The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Campaign Day 13: How to Move the Numbers

Episode Date: September 23, 2019

Day 13 of Canada's 2019 Federal Election. | Thank for subscribing and for submitting a rating and review! * TWITTER @petermansbridge | INSTAGRAM @thepetermansbridge ** https://www.thepetermansbridge.com/ *** Producer: Manscorp Media Services

And hello there, it's Peter Mansbridge here with The Bridge on this, the first day of what I guess is the third week of the campaign. And as each day marches on, obviously we're getting closer to E-Day, the voting October 21st, so it's less than a month away now. This was one of those days where, well, there were a lot of people out there spending your money or offering ways to spend your money to try and attract your vote. Billions of dollars on offer today. The Liberals were out there with a Pharmacare plan. The Conservatives with a Housing Point plan. The NDP also with their Pharmacare plan. The Greens on a mental health program.

So lots of money being promised, not always giving us an indication of where they plan to get that money from, other than from us, but how they're plan to get that money from, other than from us. But how they're going to pay for all this, that's still kind of up in the air a bit. They all promise, don't worry, you're going to know before the campaign is over. We'll see. But here's why I found it interesting, because they're clearly all trying to change the channel. It's been five days now since the brownface, blackface story hit. And all the polling companies seem to agree on something.

That didn't really move the needle. Does that mean people didn't care about it? I don't think so. I think what people said was, this is not a political issue. This is a issue about how we see race in this country, and we want to see it discussed, but this is not one that I'm determining my vote on, or at least a lot of people seem to have said that over the past five nights. We talked on Friday about how Sunday night, Monday, would be a determining factor of whether this story is kind of past its best due date.

It seems like it has. Now, if something comes up to change the story, something we didn't know about, that may have an impact. But right now, as you can see from what all the parties were talking about today, they're moving on. They're not forgetting what happened, but they're moving on. There were still a couple of questions today about it, but for the most part, it was on the issues the parties wanted to discuss. And one assumes those are issues that you want to discuss. And I can tell you, from having traveled the country over these last couple of weeks, as you know I'm putting together this documentary that'll run on the Friday night before the election. The way you see it,

not the way I see it, not the way I see it, not the way the producer sees it, not the way the editor sees it, the way you see it, our goal is to be collecting your thoughts of the dozens and dozens and dozens of people that I've talked to from one side of the country to the other. They will all stand up and say,

yeah, he actually was listening to what I had to say. That's what I was doing. And I can tell you a couple of things. Nobody, nobody on their own brought up the brownface-black face scandal or story. Nobody on their own, well, I shouldn't say nobody. I think there was one person out west, maybe two. So safely, I'll say two, brought up SNC-Lavalin.

What did they want to talk about they wanted to talk about i i guess the headline issues were the environment and climate change specifically health care right across the board didn't matter which region health care that's why you see in today's announcements what are they talking about? Healthcare. They know. They know what the issues are out there that people want to hear about and want to hear what's on offer with their money from their parties. The economy, jobs, a little bit on the pipeline issue.

Not a lot, but a bit. Usually as it related to jobs and the environment. So there you have a sense of what seems to be going on here. What it has underlined, and there have been some very good articles on this. One of our guests early on in the bridge was Chris Waddell, the journalism professor from Carleton University in Ottawa. If you Google Chris, you'll see an article he wrote over the weekend.

And it's basically about the disconnect between the media and the public during this election. That the media is chasing down one avenue. The public is actually on a totally different street. And that seems to be what we've witnessed in these last four or five days. That's not to say the media should never have covered this other story, the brown-faced, black-faced story. Not at all. It's an important story. And it's an important issue.

But the sense that it was going to totally turn the campaign upside down, they weren't listening to the people, because that's not what they were saying. So, the media has got to be careful as they try to be but we were all sitting here tut-tutting the American media after the 2016 campaign that they missed the story

they missed the emergence of Trump they missed the emergence across the United States that people were identifying with the issues Trump was talking about. And in Canada, we've got to be careful the same thing doesn't happen here. People have real issues, real concerns. And they're talking about them and trying to plead us to take a hard look at some of these issues.

So what will move the needle? If the needle's going to be moved, if we assume all these various bolsters are right and that nothing has really changed in any significant fashion. Everything's kind of within the margin of error, and the top two parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are more or less around the same number. The Greens and the NDP are running third and fourth, considerably back

of the Conservatives and the Liberals, and the People's Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois behind them. If we assume all those numbers are right, what would move the numbers? What would give one party a clear advantage over the others? Well, it's funny, you know, because I was talking about this, I was actually getting ready to do a podcast on that issue last week when the bombshell hit. And here's, you know, I went to, as I've mentioned before, I know a lot of people in all the parties, some who I've known for many years, and I trust their judgment and their assessment on things.

