GANATSEKWYAGON, ON. WED, OCT 16, 2019. With the actual Canadian federal election now only four or five days away, it is hard to say anything altogether sensible about the ultimate result. Except that it does seem very close (in various respects) and impossible to predict.

We’re finding ourselves thrown back on the amusement of no doubt trivial resemblances between the current 2019 late-campaign polling and certain historical precedents, with special reference to the election of 1972 — also the second election that Justin Trudeau’s father faced as Liberal leader and Canadian prime minister.

Today, eg, the latest (October 15) editions of Éric Grenier’s CBC Poll Tracker and P.J. Fournier’s 338Canada.com are projecting numbers of seats in the Canadian House of Commons that are remarkably similar to each other — and to the results of the election on October 30, 1972 (when two of the current six party leaders were still not yet born, one was only 10 months old, and the eldest was only 18 : see Appendix below).

In both major polling surveys dated October 15, 2019 the Liberal and Conservative popular vote is very close, with the Conservatives slightly ahead. But the Liberals still win slightly more seats, largely as a result of the bunching up of the Conservative vote in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Grenier gives the Liberals 135 and the Conservatives 132 seats. Fournier reports Liberals 134, Conservatives 132.

Compare this — just for fun as it were — with the actual results in Pierre Trudeau’s second election as leader in 1972 (and in a 264 as opposed to 338 member House of the day) : Liberals 109 seats, Conservatives 107. (Note too that, as legend has it, the finish in 1972 was so close that it was not clear just who had won the most seats until the morning after.)

So … what did happen after the 1972 federal election in Canada? Note here that the David Lewis New Democrats had won 31 seats on election day. And note too that in the October 15, 2019 polling surveys both Grenier and Fournier give the Jagmeet Singh NDP 34 seats.

In the fall of 1972 Justin Trudeau’s father Pierre formed a Liberal minority government that remained in office until the early summer of 1974, with the informal but quite open co-operation and support of the Lewis New Democrats.

Note, however, that in the October 15, 2019 Grenier and Fournier calculations, the support of Mr. Singh’s NDP alone would still make a strictly Liberal-NDP co-operative venture one or two seats shy of a bare majority. Such a thing would have to include the four seats both Grenier and Fournier assign to Elizabeth May’s Green Party as well.

As already alluded to in this log, if something of this sort is what actually happens on October 21 we’ll be happy enough in this space.

We agree that New Democrat leader Jagmeet Singh has become the surprise big star of this 2019 federal election campaign. Mr. Singh, it seems, has finally inherited the woke-charisma that Justin Trudeau wielded in 2015. And that is no doubt very good for Canada, in many different ways.

Yet like many others like us (and as also alluded to before in this log), we continue to wonder and worry about the increasingly serious prospects of a Conservative minority government that also continue to linger in the polling evidence.

The 33 (Grenier) or 34 (Fournier) seats for Yves-François Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois in the October 15, 2019 surveys may or may not finally help Andrew Scheer. But they wield more weight and heft than the 15 seats won by Réal Caouette’s Social Credit party in Quebec in 1972. At first blush at any rate the also surprising late-campaign surge for the BQ in 2019 could very well point instead to Stephen Harper’s Conservative minority government of 2006.

We conclude here with two further possibly compensating thoughts for those who really do not want to see any kind of Conservative Government of Canada on October 22, 2019 — from the two newest individual polls surveyed in the October 15 edition of the CBC Poll Tracker.

• From Darrell Bricker at Ipsos, “Down to the Wire: Outcome Remains Uncertain as Campaign Enters Home Stretch,” October 15 : “while Liberal popular vote sags, their underlying fundamentals remain relatively stronger, which suggests that some of the NDP or Green vote in particular, both of which shows softness, could come back to the Liberals in the final days of the campaign.”
• From Marco Vigliotti at Mainstreet, “Liberals, Conservatives leading among early voters,” October 15 : “Advance polling was available from Oct. 10-14 … Compared to Mainstreet’s national daily tracking poll … early voters were more likely to vote for the Liberals and Conservatives, and were less likely to back the NDP, Bloc or Greens … Breaking down the numbers by region, a plurality of early voters cast a ballot for the Liberals in Ontario (42.4%), Quebec (41), Atlantic Canada (33.5) and British Columbia (31.7). The Conservatives were the most popular choice of early voters in Alberta (74.3%) and the Prairies (49.1).”

