Race Report - Tucson Marathon

This past weekend I had the pleasure of running the Holualoa Tucson Marathon for my 10th marathon.

This race starts at an elevation of 5000 feet above sea level and finishes at 3000. The altitude of the start was something I didn't notice when signing up. All I could think about was a 2000 foot drop and how great that would be!

Had I read this article beforehand I might not have signed up...and that would have been unfortunate!

http://www.runnersworld.com/races/downhill-all-way?page=single

Race Report:

The organizers moved the race time from 7:30 am to 7:00 am a week before race day due to higher than normal expected temperatures.

As you might expect, the logistics of the start did not go as smoothly. The buses to the start line got backed up. Someone came onto the bus and told us that it was half a mile to the start line and we had better walk or else we would miss the start. Running half a mile uphill in the dark was an unexpected warmup routine.

Once at the start it was still dark and the porto-potties were lined up. Lots of runners ran off to the bushes...but in the dark it felt a bit more adventurous than normal. :-)

Once those wrinkles were done the race started on time just as the sun was peaking over the mountains. It was a beautiful sight!

We wound our way down the mountain with some steep downhills early on. My Garmin had died the day before and I didn't bring the charger. I decided to run without a GPS watch...the horror, is that how the cavemen ran??

I definitely felt something was a bit off early on. I've never run more than 500 feet above sea level before so it's likely that the altitude was affecting me but it's also certain that I don't know enough to say for sure. Basically my chest felt tight and my breathing was a bit labored. Despite that my splits at the halfway mark said I was on track for a personal best.

Speaking of the halfway mark: We went off the main road and did an out and back on Biosphere Road. The rolling hills were painful and I don't even know if the Biosphere was visible or not.

From that point on, the main road was a gentle downhill which was very nice. A few small rolling hills at the end hurt but that was just because it was at the end of a Marathon!

I finished at 3:19:09 which was an improvement over my Surf City time of 3:21:49.

So this year began with my best time and finished with a new best time with a lot of frustration, injury and disastrous race times in between. I'm very glad I did this one!!

A few notes about this race:

1) The roads are closed and as such there is no crowd support. There are a lot of Saguaro Cactus and you can imagine that they are people holding up funny signs.
2) There are very few buildings on the course. It is mainly mountains, fields of bush, cacti and such.
3) It is the complete opposite of a big city urban marathon like Chicago that takes you through different neighborhoods.
4) I was there alone. If you bring family and friends, the finish line is pretty much the only place you will see them.
5) The temperature change from the top to the bottom is big. This is to be expected with the drop in altitude combined with the sun coming down from a crystal clear sky.

I thought the course was beautiful and it was a nice contrast from the urban marathons. (which I also like).

Overall, this was a great race. It was a different race with different scenery and a different atmosphere. It is definitely one I would recommend!!

Tom Mulcair's Captain Canada Moment

Tomorrow an election will be called in the Province of Quebec. Election day will be Sept 4th according to the reports.

Federal politicians will mostly steer clear of any involvement in this Provincial election:

The Conservatives have (almost literally) a handful of seats in Quebec. They could lose all 5 and still govern with a majority. They have no upside by getting involved. Besides, Stephen Harper is really not very popular in Quebec. Staying away might be the most helpful thing he could do.

The Liberals (despite sharing the same handle as the Provincial Government) really do not have any upside in getting involved. Besides which, they don't have a permanent leader or any real direction yet.

The separatist Bloc Quebecois will support their Provincial brethren but that hardly matters since the Bloc was reduced to 4 seats in Quebec. That's even less than Stephen Harper won and he is supposedly hostile to Quebec!!

This vacuum presents a rather unique opportunity for Tom Mulcair as leader of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He can play Captain Canada and actually strike a blow against the Separatist movement as well as position himself as a true Prime Minister in waiting.

Canada has effectively been a country with one party rule since Stephen Harper was first elected Prime Minister. The Conservatives have been winning (almost) by default. A series of hapless opponents made a Conservative victory virtually inevitable.

Quebec's Provincial elections usually amount to a battle between the Liberals holding the Canada banner with the Parti Quebecois holding the Separatist banner. However Charest has been in power for 9 years and the scars are showing. He might be due for a fall and the rise of the PQ would almost certainly lead to another wrenching referendum on separation for Quebec.

While the NDP (under Jack Layton) swept the Province at the Federal level, polls show that separatism is far from dead. Quebec voted for Layton's NDP to oppose Harper. However the reality is that the NDP is a tough sell in the rest of Canada. English Canada is not generally that left of centre and Ontario still bears the bad memories of the one time the NDP governed this province.

Tom Mulcair should step into the breach and carry the Federalist banner alongside Jean Charest. He is the only federal leader who could do so with helpful consequences. Like the Parti Quebecois, his party is left of centre. He can make the case that Quebec's social programs would NOT be helped by cutting themselves off from Canadian transfer payments.(an obvious point that has surprisingly little traction amongst Quebec voters). Tom Mulcair can make the case that it is possible to oppose the Conservatives while still remaining in Canada.

If Mulcair were to pull this off, he would see his popularity soar....in the rest of Canada. Showing leadership on the national unity file would draw a clear line of distinction with the Conservatives. Defeating the PQ is something that Canadians from coast to coast would cheer. Mulcair would be positioned to win the next federal election.

The question is....does he have the will and sense of timing to make it happen.

Book Review: Iron War Dave Scott, Mark Allan & The Greatest Race Ever Run….by Matt Fitzgerald

Running a marathon was considered the ultimate test of endurance by many. The advent of the Ironman in 1978 changed that forever.

Adding a 26 mile run to the end of a 2.4 mile swim and a 112 mile bike was a game changer. No longer would swimmers, cyclists and runners argue about who was the better athlete….because now the answer was simple. The Ironman Triathlon became the ultimate test for the endurance athlete.

This book tells the story of the epic battle between Mark Allan and Dave Scott at the Kona Ironman in 1989.

For the endurance athlete, this story presents a contrast of two very different people and training regimes:

Dave Scott was the maniac child who chose to race his school bus on his bike and kept at it until he could beat that bus. He trained hard and then trained harder. There was no “taking it easy” to build endurance for a grown up Dave Scott. His confidence reigned supreme. He knew that he could beat anyone and it didn’t matter that they were better athletes. Dave Scott willed his way to victory.

Mark Allan was a supremely talented swimmer who was as weak mentally as Dave Scott was strong. Lesser swimmers knew they could beat him because as soon as someone got so much as half a stroke on him, he collapsed. He was a quitter.

The buildup to the big day is gripping. Mark Allan had won the Ironman distance (and even beaten Dave Scott) but never at Kona. Dave Scott was a six time champion at Kona. A flat tire, an untimely injury or wilting in the face of Dave Scott’s surge would always deny Mark Allan the victory at Kona. He even got to the point where he though ancient Hawaiian deities had placed a curse upon him.

On this day they went mano a mano and recorded the two fastest times ever. The winner would have beaten the other man on his best day….as it should be. They came out of the swim together and came off the bike together. Through 23 miles of the marathon there was no daylight between them. Despite the fact that the narrative takes us through 8 hours, it is thrilling.

(Those who don’t want to know who won should avoid the video I’m posting here.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOVGVMiwPSA

I found the leadup to the race very interesting and informative. Distance runners are used to hearing contradictory advice (stretch vs don’t stretch, Epsom salt baths are great vs they’re useless). These two men had very different approaches and training methods. There is much to be said for both and a lot of the science is explored.

After the conclusion of the race, the book goes on for a while into their post Iron War lives. I found most of it somewhat anti-climactic and wondered why he didn’t end the story shortly after the race. But then I found a great quote which runners will appreciate: (page 286)

“Human beings are the creatures that try harder and never stop trying. We try when it’s hopeless. We try when it doesn’t make any sense. And when we succeed in trying harder than we have ever tried before, we try harder still. We are Cindarella, and Rocky, and the Little Engine that Could. We are beautiful in this way. Heartbreakingly beautiful.”

The author observes that endurance athletes strive for a sense of community…but it is a community of pain and suffering. We endure together and suffer together. The joy that we feel at the end of a race comes FROM the suffering. We recount stories of how we suffered and feel good about it. We suffer longer and feel more joy about it when we are in the company of others doing the same thing.

This sounds bizarre and leads to questions about our sanity, but there is a beauty to every race and every struggle. Some will understand that….pity the others.

This book is highly recommended for distance runners and other endurance athletes. Others might simply wonder why some friends of Allan and Scott didn’t stage an intervention.

Thumbs up on the book and I want to sign up for a triathlon!

Race Report - Toronto Goodlife Marathon May 6, 2012

In terms of personal achievement, this was not a great race for me. I fell flat and my time ranks 6th best out of 7 races done and breaks a streak of 6 straight faster times.

That kind of intro usually leads into a list of complaints about the race, but not this time.

The truth is that it was a very well organized race on a picture perfect day.

The Toronto Goodlife Marathon (formerly the Toronto International Marathon) is one of two marathons run in Toronto. They are rival organizations and do try to outdo each other. As a consumer I say good!!

Let's start with the expo. The expo was in a large convention centre. It was roomy and reasonably well organized. Our race packs included our race shirts as well as a vintage shirt from a prior year. I thought that was a nice touch. Early arrivals got a copy of the book "26.2 Marathon Stories" by Katherine Switzer and Roger Robinson. That was a pretty nice freebee to begin with. Actually having Ms Switzer and Mr Robinson on had to sign the books and pose for pictures was a real bonus. They were so nice and personalized their message in my book and really took some time. Of the Canadian marathons i've done, this was the best expo i've seen.

The start at Mel Lastman square was well run. The only problem that i saw was one barrier that had fallen over and we had to dodge it. I hope nobody tripped over it. Accidents happen and so i don't hold that against the race organizers.

The early route was on a closed street that went mainly downhill and through some of Toronto's nice neighbourhoods before heading down the lush Rosedale valley road which was a nice long gradual downhill.

The second part of the race was less nice. First we went through the concrete canyons of the financial district before emerging hear the lake to run along the lakefront. The lakefront run is more scenic of course but this part of the course was on a path in the park and hence was not closed. I heard a few stories about people on bikes or children playing and getting in the way. You would think the guy on the bike might clue in when he sees a bunch of people with bibs running by. You'd think parents wouldn't want their kids to get too close to a herd of people trying to run as fast as they can. The fact that part of the course wasn't closed was unfortunate. Maybe as the marathon has grown in size that is something they can look at for next year.

Several aid stations near the end ran out of cups and were offering runners water from jugs....great if you are carrying bottles but not much if you are not. This wasn't so good but again i hope it's fixed for next year.

Toronto's fall marathon had a disastrous bag check last year and some heads rolled as some runners waited up to 2 hours to get their dry clothes on a very cold day. A lot of people were very upset. It would appear that the rival goodlife decided to have the best bag check ever. I walked over near the bag check and stopped to talk to a friend. I asked her where i go to get my bad and she pointed to her left where a young man had read my bib and had already retrieved it without being asked. That was awesome!!!

Overall i really liked this race despite those few foibles.

I can't give Goodlife top marks when some of the course is not closed. That is important. However i will give them just one notch below top marks.

I've now run all three Toronto area marathons in the past 12 months and i rank them 1) Toronto Goodlife, 2) Mississauga 3) Scotiabank Waterfront Marathon.

None comes close to my favourite race of my 7 and that would be the Surf City Marathon in Huntington Beach, California. That was the best organized race with the best expo and the best samples....not to mention my best time :-)

Gay Marriage/Straight Marriage Absurdity

Today President Obama declared in an interview that he supports gay marriage. Good for him for being honest. I suspect that this was his belief all along but he didn't want to offend some southern voters and was deliberately vague as a result. In practical terms his declaration will probably not change any laws. That would require Congress to act and that doesn't seem likely.

What Obama's declaration does do is shine a not so bright light on the issue of same sex marriage.

Various jurisdictions give different levels of recognition to same sex marriage but their traditional definition of marriage as applied in the traditional sense is remarkably consistent.....and remarkably weird to have written into law.

In the Province of Ontario a marriage can be "annulled" under certain conditions. When it is annulled, it is deemed to have been legally invalid and to have never existed. This is different from a divorce which merely dissolves a valid marriage from the date of the divorce.

Looking at some of the grounds for annulment gives a clear view of what makes a marriage valid and what makes a marriage invalid.

Ontariodivorces.com details the state of the law regarding annulment under the grounds of non-consummation.

The premise of annulment due to non-consummation is that the marriage is not legally complete until it has been consummated with sexual relations at least once. Yes you read that right.....the law says that a marriage is not legally complete until you have had sex.

Can you imagine if this ended up as a matter of dispute in court?

Man: "Your honour, ah did not have sexual relations with that woman. Our marriage is void."
Woman: "Your honour we did have sex and i can prove we had sex."
Man: "That was before we got married your honour. It has no legal significance. We didn't have sex after marriage even once so the marriage is not valid."

The judge would be faced with the requirement to make a ruling based on the evidence as to whether they had sex before but not after walking down the aisle.....or whether they did indeed continue to have sex after the marriage ceremony....AT LEAST ONCE!!!

I find it bizarre that such a medieval way of thinking is actually enshrined in our laws. In my opinion all marriage laws should be repealed and replaced with a new section of contract law under which economic resources are combined and separated. Children? Well children can and do come into the world without a marriage of any sort between the parents and there are laws governing their welfare.

Rights of survivorship and other employment benefits can be negotiated separately. Churches can continue to define marriage as they see fit. Their definitions don't always square with the legal definition anyways...ie the Catholic church does not recognize divorces as valid and as such divorcees cannot be married under their definition.

So I guess bottom line is that I am opposed to same sex marriage being enshrined in law but equality advocates need not fear....i oppose heterosexual marriages being enshrined in law as well. Conservatives should be very happy with this approach as it gets the Government out of the business of regulating something they have no business regulating. Equality advocates should be happy that there is equal treatment.

Personally i'm of the view that if you want to call someone a spouse go crazy. Many unmarried people do it anyways...who cares if some gay men/women do the same?

Alberta Stays the Course

Canada is a peculiar sort of democracy that tends towards periods of one party rule.

At the Federal level the governing Conservative party has no effective opposition with any realistic prospect of winning an election. It was this dynamic that allowed Stephen Harper to govern as if he had a majority even when he held a minority of seats for a number of years. With a newly minted leader of the Opposition New Democrats and an interim leader of the Liberal party, Harper's majority is unlikely to be threatened at the next election.  Prior to Harper, Jean Chretien rattled off 3 successive majority election wins due to an incoherent and divided opposition. He was finally forced from office by his own party in a move reminiscent of politburo politics.

At the provincial level, the Progressive Conservative Party held power in Ontario for 42 years until 1985. The New Brunswick Liberals under Frank Mckenna truly had one party rule when they won every single seat in the legislature in 1987.

Alberta is probably the most grotesque example of this sort of one party rule. The Social Credit party ruled a dynasty that governed Alberta for 36 years until 1971. They were replaced by the Progressive Conservative party that has ruled since (41 years).

It was against this background that the upstart Wildrose party rose to challenge the status quo in Alberta. Opinion polls showed the Wildrose ending the Tory dynasty right up until 24 hours before election day when Tory numbers surged. The PC's were returned to power with a majority thus extending their rule til around 45 year at the time of the next election.

The Wildrose party was a new movement and as such had it's share of kooks. One candidate said he had an advantage because he was white and thus could speak for everyone while minorities tended to represent their own. Another candidate said that homosexuals would burn in a ring of fire on judgment day.

Now I'm no Constitutional law expert but if indeed homosexuals are to burn in a ring of fire....I don't believe that to be a matter of Provincial jurisdiction under our Charter.

The Wildrose party was not ready to govern. However it is still unfortunate that they didn't do better. The Tories of Alberta have gotten too comfortable in power. This happens with all parties across the spectrum. Once they are in power too long, they stop serving the people and start serving themselves. They become lazy and corrupt because they get used to being in power. A sense of entitlement creeps in.

This is why change (for its own sake) is occasionally good in politics. Alberta is in an enviable fiscal position because they happen to sit atop a lot of oil, natural gas and coal. They are not there because of good prudent government management. In fact Alberta has run serious deficits recently despite their natural advantages.

The wealth of natural resources has made good government less important and the Tories have behaved accordingly. One hopes that the near death experience that they just experienced gives them a good wakeup call to sharpen their pencils and get to work. If not, there will be a seasoned and experienced opposition waiting to take power from them in 4 years. By then Wildrose should have gotten over their teething pains, expelled their more loopy members and be ready to win.

Republicans Cruise towards a Disastrous November

It's been said that a strong political party is characterized by a weak elite and strong grassroots.

The Republican party's elites anointed Mitt Romney as their standard bearer some time ago....perhaps as much as four years ago. The Republicans have long had a tradition of "waiting you turn" wherein the second place finisher in one cycle becomes the nominee at the next available opportunity. Reagan finished second to Ford in 76 before getting the nomination in 80. George H.W. Bush finished second to Reagan in 80 before getting the nomination in 88. Dole, McCain and now Romney continue this pattern. This establishment support was fine when the grassroots (more or less) agreed. Never before has the grassroots been so at odds with the establishment.

Four years ago the Democratic party's elites clearly lined up behind Hillary Clinton. So deep was her support amongst the establishment that she was initially endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus over Barack Obama. The Democratic party had a brutal primary battle and the support of the elites was not enough. The grassroots came out in force to give Obama the nomination and then they mobilized to make him the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win 50%+1 of the votes cast nationally.

In 2004 George W Bush was able to mobilize his base of support to be the first President since his father to win a majority of votes cast. (Clinton did not get a majority either time and Bush did not in his first election). The grassroots support was the key to his election victory.

Today Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee. Other candidates have come forward to surge into the lead in polls. The party establishment went to great lengths to squash the candidacies of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and now Rick Santorum. Each of these candidates were complicit in their own implosion as well and that is also telling.

The Republican party's base could not find a champion who could withstand the establishment bias and so Romney hung in with his money....the others all ran out of money.

Mitt Romney will not carry Massachusetts despite his serving as Governor of the state. He will not carry his home state of Michigan. Nobody seriously expects him to have a chance in either.

He ran as a pro-choice candidate when he ran for Governor. He brought in something close to universal health care as Governor of Massachusetts. Today he is running as a pro-life candidate and swears that he will repeal Obamacare...which many say was modelled on Romneycare.

It is very difficult to respect someone who manages to be pro-life AND pro-choice. He has the look of a classic politician who will say ANYTHING to get elected. He now claims that he is "severely conservative".....a claim that Reagan never needed to make.

The video of Mitt Romney declaring at a southern primary campaign even that he "likes grits" was simply too precious. I've tried grits. I neither love nor hate em. Did he really think that a pathetic attempt like that to curry favour would win him any votes?

Other big misses: challenging Rick Perry at a debate to wager 10,000 dollars. Who does that? Bet a hundred bucks or a case of beer maybe. Most ordinary people might have a hard time identifying with someone who can bet 10,000 dollars like it's spare change in his pockey....which to him it is.

He said that he doesn't follow NASCAR but is friends with several NASCAR team owners. Seriously?

The establishment's crowning of Romney will come back to haunt them. He will have a hard time holding traditionally Republican states as many "base" voters stay at home unable to bring themselves to cast a vote for Romney. He doesn't have crossover support because he (more than any other recent candidate) fits the stereotype of the the Republicans being a party of rich white guys.

When the Democrats kept losing, their candidates kept falling over each other trying to show how tough they were on crime and declaring that they support capital punishment. A pundit on TV ridiculed this approach by saying "if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time."

The Democrats will have campaign ads featuring Mitt Romney declaring that he is pro-choice and favours universal health care. The voters will choose between a Democrat and a Democrat.

I'm glad i'm not an American voter because I'm not sure what i would do if faced with marking ballot for Obama or Romney.

Obama will win in a landslide!

A Disappointed Conservative

I have voted Conservative for all of my adult life. There are few voters who are more reliably Conservative. I am deeply disappointed with the Conservative party's recent moves in Ottawa and Queen's Park.

Today the Conservatives tabled their first budget since winning a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Many rank and file Conservatives were willing to cut Harper some slack while he was leading a minority Government. After all, how bold could he be when the opposition parties could bring him down at any time?

This budget did two noteworthy things. It raised the age for drawing the public pension to 67 from 65 and cut departmental spending by $5.2 billion.

This government deserves credit for raising the retirement age. At the time that the age of 65 was set, the average lifespan was 67 and Canada's working age population was growing rapidly. Today, the average lifespan is pushing 80 and our working age population is simply not keeping pace with the population of retirees. However this change is being phased in beginning with the year 2023...AFTER the bulk of the baby boomers have retired. While raising the retirement age is long overdue and they deserve credit for taking a step in the right direction, this is far too timid a change.

We don't know the details of the 5.2 billion dollars in spending cuts but we do know that the deficit is projected to be over $20 billion for next year. This is 20 billion dollars on top of the 23 billion dollar deficit we will run this year. In these two years alone, that amounts to $1400 per Canadian being passed on as debt to future generations. This is unacceptable.

What this budget did not do was reverse one of the Conservative government's most dubious moves. The minority Harper government of 2006 & 2008 reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. This one move alone is responsible for $11 billion of the current year's deficit according to the Globe and Mail. The Mulroney government brought in the GST and the Liberals campaigned against it. Once in office the Liberals realized that it would be irresponsible to get rid of it or even to cut the rate. Harper thought otherwise and has cut it by 2%. I had hoped that he might reverse this move once he got a majority....I sit disappointed since the debt being passed on to future generations could be much lower.

Tim Hudak is another disappointment. During the last election he came across as a lightweight and mistakes were not hard to find. Still he did manage to deny McGuinty a majority. McGuinty delivered a budget knowing that he needed at least one of the two other parties to support him to avoid triggering another election. So does Hudak use his leverage to wring some concessions from McGuinty? No of course not. He declares right away that he will oppose the budget....hence strengthening the hand of the NDP and making himself as irrelevant as if he were the Opposition leader facing a majority government. Why doesn't he realize that he could have accomplished something by playing ball with McGuinty? Why does he want a more left leaning budget which would be the result of NDP support. He just doesn't seem to get it.

Maybe I don't get it....but the Harper budget isn't materially better than a Paul Martin budget....it might even be worse. Hudak has ensured that the Ontario budget that eventually passes will reflect more NDP priorities than Conservative priorities. Each has chosen to take the easy path....also known as the wrong path.

Opposition Follies

This weekend will see the election of a leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition when the NDP elects a leader to replace the late Jack Layton. This will be a welcome development.

At this point in time, the opposition benches consist of 142 Members of Parliament consisting of 103 NDP members, 34 Liberals, 4 members of the Bloc Quebecois and a single member of the Green Party.

Of these 4 opposition parties the only permanent leader of a party sitting in the Commons is Green Party Leader Elizabeth May who presides over a caucus of one.

The two leading parties are both the subject of leadership squabbles.

In the case of the NDP, it is a formal leadership contest. The establishment has supported a backroom organizer named Brian Topp while the grassroots seems to be supporting Quebec Liberal turned NDP MP Thomas Mulcair. The election of Topp would endanger the half of the NDP caucus that was elected in Quebec...or so we are told. The election of Mulcair would prevent the NDP from making gains in the rest of Canada which would be necessary to form a government. Besides we are told that Tom Mulcair is not a very nice man. People seem to have forgotten that Jack Layton was not always "smiling Jack." (When he ran for mayor of Toronto against June Rowlands, he came across like an angry, bitter person attacking an old woman. He lost.)

The Liberal leadership question carries far more historical baggage. For a couple of generations the Liberal party has actually been two parties that cooperate only during elections. The left leaning wing of the party had Pierre Trudeau who begat Jean Chretien who begat Bob Rae. The right wing had Lester Pearson who begat John Turner who begat Paul Martin who begat Michael Ignatieff. Liberal leadership squabbles are nothing new. New Leader John Turner was perpetually pulling knives out of his back with Chretien's finger prints on them. Even electoral success was no salve for this constant squabbling. Chretien won three consecutive majorities but the Martin camp dispatched him in a bloodless coup.

When Stephane Dion inspired the grassroots to elect him over the choice of both camps....the knives were out from both establishment camps. He didn't have a chance. Looking back one wonders if the earnest, professorial Dion might not have done better in a rematch against Prime Minister Harper....he could hardly have done worse.

Reading the tea leaves, it seems that the Liberal establishment will leave Bob Rae in charge and make him the permanent leader. After all, it is the Trudeau-Chretien wing's turn. It also means that Rae will follow Ignatieff as the second consecutive leader who was acclaimed rather than elected. Ignatieff was savaged by the Conservatives for running for Prime Minister of a country in which he had not lived for most of his adult life. The Conservatives will surely say something similar about a life long Socialist who switched parties in a grab at power.

The only place in which polls have moved significantly since the last election is Quebec. The Bloc has recovered some of their support and it seems to be a 4 way race in Quebec. However the Conservatives can lose all 6 of their Quebec seats and still have a majority government. A resurgent Bloc combined with a fading NDP might actually result in more Conservative MP's due to vote splitting.

Taking this all into account, it is hard to see any party challenging the Conservative majority in 3 years time. Rookie leaders often have difficulties...Paul Martin, Steven Harper, Ignatieff and Dion are all good examples.

Harper will win by default....and that will be very bad for Canadian Democracy. Politicians of every stripe get increasingly arrogant and corrupt as they hold onto power longer. Without an effective opposition holding the government's feet to the fire, I fear that bad government will result.

The robo call scandal appears to be a tempest in a teapot. At this point, it appears that this "scandal" affects a few hundred voters in one riding that the Tories lost. It doesn't appear (at this point) to have been a coordinated attempt at voter suppression. That the opposition parties can do more than make a big ruckus about his while tweeting public records of a Minister's acrimonious divorce shows how ineffective the opposition is. Perhaps they might try attacking government policies?

Canada is in a period of one party rule due to an opposition in disarray. This was not a good thing when Chretien was in power and it is not a good thing now. Despite my Conservative leanings, I do hope that the opposition gets their act together. I am not optimistic.

Robocalls and Elections

I wasn't sure what to make of the robo-call controversy where Liberal votes were allegedly suppressed via robocalls that directed voters to the wrong polling stations.

The media were as quick as ever to jump in and fan the flames of controversy. We have heard that as many as 30 ridings were affected....however it should be noted that some newspapers asked their readers to report to them if they received robocalls during the last election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1137496--did-you-get-a-mysterious-robo-call-during-last-year-s-federal-election

Such a request is sure to draw out complaints that have nothing to do with voter suppression so the report of 30,000 complaints being made to Elections Canada should be taken with a grain of salt until the facts come out.

At this point it appears that there is a smoking gun in only one riding. If it turns out that it was a campaign that was widespread enough to stain the election results....then the Prime Minister should dissolve Parliament and call an election. If however it turns out to have happened only in Guelph where the Liberals won in any case.....then the result should be criminal prosecution of those responsible.

A basic question for me is whether robo-calls can be banned entirely. Since they do deal with a political issue, such expressions do get a greater level of charter protection....however I don't think many people would view a computer dialed phone call with a recorded message as anything other than annoying.

If it passes Charter muster, I'd love to see robocalls banned entirely.