We have a good relationship. So I was talking to one of them last week, and I said, you know, give me some examples of something that really moves the numbers, given the history of elections in Canada. What really moves the numbers to the advantage of one party over the others? What kind of things move the numbers? So the answer I got was really interesting because the answer is basically things that on the face of it are very simple. They're simple promises promises but they attract

a significant segment of the population not just partisans but a segment of the population so I said okay fine give me some examples so here are four examples that this person gave me last year's provincial election in Ontario Doug Ford wins for the Conservatives last year's provincial election in Ontario, Doug Ford wins for the Conservatives.

His best-known promise, buck a beer. Now, that sounds kind of crazy. A buck a beer. How could that be something significant? Apparently, according to this guy, that really took off. It had a significant impact.

The governing liberals were already in trouble in Ontario, but that was the kind of thing that moved a significant segment of the voting populace. Buck a beer. 2015, the federal election. Cannabis moved, for the liberals, Cannabis moved for the liberals a significant segment of the population. 2006, Stephen Harper promised to cut the GST by two points. Expensive. Very expensive, but popular.

And a significant segment of the population voted for that. You know, there were other issues. There was the Liberals sponsorship scandal, et cetera, et cetera. But a cut in the GST, which Harper delivered on immediately with a one percentage point cut, and then a little later, the second point cut. And the final answer, another very simple, straightforward promise that moved the numbers,

was in the 1990s, the election, the first election of Mike Harris, the Conservatives in Ontario. And what was the promise? The promise was to end photo radar. Remember photo radar? I know some places still have it, but in Ontario it was very controversial.

You end up getting a ticket a week or so after the alleged offence or the offence that you'd been speeding. They couldn't prove who was driving but they knew which car was and the owner was ticketed. People were outraged. Can't have this. Mike Harris said, you elect me, I promise to get rid of photo radar. Bingo. He got elected. Now, it wasn't just on that issue, but it was a simple, straightforward promise that moved a significant segment of the population.

So that's something to keep in mind. We don't have those simple, straightforward promises in this campaign so far. Maybe we will. Maybe something will come along. But this strategist told me those things move the numbers, and they've been proven for both the two major parties to have done that in the past and gave those examples. I found that interesting.

Mailbag time. We're going to do it. We're going to go mailbagging right after this. Wow, some new music there. The bridge finds new music. There we have it. Okay, letters. There were obviously lots of letters last week before the brownface, blackface story hit.

I've got to come up with a better way of describing that story. And so I want to try and catch up to some of those. These are a couple of the best ones that I'd like to bring in tonight. This one comes from Pat Provo in San Bruno, Quebec. I found the party platforms are not easily accessed by the Conservative nor Liberals. Green Party had the best PDF on their website. That impresses me,

when information is clear and easy to access without wading through the endless griping about the other party's point of view. McLean's has made a comparison as well, but are they unbiased? Pat, trust McLean's. Trust your news organizations to deliver for you on this issue on putting out the various platforms of the parties that they're going to do that honorably and without bias um the parties should as well now i'm not going to make excuses for the conservatives or the liberals but i assume since they're still dropping policy they're're not up to date on those platforms. And once all the policy is out, they will be much better. But the main point here, Pat, for you is that you're doing the right thing. That is what you should be looking at.

You should be looking at all these policies from the different parties and see which one fits your feelings, your concerns, what you see as the issues, and the way to deal with them. So good for you. Megan Rondo from Edmonton, Alberta. I wanted to know what your thoughts were on strategic voting, and do you think there are a lot of strategic voters in Canadian elections? I've seen campaigns in the

last federal and last Alberta provincial election that encourage strategic voting. Personally, I think it takes support away from smaller parties and stagnates their potential growth. Do you think some form of proportional representation would discourage strategic voting. On your last point, I'm sure it would, but we're not there yet, are we? There's no indication of proportional representation in the near future, although that debate continues, and it is an issue that a number of voters have brought up to me in my travels across the country. On the other points you raise in here,

you raise a very good one about the stagnation of the growth of smaller parties if you strategically vote. That's true. It hurts them. And it can hurt their eventual return on the finances that they've invested in the campaign if they don't get your support. But also it is a way of trying to ensure that the party that you, more about the party that you don't want to win, you know, has issues. I'm sorry my phone's ringing in the background, but it underlines to you once again that I'm doing this from my home.

