comparative politics

While I’m in NYC these days, much of my social media still comes from Toronto & Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada is running attack ads against the third party. Not the opposition, but against the Liberal Party interim leader, Bob Rae. This ad came out while the official opposition party, The New Democrats, were choosing a new leader, who was chosen yesterday, Thomas Mulcair. OK, to further complicate things, Rae was once a New Democrat at the provincial level in Ontario and Mulcair was a Liberal at the provincial level in Québec. I know, you probably need a scorecard. Anyway, while there’s no election in sight for years {barring a finding of widespread election fraud from the robocall scandal}, the Conservative attack ad slams Rae’s record from his stint as Ontario Premier in the early 1990s, as an Ontario New Democrat. Last year, I wrote a brief analysis of the Bob Rae premiership on vox.rhizomicon that explains how Rae inherited an impossible situation worsened by a macroeconomic perfect storm. In fact, Rae’s policies had much more in common with—a fiscally conservative strategy.

John Ibbitson of the Globe & Mail thinks the Tories are scared of Rae and the resurgence of the Liberals. There may be something to that. They ran ads in 2009 against then Liberal leader, Micael Ignatieff, framing him as an outsider because of his living abroad in the past. Why not use the wayback machine to do the same to Bob Rae?

One could argue that the Conservatives have more money than good sense right now. While it’s no secret that the Conservatives want to keep the Liberals down and replace them as the “natural governing party of Canada”, the strategy has its risks. Sure, it will get the Liberals to spend money on return-fire ads, which the Liberals vow to do, but the ad concept isn’t fresh and the content is dated. While Andrew Coyne think the Conservatives win either way, I think he’s wrong. It’s not an election and the negative ads on the third party leader can be viewed as playing unfairly, particularly in light of the robocall scandal. The main problem I have with the Conservative ads is they have tipped their hand. Bob Rae has them worried and they’re signaling it. Unlike Ignatieff, Rae is a seasoned politician and a good communicator. Liberal support isn’t dead and the ads allegedly boosted Liberal fundraising by $225,000 and Rae offered this soundbite:

“You can’t just abandon the airwaves to the jerks on the right-hand side of the spectrum.”

While the Conservatives have a majority in Parliament, they know that with Rae and Mulcair opposing them, they’ll have their hands full with a war in the media and the court of public opinion. They’ll want to discredit both, but let’s face some ugly marketing truths. They’re the majority party and should act accordingly. Attack ads now look desperate and mean. The Conservatives’ main ace up their sleeves is “stay the economic course.” They don’t have a hot-tempered firebrand from Québec who makes the news by being the news in a Thomas Mulcair. They don’t have an elder statesman who can effectively sound as if he’s railing at the establishment in a Bob Rae. The Conservatives are selling “stay the course” and they don’t have many degrees of freedom that can really energize the masses, while unemployment remains fairly high and a housing bubble looms. Their current positioning is fairly moderate, which is how they won the last election by taking Liberal ridings in Ontario {assuming election fraud isn’t shown in the robocall scandal, which is probably a stretch}. It makes the most sense to build the appeal to moderates by building a case why the Conservatives are good for stability on positives, even if there isn’t any “there” there.

It will be interesting to see how the Conservatives deal with Mulcair. I’m sure his dual citizenship with France will factor in, as the Tories try to question his allegiance to Canada. Given the NDP strongholds of Québec and urban centers, it won’t matter much to the NDP base and pressing the issue could turn off the new Canadians that the Conservatives are trying to court.

It’s over three years until the next Canadian election and it’s a tad early to start being tiresome.

A Liberal minority government, one seat shy of the coveted majority.  The turnout was a record low and many pundits are saying that the Progressive Conservatives and Tim Hudak frittered away a golden opportunity to unseat the Ontario Liberals and Premier Dalton McGuinty. Some cynical journos are folding their arms decrying the state of politics as reaching an alltime low with inflammatory rhetoric…sometimes, ironically, shovelling more inflammatory rhetoric onto the fire. {As an aside, I really don’t recall the alleged Liberal insinuation Coyne is referring to, let alone it entering into the political discourse in the 2007 election. If someone has a reference/quote/cite, please comment.}

Some are saying the “hat trick” comment by Stephen Harper at derailed Hudak’s Tories::

My take is that the Ontario Liberals dodged a bullet. They lost their majority, losing 19 seats to the PC {-12} and NDP {-7}, but hold on to power. I thought McGuinty was in trouble, but the Liberals ran a smart campaign given the circumstances and it paid off. This election could have been much worse for the Liberals. While watching the election from New York and Illinois, all of the campaigns {well, let me clarify, the big 3} were appealing to centrism and there were big issues that really motivated voters to go to the polls. My guess is that explains the low turnout more than anything {BTW, Elections Ontario will be looking into the decline.} After all, the PCs and the NDP were left with the charge of advocating a change, but not too much change, since the mantra of this election was the middle of the road. I think the big winner is Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario New Democrats, who increased her political capital in this election, as well as her likability and visibility. The Conservatives in Ontario at the provincial and federal levels must be scratching their heads to a certain extent. A Liberal implosion at all levels failed to materialize and the idea of a new era with the Conservative Party of Canada being the natural governing party of Canada seems far from a certainty.

The Manitoba New Democrats rolled to a 4th straight majority win over the Progressive Conservatives. Canadian election campaigns are mercifully short and while the Manitoba contest was a curt 4 weeks, the advertising and rhetoric was brutal in this battle for the political middle. The Manitoba economy, like parts of the upper Midwest of the US isn’t reeling like the rest of North America, so there wasn’t a great thirst for change. The opinion polls had the Progressive Conservatives up earlier in the year, but the New Democrats rallied under Premier Selinger.

The Progressive Conservatives narrowed the gap in terms of the popular vote, but gained no additional seats. Andrew Coyne of Macleans expressed his annoyance at the current first-past-the-post {candidate with a plurality of votes wins the riding, i.e., district}::

He used the “anomalous” results to plug his articles on election reform. I’m actually in favor of election reform, such as STV, but I have serious doubts if it would matter in Manitoba. The province is divided:: the rural south votes Progressive Conservative by a wide margin, while urban Winnipeg and the aboriginal North votes NDP by a sizeable but lesser margin, on average. The unofficial results are here. Given the geographic party split of the province and the two-party “duopoly”, I’m not seeing a lot of opportunity for vastly different results. If there were larger ridings with more seats per riding, the STV gamechanging math breaks down when one looks at the regional breakdowns for 2007. The NDP and PCs had their respective regional strongholds and it will be interesting to see how the final 2011 shake out.

This doesn’t mean I feel STV shouldn’t be implemented, but that the 2011 Manitoba results might not be the best case to pitch for it. Tomorrow’s Ontario provincial election, well, that’s a different story. Ontario has three strong provincial parties {PC, Liberal, NDP} and strategic voting is likely to be a factor in quite a few ridings.

Today, the Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled a budget with plenty of emphasis on reducing the deficit, much like what’s going on in the US. This, despite the fact that the interest rates are telling a story where financial markets are not that concerned about the deficit. This pattern is evident in both Canada and the US. Interest rates are showing there’s no crowding out—government spending taking up capital and resources that businesses can use. The reality of the situation is uncertainty and a dearth of good prospects is causing the business community to sit on huge stocks of capital.

Nevertheless, for various political reasons the deficit is touted as a menace that must be dealt with, not just in North America, but globally. The media is contributing to the Jedi mind trickery, dubbed the “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop”. The WaPo blog by Greg Sargent states::

“The relentless bipartisan focus on the deficit convinces voters to be worried about it, which in turn leads lawmakers to spend still more time talking about it and less time talking about the economy,”

while linking to a National Journal study examining the gap between mentions of “unemployment” versus “deficit”::

“the broadening gap demonstrates just how effective conservatives have been at changing the narrative of economic policy from one dominated by talk of fiscal stimulus to one now in lockstep with notions of fiscal austerity.”

In Canada, the opposition parties aren’t on the same page with the Finance Minister and the Conservative Party, but don’t have the votes to stop the budget. While ink is being spilled about how fast the deficit will be reduced in Canada and whether of not the Conservative projections are wide of the mark and overly rosy, the elephant in the living room is the lingering high unemployment rate::

The problem with the deficit discourse is it fails to address the issue of unemployment and real economic problems, with the only way the issue goes away is if the economy grows. In fact, I feel being a deficit hawk in this economic climate is playing with political dynamite. The economic indicators do not support deficit reduction, given that the business community is loathe to expand. So, if the deficit hawks are wrong and unemployment and economic stagnation persists, they are opening themselves up to criticism. I think the hope is that a business cycle upswing will render the deficit issue moot, so the perception is that it’s “riskless” to jump on the deficit reduction bandwagon.

In the US, both Democrats and Republicans are viewing the deficit as the evil menace that must be thwarted at all costs with ample help of the media. While a Republican presidential candidate would differentiate themselves by embracing a populist and expansionary economic approach, it would be political suicide. Any politician advocating increases in government spending would face an uphill battle and be forced to educate the public on matters many don’t have the time and the patience for.

The jury is still out on how the New Democrats and Liberals play the deficit card in Canada in the future, but it may be an easy one to play if unemployment remains relatively high, businesses remain tentative, and the economy continues to stagnate.

Currently, the Australian Labor Party and PM Julia Gillard are developing a framework to implement a carbon tax. Actor Cate Blanchett is in a manufactured controversy over her appearance in a privately funded pro-carbon tax ad in Australia. Cate is getting support by the left and critisism on the right for being “out of touch”, with Terri Kelleher of The Australian Families Association claiming::

“It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is.”

This article reminds readers that Cate Blanchett is a Hollywood actor worth $53M, while the opposition leader Tony Abbott told Parliament his thoughts on the matter::

“People who live in eco-mansions have a right to be heard [in reference to the Blanchett’s $10 million Sydney home]…People who are worth $53 million have a right to be heard but their voice should not be heard ahead of the voice of the ordinary working people of this country.”

The opposition is focusing on the financial impact for the rank and file and how it will raise prices and hurt jobs. The Labor plan is to implement a carbon tax for 3-5 years before switching to a cap-and-trade system. The tax would be between US$21.4 and 32.1 per tonne [$CAN 20.8 to 31.3 per tonne].

The rhetoric is flying in both direction. The following video attempts to debunk the above ad, but while it looks like it’s identifying false claims, it’s merely citing opposing views.

The problem with taxes is the public doesn’t want to pay them and that many are buying into the neoliberal myth of low taxes that encourage a race to the bottom. Raising taxes tends to be good fodder for the opposition, but it doesn’t always work. Carbon taxes are one of those things that aren’t easy for the public to understand. During the recent election in Canada, the Conservatives tried to nail the NDP {at the time 4th. and now the official opposition party} on its cap-and-trade proposal. Unfortunately, one of the pro-Conservative economists, Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary and a boardmember for Imperial Oil, flubbed it on Twitter earning himself a hashtag fail. He made an erroneous assumption that wasn’t a part of the NDP policy by considering fossil fuels that consumers use in his calculations. I have a sense that in Canada, the electorate is getting wise to the rhetoric and there’s an increasingly partisan divide, particularly on economic issues.

Attacking Cate Blanchett for being out of touch as part of a “regular joe can’t afford it” appeal is a dangerous tactic when the tax hasn’t even been finalized. Nevertheless, taxes are a boogeyman of politics. Australian Labor might want to look at the British Colombia experience with its carbon tax.

British Columbia is going on 3 years with a carbon tax, which was first met with resistance when implemented by the BC-Liberals {centre-left} under Premier Gordon Campbell. Carole James and the BC-NDP {centre-left} was making it a wedge issue in the May 2009 provincial elections. Robert Gifford, an environmental psychologist and a professor at the University of Victoria said::

“Initially, some people heard the ‘t’ word and went into a tizzy…Then the end of the world didn’t happen, and people just accepted the tax.”

Now, three years later, the public has accepted the tax in BC, the BC-NDP has softened on it and isn’t using it to attack the BC-Liberals, despite another election looming. I was skeptical of the efficacy of the tax {July of next year it goes up to $30 per tonne}, as I wasn’t seeing a clear path to behavioural changes with the particular implementation of policy by the BC-Liberals. After three years, others agree that the policy is flawed and some are advocating that the policy be fixed to address some of its perceived faults , in terms of environmemental outcomes and economic fairness. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a report with recommendations on how to fix the carbon tax by fine-tuning the policy and closing loopholes.

The opposition in Australia, led by Tony Abbott, who is claiming the sky will fall with the carbon tax may be putting all his chips on this one issue. Attacking Cate Blanchett on an issue that the electorate is evenly divided on is risky. Attacking her with arguments that she’s rich and can afford the tax can appear to be offsides and can magnify the very celebrity status that she’s using to support her causes. Blanchett responded to her critics by stating her support on the carbon tax is conditional on “generous compensation for low and middle income households.”

I’m working on research on backlash effects, particularly as it pertains to social media. It appears that Tony Abbott is trying to attack the carbon tax, but in a way that can set up a backlash. In my model, components of trustworthiness of Blanchett might drive voter perceptions, particularly with respect to ability, integrity and benevolence. The stronger the perception of her on these dimensions, the greater the likelihood of Abbott fueling a backlash against attacks on her and the carbon tax.

The above picture captures Canada’s Public Safety Minister Vic Toews during a sleepy Sunday afternoon cybersecurity public relations event held back on October 3, 2010. That Sunday afternoon event marked the official announcement of Canada’s cybersecurity strategy. It has turned out to be a rather unfortunate photo-op at the present moment. Canada was hit with major news this past week (that has actually been bubbling for a few weeks now) about a cyberattack against our government systems of Chinese origin. See, for example: “Foreign hackers attack Canadian government,”Chinese hackers targeted House of Commons.”

The talking points were deployed to downplay the attack, as if little of consequence had happened. Prime Minister Harper and Toews spoke on Thursday about the matter, Harper in what seem to be newly perfected dulcet tones that characterize his manner in recent months:

But he said at a press conference in Toronto that he recognized cybersecurity was “a growing issue of importance, not just in this country, but across the world.”

He added that in anticipating potential cyberattacks, “we have a strategy in place to try and evolve our systems as those who would attack them become more sophisticated.”

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said he could not speak about details pertaining to security-related incidents, but he said the government takes such threats seriously and has “measures in place” to address them.

Lulling Canadians to sleep, as they so expertly do. It’s as if nothing, really, bothers these guys. Cyberattacks are everywhere, not just in Canada. What’s more, they explained, a government strategy is in place, the October launched strategy. The Harper government strategy is so successful, in fact, that the computers of Treasury Board, Finance and National Defence have been attacked over the past few weeks and the hackers “also cracked into the computer system of the House of Commons.” The severity of the breach is canvassed in the video report from CBC below, which reports the hackers “trolled government networks for weeks without a trace” for example. See also this expert: “…even in just a few seconds, if it was properly targeted — and it sounds like it was targeted — information of immense value could have been exchanged.” It’s a heck of a strategy that’s in place.

Canadians have been told there will be no effect on the upcoming budget, presently thought to be forthcoming on March 22 or March 29, a budget which will be a confidence vote and could see the defeat of the government, provoking a spring election. How the government is able to assure us, however, that no information pertinent to the budget has been lost is unclear. A security expert cited in the New York Times reporting on the breach was not convinced. We can imagine the fallout if the day after the budget were to be released any suspicious market moves were to occur. That’s a matter of speculation at the moment, given the uncertainty surrounding the hacking and the inability to get definitive information, but it’s something for rational observers to consider. How the government acts now in respect of the budget is something to watch. Indeed, on Friday, the Prime Minister engaged in sudden budget consultations with the leader of the fourth largest party in Parliament, the New Democratic Party. Whether this attack has factored into that consultation to any extent is anyone’s guess, given that there are other major controversies facing the Conservative government at the moment that may just as likely motivate them to stave off an election (they need only the support of one of the three opposition parties in order to survive a confidence vote).

Other points of interest surrounding Canada’s efforts on cybersecurity and this recent attack…

A paltry $90 million has been allocated by the Harper government over a period of five years to the task of cybersecurity. Those funds were allotted in the 2010 budget after their having been in office for four years and represent less than one year’s worth of promotional advertising for the Harper government.

It’s worth wondering what’s been done prior to and since Toews’ hastily arranged Sunday October news conference. Inquiring minds would like to know. Much of anything? It certainly served a useful purpose this week for the government and media to point to the event as an indication of the existence of a government cyberstrategy.

Canada’s Conservative government likes to characterize itself as tough on crime. They budget lots of money to build brick and mortar jails, billions in fact. But the above referenced cyberattack that has come to light fully in the past week, as they say in the online community, looks to be a big fail.

CBC video:

I was taking a break from a stack of work and watched a bit of the Australian Open on TSN here in Montréal. I saw the above attack ad by the Conservative Party of Canada, targeting Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff, and I was wondering if it was recycled, since the rhetoric was rather familiar. After some research, I saw that impolitical, who is always on top of these things, already blogged about the new campaign. In a phrase, “forced and desperate”. This ad is one of several attack ads on the CPC YouTube channel. I could analyze these ads but this overview in the National Post pretty much says what I wanted to say {also has the ads embedded in the post}.

I think strategically this crop of ads is phoning it in. Maybe PM Stephen Harper is believing the hype that he can eradicate the Liberals.  This “stay the course ad” doesn’t inspire and only makes sense if the Conservatives wanted to hold onto a comfortable majority in Parliament, not get one::

The rest of the ads represent, in my opinion, muddled thinking and a lack of strategic prowess. The attacks on Ignatieff are saying nothing new and border on making Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Attacking the NDP’s Jack Layton definitely makes Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look like bullies. Plus, here in Québec, the ads are targeting the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe {in French, but you can get the drift with the on-screen text}::

Layton is a relatively popular leader of a relatively unpopular party. Attacking Layton, rather than the NDP, is an interesting way to go. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that a strong NDP erodes Liberal support by splitting the vote on the left, so attacking the NDP only makes sense if the objective is to get converts. If the strategy is to shift support from the NDP to the Conservatives, that’s an uphill battle. In 2010, those polled by EKOS who support the NDP are more likely to support {as a second choice} the Liberals, no other party, or the Greens, in that order, rather than the Conservatives. Attacking Duceppe on his home turf, as opposed to showing the positives of the Conservative Party for Québec, seems downright reckless. Bloc Québécois supporters’ second choice is no other party, the NDP, the Greens, and then the Liberals and Conservatives, in that order.

Over the holidays, I heard a pundit on CBC radio saying that it might be the end of the road for all of the party leaders including Harper. He hasn’t obtained a majority and if this is part of his bid to do so, I think it’s a risky strategy. The negativity runs the risk of coalescing ABC, anything but Conservative, sentiments and fostering strategic voting. While in the US there’s a call to tone down the negative rhetoric, the CPC is turning the heat up.

It’s always better to be lucky than good and I’ve always wondered when Harper’s luck would run out. With this advertising strategy, I wonder if his time is up.

As for the featured 2nd. round matches at the Australian Open, Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova advanced.

Twitterversion:: [blog+videos] The Offensive Offensive:: Conservative Attack Ads Target Ignatieff http://t.co/KOkTFPZ #ThickCulture

In California, identity politics is a way of life.  Ask Pete Wilson, ex-Governor of California on how Latino politics can derail a career, as detailed in a LA Times magazine article from 2004.  The same article highlights Republican concerns with shifting demographics::

“Many Republicans view the mushrooming Latino voter rolls in the same way a person looks at a growing mole: One hopes it’s benign but fears for the worst.”

Unlike in California where immigration is resulting in dramatic demographic shifts, here in Canada, a hot-button issue is Québec separatism that stems from centuries-old disputes.  The province of Québec has a distinct francophone culture when compared to the rest of predominantly anglophone Canada and this cultural divide naturally affects politics at both the provincial and federal levels.

Currently, at the federal level, Canada {with a variation of the Westminster parliamentary system} has a minority government {plurality of parliamentary seats} with Conservative Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.  Minority governments tend to be unstable.  Indicative of this, the Conservatives had a scare last December when Stephen Harper angered the other parties, bringing the country to the brink of Constitutional crisis.  Recent polls in Canada showed that about half of the voters wanted a more stable majority government, where one party has a majority of the seats.  Moreover, recent polls indicated that support for the Conservatives is dwindling, likely leading to a situation where the Conservatives and Liberals have close to the same number of seats, further deadlocking Parliament.  An article a week and a half ago by the Montréal Gazette brought up a controversial argument::

The 2008 federal results in Québec saw BQ making a strong showing with 49 ridings {seats} of 75 in Québec and 308 in Canada. The map below shows Bloc in light blue, Conservatives (PC) in dark blue, Liberals (LP) in Red, and New Democrats (NDP) in orange. The Bloc is strong throughout the province, while the Conservatives have support in a few rural areas, and the Liberals and NDP have appeal in or near the cities of Montréal and Ottawa.

“It’s the same good old Liberal Party of Canada that wants to put Québec in its place.”

–Pierre Paquette, Bloc MP Joliette

“It shows that he’s not only been out of Canada for 35 years, he’s never known anything about Québec except what he learned at Upper Canada College and, frankly, I’m not afraid of him a bit.”

–Thomas Mulcair, NDP MP Outremont

Song:: Tricot Machine -L’Ours {Montréal, QC}

Notes from north of 49ºN

I remember how my parents said that RFK was accused of being a carpetbagger, coming to New York to become a US Senator in 1964.  Now that Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, finds his Conservative Party down in the polls by 5% {35-30%}, attack ads are being run tantamount to accusing the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, of being a Canadian “outsider.”  The ads accuse Ignatieff of coming back to Canada after being gone for 34 years::

The Conservatives are really slipping in the polls in Québec, so you think they would come up with a more engaging attack ad than this one in French.

This one paints Ignatieff as a carpetbagging opportunist, living in the UK and referring to himself as American::

The Liberals may be further undermined by attacks from the Bloc Québécois in Québec, which has 24% of the population in Canada.  Support for the Bloc is upwards of 40% in Québec, while Liberal support in the province is around 35%.

I find the anglophone ads to be rather effective at conveying the frame of Ignatieff as a elitist outsider.  I agree with the pundits that Harper is fighting for his political life and managed to get into a feud with Brian Mulroney, a conservative blast from the past.  Conservatism seems to be lacking cohesiveness on both sides of 49ºN.

While another Federal election is unlikely in the near term, it’s likely to pressure uneasy alliances between the Conservatives, the Bloc, and even the left-leaning NDP {read:: concessions by Harper?}.

HatTip:: LinnyQat

Twitterversion:: Harper {Tories} attcks Ignatieff {Grits} on nationalism frame. H. fighting 4 political life, Grits gaining. Strange bedfellows in store?

Song:: Jay-Z “Takeover”

Takeover – Jay-Z

It was May Day here in Ontario.  I just Tweeted about a program I saw on TVO with socialism as a theme with Ontario NDP leader, Andrea Horwath, and political scientist at York University, Leo Panitch.

The discussions were interesting, but what really stuck with me was whether or not good politicians follow the votes or get the electorate to see things differently.  For example, given the anti-corporate climate, will politicians pander to where they think the electorate is or will they try to shape thinking about the economy?

Sell the sizzle, not the steak

In a shameless attempt to drive more pageviews, I included a pic. and cartoon of Ségolène Royal {Ségolène is a ThickCulture crowd-pleaser, according to our Google Analytics}, a French socialist {Parti Socialiste, PS} centre-left politician who ran for President in 2007 {losing to Sarkozy} and may run in 2012.    Say what you will about Ségolène, she manages to capture attention.  She has been known to have a quirky, evangelical style and has been accused by some as having a Joan of Arc complex.  Well, this sounds familiar (see Glenn Beck video from last fall).

The comparison isn’t accidental.  Obama with his power of persuasion, thus far, and the state of the economy may be providing a perfect storm for a change in the political zeitgeist. Will the Democrats see this as an opportunity to embrace that dreaded third-rail word, socialism, in terms of either rhetoric or implemented policy -or- would that just bring about a Gingrichian revolt akin to 1994?  Change?  What kind of change?  New Deal change?  New Frontier change?  Great Society change?  Is it a matter of the public looking for it -or- will savvy politicians frame a “new” economic order for them?  I think we’re in for seeing plenty of sizzle sold, but at some point, steak will have to be on the table, specifically, in terms of economic recovery.

The upcoming election in British Columbia is pitting the centre-left  (NDP) versus the centre-right (BC Liberal) {e.g., see blog on the BC Carbon Tax issue}, where the centre-left has a shot of controlling the provincial government.  Nationwide, the NDP support has risen 1 point since December to 13%, while the Liberals and Tories swapped positions and are polling 36 and 33%, respectively.  Perhaps regionally, there may a shift to the left {Canada has had NDP provincial governments in the past}, but I wonder as joblessness continues and bailouts persist, will national-scene politics in Canada and the US move towards a more socialist agenda?  While Barack is far from a socialist, he’s gaining comfort in his centre-left stance::

“The economic philosophy that Mr. Obama developed during the presidential campaign drew from across the ideological spectrum even as it remained rooted on the center-left. As that philosophy has been tested in practice through his early months in office, the president has if anything become more comfortable with an occasionally intrusive government as a counterweight to market forces that are now so powerful and fast-moving that they cannot be counted on to be self-correcting when things go wrong.”

–“Obamanomics: Redefining Capitalism After the Fall,” NYT, Richard W. Stevenson

So, are you ready for some socialism?  Will we see the selling of socialism?  Sounds like an oxymoron, but it may be a matter of time before we see something like this.  What’s Springsteen up to this summer?

I welcome any and all thoughts.

OK Ségo fans, while not entirely flattering, the following cartoon should help you with your fix. 

Twitterversion:: EpicFail for capitalism? Given current econ & political climate, is US/Canada ready for socialism? Will politicns pander or reshape thinkng?

Song::