L'shana ha'va'a b'Yerushalayim

So I've sort of been sitting on this one, waiting for a post from my blograde Allan, but it's been a lengthy wait, so I'm going to go ahead and post about what's going on in Israel and Gaza, and what Canada should have been doing while the government enjoyed its lengthy Christmas break.

First off, I initially supported Israel's actions pretty strongly. While a two-state solution seems viable and reasonable in the long run, Hamas's unliateral end to the truce and its tendency to fire rockets into Israel represent some pretty strong apathy towards long-term political solutions, and a response targeting Hamas installations seemed more than reasonable. Israel does after all have the right to self-defence.

Since then... well, the Israeli response has gotten unreasonable, and both sides have been sort of vacillating on the topic of peace deals. For once I find myself agreeing with James Zogby when he says that the situation is in need of adult supervision, and kudos to France and Egypt for working in that direction..

Harper's response to the situation has been muted and delayed. Almost two weeks after hostilities started, and one day after the UN Security Council considered the issue, he called for a ceasefire, and hasn't really said much else.

This vague and inoffensive position is a reflection of the seemingly low priority the government has accorded the Mideast peace process - our ambassador to Israel had zero prior Mideast experience, and the Foreign Affairs website makes no visible mention of the Middle East at all. This may be part of a Conservative strategy to court Jewish and Muslim voters at the same time (although it's not clear there are that many single-issue voters in either of these groups) - or it might just be a lack of enthusiasm for dealing with possibly-complicated issuesby a tenuous minority government.

Canada dropped the ball on evacuating its citizens from Gaza - much like in Lebanon in 2006. At the time, Conservatives criticized the high cost of evacuating Canadian citizens - but the fact remains that they retain their Canadian citizenship, and ending recognition of dual citizenship would be far out of the international mainstream. The government has a responsibility to evacuate these people promptly.

At the same time, the government has a responsibility to protect citizens currently within its borders - not much has been done to prevent stupid attacks by people who cannot distinguish everyday Jews on the street from the Israeli government. (The article isn't from Canada, but I am wholly unconvinced that the same sort of things couldn't happen here.) During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised $3 million to protect religious institutions; the Liberals promised $75 million. It would cost very little political capital to adopt such an initiative, and demonstrate some response on the part of the government. Hoping to see something like this in the next budget.

If this post has put you to sleep, tune in soon for a more stats-friendly discussion of some exciting new poll results. There will be graphs. Seriously.

Close races (part 1 of 3)

For the next few posts, I'm planning to consider the close races from last elections - the battleground ridings which are realistically most likely to change hands in the next election (barring a major game-changer). Specifically, I'll be looking at ridings within the following arbitrary margins of victory:

• A 10 percent margin (of which there were 78)
• A 5 percent margin (of which there were 41)
• A 1 percent margin (of which there were 12)

Out of 308 ridings, this is quite a few with a close margin, which says something reassuring about the state of Canadian democracy. I'll be discussing the three categories separately, since the relevant effects and strategies are very different in these three cases.

Today, the ten-percenters. These are the ridings where a substantial shift in public opinion (which may be coming; I'm optimistic) or concerted local efforts could conceivably shift the vote. A whole lot of ridings fall into this category, in the following sort of distribution:
As would be expected, most of the close races are in Quebec and Ontario, with the Conservative-dominated Prairies and much of BC essentially noncompetitive. The smaller parties see most of their seats in competitive ridings - almost a quarter of Bloc seats and over 40% of NDP seats fall into this category.

It's also worth noting who's coming in a close second in these seats. (Note that the totals here don't add up to the ones above as some ridings had close three-way races.)
As shown, the Liberals saw the most close losses in the election - especially in Ontario and Quebec. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a particularly strong opportunity in BC, where they came within ten percent of victory in nine of the the fourteen seats they do not already control.

With so many tight races, there is serious potential for lots of seats to change hands in the next election. What can the Liberals and Conservatives be doing to swing some of these tight races and maximize their chances of forming the next government?

The Conservatives should focus their attention on the big urban areas around Toronto and Vancouver, as they stand a high chance of picking up seats in these areas. Appointing all those Conservative party activists to the Senate probably did not help the party's chances in these regions, and nor does the party's gag policy on is candidates. Big cities are media-heavy, and the Conservative Party does a poor job of equipping its candidates to face the media.

The Liberals' efforts would be best focused in Quebec outside Montreal, and in southwestern Ontario, where they lost several very close races to the Bloc and the Conservatives, respectively. In addition to a leader fluent in English and less concessions and assistance to the Green Party, the party should be seeking to address the economy. Bailouts for the auto and forestry sectors - as the party has been seeking since Dion's adorable YouTube video- will play well in these areas as the economy tanks.

More Parliament pls

So, a couple weeks ago, I missed this story dealing with a major change in the way seats are allocated in the House of Commons. Basically, the number of seats allocated to BC, Alberta, and especially Ontario are set to increase drastically as they are guaranteed at least the representation that Quebec enjoys under various grandfather clauses. How will these changes affect the electoral landscape?

Under the new rules, with 33 new seats for BC (7 new seats), Alberta (5 new seats), and Ontario (21 new seats), the ratio of seats will change appreciably. The outer ring represents the current rules, and the inner ring the new one:
At first glance, it would seem that increases in seats for overwhelmingly-Conservative BC and Alberta would help the Conservatives in the next election. However, it's probably worth a closer look at some of the specific effects that could arise here:

1. The seats are going to be created in areas of BC, Alberta, and Ontario with high population growth. In particular, Vancouver and Surrey in BC, Calgary and Edmonton in Alberta, and Missasauga, Brampton, other parts of the Toronto suburbs, and Kitchener in Ontario are likely to see new seats. In Alberta, these are very likely to be strongly Conservative, but in Ontario and BC the new seats will come in regions which are currently largely Liberal, with some NDP and Conservative MPs. Given the closeness of several results in these areas (Kitchener-Waterloo, Brampton West, and Vancouver South were all decided by margins of less than 0.5% in the most recent election, and Vancouver-Quadra saw a similarly close by-election in the spring), new boundaries could have significant impacts in existing ridings.
   
2. The change in Liberal leadership may help Liberal prospects, especially in Ontario - 51% of Ontario voters approved of the switch to Ignatieff. Lots of new seats in Ontario could represent an opportunity for Liberal pickups. It seems the Conservatives were initially reluctant to give Ontario so many more seats, as this original proposal from last May shows. (For what it's worth, Ignatieff enjoys a 46% approval in BC in the same poll, and 41% in Alberta.)
   
3. The new House of Commons will see reduced electoral opportunities for the Bloc Quebecois. Since the Bloc only runs candidates in Quebec (obviously), a smaller proportion of seats for the province means a lower maximum on the number of seats the party can hold. The large number of new seats outside possible Bloc territory could increase the possibility of a majority government - or, at least, a coalition arrangement that did not (formally or otherwise) include the Bloc or depend on Bloc support.

If anyone has any thoughts on these changes, feel free to leave your comment.