)
CAQ    12-16% [median 14.3] (1.2)  3- 5 seats [median  4] (1)
QS      6- 8% [median  8.0] (0.7)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.1)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

The Liberals picked up a seat from the CAQ. The most troubling news for the CAQ is that they have no one region of strength anymore, since the Quebec City region is moving away from them in favour of the Liberals. It looks as though the sovereignty talk has moved some warier people into the federalist option. What's interesting is of the remaining CAQ backers, they prefer the Liberals 43-17 over the PQ as a second choice. Philippe Couillard has a clear path to victory. Whether he is successful in attracting these CAQ voters remains to be seen.

Pauline Marois still has enough francophone support to win an election, with a decent shot at a majority. However, it's clear that she can't rest on her laurels yet. With such a close race, Thursday's debate will be key. We'll likely see if that manages to shake things up the week after.

For now, Politically Uncorrect continues to project a PQ MAJORITY of 1.

Was PKP a bit of an own goal by the PQ?

Bob Rae had the line of the day Friday when he said that a Quebec civil servant or a trade unionist voting for Pierre-Karl Peladeau (nicknamed PKP) would be "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Witty soundbite regardless, he has a point. The PQ has sold itself out by courting a corporate media czar in an attempt to shore up their own economic credentials.

A star candidate and a former president and CEO such as Peladeau will not be content to sit as a mere backbencher. If the PQ is re-elected, he will almost certainly feature in the cabinet. But, attempting to forge a cabinet out of social democrats and economic conservatives is like adding oil to water. The two will not mix well.

So what is Pauline Marois counting on, then? What would be the proverbial glue on which she is depending to hold a team together? As expounded on in the last post, traditional left-right politics plays second fiddle to sovereigntist-federalist politics in Quebec. Marois is likely hoping that the common goal of an independent Quebec will be enough to keep her future cabinet on the straight and narrow.

That much was evident when, during Peladeau's announcement on Monday, he proudly declared, "I am a sovereigntist!" This was followed by Marois' very public musings on the workings of an independent Quebec. However, Thursday morning came along, and with polls showing sovereignty working against the PQ, Marois and Peladeau quickly changed their tune.

During Thursday's press conference, Peladeau refused to answer any questions about sovereignty, and at one point even appeared frustrated and tried to redirect the questions toward the economy. Marois abruptly stopped mentioning Quebec as a nation. Such is the power of public opinion.

However, if sovereignty as a focusing point is wrenched away from the PQ, we return to the original question: what, exactly, does the PQ now stand for? With the entry of Peladeau, the waters are muddied. The whole point of bringing him on board was to show that the PQ isn't only a party of trade unionists and social democrats.

But is that really such a good idea, or has Marois only found a wedge to drive within her own party? If she wins this election, will she have only given herself future headaches trying to head a fractious cabinet? And if she fails, or even wins just a minority, will inviting PKP only have served to open the door to a leadership challenge, painful both personally and to the party?

Clearly, Bob Rae hit a sensitive spot Friday morning. Otherwise, Marois would not have taken exception to his quip, and told him to "mind [his] own business."

Week 2 starts with a bang: why traditional left/right politics don't work in Quebec

Today's news centred around Pierre-Karl Peladeau, CEO and president of Quebecor Media and Sun Media. Generally seen as right-wing, Peladeau shocked the political world today by announcing his candidacy with the PQ, the same party closely tied to unions, the same party widely labelled as left.

But that's just it. In Quebec, left/right politics plays second fiddle to none other than the issue of sovereignty. That's why Lucien Bouchard was a federal Progressive Conservative minister turned leader of the Bloc turned PQ premier; why Francois Legault, a former Bouchard minister, is now leader of the CAQ; why Tom Mulcair, federal NDP leader, was a minister under Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals, who himself was leader of the federal PCs.

While, in theory, the PQ and the PLQ are a little left and right of centre, respectively, in practice they have been centrist. Their governing styles have not been much different, save for on matters of culture, language, and nationhood. It is for this reason that voters on both sides of the spectrum feel they belong to these parties, under the banner of either "sovereigntist" or "federalist."