This is not one of those podcasts backed by a big media organization. It's just a little old me in my little old studio in my little old apartment and loving every minute of it and really enjoying the dialogue back and forth with you and in letters and other ways that you've contacted me. So strategic voting is there as one of the tools voters can use and parties can encourage to try and get the vote in such a fashion that will benefit them against their main rival. So if the Liberals are in a really close contest with the Conservatives, they'll be looking to try and encourage NDP and Green Party support. If the Conservatives are in a very close race,

they will be looking to encourage voters who are voting for the People's Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, try to encourage them to support the Conservatives. So that's going to happen. But I think it's a smart letter and it does raise the issues that are of concern to strategic voting. But I don't think that's going to stop. Although I will tell you one thing. I heard more people on this tour I've been making say, you know, in the past I wanted to vote, I'll give you an example, one woman told me in Fredericton, New Brunswick over the weekend,

I wanted to vote for the Green Party last time. I didn't because I was strategically voting. She said, I won't be doing that this time. I will vote for the Green Party. Here's one from Jackson Walling. And I'm not sure where, he's in Lindsay, Ontario. My name's Jackson Walling, but I am currently finishing my final year of political science at Laurentian University with the hopes of pursuing my master's degree in international relations. As such, my question for the podcast is a policy-related question.

During Stephen Harper's tenure as Prime Minister, his government established the Canadian-Saudi arms deal, which has been a major player in the Canadian economy to this day. This deal was re-established by Justin Trudeau in 2015. However, the government has said recently that they're looking to abandon the deal. Do you believe that if any party leader is elected, they will eliminate the deal, even if it would cost their popularity in between London and Sarnia, Ontario, and the Canadian economy? A lot of seats, a lot of votes, a lot of jobs. And you struck Jackson on an issue that goes, once again,

to the heart of politics and governing in Canada. Trying to find that line between saving jobs and saving your reputation as a country, on the world stage, on major issues. That's what this one's about. I would suggest to you, Jackson, that if no party promises in this campaign to kill that deal, then it's not going to be killed. And I, you know, either of the two major parties

who at this point, at this point, if the polls are correct, are the only two parties that stand a chance of winning overall. That may change. But unless the Conservatives

or the Liberals promise to kill the deal, it's not going to get killed. It would seem. But it's the dilemma. You know, what do you stand for? That's what you got to ask. And here's the last question for this night.

Ernst Hansch. He's from Winnipeg. Go Jets go. That's what Ernie says. And so do I. Listen, I love the Leafs. I love the Jets go. That's what Ernie says. And so do I. Listen, I love the Leafs. I love the Jets. I've always loved the Jets from my time in Winnipeg.

Bobby Hull. Ulf Nielsen. Anders Hedberg. That was a line. One of the great lines ever. Early 70s. Sorry. Ernie. Here's your main concern.

You've been watching the People's Party of Canada. And you're concerned about some of the things they've done. But you say, the PPC remain the only political party expressing certain libertarian views, such as smaller government, ending corporate welfare, supply management. Is there a way that these viewpoints can be addressed on the political stage at this point? Good question. You've got to start grilling the candidates on this. If you're not buying the People's Party because of any number of different things that they've been involved with

and Maxime Bernier because of any number of different things that they've been involved with. And Maxime Bernier has been involved with. There was another one today in terms of who'd been supporting one of their candidates. But if you're not buying their story, then you've got to start going to town hall meetings in your riding, and you've got to grill these other candidates and find out whether any of them are in sync with some of your beliefs, assuming those are your beliefs, the libertarian way, and see whether there's somebody there.

And if there isn't, well, it's difficult. Generally, none of the parties on a national basis stand for libertarian values, but some of the candidates do, and some of their significant candidates do. So you want to have a look at that. All right. So those, oh, here's one quick one. And, you know, I'm going to read this because, in a way,

it relates back to what we talked about at the top of this podcast. This is from Al Varshoy. It's a long letter. I won't read it all, but I will read the key part. It's easy to live in a bubble, but the media should not. I feel that the media gets in this trap of what is politically and ethically right without necessarily paying attention to what people think or not report on what some people think because it's

not morally or politically acceptable. We talked a little bit about that, certainly the front half of what you're suggesting there at the top of this podcast, where it seems that on some things the media is disconnected from the people. They've shown this before. They seem to be showing it again. And I say the media in its collective fashion, I include myself in that. So I think it's a good point, Al, and I know you go on a little deeper uh than that and you know perhaps we'll

take that up on a later podcast but i think uh seeing as we kind of got into that at the beginning of this one i wanted to get your your comments in and thank you for your note most of your letters are much longer than what i've been reading um on uh on the podcast but they're all really good and very thoughtful, and I appreciate it. Back right after this. Okay, so we've started another week on the campaign. Hope you've enjoyed the podcast. The Bridge is available on all the various podcast platforms.

So if you haven't signed up already, please do. Letters. Here's where you send them. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. I read all your letters. I try to get as many on as I can. I don't get them all on. And the repeat ones, and there have been a number of repeats I haven't been doing yet. Doesn't mean I won't at some point, but I just want to get first timers on there before we start going to a repeat cycle. Anyway, thanks ever so much for listening today. Hope you

enjoy your week. Stay with us on the bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening.