Ignatieff's "Gaffe"

Something in this world is upside down. I usually rather like Scott Brison. I also usually find a lot of Jason Cherniak's comments to be nothing but partisan rhetoric--interesting partisan rhetoric which I will continue to read religiously, but partisan rhetoric nonetheless. Today, those were backwards.

As everyone knows by now, in an interview today with the Toronto Star, Ignatieff did not commit to running in the next election if he is not elected leader. Many comments have already been made on this topic, but two are the most interesting.

First is Scott Brison, who attacks Ignatieff, suggesting that these kinds of gaffes show a degree of inexperience that is unsuitable for the leader of the Liberal Party. Then there's Jason Cherniak, who doesn't blame Ignatieff, but rather, he understands why he said it. Of course, he ends with his usual line about Ignatieff being a minister in Dion's government, but hey, that's what we expect from him.

Like I said, I usually like Brison. But I find it funny that he would criticize Ignatieff for not affirming his commitment to run. After all, Brison jumped shipped from the Conservatives after the merger, clearly because the party was moving in a policy direction he didn't want. How can he then criticize Ignatieff if he decides to not run because of a certain candidate winning--who could, similarly move the party in a very different direction. The Liberal Party would be very different if a Bevilacqua/Brison/Hall Findlay type won as opposed to if a Kennedy type won, not to mention the whole different spectrum it would enter under the leadership of Hedy Fry. Deciding not to run is a much less dramatic step than changing parties, and both are, in my mind, valid options when the policy direction of a party changes. Brison is being hypocritical by suggesting otherwise.

Now, on to Cherniak. He writes:

"He [Ignatieff] is not running because he wants power - he is running because he wants to help people. When all is said and done, there is very little that he can do to help people as a member of the opposition. In particular, why would he want to spend his time if the Liberal Party elects a leader who is bound to lead us to the doldrums of British Liberal-Democrat territory? Michael Ignatieff has better things to do with his life."

Cherniak rose significantly in my book for those words, as they show a recognition of what it is that makes up Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff may make the occasional political "slip-up", but it stems from his intellectual honesty and a genuine desire to make the world a better place. He may prefer Dion for a variety of reasons, but I appreciate the comments written there.

Oh, and the rest of the analysis in the thread is pretty good too.

Here We Go Again

For those who have been reading my blog recently, they will have noticed rather few posts. For the past week and a bit, I've been on vacation and largely outside the blogosphere. But now I've returned, and my nitpicking and esoteric comments will be back. And I've added a few photo from the trip, just for kicks.

Moreover, those who have read my blog have probably also noticed that I have officially declared my support for Ignatieff. My name now appears on Cerberus' list under the Ignatieff supporters, and you'll find one of the pretty buttons linking to the Iggy website on the sidebar.

I did this with some hesitation, as, truth to tell, I like several of the leadership candidates. In a slightly different world, I might be opting to support another candidate. And there are several candidates who I would not be unhappy to see win.

But I also like Ignatieff. I like his policy positions. I like his style and charisma. I like his experiences. And to be frank, I like his honesty. He may at times appear to be an inexperienced politician, but I think this reflects more an intellectual honesty that many seasoned politicians lack rather than any inability on his part.

I also like Ignatieff because, of all the candidates, I think he has the greatest potential of any of the candidates to mount an assault against the Conservatives when the next election comes. The Conservatives will have mud to sling at him, but Ignatieff is also a man who can inspire Canadians. He's the kind of leader that people can get excited about.

Anyways, that's my very general justification. I could mention more on policy specifics and electability, but readers of this blog can probably pick up on that from my other posts. Enough on that for now.

Moving the Party to the Left is not the Right Answer

As the leadership race continues to gather steam and the Liberal Party tries to redefine itself in its current opposition role, there are a lot of questions about what policies the Party should support. Internal divisions are very clear; one needs look no further than the Israel/Hezbollah question to see battle lines drawn in the Liberal Party.

An overarching theme that has attracted a lot of attention is whether the Liberals ought to move further to the left or to the right. Ought they become the party of social justice and big government in an attempt to capture some of the NDP's vote, or ought they become the party of fiscal restraint and small government in order to capture of the Conservatives' vote?

An increasing number of voices within the party have been advocating a move to the left. One of the front runners, Gerard Kennedy, is significantly to the left of most recent Liberal party leaders. Bob Rae, despite his recent right-ward lurch, is a former NDPer. The era of severe fiscal restraint seems to be ending, as candidates speak more and more about the roles government should fill. Indeed, the most right-wing of the candidates, Maurizio Bevilacqua, even spoke early in his campaign about the idea that Liberals should resists temptations to move to the left.

Of course, the overly simplistic analysis of political issues solely on the left/right spectrum is only of limited use, and this I admit freely. At the same time, it is a useful way to discuss issues, and there do seem to exist in most of Canada (at least outside Quebec) certain groups who identify as leftist or rightist. Much of the discourse does indeed happen along this one continuum.

As a (usually) right-of-centre Liberal, I personally hope that the leftward lurch will not come to pass. While this stems largely from my considerations of policy, I also believe that a leftward lean would be disastrous for the party at the ballot box. Why?

When people speak of moving to the left, they imagine that the Liberals will be able to capture most of the NDP's seats and turn them into a virtual non-party. I don't dispute that this could probably happen. But anyone who advocates this has complete lost sight of the fact that a leftward lurch will also cause some of the rightist Liberals to jump ship to the Conservatives. A lot of rightist Liberals voted Conservative in the last election due to dissatisfaction with the the Liberal Party, and as the Conservatives have pursued a relatively moderate course with respect to social policy thus far, the Conservative Party is increasingly coming a close second in many rightist Liberals' minds. A jump to the left, and those Liberals will abandon ship.

So, how much will the addition of the leftists to the Liberal Party help it electorally? Even if the Liberals completely wiped out the NDP and stole all their seats (without losing any others), they would only have 131 seats--24 short of a majority.

But in addition to this, we have to remember that a leftward lurch would cause the Liberals to lose seats. How many? That's not entirely clear. It can be estimated, however, using basic models of voting behaviour, if one makes certain assumptions.

Let's assume that there are three parties, the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP, all of whom are placed on a continuum from right to left. Let's also assume that voters occupy a similar space on this continuum. Parties announce their policies, thereby placing themselves on this continuum, and voters then choose the party which is closest to them in their preferences.

What happens when a party changes policies? It typically gains supporters and loses supporters. Although it's difficult to tell exactly how this would change, let's assume that voters are distributed uniformly, such that a policy change in the centre would cause the party to lose as many voters as it gains. That is, if the Liberals move to the right and gain 1% of the Conservative's voters, then they would correspondingly also lose 1% of their voters to the NDP. While this is by no means a completely realistic scenario, it is also of some value, especially in the case of a centrist party sitting between a leftist and rightist party.

The following table indicates the results of a model created to examine the changes in seats in the House of Commons given changes in Liberal's placement on the left/right continuum.

The methodology is as follows. The results of the 2006 election were put into a tabular format, with three columns representing the share of the vote captured by the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP is each of the 233 ridings in Canada outside Quebec. The 0 Liberal Deviation row corresponds to the 2006 election result.

The other rows correspond to the composition of the House of Commons if the Liberals had grabbed different shares of the vote. In the situation of a -1% Liberal deviation, it is assumed the Liberals have moved to the left on the political continuum (making it more attractive to those with left wing preferences), such that 1% of voters move from the NDP to the Liberals, and 1% of voters from the Liberals to the Conservatives. The victors of each riding are then recalculated, in accordance with the proposition that the candidate/party with the highest number of votes in a given riding wins.

Two notes:
a) Quebec is excluded from this analysis, because the federalist/sovereigntist axis is as important--if not more important--than the left/right axis, so analysis along the left/right axis will be completely useless.
b) The "Government" column calculates situations only based on the rest of Canada, as if Quebec did not exist. In fact, because of the presence of the Bloc Quebecois, it would be much more difficult for any government to win a majority of seats. Under more realistic scenarios including Quebec, a Conservative majority would only occur under a -8% deviation, not a -1% deviation as in the table below.

Liberal Deviation	Liberal Seats	Conservative Seats	NDP Seats	Government:
-10	66	156	11	Conservative Majority
-9	67	152	14	Conservative Majority
-8	72	147	14	Conservative Majority
-7	75	140	18	Conservative Majority
-6	77	137	19	Conservative Majority
-5	80	131	22	Conservative Majority
-4	81	128	24	Conservative Majority
-3	85	124	24	Conservative Majority
-2	86	121	26	Conservative Majority
-1	89	117	27	Conservative Majority
0	90	114	29	Conservative Minority
1	94	109	29	Conservative Minority
2	94	106	31	Conservative Minority
3	98	101	34	Conservative Minority
4	97	97	38	NDP Supported Liberal Minority
5	97	90	45	Liberal Minority
6	99	85	48	Liberal Minority
7	98	82	52	Liberal Minority
8	99	81	53	Liberal Minority
9	99	78	54	Liberal Minority
10	98	75	59	Liberal Minority

This analysis shows that while there are some seats to be gained by moving to the right, a move to the left is disastrous, as the Liberals would lose seats by making such a move. The NDP seats won would not make up for the seats lost to the Conservatives. Why is this case?

In most ridings where the Liberals have a chance of winning, their main competitor is the Conservatives, not the NDP (who often trail by quite a lot). Thus, a move to the left makes them stronger relative to the NDP, but in most cases they were never in any danger of losing the riding to the NDP. Rather, they were in danger of losing it to the Conservatives.

Under the -5% scenario (i.e. the Liberals move 5% to the left), the Liberals would have lost the following ridings:

Newton--North Delta

Brant

West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country

London West

Madawaska--Restigouche

Saint Boniface

West Nova

Huron--Bruce

Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River

Richmond

Saint John

Oakville

Mississauga South

Random--Burin--St. George's

And they would have only gained:

Burnaby--Douglas

Hamilton East--Stoney Creek

Sault Ste. Marie

Parkdale--High Park

In any event, there's a pragmatic justification for not moving to the left. A leftward lurch will not win the Liberals any elections. It will only strengthen a resurgent Conservatives, who will increasingly attract the moderates.

Wrzesnewskyj's Resignation

Wrzesnewskyj resigned!

About that, I have no complaints.

To be fair, I don't find all of his views completely abhorrent. On the one hand, I certainly believe that Hezbollah should be on the list of terrorist organizations, and I do support Israel's right to defend itself. And while I might find the force used somewhat disproportionate (and only somewhat), the notion that Israel, a truly democratic state with major judicial overview, has been acting as a state terrorist? Ludicrous.

Hezbollah is, however, a force to be reckoned with in Lebanon. Does that mean necessarily that the Canadian government ought to negotiate with it? Probably not. But in any event, he had his views, and he wasn't ridiculous to express them.

He was, however, incorrect to express them, given the views of most Liberals, and the already fractuous state of the party on this issue. With such a deeply divided caucus, it is not the position of the associate critic for foreign affairs to be on the most extreme wing of the party. As a backbencher, I have no problems with him expressing extreme views. As a critic with a responsibility to the party and acting as a representative of the party, his comments have been unacceptable.

Ignatieff's Environmental Policy Part II: Industrial Emissions

Setting caps for emissions for given industries is an excellent idea. It attaches a cost to polluting above a certain level (thereby internalizing the externality), allows more innovative companies to lower costs and sell their pollution credits, and, with a decreasing cap, will ultimately lower pollution.

This is Kyoto without the problems. It's an enforceable, market-based system that will decrease pollution in the most effective way possible. The Kyoto protocol has the right idea, but, as with most international law, the lack of enforcability weakens it (not to mention Russian deindustrialization monkeying with the numbers).

Market-based approaches are indeed the answer. Greenhouse gas emissions must be lowered, but tey must be done so at the lowest cost.

Time to give Kennedy a little credit

I make no secret about my support for certain candidates. I also make no attempts to hide my dislike for others. But I also like to give credit where credit is due. Right now, Gerard Kennedy deserves some credit.

Over the years, there have been numerous discussions regarding the engagement of women in politics. Some countries using PR electoral systems mandate that there must be a certain number of women in certain places on parties' lists. Others find other ways to encourage more female candidates to run. In Canada, we've done rather little in terms of legislation to actively enfranchise women politically, and thus, only about one-fifth of our legislators are women.

Perhaps it's time for pro-active steps, or perhaps not. While such measures are clearly positive for gender parity, they are mixed when evaluated from a formal democratic standpoint.

While promoting active steps towards substantive equality may be mixed, the case for creating formal equality is clear. It is always a good thing to eliminate socio-economic and political barriers which prevent the full attainment of women's equality.

Thus, I give credit to Gerard Kennedy for certain components in his plan for improving the participation of women in the Canadian economy. The readjustment of tax rates so as to not penalize second income-earners is absolutely necessary. As is exceptionally progressive legislation regarding pregnancy leave (alla Sweden). And the creation of funded child-care spaces surely has a greater social return than does the handing out of $1,200 annually to parents.

All of these measures are absolutely vital to completely enfranchise Canadian women. Economic parity is vital. Social parity largely derives from economic parity, and true political parity cannot be attained except through complete socio-economic equality of opportunity.

Good job, Gerard. Parts of the plan were admittedly vague, but it was a useful contribution to the debate of an issue which requires much more analysis. Dion and Dryden's plans for political parity are good, but in the long term, plans which promote economic parity will be more effective.

Ignatieff's Environmental Policy Part I: Internalizing the Externality

In Tuesday's National Post coverage of Ignatieff's climate change plan, I found a lovely quote which, despite its inaccuracy, gives me great hope about the direction that Canadian politics will hopefully soon take. In analyzing Ignatieff's proposal, Darrell Bricker of Ipsos Reid notes that the plan may be good public policy, but political suicide.

Now, I don't think the plan is political suicide. I think Ignatieff is correct when he asserts that Canadians are increasingly environmentally conscious, as indicated both by the rapid growth of the Green Party as well as growing perceptions of the importance of environmental problems among the public as large. The success of Dion's candidacy thus far is also partially a testament to the importance of environmental issues; environmental concerns were one of Dion's three pillars, and they were probably (at least in the early part of the campaign) his strongest pillar. Thus, I don't think it's political suicide at all, and I think having a credible environmental plan is absolutely necessary.

But let's accept for a moment the idea that Bricker is correct; let's suppose that this plan is better policy than politics. In that case, kudos to Ignatieff. Society has been borrowing against itself for generations in a number of ways: environmental degradation, massive deficit spending, unsustainable development, to name a few. And while the curbing of such vices is seldom popular, it is absolutely necessary.

There will be no environmental plan which draws no criticism from a large portion of Canadians, because any plan will impose costs on Canadians in one form or another. They may restrict consumption, put higher costs on producers (either in taxes or in regulation), or tax consumers, but in one form or another, they will hurt one group of society, at least in the short term. But in the long term, strong environmental policies are absolutely necessary, and to not support policies which may sting in the short term is like taking a slow-acting suicide pill: it will kill you eventually, and by the time you want to do something about it, there's nothing you can do.

So, having made the case for why we need a strong environmental policy, what do I think about Ignatieff's plan in particular.

Quite frankly, I like it. Those who have read my blog since its beginning may have noticed the occasional tidbits of economic jargon; indeed, I like to frame things in those terms. And here's a situation where a very important economic term will pop up: externalities.

Externalities are the costs and benefits which impact third parties. Taxes need to be the mechanism used to internalize these externalities.

When I drive my gigantic SUV down the 401, I'm polluting the atmosphere. Unfortunately, while I've paid for the cost of the car and the gas, I'm not paying for the damage I'm doing to the environment. Why? There's no enforcement mechanism which can make me pay. If there's no enforcement mechanism not to pollute, then I have no reason not to, because my own contribution to global pollution is minimal. But clearly, it's in everyone's interest to counter pollution.

What environmental policy needs to do is internalize the externality: make people accountable for the pollution they produce. A significant portion of Ignatieff's proposal is to rework taxes on gasoline, such that cleaner fuels are relatively cheaper, thus creating an incentive to use them. By making people pay more for fuels that create more pollution, we cause them to take economic ownership of the pollution: we internalize the externality. This is exactly what we should be doing, as it creates incentives for consumers to consume cleaner gases, which in turn creates incentives for producers to research and create cleaner gases.

Considering the portion of Canada's greenhouse emissions which come from transportation, the development of incentive structures to cope with emissions in this field is a major development.

And something as simple as a tax on SUVs in not enough. This may discourage the usage of SUVs and internalize the costs of operating an SUV, but it provides no incentive for greater R&D into more environmental efficient fuels for all. It's a step in the right direction, but much more limited.

More on this later...

Why is Rae so weak in the world of blogging?

Up until at least the end of June, Bob Rae was the strongest candidate financially. By some counts, he has the greatest number of ex officio supporters. In terms of the party establishment, Rae is certainly one of the frontrunners. He also has the greatest political profile, having been elected to office eight times. So why, with all those things in his favour, is Rae so weak in the blogosphere?

By Cerberus' count, Dion, Ignatieff, and Kennedy all have about fives times the number of blogger endorsement than does Rae. Even Brison--who, despite my own preferences otherwise, lags behind Rae by a long shot--has more bloggers supporting him than Rae.

Is it because Rae's campaign is completely divorced from the grassroots? Is it because Rae's campaign has a relatively weak youth wing? Is it because the Rae campaign doesn't care about blogs and hasn't tactically tried to stimulate interest? It's probably a combination of the all of the above, but in any event, it seems to send a dangerous signal about the Rae campaign.

If you were to ignore Rae completely, the endorsements of bloggers would very closely mirror actual support. Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy are the front runners. Brison and Dryden are on the radar, but just barely. Martha Hall Findlay, despite all the odds against her, is still making a good effort. And Joe Volpe, despite his networks, is probably a dud. But then you introduce Rae, and the whole thing goes out of whack.

To me, that signals that Rae's campaign is overrated for all of the above reasons. He doesn't have youth appeal. He doesn't have grassroots appeal. Among typical Liberal Ontario especially, he has "anti-appeal."

But more fundamentally than all of those, I just can't see people getting excited about Rae. I find Ignatieff's understanding, charisma, and character very exciting, and I respect him deeply for his intellectual honesty. I find Dion's experiences inspiring, and I respect much of his platform. Although I personally disagree with them, many people find Kennedy's leftist views to be a rallying point within the party. Dryden, one gets the sense, truly cares about education and childcare, issues around which he has rallied, and that is quite refreshing. And what's not to get excited about when it comes to Brison.

But Rae? Meh. He's a dull and, in the eyes of many Canadians, opportuntistic politician who, athough he might have done a fantastic job as a statesman, isn't terribly inspiring. If Rae wants to have a hope of gaining any grassroots support at all, he has to start being a politician that Canadians can rally around.

When he won his first nomination to run for the NDP in the late 70s, he did it much less through grassroots support than through his rather extensive network of friends and associates. He can't run his leadership campaign that way. If I'm wrong and he ultimately wins, then let's hope he doesn't try to run an election that way.

Former Bevilacqua Supporters Go To Ignatieff

Maurizio Bevilacqua only ever had two other MPs supporting him, and he has been quite unable to bring them with him following his switch to Rae.

Earlier this week I predicted that MPs who originally supported a fiscally right-of-centre candidate would be unlikely to migrate to the former NDP premier, and today that was proven correct. MPs Roy Cullen and Gerry Byrne, along with other key members of Maurizio's campaign staff, announced their support today for Michael Ignatieff.

For those out there who hopes that the final decision will exclude Rae, this is excellent news, as it puts the brakes on the momentum that he has built up.

It remains to be seen to what extent the media will pick up on this. Will this only be a major development for die-hard and blog-crazy Liberals, or will this dampen Rae's growing public momentum as well?

More on Campaign Contributions

After crunching a few more numbers, here's some things which may be of interest.

Here are the totals received by candidates solely in grassroots donations--as opposed to number of grassroots donors in the previous post.

Grassroots Donations ($250 or less)
Carolyn Bennett	$1,800.00
Scott Brison	$8,275.98
Stéphane Dion	$5,650.00
Ken Dryden	$3,035.00
Martha Hall Findlay	$5,445.00
Michael Ignatieff	$34,150.00
Hedy Fry	$250.00
Gerard Kennedy	$5,398.00
Bob Rae	$8,785.50
Joe Volpe	$470.00
Total:	$73,259.48

Now, here are the amounts that each of the candidates would have received had Harper's proposed legislation been in place since the beginning of the campaign. The methodology used for calculating these numbers is that all donations are capped at $1,000, so donations of $1,000 and less are kept as they are and donations of over $1,000 are reduced to $1,000.

$1,000 Cap Scenario--Amount of Donations
Carolyn Bennett	$19,500.00
Scott Brison	$51,974.63
Stéphane Dion	$13,850.00
Ken Dryden	$24,117.00
Martha Hall Findlay	$19,445.00
Hedy Fry	$8,600.00
Gerard Kennedy	$45,898.00
Bob Rae	$128,895.50
Joe Volpe	$46,570.00
Michael Ignatieff	$184,596.25
Total:	$543,446.38

Interestingly, Ignatieff leads in both scenarios. His lead among grassroots donors is commanding, while his lead in an Accountability Act scenario is less so. Rae also manages to break the $100,00 mark in the latter scenario, though the donations quickly drop down.

Campaign Contributions: A Time for Proper Analysis

There's been a back and forth dialogue about the nature of campaign donations to various candidates. While it's supposed to be insightful (and often is), it's degenerated into a lot of partisan claims. Let's try and clear some of that up.

The story is by now familiar to bloggers. Cerberus claims that Ignatieff's campaign is grassroots. Greg Morrow at democraticspace responds that that claim is quite incorrect. Various others, led by Curiously Liberal, have questioned Morrow's methodology and results. So what's the deal? Let's find out by actually analyzing the data.

The first three tables below list the number of donations received by each candidate (as well as the percentage of donations), the value of the donations received by each candidate with the corresponding percentage, as well as the average donation received by each candidate. This isn't particularly new or shocking, but it's worth including in any reasonable analysis.

Number of Donations	Raw	% of Total
Bennett	38	3.09%
Brison	113	9.19%
Dion	58	4.72%
Dryden	67	5.45%
Hall Findlay	56	4.55%
Ignatieff	511	41.54%
Fry	11	0.89%
Kennedy	105	8.54%
Rae	209	16.99%
Volpe	62	5.04%
Total:	1230	100.00%

---

Amount of Donations	Raw	% of Total
Bennett	$59,800.00	5.53%
Brison	$100,674.63	9.31%
Dion	$14,850.00	1.37%
Dryden	$38,617.00	3.57%
Hall Findlay	$34,645.00	3.21%
Ignatieff	$276,696.26	25.60%
Fry	$9,600.00	0.89%
Kennedy	$103,778.00	9.60%
Rae	$384,795.50	35.60%
Volpe	$57,470.00	5.32%
Total:	$1,080,926.39	100.00%

Average Donation
Bennett	$1,573.68
Brison	$890.93
Dion	$256.03
Dryden	$576.37
Hall Findlay	$618.66
Ignatieff	$541.48
Fry	$872.73
Kennedy	$988.36
Rae	$1,841.13
Volpe	$926.94
Total:	$878.80

---

So far, nothing out of the ordinary from what's already been posted.

Morrow's claim that Ignatieff's campaign is not grassroots is based on an analysis of the percentage of each of the candidates' donors who are considered grassroots. Using this analysis, he shows that Ignatieff actually trails far behind other camps, because a relatively small fraction of his funding comes from the grass roots. But is that really the case?

The following table is a much more thorough analysis than the one presented by Morrow. The first portion of the table shows the number of contributions of various sizes received by each candidate.

The second portion of the table basically accepts Morrow's grassroots/elite distinction, but changes the divider to $250. Two subtables are included here, one for grassroots and one for elites. The first line of each shows the number of "grassroots"/"elite" donations (i.e. donations between $0 and $250/betweenn $251 and $5400) received by each candidate. The second shows the percentage of number of "grassroots"/"elite" donations received as a percentage of total numbef of the candidates' donations. The third shows the percentage of "grassroots"/"elite" donations received as a percentage of the total number of "grassroots"/"elite" donations made to all candidates.

Number of Donations	Range	Bennett	Brison	Dion	Dryden	Hall Findlay	Fry	Ignatieff	Kennedy	Rae	Volpe	Total:
	$0-$50	1	4	9	13	3	0	42	16	20	1	109
	$51-$100	7	11	21	14	18	0	85	24	21	2	203
	$101-$250	5	38	16	5	15	1	109	11	26	1	227
	$251-$500	13	30	6	24	11	2	173	24	39	23	345
	$501-$1,000	2	9	5	7	5	4	59	11	23	27	153
	$1,001-$2,500	1	10	1	0	0	4	24	2	24	6	72
	$2,501-$5,400	9	11	0	4	4	0	19	17	55	2	121
Total Number of Grassroots Donations:		13	53	46	32	36	1	236	51	67	4	539
Grassroots Donations as a % of Candidates' Donations:		34.21%	46.90%	79.31%	47.76%	64.29%	9.09%	46.18%	48.57%	32.21%	6.45%	43.82%
Percentage of All Grassroots Donations:		2.41%	9.83%	8.53%	5.94%	6.68%	0.19%	43.78%	9.46%	12.43%	0.74%	100.00%
Total Number of Elite Donations:		25	60	12	35	20	10	275	54	141	58	691
Elite Donations as a % of Candidates' Donations:		65.79%	53.10%	20.69%	52.24%	35.71%	90.91%	53.82%	51.43%	67.79%	93.55%	56.18%
Percentage of All Elite Donations:		3.62%	8.68%	1.74%	5.07%	2.89%	1.45%	39.80%	7.81%	20.41%	8.39%	100.00%

So what does this table show? First off, it broadly confirms what Morrow indicated. In terms of the percentage of donations to the candidates, Ignatieff is not the most grassroots. Dion, Hall Findlay, Kennedy, Dryden, and Brison all goth a higher percentage of their donations from grassroots donors than did Ignatieff (as counted by number of donors, not size of donations).

But that type of analysis is just plain silly. Why? Because it punishes candidates who are able to reach to large donors and small donors alike. If a candidate attracts 50 donations from the grassroots and none from larger donors, while another candidate attracts 100 from the grassroots and 50 from large donors, the former will be deemed under this system to have run a more grassroots campaign. But the question shouldn't be about whose campaign attracted the highest relative percentage of grassroots donors. It should be about whose campaign was most able to attract the most grassroots donors. Campaigns shouldn't be punished for ALSO attracting the support of large donors.

So, in terms of who was able to attract the MOST support from grassroots donors, it was clearly Ignatieff. Ignatieff received contributions from 236 grassroots donors. Since there were only 539 grassroots donors in total, this constitutes 43.8% of all grassroots donors to the Liberal Party over that time. What about the other "grassroots candidates"? Dion only attracted 46 grassroots donors (8.5% of the total), Kennedy attracted 51 of grassroots donors (9.5% of the total), and Brison attracted 53 grassroots donors (9.8% of the total). Even the next most successful in attracting sheer numbers of grassroots donors, Bob Rae, only attracted 67 donors (12.4% of the total).

Thus, in terms of the total number of grassroots donations, Ignatieff attracted more than the next 4 combined. If that isn't getting out the grassroots, I don't know what is.

So why does Dion get such kudos for this grassroots support? In terms of his support, it's true that grassroots supporters make up almost 80% of the individuals who gave to his campaign. But this could be for two reasons: 1) he did an extremely successful job or attracting grassroots support, or 2) he did an extremely poor job of attracting support from non-grassroots donors.

Looking over the data, it's clear that the second is actually the case. Dion was only able to attract 12 "elite" donations, which constitute only 1.74% of all elite donations given. So while Dion only attracted 46 grassroots donors compared to Ignatieff's 236, Dion appears superficially to be a more grassroots campaign because he attracted only 12 elite donors as opposed to Ignatieff's 275.

The point of this entire blog is that Morrow is entirely incorrect, even if you accept his methodology. Ignatieff is by far the most successful at attracting grassroots support within the Liberal Party, as he attracted almost four times as many grassroots donations than the next closest candidate. Dion appears superficially to be a grassroots candidate, but only because he completely failed at attracting large donations.

To me, the grassroots candidate is the one that can attract the most support from smaller donors. That candidate might also attract large donations, but they must certainly be the one with an unquestionable lead in attracting the money of the rank and file. And that candidate is unquestionably Michael Ignatieff.

Safe Injection Sites Must be Continued

The safe injection site in Vancouver's Eastside will be closing in September, unless the Conservatives extend its life, something they have thus far failed to do.

Many members of the Conservative Caucus--probably the grumpy old men who have never set foot in Vancouver's Eastside--are surely grumbling to let the project die. But this would be a tremendous mistake.

Safe injection sites provide a strong mechanism for reducing infectious diseases, such as HIV and Hepatitis C, among drug users. They provide a safe and clean place for drug users to use those drugs. They provide a location where staff are trained to deal with the adverse effects of impure drugs and overdoses. In doing these, they save lives, stop the spread of disease, and create safer communities.

Most importantly, however, safe infection sites provide a necessary first step for reducing the use of injection drugs. Counselling services are available, and while counselling is not a sufficient step for rehabilitation, it is a necessary first step.

The presence of safe injection sites will not encourage drug use; it will merely bring it out into the open, where it can be done safely and managed. By bringing it into a safe injection site, drug users can receive help which they otherwise would not have gotten.

By contrast, the Harper government would police its way to solving drug problems. While law enforcement must certainly be a necessary component of a strategy combatting drug use, it cannot be the primary component, as shown by its failure throughout parts of the United States.

The Mayor of Vancouver supports the project. The Police Chief of Vancouver supports the project. Liberals across the country support the project. So who opposes the project? The Conservatives meanwhile spurn it.

Maybe the Conservatives would have some credibility if their only urban MP weren't a Liberal defector who is out of touch with his constituents and who will certainly lose his seat in the next election. If the Conservatives cared about urban issues or city dwellers felt that the Conservatives understood their problems, then maybe the Conservatives might have some credibility. As it stands, they do not.

Is Rae the new front-runner?

No.

He has momentum for the time being, and there are some temptations to suggest that he is indeed the front-runner. Those temptations are more the realm of the media than public opinion; the former is certainly more fickle than the latter.

Does Rae have significant support in Ontario? No. Is he leading in terms of the ex officio support? No. Does Bevilacqua help him much? No (see earlier blog).

I'll grant that the current momentum might give Rae a bit of a boost. But that momentum has to hang around for a while in order for it to be translated into concrete gains at the end of September. As of right now, I'm skeptical that it will.

I will certainly bet on Dion or Ignatieff before Rae. And ask me in a month, and I might even bet on Kennedy. Probably not, but it might happen.

If Rae were to win, it will show a complete lack of practicality on the part of most Liberals. Rae is still deeply distrusted in Ontario, and those 905 ridings which are crucial to the Liberal victory are not something he can deliver.

Dion's rumoured frolic in the Orchard

I respect Stéphane Dion quite a lot. Of the candidates running for the leadership, I am most supportive of Dion, Ignatieff, Brison, and Hall Findlay (not necessarily in that order)--and occasionally, when I'm in a certain mood, Rae. I root for Dion, I respect Dion, and I would happily vote for a Liberal Party led by Dion.

But what about this David Orchard fellow? I'm not a fan. Endorsements are not always good. Buzz Hargrove would not be a good endorsement. Paul Martin would not be a good endorsement. David Orchard, in my mind, would not be a good endorsement.

He hurts Dion's credibility as a true Liberal. He hurts Dion's credibility as a neutral internationalist. And he gives Dion very little help.

Would Orchard held Dion somewhat on the ground? Maybe. But would he also alienate others that are turned off by Orchard? Probably.

If I were Dion, I would avoid that press conference and disavow it.

Bevilacqua drops out of the race, but how much did Rae gain?

Yesterday morning, Maurizio Bevilacqua became the first of the eleven contenders to drop out of the race for the leadership of the Liberals. Instead of running, he has now thrown his support to Bob Rae's leadership campaign.

Seems to be peachy keen for Rae. The most right-wing and fiscally conservative of the candidates has opted to support him, thus helping to counter his image as a former NDPer. It's also helped to deflect some recent press which criticized him for his somewhat weak stance on the conflict in Lebanon. He seems to be a solid front-runner, and the press has certainly been referring to him as such. But really, what will Bevilacqua really do for Rae?

Bevilacqua signed up only a few thousand new members, has been unsuccessful fundraising, and has truckloads of debt. And there's no guarantee that the members that Bevilacqua signed up will go to Rae. While some of them probably will, most of them are right of center Liberals from the GTA that lived through Rae's premiership. It's true that Rae was only partially responsible for the economic and labour difficulties suffered by Ontario when he was premier, but he is certainly blamed by many Ontarians for them. The type of Liberals that Bevilacqua signed up are much more likely to flock to Brison, Ignatieff, or Dion, than Rae.

And as for Bevilacqua's ex officios (all half dozen of them), there's similarly no guarantee they'll migrate their allegiance. Many of them will surely flock to other candidates.

So what does Bevilacqua give Rae? A little more legitimacy maybe, but not much else.

If I were a betting many, I'd still put my money on Ignatieff or Dion. Given a choice between Kennedy and Rae, where I would have probably chosen Kennedy before, I might choose Rae now. But unlike some other bloggers, my odds are certainly not on Rae.

Political Fundraising Regulations Too Extreme?

Others have raised the issue elsewhere, in the blogosphere, in newspapers, even by committees struck specifically to discuss this: are the regulations on political fundraising at the federal level too restrictive?

I am quite supportive of the notion that political parties ought to be beholden to no one individual or small group of individuals. I am similarly supportive of the idea that no firms ought to be able to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to political parties, thus buying their support. I am similarly supportive of political parties being forced to attract the support of a wide range of individuals. I do not, however, believe that any of these require that individuals only be able to donate $1,000 per year to political parties.

I do not believe that a $5,000 limit on fundraising gives an individuals undue influence over government. Look at the fundraising the current leadership campaign. Campaigns have turned to new fundraising techniques, including Dion's $100 dollar challenge, Ignatieff's Liberal helpings, Brison's web-a-thon, and more. All have taken to attracting a broader base of support, and all have started looking to larger numbers of smaller donors. This is evidence that the Canadian political process is already moving in the right direction; we don't have to tighten the noose even further.

Nor am I categorically opposed to corporate donations. Insofar as we believe that corporations have interests that merit expression, and insofar as we believe that corporate interests should have a role in the political process, then we ought to allow corporate donations.

Traditionally, there has been much opposition to the idea that corporations ought to be involved in the political process, and I believe that this stems much more from corporations controlling the political process than simply being involved therein.

The average corporation has much greater means than does the average individual to influence the political process, and for that reason, an absence of restrictions on donations for all parties would almost certainly mean that corporate interests would prevail over individuals' interests.

I do not believe, however, that it can be justified that corporations cannot donate the same amount as individuals. $5,000 per year from one firm will not be able to buy the support of a political party, nor will $5,000 per year from each of 20 firms in a given industry.

Corporate donations must be heavily regulated to ensure that holding companies as well as subsidiary firms do not both provide $5,000; similarly, there must be criteria which firms must meet, so that it is ensured that corporations are not created simply for the purpose of funneling money into political parties.

The current lack of corporate donations of any kind, however, is just another factor contributing to the difficulties of fundraising. Volpe's transgressions, heinous though I may find them, would not have occured in a slightly more relaxed fundraising environment. Indeed, if rules remain as strict as they are, we can only expect more individuals trying to find ways to skirt around the rules. That is certainly worse for Canadian democracy than is a minor liberalization of fundraising regulations.

The Conservative Government's Priorities

Of all the Liberal leadership delegates, I am probably most opposed to Gerard Kennedy. While there are numerous reasons for this--largely having to do with my own political views vs. Kennedy's and not Kennedy's record or character--I applaud Kennedy for being one of the first candidates to publish a statement about how Stephen Harper will not be attending a major AIDS conference being held in Toronto.

I find it quite amazing that, given the list of other prominent individuals attending the conference, Mr. Harper has declined to attend, citing a scheduling conflict.

This is another example of the short-sightedness of Conservative priorities. An analysis of these priorities shows that unlike the Liberals, Conservatives are amazingly short-sighted. The environment and climate change are low on Conservative priorities. As is AIDS, which is perhaps the single largest impediment to the development of Sub-Saharan Africa. Paying off the national debt, an increasingly good idea as interest rates rise, is largely being ignored in favour of current consumption (i.e. in the form of both tax breaks and higher spending).

Admittedly, increased current spending can be good provided the rate of return on that spending exceeds the cost of capital. In this case, however, interest rates are rising, and the fiscal stimulus is largely coming in the form of tax cuts instead of spending on infrastructure and other public goods which yield long-term benefits.

Harper's Conservatives need a longer term vision. Their policies may have been popular enough among some quarters in the short term, but they further exacerbate the short-sightedness which has been increasingly permeating most Western societies in recent decades.

Personal savings have fallen lower and lower over the past several decades, even to the extent that net savings in the United States recently hit 0%. Part of this, at least in Canada, has been mitigated by the Liberal government's policy of paying back the debt. That is now occuring less and less, to the detriment of the Canadian public in the long-term.

If the Conservatives are to pave the way for a prosperous Canada in the long-term, they must increasingly focus on these long-term issues which do not provide them with immediate political capital. So far, it seems quite unlikely that that will be happening, and I for one am pinning my hopes on the Liberals to ultimately fill this void.

The Third Way & Prosperity

Canada's latest employment figures, released today, further confirm already well-known facts about the state of the Canadian economy.

First, the composition of Canada's economy is changing drastically. Overall, 5,500 jobs were lost; at the same time, manufacturing lost 33,000 jobs, mostly from Central Canada. That means a net gain of 27,500 from other sectors. An even more drastic example of this trend has played out over the past half decade. Since 2004, 224,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, but unemployment has been creeping down, not up.

Manufacturing in central Canada is declining. As the Canadian dollar appreciates vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar, the costs of exporting manufactured goods to our largest trading partner increases. At the same time, industrialization elsewhere in the world means that manufactured goods can typically be produced more cheaply, as in East Asia.

What will replace these manufacturing jobs? Natural resources will continue to play a major role. Alberta's job market is in obvious disequilibrium, as the labour market there absorbs tens of thousands of new migrants for its ever-growing petrochemical industry. Elsewhere in Canada, mining continues to play a major role in the economy. And no one can forget the importance of the lumber to the Canadian economy. In many of these cases, rising prices globally makes them increasingly lucrative, and the stronger dollar has not significantly hurt exports yet. But are these sources of revenue sustainable?

Without the development of alternative industries that will be sustainable in the long-term, Canada risks, over time, following the path of certain Middle Eastern countries, whose dependence on fossil fuels makes them vulnerable to fluctuations in the global market and may ultimately expose them to economic hardships as petroleum supplies dwindle. Most of Canada's resources, plentiful though they may be, are not renewable. Even many of those that are renewable may not be sustainable at their current levels of production.

Canada must instead focus on further developing emerging industries, including its high-tech sector, biotech, and the service sector. For the foreseeable future, these types of jobs will provide stability and super-normal profits and wages. These jobs, however, require skilled labour.

As Canada's economy changes, it must invest heavily to ensure that these changes result in prosperity rather than decline. Education is exceedingly important, both for new entrants to the labour force as well as re-training programs for the unemployed. Canadians who lose their manufacturing jobs must not be condemned to employment insurance or welfare, but rather they must be confident that the acquisition of further skills will make them sought-after skilled workers in another industry.

Public investment in R&D is also absolutely necessary. As the manufacturing sector shrinks and natural resources appear vulnerable (in the long-run if not the short-run), the social value of government expenditures on research and development will far outweight the costs. The private sector will certainly fund much R&D, but the short-term private return may be well below the optimal long-run social return, meaning that public investment will be necessary to ensure the optimal social level of research spending.

The Conservative model of cutting taxes in order to stimulate investment will increase R&D spending, up to a point. As long as the social return remains above the private return, however, there will always be a place for public spending.

The Liberals must engage this further, for it represents one of the most important challenges Canada is facing. The Liberals' record on this in the 90s wasn't exactly stellar, with Canada R&D spending (as a percentage of GDP) much lower in Canada than in most of the developed world. Similarly, funding to universities increased, but only somewhat.

In contrast to their record of the 90s, the Liberals must recast themselves as the party of prosperity. Middle-class Canadians are looking to Harper's conservatives for financial success, and they have seen it in the form of tax cuts and various credits. This must change. The party that balanced the budget in the 90s must once again be seen to be working in the interests of all Canadians.

To this end, the Liberals must also promote tax cuts and credits, but not quite as far reaching as those proposed by Conservatives. They must stand on the side of credits for R&D work and for education expenses. At the same time, they must also increase public funding to both, since there will be cases where credits will not provide the necessary incentives to spend the required money.

To cut taxes and increase spending, the Liberals must also recognize that cutting taxes is not a mantra, as the Conservatives believe; tax policy must be designed to yield socially optimal results. Thus, Liberals must not shy away from such taxes. Examples of such taxes are those which are simply meant to internalize externalities, such as a carbon tax.

When Michael Ignatieff spoke of a carbon tax, he initially received much criticism, but many ultimately voiced their agreement with the plan. Bob Rae and Carolyn Bennett both expressed qualified support for it, and the government of Quebec has been supporting such a tax for some time. Indeed, a carbon tax (on, as Rae qualified, pollution, not production) is both just and fiscally repsonsible.

Thus, the Liberals must be the party of sound, long-term economic development. They must support the private sector while recognizing the role of fiscal policy and tax policy to accomplish desired ends.

The European welfare state may not be a viable social model in the long-term, but neither is libertarian society in which government fails to even provide public goods, regulate externalities, and manage industrial and competition policy. A third way is necessary, and the Liberals must walk it.

Ignatieff "following" Dion?

As a follow up to Ignatieff's Op/Ed in the Globe and Mail yesterday, Linda Diebel contributed an article to today's Toronto Star regarding other candidates' reactions to yesterday's Op/Ed. While mostly innocuous, certain aspects of the article show a somewhat worrisome trend in terms of the style of discourse in the leadership campaign.

For example, take the following section:
"Well, it's what our (interim) leader (Bill Graham) requested and most candidates are in agreement," Dion said last night. "Now that we have another candidate weighing in with the same view − after the others but, anyway, coming in − is positive ... He's following me."

It's true that Stéphane Dion made a statement several weeks ago regarding the conflict. It's also true that Michael Ignatieff's first statement came yesterday. It's also true that both candidates called for a ceasefire. To state that Ignatieff is following Dion, however, is a disingenuous on Dion's part.

Ignatieff's contribution is one of the more original pieces of thought that the campaign has seen thus far and it should be constructively engaged by other leadership candidates.

Candidates frequently reference each other's original contributions to the political discourse; to not do so would be to pretend that none of the other candidates' ideas have any merit. Doing so allows one to further debate in a constructive and non-confrontational way; doing so means healthier debate where ideas are evaluated on their merits.

To state that Ignatieff is solely "following" Dion minimizes the contribution that Mr. Ignatieff has made. Ignatieff did much more than simply call for a ceasefire. He demonstrated a profound understanding of the issue and posited a coherent and detailed plan for resolving the crisis.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Ignatieff's plan or not is irrelevant; indeed, one can certainly poke holes in his model for conflict resolution. The only relevant issue here, however, is whether it constitutes a positive and original contribution to the discourse surrounding the conflict. On that count, one must conclude that he has.

Stéphane Dion's Frank Talk on National Unity

Stéphane Dion's recent release entitled "Frank Talk Needed on National Unity" is commendable, and I hope to see more from his camp on precisely this issue.

As one of the intellectual giants of the leadership campaign, Dion has much to contribute to an otherwise lackluster debate; on the issues important to Canadians, there's been a lot of fluff, but little in the way of substantive contributions. Dryden muses about child care. Rae criticizes the softwood lumber deal. Bevilacqua congratulates the World Cup Champions. And Volpe's mostly concerned with getting children involved in the party. Not exactly an inspiring bunch.

Dion's contribution, however, is a step in the right direction. Within the rhetoric one finds an insightful analysis of the flaws in separatists' arguments. More importantly, one finds genuine consideration of the issue of the "fiscal imbalance" rather than political pandering. Dion's views may not make him the most popular politician in Quebec, but his intellectual honesty ought to give him a boost elsewhere.

The next step in his campaign must be a clear policy statement on the very same issue. Dion has provided, in that statement, a philosophical justification for his position while cutting the separatists legs out from beneath them. He now has to build on that philosophy to create a policy statement that Canadians can consider and debate.

His intellectual depth and honesty are two of the major reasons why Barbara Yaffe may be correct when she recently mused that Dion may ultimately emerge victorious in the latter ballots of the convention. Indeed, Dion may be better than just a compromise candidate; he may be legitimate Prime Minsterial material.

Ignatieff's Op/Ed on Lebanon

Finally, one of the leadership candidates has said something worthwhile on the conflict in Lebanon. While Ignatieff's entry may have been late--for which he has certainly taken enough criticism--his article in the Globe and Mail showed not only an understanding of the issues, but also reasoned and thoughtful insights.

One genuinely gets the sense that, unlike the statements of many candidates, his position is not made exclusively for political gain. Rather, it's meant to be a meaningful contribution to the debate on what to do in Lebanon. My kudos to him for a late but positive entry on the subject.

Kennedy's statement, on the other hand, shows that sometimes making a statement for its own sake is less than a waste of time. He manages to say little of substance while instead trying to score political points with standard Liberal platitudes that demonstrate little understanding of the nature of the conflict.

If he continues to harbour aspirations of being leader of this country, he ought to demonstrate a capacity for reasoned thought on issues important to Canadians.