Storytelling & Framing: Why the Liberal strategy is perilous

"Ignatieff recently stated, “The only good thing I can say about bad weather and lots of rain is it allows me to sit at home and think thoughts here,” he said. “We’re getting policy together. We’ve got an ambitious policy agenda for Canadians to present in the fall.""

An ambitious policy agenda, to be revealed to Canadians in the fall (presumably, should there be an election in the fall).

One word of caution about the policy agenda. One assumes that it will address the parlous state of the nation's finances (courtesy of the Harper – recession twin impact). And herein lies the problem facing the Liberals.

Look at the size of the deficits facing us:

"Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said a prediction from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page — that Canada will add $156 billion in debt over the next five years and has a deficit that will be hard to erase without special measures — is flawed and overly pessimistic.

In the report, Page said the deficit will still be $16.7 billion in the fiscal year 2013-14, and there will be a structural deficit — one that requires tax increases or spending cuts to address — of about $12 billion.

The federal government had projected a surplus of $700 million for 2013-14 in its Jan. 27 budget. It expects that when the federal stimulus spending ends, largely by 2011–12, "the budget balance will improve sharply starting in 2011–12, with a return to surplus in 2013–14.""

Pay attention to Page's comments on a structural deficit. This means one which we cannot reduce by growing the economy. It means one which – as Page says – requires "tax increases or spending cuts to address".

Now picture the Liberal policy of setting out an "ambitious policy agenda" in the short period from the dropping of the writ calling for an election, and the election itself. This period (less than six weeks, or less than a month and a half) is the period during which Ignatieff's advisors believe that they can persuade voters to choose the Liberals over the Tories as the next government.

Why is this short period a problem? Why does this strategy pose enormous risks for the Liberal Party?

Because it is such a short period, and because the Tories have won the framing war with the LPC over the past two or so years, hands down.

Now imagine this: Ignatieff announces the ambitious policy agenda, and Harper springs into action. The Tories revert to their successful framing of the tax issue: they attack any part of the policy agenda by claiming that the Liberals have tabled – in the middle of a recession! – a "tax and spend" agenda. They then declare that the Tories will never raise taxes, unlike those liberal Liberals.

Never, ever.

Read their lips.

But at the same time they will continue with their successful strategy of denying reality. Witness their disagreement with Page, as described above. The Tory strategy is simply to deny any problem arises from the massive deficits, to state that a Tory government will be rock steady in running the country and will not raise taxes but by not spending too much more, will simply allow the country to grow out of the smaller deficits which they foresee.

And at the same time, to run ads about Ignatieff's backtracking on new or raised taxes. Continuously, during the 6-week election period.

What does this mean for the Liberal policy agenda?

Simply this: the policies had better address how the funding will be achieved to implement them, and how the deficits will be dealt with, including whether new taxes or restored taxes will be part of the Liberal policy. If we will restore GST to what it was before Harper slashed it to win a handful of votes, then we will need to say so.

And to explain that taxes are a good thing. That raising taxes to save future generations being straddled with structural deficits is a good thing.
In other words, level with the people.

And re-think the timing of the release of the ambitious policy agenda, given Lakoff's advice about the time it takes to re-frame a debate about things like taxes.

Or risk Harper winning yet another framing contest and blowing the Liberal policy agenda out of the water with skilful (and probably dishonest) framing during the short election period.

Is the Blank Cheque Syndrome behind Ignatieff's slowing momentum?

The latest (July 30) Angus Reid poll has details on the momentum of the three leaders:

"Despite the increase in Grit support, the momentum numbers for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff continue to worsen. His momentum score of -18 is five points worse than it was two weeks ago (13% say their opinion of Ignatieff has improved in the last month, while 31% say it has gotten worse).

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s momentum score remained essentially unchanged from the last poll at -28 (one point worse from -27). That the momentum scores of the two leaders are so close represents a huge shift in political perceptions from as recently as February, when Ignatieff had a positive score of +7 compared to Harper’s -35.

New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton stands at -15 (an improvement of two points from two weeks ago)."

Perhaps it is time for the Liberal Party to start giving voters some reasons for actually thinking that Michael Ignatieff might be a better leader than the rather shopworn-but-remarkably-resilient Harper?

Harper's one more seat strategy

Jeffrey Simpson in today's Globe & Mail reflects on the inability of the Tories and Liberals to move from minority to majority territory:

"Four blocks shape Canadian politics. The blocks are hard to move. Until one of them does, the shape of Canadian politics won't change … Canadians now tell pollsters that they prefer majority government. Until Canadians knock off a chunk of one of these four political blocks, however, there will be no majority."

A true commentary, but perhaps it – and many others – misses the point.

Right now we have a minority government headed by a rightwing leader and supported by the Liberals in Parliament. This government has been in power for several years now, and has survived everything thrown at it (including an almost successful formal Coalition government of the LPC and NDP, with a signed 18-month long no-confidence truce with the Bloc).

Take a step back, and think about it.

The Tories do not need a majority to govern. They only need a majority to fully implement their radical, right wing, destroy the power of the federal government ideology.

Until they get a majority, they can keep implementing little bits of their policies, mostly in a subterranean fashion.

And they keep the Liberals out in the wilderness, twisting in the wind and gradually wasting away through lack of leadership and insight.

Not a bad deal for the Tories.

And not a bad deal for most Canadians, who time after time have voted in a collective fashion that elects a minority Tory government and keeps the Liberals and Dippers at bay.

What does this mean for Canada?

Two things. Firstly, the name of the game is for the Tories or the Liberals to win one more seat than the other party, and so have a legal and political right to attempt to govern as a minority government.

Note that well, Liberals: the fight is over ONE MORE SEAT than the other major party. Not over a majority. Not over having more votes in more areas of the country than we've had in the past. Not over a 308-riding strategy.

Just over ONE MORE SEAT.

Harper gets it.

That's why he exercised all of his political canniness in snookering the new Liberal leader in one on one talks in order to break the Coalition formed by the LPC and NDP. As long as he can keep those two parties from forming a coalition BEFORE THE ELECTION and winning, as a potential coalition government, ONE MORE SEAT than the Tories do, Harper will be Prime Minister and Ignatieff will be writing more books in his spare time.

And that leads me to the other point.

The only way for the Liberals to win ONE MORE SEAT than the Tories, in the foreseeable future, is for the Liberals and the NDP to run as a potential coalition government, with such an agreement entered into before the next election.

If Ignatieff proves yet again that he cannot count, then he won't even think about this requirement, and he will be writing more books while Harper grows old gracefully as Canada's longest serving minority Prime Minister. Ignatieff's lack of realtime political exposure (in the trenches, see the whites of their eyes, cut deals to get things done) effectively blinkers him from seeing this reality.

And so all the good things a coalition government could do for Canadians will not happen.

Howard Dean challenges Obama on health care progress

The chips are down in the Senate, as antediluvian Democratic senators on a committee gang up with the neanderthallic Republican senators in order to gut President Obama's health care proposals.

The battleground issue is the provision of a government-alternative (read: Like the sensible and workable Canadian system).

The so-called Blue Dog Democrats (almost indistinguishable conservatively-minded Democratic senators) are backing the Republican drive to avoid having this alternative in the President's health care bill when it passes the Congress.

The White House is starting to telegraph weakness on this issue almost as audibly as Michael Ignatieff laying down the rules for reform of EI in Canada (360 hours is the maximum. No? Well, then, 520 hours is the maximum … No? Well then …).

And now the man who is the architect for the resurgent Democratic victories in the Senate and House, Howard Dean, has thrown the gauntlet down before the President by public letter on his website, and given him some advice:

"Having dedicated ourselves for the last two years to getting you elected and working to help you enact comprehensive health care reform, I am writing to you today to share what I believe your most ardent supporters would like to see in the health care legislation we all hope you will sign this year.

First and foremost, it is time to cut the Republicans loose. The only thing that will be gained from continuing to try to work with them and adopt their amendments and so called "compromises" is an increasingly watered-down bill. In fact, I would urge you not to sign a watered-down bill."

And the letter goes on:

"Americans wants real health care reform and they want it now!

What they mean by that, is a single payer plan is not feasible, but:

-A STRONG PUBLIC PLAN option into which every single American can enroll if they CHOOSE with comprehensive benefits that are the same for EVERYONE (none of this bronze, silver and gold level benefits). We were created equally and we should be treated equally;

-LIMITS ON OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS so that NO ONE in America ever goes bankrupt from medical care again (no one should have to spend more than 10% of their family's income on medical care);

-SERIOUS REGULATION of the health insurance industry (no more pre-existing condition exclusions or limitations, no pricing premiums based on health status or age, gender or any other individual characteristic, no canceling policies, guaranteed issue and renewal, requiring that they spend 90% of premium on medical care, and finally requiring that all individual/family private insurance be sold through the Exchange);

-REAL SUBSIDIES for those who cannot afford coverage up to at least 350% of FPL; and

-PAYMENT reform for physicians and hospitals that fairly compensates them for the care they deliver REGARDLESS of the patient they are treating."

Dean's public letter recommends that the President not sacrifice health care in the interests of so-called bipartisanship:

"Here is what we don't want:

-We DO NOT WANT any more coddling of Republicans. Cut them out. They don't play fair. They weaken the bills with their amendments and still don't vote for the bills.

-We DO NOT WANT the bill to make the for-profit insurance industry stronger and more powerful. We want for-profit insurers to have to COMPETE with the public plan option, which we know, through the experience of Medicare, will be more efficient and equitable.

We want the PURPOSE of the bill to ensure that ALL Americans have comprehensive coverage that is affordable, provides them with access to the effective care they need when they need it, controls costs, and promotes their health. Period.
We are in the fourth quarter of this game, Mr President. We are so grateful that you have put yourself into the game, even though it is the last quarter and the minutes are ticking down. What will you do, Mr. President? So many people are counting on you. So many of us have put our faith and trust in you. So many of us having been waiting a lifetime for a President who will take back the soul of this country and be concerned for the welfare of its people. We believe you are the one.

Will you weave down the court and dunk it? Will you go for the three pointer and assure a win? We have seen you do it before. Will you pass the ball to another member of your team who is in the right position to make a basket before the buzzer rings? Or will you lose control and lose the game."

Gotta love that: weave down the court and dunk it

And really gotta love the warning of an alternative: Or will you lose control and lose the game?

Way to go, Dean.

Tell it to The Man.

And give Americans what Canadians have: a good, state-sponsored healthcare program.

October 2 – The Cat hopes the Irish say No

European Union technocrats are waiting with bated breath for the Irish to speak on October 2. A second referendum is being held on the status of the Lisbon Treaty.

What is the Lisbon treaty?

"The Lisbon Treaty could finally come into effect in 2009, eight years after European leaders launched a process to make the EU "more democratic, more transparent and more efficient". Like the European constitution before it, the treaty is often described as an attempt to streamline EU institutions to make the enlarged bloc of 27 states function better. But opponents see it as part of a federalist agenda that threatens national sovereignty. The constitution was thrown out by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The Lisbon Treaty, too, was rejected by Irish voters in 2008. However, Ireland is planning a new referendum in 2009. Under EU rules, the treaty cannot enter into force if any of the 27 member states fails to ratify it."

This from Wikipedia:

"The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 that would change the workings of the European Union (EU). The treaty has not been ratified by all EU member states. The treaty would amend the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In the process, TEC is renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Prominent changes include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended codecision with the EU Council, eliminating the pillar system, preventing the provision in the Treaty of Nice (2001) reducing the number of commissioners, and the creation of a President of the European Council with a term of two and half years and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies. If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding."

The Irish have already rejected the Treaty in an earlier referendum:

"Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the European Constitution, which failed (2005) due to rejection by French and Dutch voters. The Constitution's replacement, the Lisbon Treaty, was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by Irish voters means that the treaty cannot currently come into force. As of 30 May 2009, 23 of the total 27 member states have ratified the Treaty."

Unwilling to accept the rejection by the Irish voters, the governments of the various EU nations decided to try an end run around the peoples of the EU, by repackaging the Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, while at the same time preserving the major elements of the rejected Constitutional changes.

The repackaged changes were then agreed to by the governments:

"The treaty was signed 13 December 2007 by heads of government for Member States in the Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon, Portugal. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not take part in the main ceremony, instead signing the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence."

That brought the decision back to the Irish:

"In order for the Irish Government to ratify the Treaty, the Irish government needed to put the matter to a referendum. This requirement arises from a legal precedent that to do otherwise would violate the Irish Constitution. This precedent was established by a 1987 Irish Supreme Court decision that ruled that significant changes to national sovereignty included in the Single European Act require the permission from the Irish voters in the form of a referendum. The Treaty seeks to amend the Single European Act. A part of the the Supreme Court decision is that the State's power to determine its foreign relations is held in trust from the people and may not be alienated by the government without their approval.

The proposed Twenty eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, that the Republic of Ireland may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon with, was defeated by 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53.1%. A Second Referendum on the same Treaty is set to occur on October 2, 2009.

There were unsuccessful calls for governments to hold referendums in some other member states."

The politicians (especially in Britain and Germany) feared rejection by the people and so refused to ask for their views through use of a referendum. The UK government negotiated opt-outs from various clauses before they approved it.

Why do I hope that the Irish voters reject the Lisbon Treaty?

Because the process used by the European elites to foist the Constitution onto the people of the EU under the guise of the re-packaged Lisbon Treaty is undemocratic. These major changes require people's approval through use of a referendum.

This article sums up the need for a referendum on such issues:

"Berlin, 4th June: A poll in Germany has shown that people are uninformed about the Lisbon Treaty and that they harbour concerns about transparency and democracy in European politics.

Pollsters have revealed that 84% of voters in Germany feel that they have little or no knowledge of the content of the Lisbon Treaty and that politicians are to blame for a lack of clear communication.

A third of respondents believe that the treaty was mainly concerned with foreign and defence issues, two-thirds believe it is mainly to do with issues of economic efficiency, and many are unaware that it is simply the EU constitution under a different name.

By rebranding the European Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty, the European elites attempted to push through the same document without the need for a referendum across Europe, and have only succeeded in confusing voters in order to carry out their own agendas.

Valerie Giscard-D'Estaing clearly stated: "The Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the once rejected European Constitution".

Previous polls show that 74% of the German population wanted a referendum on the European Constitution, however the will of the people has been ignored by politicians as they have misled the public into thinking that the Lisbon Treaty is a completely different document."

So, citizens of Ireland: Vote No on October 2, and protect democracy.

308 says Ignatieff's job is tougher than Harper's

Why?

Because:

"The Liberals need to reach out to supporters of other parties, since people seem to be receptive to them. But the NDP and the Greens also have room for growth. So what we have is the centre-left fighting for each other's votes while the Tories safely monopolize the right. This makes leading the Liberal Party a much greater challenge than leading the Conservatives. And since the Tories have the advantage in funding to boot, it makes it all the more difficult for Michael Ignatieff."

Interesting to see this pollmeister also saying that Ignatieff's slip-sliding to the right is not necessarily the wisest thing to do … yet some more advice the 'advisors' sitting on their hands might heed.

EKOS poll: Tory 'glue' is the strongest

The latest EKS poll (July 23 2009) has an interesting snippet which allows us to see from this snapshot poll which of the parties has the strongest grip on its supporters. The "stickiness" of a party is a measure of its fluidity. The less sticky it is, the more likely it is that its supporters can be induced to move to another party.

The results call into question Ignatieff's reported decision to move the Liberal Party to the right so as to attract Tory voters. Based on this poll, he is heading in the wrong direction.

The LPC is the most fluid party, and the CP is the least fluid.

The poll shows the results when voters were asked which party was their second choice. The stickiness quotient can be judged from those who fall into the "No second choice" category.

Based on this factor, the ranking of stickiness is as follows:

First is the CP, with 40.2% saying they had no second choice.
Second is the Green Party, with 24.0%.
Third is the BQ, with 20.8%.
The NDP follows in fourth place in the stickiness measure, with a low 17.9% having no second choice.

And last of all, the LPC has a scant 17.5% who had no second choice.

Put another way, Liberal supporters are 2.2 times more likely to choose another party as their second choice than Tory supporters are.

We can conclude from this that it would be tough to shake loose Tory supporters; if you can, the Liberals benefit most as the Tory supporters break its way by 32.9%. Tories break right, to the Liberals.

Where do Liberals break? One half break left (to the Greens and Dippers); only one quarter break right to the Tories.

This raises the question for the Liberals: if the Tories are hard to shake loose, and most Liberals will move left as a second choice, how can we best retain Liberals and gain enough votes to become a majority government (or even a minority government)?

This poll signposts the direction and spells out this message for Michael Ignatieff: Go left, young man!

Ignatieff's losing strategy

Liberals should read the following extract from Lawrence Martin's column in today's Globe & Mail. And then re-read it. And then read his whole article.

Why?

Because Ignatieff and his nameless advisors are betting the party on a wimpish, 'fight the last war' strategy, which is absolutely doomed to fail.

Martin writes:

"But if the Liberals don't change tack now, if they continue to drift, what position will they be in to go to the polls at that time? They would have only a short five-week campaign to turn things around. No big deal, said Liberals at party central. “In politics, things change real fast.”

With their roll-no-dice strategy, they better hope so."

Other points that Martin makes are equally valid, and Liberals concerned about the wallowing leadership of their party should now start asking pointed questions of all leaders in the party before it is too late.

To expect these advisors, who have shown such lamentable talent in the past year or so, to suddenly best Harper's Tories in a short election campaign, at a time most likely chosen by Harper, and with Harper's Tories given virtually free rein to capture the media's attention in the months leading up to the next election, is to court disaster.

The Liberals should become the next government, given the sad state of the economy, the inaction of the Tories, and the many missteps Harper has made, but this lemming-like strategy of these 'advisors' will ensure that Harper gets back into power as a minority government.

New Liberal Party policy and immigration

Now that the boffins in the party are cobbling together a set of policies for the new leader to review some time this summer, the Cat has a suggestion for a change of policy regarding immigration which the Liberal Party should adopt in order to solve the problem that Simpson addresses in his latest column in the Globe & Mail:

"Two basic facts emerge from every study. First, fewer people will be working relative to those out of the work force as the overall population ages. Second, unless those who are working show productivity improvements, governments will struggle to sustain robust economic growth and find revenues to pay for the social programs, again notably health.

Demographic pressure will hit every government, but some harder than others. The four easternmost provinces already have the oldest age profiles. They will really feel the pinch. Quebec has a low birth rate, a big provincial debt and high taxes. The combination, the Groupe Desjardins economic unit said recently, places Quebec “at the dawn of a major demographic shock.”

The retirement of so many people will reverse the rhythm of economic growth. Government finances will weaken: few tax revenues, more spending, chronic deficits, more debt. Health-care and education budgets will be squeezed. “Certain sacred cows must undoubtedly be sacrificed to diminish the burden of the debt and, above all, make it supportable for younger generations,” said Desjardins."

And my proposal?

That the Liberal Party state that it will increase annual immigration targets substantially so as to bring into the country millions of new Canadians over the next decade. These new Canadians will replace the boomers who are retiring, work and pay taxes, and make sure that government coffers have sufficient funds to pay for the most important items facing them as the population ages and health care costs rise substantially.

And the LPC should set out in its policies the annual targets for each year. My suggestion is a minimum of 500,000 for 2010, rising to 750,000 in 2012 and each year thereafter, with a possibility of further increases in five years time.

Framing Harper: Can we believe him?

Let's consider one possible framing of the public debate over the summer, leading up the to the next election (most probably some time next year, in my opinion).
Harper is in power. Harper is prime minister. Harper's government has been at the helm for several years now, and come the next election, will be asking voters to allow them to stay in power for another four or more years.

Right smack in the middle of a long and painful recession, with the treasury of the country sadly depleted by billions of dollars due to Harper's slash and burn tactics (tax giveaways), and the so-called stimulus funding (vote-buying) of the government.

So how can we start framing the debate?

Let's start with these facts, from the Toronto Star:

"Just last fall, fooling enough of the people, enough of the time was pretty easy. With an assist from political rivals, Stephen Harper kept economic reality at bay until after federal ballots were counted.

Now the Prime Minister is engaged in the much more difficult project of persuading history to repeat. He wants voters in the next election to believe the ballooning deficit, the one a recession-proof Canadian economy was so certain to evade, will fix itself.

Fantasy is the free lunch of politics. Eventually, this generation or another will have to pay the price of feasting at the groaning board of stimulus spending …
After doing his sums, the Prime Minister, who doubles as chief faux economist, forecasts only blue skies, even if they arrive later than first promised. Forget the damage to the manufacturing sector, threatened federal revenues and the staggering debt of its sustaining trading partner, Canada will surge from bust to boom and back to surplus with no structural deficit…

"If the current economic forecast prevails, Orr says, "raising taxes is the only realistic option to balance the budget by 2013-14."

Realism wasn't central to Conservative strategy in the last election; it's apparently not what they have in mind for the next. Hoping voters will suspend their disbelief a second time, the ruling party is again dangling the prospect of a pain-free future."

How to deal with Harper's evasions on the reality of the problem?

The Cat suggests that we target his so-called strengths – a decisive leader who is best suited to handle the economy.

But we do it by making it an issue of trust.

Trust in his judgement.

Trust in his foresight.

Trust in his ability to avoid allowing his ideological beliefs counter the reality of the economy (witness his cutting of the GST and leaving the government without a safety cushion for the rainy days which have now come).
Trust in truthfulness.

And then hammer this message home with five or six major examples of why we just cannot trust him and his reality-denying government to handle the economy any more.

What say ye?

Why are Liberals weak (relatively) in BC and the Atlantic provinces?

The latest Angus Reid poll (July 18 2009) shows that the LPC lags the Tories in voter support in BC (where 40% would support the Tories if an election were held now, compared to a rather low 27% for the Liberals), and in the Atlantic provinces (where the figures are 37% Tory and 23% Liberal).

At the same time, the NDP streaks ahead in Atlantic with a 35% ranking, and scores a respectable 23% in BC.

When it comes to deciding who would make the best prime minister, BC favours Harper by 31% over Ignatieff's 25%, and in the Atlantic battlegrounds, Harper also leads, with 26% over 20%, and Layton coming in at 20%.

So what makes the Tories and Harper more popular than the Liberals and Ignatieff in these two areas?

Could it be the press reports that Ignatieff has decided to move the Liberal Party to the right (while he is leader)? Is the party losing out in these two areas because of this?

Or are there other reasons for these figures in this latest poll?

Brilliant environmental concept the Liberal Party should adopt

Just when things seem gloomy, along comes a very bright, very practical idea to reduce the 27% of greenhouse gases created by warming our homes worldwide.
How does it work? By the creation of a new industry which retrofits existing houses without the homeowner having to go into debt, spend money or pay more than he or she is now paying.

This is how it works:

""It is called "Pay As You Save". It's based on a simple premise: that the cost of installing energy efficiency measures be funded through the future savings made on that household's energy bills.

So how does it work? The majority of home energy efficiency measures pay for themselves over a period of time.

Some are quite cheap, such as loft and cavity wall insulation or low-energy lighting.

But others are more expensive, such as suspended wooden floor insulation, new A-rated boilers and particularly solid wall insulation.

Most of us put off installing these measures, particularly the more expensive ones, because we do not think we will get the benefit. It just costs too much upfront; and given we move house, on average, every seven years, why bother?

Pay As You Save is designed to address this problem. Firstly, the upfront cost of measures, for example £10,000, is put up by a third party (such as a bank, retailer or local authority), not the consumer.

Next, your home gets its makeover, carried out by trained and accredited builders, and as a result energy usage is slashed by around half.

Then, from the savings on energy bills, a "standing charge" is repaid, every month, until the original lump sum (plus some interest) has been paid off.

The trick is to structure the scheme so the householder, or tenant for that matter, starts saving money from day one, and always saves more each month than they pay back.

The other key part of the package that enables this to work is that the monthly charge is attached not to the person, but to the property itself and would be paid off over a period of 25 years.

So when the householder moves on, the home's new occupant continues to repay the charge - and recoups more than that in savings."

Perhaps the Liberals should adopt this, and table legislation in the next session of Parliament (which the other two opposition parties will surely support) providing for this to happen asap in Canada?

Ouch! Listen up, Liberals!

Heads up to Far and Wide for zeroing in on this solid bit of advice from James Travers:

"[Liberals] have yet to provide compelling reasons for a return to government, seem content defining themselves as Conservative-lite and are following a leader growing awkwardly into his political skin.

Failings can be fixed. Conservatives did it in 2006 with easily grasped promises, a sharply defined position on the political spectrum and the clear understanding that their prime-minister-in-waiting made many voters queasy.

Even if there are political accidents, political success is rarely accidental. While Harper and those around him still repeat mistakes – their capacity to snatch minorities from majorities is remarkable and arguably a revealing character flaw – they learned, and now retain, what winners need to know.

Liberals remain at the back of that class. As much as Ignatieff brought greater stature, superior staff and firmer discipline to an office short of all three, readying for the coming confrontation is still a work in progress. Liberals can't count on Conservatives to defeat themselves and have plenty to do before fall when some of the country's attention will drift from the picnic table back to Ottawa.

Between then and now, Liberals need to build a platform strong enough to carry the party though a campaign, one with planks that prove their standard-bearing public intellectual is also smart enough to have good, practical ideas. No less significantly, Ignatieff needs what Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney had in Jean Pelletier and Derek Burney: A tough, confident, savvy field marshal able to focus the leader, refine and concentrate the message and, most of all, explain why some rules shouldn't be broken."

The Cat fully agrees with Travers.
Time to get real, Michael. Dabbling with the real thing just won't cut it.

Voters have warmed up to the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition

The latest Harris Decima poll has some good news for Canadians weary of the incessantly bickering Tory minority government: most voters are ready for a majority government and more voters would prefer a Liberal majority government than a Tory one.

However, given that the LPC and PCP have around 32-33% support each (as shown by several other polls), there is little likelihood right now, in my opinion, that the Liberals will gain a majority in the next election.

And this is where the good news comes in: the Harris Decima poll shows that Canadians have warmed up to the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition government.

Eleven percent of respondents strongly support the idea of a coalition government, while 34% support it (a total of 45% in favour). Those who oppose it are split into two equal camps – 21% oppose it and 21% strongly oppose it - for a total of 42% against.

However, the breakdown of those for and against is even more revealing than these bare numbers suggest.

So to summarize: Liberals and NDP and Bloc supporters would prefer a majority coalition government while Tory supporters would not. The margin in favour of a majority coalition government is substantial amongst supporters of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. More men oppose than support it while more women support it than oppose it.

More voters oppose a coalition government in Ontario (one of the two major battleground provinces) than support it – with 40% for and 46% against. The battleground province of BC has 44% for and 40% against. Quebec favours a coalition government by 50% over 38%.

Conservatives really dislike the idea of a coalition government (not surprisingly, because the chances are it would not be a Tory government in such a formal coalition), with a whopping 62% opposed.

Liberals favour a coalition government (57% for and 37% against), a margin of 20% in favour of a coalition government.

Jack Layton's supporters also favour a coalition with 54% for and 30% against (a margin of 24% in favour).

Bloc supporters have a big margin favouring a coalition government (63% for and 25% against for a positive majority of 38%, the biggest margin of approval of all parties).

More males oppose a coalition government (42% for and 46% against), while the reverse is true for women (47% for and only 38% against).

Liberals and Tories – the Old Fogey Parties

The latest EKOS poll (July 9 2009) has some interesting figures on just who currently intend to vote for the various parties.

Between them, the LPC and Tories have 64% of those polled saying they will vote for one or other of these two parties (31.2% LPC, 31.8% CPC).

That means a whopping 36% have turned their backs on these two so-called national parties, and favour the NDP or Greens, or, in Quebec, the Bloc.

It also means that neither the LPC nor the CPC stand a snowball's hope in hell of winning a majority government should these numbers hold up in the next election. And that means that we face a minority government, propped up by one or more of the other parties.

But dig a bit deeper.

Both the LPC and CPC have a disproportionate slice of the oldest demographic favouring them – a huge 78.6% of those over 65 would vote for one of these two parties. That is way above their combined 64% of the total votes!

As you go down the age bracket, the proportion of respondents who say they would vote for either of these two parties plunges, reaching 50% for those younger than 25.

What gives?

Are these two 'mainstream' parties so filled with tired old men and old women MPs that they do not have any policies which are appealing to the younger voters?

Mayor Robertson, think bigger – think Vancouver-Florence!

News broke today that Mayor Robertson is considering holding a referendum next year on whether to build a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over False Creek. The news shows a very unimaginative bridge crossing the Creek to join the two sides:

"The proposed 15-metre-wide suspension bridge would cross the entrance to False Creek just west of Burrard Street, linking Kitsilano at Vanier Park with the West End at Sunset Beach.

Architect Gregory Henriquez presented the plan to the mayor after the two talked about the idea a few months ago.

The proposed span was "very elegant and modern," according to Robertson, who compared it to the popular pedestrian-only Millennium Bridge that crosses the Thames River in London.

"It's an infrastructure project and these kinds of bridges have actually been quite positive economic generators in London and Paris and we would be among the leading cities in North America to do something like this," said Robertson on Thursday night after the proposal was publicly released.

Taxpayers could vote on the idea during a referendum in the next civic election, said Robertson, who is also hoping the federal and provincial governments will help with funding."

Let's hope that the Mayor does not blow this opportunity to provide something spectacular, instead of the ugly bridge proposed in the article.

The Cat's advice to the Mayor is to think of the beauty of the Ponte Vecchio, in Florence.

Instead of a single purpose bridge, Mayor Robertson should be aiming at building a bridge over False Creek which includes stores for restaurants (dine while watching the cruise boats sail beneath you), for local musicians to use as a venue to perform, and for local artists to not only use to display their art, but to create their art.

Imagine tourists flocking to watch local artists paint the lovely sunsets, and enjoying a glass of wine while doing so. And being able to listen to writers and artists explain their works? All in an edifice which soars over the Creek, and has little rooms tacked onto its sides, like the famous Ponte Vecchio!

That would kill two birds with one stone: provide for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, and become a major tourist draw. To make sure it appeals to tourists, the bridge might have to be located a little bit closer to English Bay, where there is plenty of room for it to disgorge the people.

And, of course, where those on the bridge would have a good view of the annual fireworks display at English Bay.

So, think bigger, Mayor Robertson, and think Florentian while you do so. No doubt PM Harper could find a few hundred million for such a project.

Why Tories and Liberals are in no-growth mode with voters

The latest EKOS poll shows these two parties basically tied, each with around 31% to 32% of the votes, leaving a huge whack of close to 40% of the voters choosing other parties.

That combined total of around 60% of the votes is the same market share that the venerable General Motors in the US had in its heyday, when it was the undisputed king of world auto makers. Of course, since then, GM has steadily lost its market share, and now is basically a bankrupt, state-owned entity, with slim prospects for meaningful recovery.

And the Green Party has shown a steady increase in its market share here in Canada, with EKOS showing it coming in at around 11% now. The NDP is bobbing around at 16%.

Why no breakthrough for the two major parties?

Could it be because they are both bereft of sound ideas to actually provide good, well-paying, long term, permanent jobs for Canadians?

Could it be that they both are complicit in destroying the number of such good jobs in Canada?

Could it be (in the words of KOS), that they do not have an answer to this problem:

"What we're now facing are the consequences of a decades-long war on labor in this country which has eliminated a 'critical mass' of good paying, working class jobs - which once fueled the greatest economy on the planet. The domino effect has been utterly destructive, and we're really only just beginning to see that now.

The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, is taking on water, and will ultimately sink.

There's really no stopping that reality from occurring at this point.

A nation of "minimum wage" workers is what we've essentially become, and it's getting worse, not better. The powers that be continue to represent corporations who only look at next quarter profits and how to increase them by continuing to reduce labor costs. How can anything possibly change if we continue in this direction.

The irony, of course, is that big corporations in this country, enabled by our so-called representatives that they've bought off, fired their own customers."

Perhaps this is the reason why such a large number of Canadians are less than enthralled by either major party.

US Recession wipes out all jobs gained in last boom

The US economy continues to limp along, with jobs being shed at a high rate, despite the 'green shoots' some see.

The latest figures show some alarming numbers:

"How bad is the current recession? Here's one measure: the United States now has fewer jobs than it did nine years ago, even though the work force — the number of people either working or looking for work — has grown by 12.5 million people since then. It's the first time since the Great Depression that a recession has wiped out all the jobs created during the previous business cycle…"

US unemployment is now at a 26-year high of 9.7%.

But that's only half the story.

There is a massive total of underemployed as well:

"8.9 million: Number of part-time workers who would have preferred full-time work last month. 2.17 million: People without jobs who wanted to work, were available and had looked in the last 12 months, but had not looked in the last month. 16.5 percent: Unemployment rate if you include involuntary part-time workers and those without jobs who hadn't looked for work in 12 months — the highest in records dating to 1994."

Those green shoots will need to flourish fast if the US engine is to provide meaningful jobs for these millions of unemployed and underemployed.