APPENDIX : Birthdays of Six Canadian Federal Party Leaders 2019 :

Andrew Scheer, Conservatives, May 20, 1979, third from l in photo ;

Jagmeet Singh, New Democrats, January 2, 1979, far r in photo ;

Justin Trudeau, Liberals, December 25, 1971, second from l ;

Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc Québécois, April 16, 1965, second from r ;

Maxime Bernier, Peoples’ Party of Canada, January 18, 1963, third from r ;

Elizabeth May, Green Party, June 9, 1954, far l in photo of party leaders at English-language debate in Gatineau, Quebec, October 7, 2019!

[UPDATED OCTOBER 13]. In its UPDATED ON OCT 12, 2019 AT 9:21 AM ET edition Éric Grenier’s CBC Poll Tracker is now predicting 140 seats in the elected Canadian parliament for Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives, with 32.6% of the cross-Canada popular vote, and only 135 seats (and 32.0% of the popular vote) for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals! [See October 13 update below!]

Neither party is close to the 170 seats needed for even a bare majority. But if these (or something very similar) are the numbers that prevail on Monday, October 21 then — on our view at any rate — the next public enterprise that will try to govern Canada will be a Scheer Conservative minority government.

Some will say that on these same numbers a Liberal minority government led by Justin Trudeau is still possible. M. Grenier’s October 12 Poll Tracker also gives 33 seats to the Bloc Québécois, 25 to the New Democrats, 4 to the Greens, and 1 to the People’s Party of Canada.

On these exact October 12 CBC Poll Tracker numbers even a progressive Liberal minority government supported by both Jagmeet Singh’s NDP and Elizabeth May’s Greens would still be half a dozen seats shy of even a bare parliamentary majority. (Just do the math : 135 Libs + 25 NDP + 4 Greens = 164 “progressives” where 170 is the minimum.) A minority government of this sort that was also careful to please the Bloc Québécois from time to time, however, could arguably survive for more than a few months.

Yet especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan where the Canada-wide Conservative vote (and the modern Canadian oil and gas industry) is so concentrated, a co-operative progressive government of this sort would be terminally tainted by the hard fact that its largest party was not the party with the largest number of seats and the largest share of the Canada-wide popular vote.

In this context, and in the interests of both the future of Canada and his own political career, if the federal election on October 21 does bring something essentially the same as the October 12 CBC Poll Tracker numbers, Justin Trudeau ought to (and almost certainly will?) resign — and advise Governor General Julie Payette to ask Andrew Scheer to try to form a government.

If Andrew Scheer were Stephen Harper, and if 2019 were more like 2006, a cleverly managed Conservative minority government might arguably also survive for more than a few months. (On the October 12 CBC numbers, eg, a Conservative minority government that could rely on 33 Bloc Québécois MPs, led by the Yves-François Blanchet who sounds somewhat like the current conservative premier of Quebec, could boast a parliamentary majority of 140+33=173 seats.)

In the real world of 2019 the best guess would seem to be that a Conservative minority government led by Mr. Scheer will likely enough not last very long. We will have to have another Canadian federal election soon, say at some point in 2020.

From the standpoint of the progressive values we see ourselves as standing up for here on this site, a short-lived Conservative minority government, while certainly disappointing, would at least be a better October 21 result than a Conservative majority government.

It would also raise a number of deep and possibly even troubling questions about the realistic progressive future in current Canadian politics. These questions were first raised by the almost 10-year history of Stephen Harper Conservative governments in Canada (only the 2011-2015 edition of which was a majority government, and even then with less than 40% of the cross-Canada popular vote). The ultimately somewhat surprising Liberal majority government won by Justin Trudeau in 2015 (also with less than 40% of the cross-Canada popular vote) set these questions aside.

All things considered in the global village today, we think a second Trudeau Liberal majority government would still be the best or at least the easiest and most stable progressive way ahead in 2019. But this seems increasingly unlikely at the moment. And we think a Liberal minority government (supported by the NDP as in Justin Trudeau’s father’s case in 1972) is the second best alternative. Yet it may be that progressive voters are finally going to reject either of these prospects in 2019 — and insist on looking the troubling questions about the realistic progressive future in current Canadian politics straight in the eye.