It's also why the CAQ (or its predecessor the ADQ) never did too well, except in that massive protest vote in 2007. It's not because the Quebecois are any "more liberal" than the rest of Canada. The CAQ are, officially, soft nationalists; neither sovereigntist nor federalist. Their raison d'etre is economic conservatism, but economic conservatives have already found a home in either the PQ or the PLQ, and for the most part, they're content. If not, sovereignty or federalism serves as a force compelling them to stay, despite minor grievances.

We'll probably see by the Friday update whether today's news has impacted the parties' support. For today, a CROP poll this weekend confirms the close race. The only difference is a slightly higher number for the CAQ. And so:

PQ     34-40% [median 37.2] (0.9) 55-74 seats [median 63] (=)
PLQ    34-40% [median 37.2] (0.9) 44-63 seats [median 55] (=)
CAQ    13-17% [median 15.5] (1.6)  4- 8 seats [median  5] (=)
QS      6- 8% [median  7.3] (0.3)  2- 2 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  1.0] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Politically Uncorrect continues to project a PQ MAJORITY of 1.

It's a tie! Or is it?

End of week update. I'd like to hold to a Friday and Monday posting schedule this election cycle, unless a huge slew/barrage of polls show up.

Anyway, a Forum poll came out yesterday and moved the projection a little. The regional breakdowns are a little odd, but not totally out of line. Good poll for the PLQ.

The new numbers (changes in brackets, red means loss):
PQ     35-41% [median 38.1] (0.3) 56-75 seats [median 63] (2)
PLQ    35-41% [median 38.1] (2.4) 43-62 seats [median 55] (4)
CAQ    12-16% [median 13.9] (1.6)  3- 7 seats [median  5] (2)
QS      6- 8% [median  7.0] (0.5)  2- 2 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.5)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  1.0] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Even with a tie, the PQ has a much better chance of winning the most seats. Again, this is due to the Liberals piling up useless majorities in Anglo Montreal ridings. However, there are a lot of close races elsewhere, and as the seat ranges demonstrate, almost anything can happen. Also, there is a riding where the independent candidate, an incumbent who left the PLQ, who may be a factor in her seat. That said, currently I believe she is not personally popular enough to hang on over the party-backed candidates.

For now, Politically Uncorrect projects a razor thin PQ MAJORITY of 1.

Ready, set, go! Quebec votes on April 7

Eighteen months into her minority mandate, Pauline Marois (PQ) has pulled the plug on her own government in an attempt to secure a majority, on the back of her "secular charter" bill. While English Canada spurned this controversial (some have called it xenophobic) piece of legislation, it became increasingly popular among francophones, which, unsurprisingly, are the key demographic of Quebec elections.

A review of the parties:
PQ - Sovereigntist, centre-left party (Pauline Marois)
PLQ - Federalist, centrist party (Philippe Couillard)
CAQ - Nationalist, centre-right party (Francois Legault)
QS - Sovereigntist, far left party (Francoise David & Andres Fontecilla)
ON - Splinter party from the PQ (Sol Zanetti)
PVQ - Green  (Alex Tyrrell)

The first numbers from the weighted rolling poll average:
PQ     35-40%  [median 37.8]  56-78 seats  [median 65]
PLQ    33-38%  [median 35.7]  38-60 seats  [median 51]
CAQ    14-17%  [median 15.5]   5- 9 seats  [median  7]
QS      7- 9%  [median  7.5]   2- 2 seats  [median  2]
ON      0- 2%  [median  1.5]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
PVQ     0- 2%  [median  1.0]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
Other   0- 2%  [median  0.9]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]

The PQ has a slight electoral advantage due to the francophone vote, as mentioned above. On the other hand, the Liberals pile up massive (and useless) majorities in the anglophone Montreal constituencies.

With this reasoning, Politically Uncorrect projects a PQ MAJORITY of 5.