Meanwhile, as a concluding reminder that absolutely nothing is at all certain about October 21 at this point — just over a week away — P.J. Fournier’s alternative 338canada.com projections as of October 12 also have the Liberals and Conservatives effectively tied in cross-Canada popular vote. But they still give the Liberals 143 seats, and only 134 for the Conservatives. So of course, of course, stray tuned. It seems it really is going to be an exciting election a week this Monday (if that is quite the right word ??) …

UPDATE OCTOBER 13 : Today’s update of the CBC Poll Tracker still has the Conservatives slightly ahead of the Liberals in popular vote. But the Liberals are back ahead in the seat count : 141 to 134. (And a Liberal minority government supported by both New Democrats and Greens would have exactly 170 seats, for a bare parliamentary majority.) The week ahead should prove fascinating to Canadian political junkies everywhere. Meanwhile, Happy Canadian Thanksgiving tomorrow (or the day after), up here in the far north where the leaves fall from the deciduous trees earlier.

GANATSEKWYAGON, ON. OCT 9, 6 PM ET/3 PM PT. A new Forum Research poll shows Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives suddenly pulling well ahead in the wake of the October 7 TV debate.

This at least raises the prospect that Green party leader Elizabeth May may have been wrong towards the end of this past Monday’s debate, when she rudely advised Mr. Scheer that he will not be the next prime minister.

To the uninformed naked eye this latest Forum poll, which puts Conservatives seven points ahead of Liberals Canada-wide, does seem to notably under-represent Ontario and over-represent Western Canada. And the companion or same-date Nanos Nightly Tracking shows no sign of a similar trend. (It puts the Trudeau Liberals one point ahead!)

Another post-debate online Leger poll has Liberals and Conservatives tied, with Jagmeet Singh’s NDP up four points. Still others may wonder about the latest Forum poll’s finding that the admittedly surging Bloc Québécois has now surpassed the Liberals in Quebec.

For no doubt further good reasons Éric Grenier’s CBC Poll Tracker assigns the Forum poll a very low weight in its current polling average calculations, despite the very recent vintage.

At the same time, however much of a suspicious outlier it may appear, some later-campaign Conservative surge is the only possible conclusion from the latest Forum poll. And this does draw attention to vaguely parallel current prospects in the more moderate CBC Poll Tracker exercise (as just one case in point).

In his latest Poll Tracker update as of October 9, 10:33 AM ET Éric Grenier does assign the Liberals six less and the Conservatives five more seats than just two days ago.

On these calculations the Liberals still have 17 more seats all told than the Conservatives. But they are now as many as 13 seats shy of even a bare majority in the House. And this draws further attention to the Tracker’s probability percentages for majority and minority governments.

In his October 9 update Grenier is still giving the Scheer Conservatives a very low 10% chance of reaching a majority government. And according to no less than John Ibbitson if the Conservatives don’t get a majority government they ultimately loose — because no other party with enough votes will support a Conservative minority government. (Well … unless it might be a last-minute-surging Bloc Québécois, as in the early times of PM Stephen Harper??)

Yet Grenier’s Poll Tracker October 9 probability percentages for Liberal or Conservative minority governments are not in fact all that different : 30% Liberals and 27% Conservatives.

The Liberals still do have a much greater chance at a majority government (32% on the latest CBC Poll Tracker). But if trends of some Liberal faltering lock in, it would seem that a Scheer Conservative minority government is almost as likely as a Trudeau Liberal one — on these current CBC numbers in any case.

Philippe J. Fournier at 338canada.com may be challenging this assessment in his October 8 article, “The Conservatives have fallen behind the surging Bloc, cutting the odds of seat gains needed to win the election.” But maybe not, exactly. In any case a Conservative minority government does appear to be something that very few of those most directly involved are paying much serious attention to … yet ???? And it does not seem unreasonable at this juncture to say that Elizabeth May could prove to be wrong. Who knows? Stray tuned, etc, etc, etc … .

OCTOBER 7. 3 PM ET : Waiting for the great debate to start at 7 PM. (And more immediately for the daily office trek to the Tim Horton’s overlooking our local Kew Gardens.)

Already today’s public polling installment has moved away from possible early signs of a Liberal surge in the final two weeks, and back to a still very close race (or even a tie), with the Liberals only slightly ahead of the Conservatives, Canada-wide.

Factoring in the regional permutations of the polling evidence, today’s CBC Poll Tracker is nonetheless giving Liberals 163 seats in the Canadian House of Commons (where 170 is a bare majority) and Conservatives 135 — a 28-seat margin. The most recent (October 6) 338Canada update narrows the margin somewhat to 161 Liberals and 137 Conservatives, or 24 seats.

A new Abacus poll also shows the Liberal lead in Ontario shrinking somewhat. Wild Alberta patriots might attribute this to their Premier Jason Kenney’s recent Ontario campaigning on behalf of Andrew Scheer. But Abacus more dramatically underlines a tale that explains the Liberal lead in seats as well : “The regional races tell a clearer story of where the race stands. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Conservative Party has a 37-point lead, an advantage which has widened from 30 points in August. In the rest of the country, the Liberals have consistently led the Conservatives this year, and since August, a 5-point advantage has widened to 9 points.”

10:45 PM ET : After some collective deliberation we seem to agree with Stephanie Smyth at cp24 in Toronto (ably assisted by Jenni Byrne, Mike Schreiner, Robin Sears, and Andrew Steele). The very bottom line is probably that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau survived the debate quite intact and (perhaps inevitably) looking the most prime ministerial.

We’d almost agree that good things could be said about almost everyone else as well. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer showed he could participate in such exercises and not fall flat on his face. (Though, to our tastes at any rate, his attacks on Justin Trudeau often suffered from excessive and even artificial hyperbole, even in the age of Donald Trump next door.)

Jagmeet Singh, as many observers also seemed to acknowledge (and here as elsewhere in his first campaign as federal NDP leader), did very well too. Of course what he says doesn’t quite add up when you notice that his party has only 14.5% of the cross-Canada vote in the latest CBC Poll Tracker (October 7). But he is saying it very well, and almost certainly doing his party and possibly even the country some longer term good.

Not quite so good but for us good enough things could also be said about Elizabeth May (Greens), Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois), and even Maxime Bernier ( People’s Party of Canada). At the same time, we’d agree with the view that the format made for a complicated and often less than gripping two hours — which finally may not have much impact on anything.

Yet again stay tuned. Meanwhile, we are left with two questions about the October 7 debate in English. First, was Elizabeth May on the money when she explained to Andrew Scheer that, with all due respect, he was not going to win the election. The only important question is whether it will be a Liberal majority government, or (Ms. May’s obvious own overwhelming preference) a Liberal minority government, a bit like the one Justin Trudeau’s father wound up with in 1972?

(Mr. Scheer, to give him his due, did respond well enough to this, saying he believed he was going to prove her wrong on October 21.)

Our second question concerns the at least two times Justin Trudeau called Jagmeet Singh Andrew Scheer at the start of the debate. (And then joked the second time that the two of them looked so much alike. Mr. Singh got his own nice one-liner off on this or some related occasion. He quipped that he had already worn a special hat to help tell the two leaders apart. Mr. Scheer himself bragged that the key difference was just that he is taller).

Our question : did an increasingly coolly Machiavellian PM Justin Trudeau make the mistake of calling Mr. Singh Mr. Scheer on purpose? To subtly drive home the message that a vote for Jagmeet Singh is just another vote for Andrew Scheer. Better to vote for the moderate progressive with a doable plan etc … (And whatever the ultimate answer here may be, we’ll likely enough be back with another 2019 Canadian election meditation all too soon …)

GANATSEKWYAGON, ON. OCT 7, 2019, 12:30 AM ET. According to CBC Poll Tracker analyst Éric Grenier, as updated on October 6, 2019 at 11:34 AM ET : “Though the gap remains insignificant, the Liberals have moved ahead of the Conservatives in the national polling average for the first time since February.”

(And on the same day Liberals had been a little ahead of Conservatives for three straight days on the Nanos “Nightly Tracking, three day rolling average” : 36–34, 36–33, 37–33. Oh and btw : “Trudeau opens eight point advantage on Scheer as preferred Prime Minister.”)

Tonight will be the English-language debate with the leaders of all “six main political parties,”onstage at the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, Quebec (across the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill), and broadcast live across the country on TV, 8-10 PM AT/ 7–9 PM ET/5–7 PM MT/4-6 PM PT.

The big question in our minds right now : Is this just the beginning of a surge in the last two weeks of the October 21 Canadian federal election campaign, that will end with at least a bare majority of seats in the House for the Trudeau Liberals after all?

Will a Liberal majority be the ultimate big surprise that has been quietly cooking in the minds of undecided voters in various (and even surprising?) parts of the true north, strong and free?

Will the October 7 debate shed any further light here? Maybe, maybe not. Stay tuned.

CODA 1. Meanwhile, back across the North Atlantic Squadron : are the Bojo Brexotics destined to win in the end?

Reading William Davies and Ferdinand Mount on UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson (“Bojo”) in a recent edition of the London Review of Books gave us a largely negative view of the man :

• “Johnson has no ideology and no philosophy. It isn’t even clear he has ambition, beyond making a point of having got where he’s got. His residence in 10 Downing Street represents a personal triumph, which he will want to prolong as long as possible, by whatever means possible.” (Davies).
• “Who first implanted the obsessive belief that breaking out of the prison house of Brussels was our only possible salvation? If Enoch Powell had never existed, I very much doubt that Boris Johnson would be where he is today.” (Mount — also the source of that elegant term “Brexotics”, as in : “This ominous preening [of Enoch Powell in days now long gone by] is a feature of the rhetoric of many a contemporary Brexotic”!)

On the other hand, the most recent installment of the weekly “Dateline London” on BBC TV offered a more positive assessment of UK PM Johnson. In particular (as best we can remember) Thomas Kielinger — the “German journalist, political commentator and author, who for a long time used to be London correspondent for Die Welt” — suggested Bojo is actually quite popular in the UK today (as he was as Mayor of London some years ago?). And that is partly because he does in fact have “a magnetic personality.”

Mr. Kielinger (and at least one other Dateline Londoner?) also seemed to imply that PM Johnson might well do well in the coming UK election almost everyone now seems to think inevitable as the major next step in “Wither Brexit.” (With the Bojo Conservatives on one side and some kind of “Remain Coalition” of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationals etc on the other?)

Recent apparently informed talk on the subject we hear in Toronto bars has also been saying that some quite serious form of Brexit is now inevitable. But of course stay tuned here as well. As William Davies tells us : “Before very long, we will be witnessing an electoral showdown … These are strange and unpredictable forms of authority: only a fool would claim to know which way it will go.”

CODA 2. Trump Impeachorama .. or just how crazy can current US politics get ????

In their efforts to blunt the Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry in the US House of Representatives what would still seem to be the Republican Party mainstream now seems to be saying that Donald Trump did nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in his crypto-gangster phone call, urging the president of the Ukraine to investigate Trump’s US domestic political rival Joe Biden and his son.

As best we can make out right now, this means the new Trump Impeachorama is probably going to be a very bloody (figuratively at least) and long-lasting ordeal, that may or may not do much to help defeat the Trump Republicans in the 2020 elections. While President Trump continues to do so much to weaken what remains of the benign and constructive influence of democracy in America around the world. And of course again stay tuned here as well. We do live in troubled times, on many fronts. (Without even mentioning the struggles in Hong Kong and how they have compromised the 70th anniversary of the Peoples’ Republic of China, and all its genuine and even breathtaking strides ahead — or, for that matter, Donald Trump’s wild and crazy new trade war with China today! Or the troubles that the Canada having an federal election this October 21 has recently been having with the government of China too …)

My mind goes back and forth on the impeachment inquiry now launched at last by the Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives (through House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).

Two recent opinion pieces within a few days of each other, by the Toronto Globe and Mail’s current man in Washington, DC, Lawrence Martin, almost summarize my volatile feelings.

The first on October 1 was called “The Democrats’ impeachment play could backfire.” It was quickly followed on October 3 with “By calling on China, Trump hands Democrats an impeachment gift.”

I continue to worry myself about the prospect Lawrence Martin raised on October 1

I am duly impressed by the recent polls that show some fresh public support for both the new impeachment inquiry and the ultimate impeachment of President Trump.

I agree as well that Speaker Pelosi finally had no choice but to begin a formal impeachment inquiry, once Trump’s crypto-gangster phone call with the new Ukrainian president became public knowledge.