Remembrance gone wrong

Lately the white poppy campaign has, again, reared its ugly head. These people claim that the red poppy glorifies war, and that the white poppy is a better symbol, representing peace. They think that they are doing the world a service.

They are vastly misguided. At best.

That they assert red poppies are in celebration of war is indicative of ignorance. It also contains a highly offensive insinuation: that the veterans who hand out red poppies are glorifying and celebrating war. I submit that these very people who experienced the living hell of the battlefield are the ones who most want to put war behind them.

Poppies were never meant to glorify or celebrate war, and neither was Remembrance Day. If these people took a proper look at history, they'd know that Remembrance Day, November 11, is in celebration of the Armistice; that is, the cessation of war, in 1918. That said, maybe it's not their fault entirely. Perhaps some fault lies with our education system. If they didn't feed us the boring tripe that they currently do, maybe students would actually learn Canadian history, and this sort of travesty could be prevented.

The fact that this campaign has taken on a blatantly political overtone, despite Remembrance Day being a day where we are supposed to set aside differences in order to remember those who fought and died for our country, is a further slap in the face to veterans across the country. Are you trying to tell these men and women, who fought and died for our nation, that it is wrong of them to continue handing out the traditional red poppy, in remembrance of, very often, their friends and family?

But at the very heart of this discussion, the entire idea of a peaceful world is steeped in the strongest naivety. These bleeding-heart pacifists are the same voices that join in the call for the felling of dictators across the globe. How, exactly, do they propose to accomplish that feat? With flowers, rainbows, and unicorns? War is a great evil, but it is also a necessary evil, for "peace without justice is tyranny." There can be no true peace without tyranny, but the world is inherently unjust, and there will always be those who aspire to tyranny.

Our very best died so we could live freely. They died so we could speak freely. They did not die so that people with their digestive tracts reversed could speak through their arse and s*** through their mouths.

Lest we forget.

Lest we remember incorrectly.

#RealBulls***

This here, the new Trudeau ad, is absolute shite. It claims that the average income in Canada has only increased 15% over the last 30 years. That is patently untrue. The inflation adjusted figures are 60,200 in 1983 and 76,000 in 2013. That is a 26% growth. However, the chart on the ad uses 1981 and 2011. Why? Because 1981 is close to a local maximum (63,100) and 2011 (75,000) is lower than the most current figures. Even when fiddling with the years like that, the growth is 19%, not 15%.

The ad also compares income to GDP. While accurate in his claim that real GDP has more or less doubled over the past 30 years, this is comparing apples to oranges. Of course GDP has grown at a rate greater than average income, largely because the population of Canada has also grown, from around 25 million then to 35 million now.

The only passable comparison that can be made is with per capita GDP, which has grown at a much more sedate pace over the past 30 years: from about 24,000 to 36,000 (or about 50%). Even then, this figure is going to rise much faster than average income because a lot of economic growth is in increased trade. That will inflate GDP growth above income because that money doesn’t flow through to individuals. You would think the leader of a major federal party would at least attempt to understand basic economics, but apparently not.

If this type of misrepresentation of facts and lack of understanding for economics is propagated by the leader of the party, the Liberals have no business telling us that the Conservatives are doing wrong by Canadians.

Also, there is no point at all for going back 30 years. If the Liberals were trying to convey that the Conservatives are bad for the economy and that the Liberals would do better, that effort fell flat on its face. That is because, for 17 of those 30 years, it was the Liberals who were in power. And also because both numbers are, actually, still going up. There's a "rah rah!" for the Canadian economy, but nothing more.

More to the point is, the Conservatives have been in office since 2006, and income has grown 5.4% since then, despite a global financial crisis. By contrast, the United States median income dropped 5.2% during that period.

Anybody who bothers to stop and think would know what complete bollocks this is. It screams incompetence and irrelevance. But, hey, anything to win a couple votes from the ignoramuses out there, eh? Because that's who you want supporting your party!

Oh, and parting shot: this ad still hasn't told us what your priorities are, Justin. Maybe the party of the mushy middle is just that. Mushy.