(Or as Bill Clinton’s labor secretary Robert Reich has tweeted : “1. Is asking a foreign power to dig up dirt on a major political rival an impeachable offense? Yes. 2. Did Trump do it? Yes. There’s a transcript of his phone call. 3. The end. Don’t let Trump and his enablers fog this up.”)

But the relative depth of support President Trump still enjoys (40% approval in the latest Gallup poll on the subject) still seems a great obstacle to real progress. There probably is something close to a civil war going on in the USA today. And it remains unclear just when the majority good guys are finally going to win.

Even so I am also impressed by various people I know here in Canada who believe Trump’s crypto-gangster phone call with the Ukrainian president finally has crossed some crucial line.

And then there’s the slightly more recent incident, nicely summarized by Lawrence Martin on October 3 : “To sum up, as an impeachment proceeding began on whether the President urged a foreign leader to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden,” President Trump “stood on the White House lawn and urged another foreign leader to investigate the Biden[s].”

It nonetheless still seems to me that there is still a lot for the progressive mind in North America and around the global village to worry about. I conclude for the time being with allusions to two more recent notes from eminent analysts.

The first is from every North American liberal’s favourite reasonable conservative, David Brooks –– in the October 3 edition of the New York Times : “Why Trump Voters Stick With Him … An imagined conversation with Flyover Man.”

This strikes me as yet another commentary on current progressive insensitivity to the current huge gap between “urban” and “rural” in America and elsewhere — where both words have somewhat new meanings, in the new non-age of the old family farm. The piece has flaws, no doubt, but it does raise some kind of important issue for the 2020s that lie ahead.

My second allusion is to an October 4 tweet from Jeet Heer — the Canadian online pundit who divides his time between Toronto and Regina, Saskatchewan : “One of the really big problems of the Trump administration is that there are so many scandals that it’s actually hard for the human mind to process them all or for the political system to respond accordingly.”

Perhaps because Mr Heer is a fellow Canadian and in some way shares some particular kind of intellectual or political philosophy, this makes a lot of sense to me.

Meanwhile, my mind continues to drift back and forth on the impeachment inquiry now launched at last by the Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives.

While I nonetheless very much wish Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and all their friends and colleagues inside (and outside) the US House the very best of luck.

For the great Langston Hughes poem from which the allusion in the title of this piece comes see, eg, “Dream Boogie” and/or “Dream Boogie.”

And I can’t resist quoting the first three stanzas : “Good morning, daddy!/Ain’t you heard/The boogie-woogie rumble/Of a dream deferred? … “Listen closely:/You’ll hear their feet/Beating out and beating out a — … You think/It’s a happy beat?”

COUNTERWEIGHTS EDITORS NOTE : One bright feature of the bubbling 21st century Canadian republican movement is the way it brings together many different sides of life in Canada today. On this site we are resolute Canadian republicans, but we don’t always agree with other equally resolute fellow republican friends.

We believe Canada should be actively moving away from its old colonial ties to the British monarchy as a result of our modern commitment to our evolving democracy, and the values of what the Canadian Constitution Act 1982 already calls “a free and democratic society.” For us the personal lives of members of the offshore royal family are not at issue.

We are nonetheless posting this article on Prince Andrew and Prince Charles, by Ashok Charles, executive director of the Toronto-based grass-roots group, Republic Now. While we do not altogether agree with the views expressed ourselves, we strongly believe they deserve a fair hearing, especially during a federal election campaign. Our thanks again to Mr. Charles for this and other valued counterweights contributions … … … …

According to a recent article in the Toronto Sun : “The British secret service fears that Russia has damaging information on Prince Andrew and his involvement with underage sex slave abusing pal Jeffrey Epstein.”

Considering that Prince Andrew — and even his more important brother Prince Charles — have had enduring friendships with sex offenders, it’s time to critically assess their suitability for roles in our Canadian government and official protocols.

Similarly, Justina McCaffrey’s viability as a Conservative candidate in the upcoming federal election on October 21 is being questioned because she has been seen with white nationalist Faith Goldy. The Liberals are busy downplaying reports that Justin Trudeau once socialized with Ms. Goldy. One’s associations have an impact on one’s eligibility for a role in government.

With this in mind, let’s look at Andrew and Charles Windsor.

Andrew Windsor’s long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein survived the pedophile’s first conviction and his registration as a sex offender. The prince was Epstein’s guest on numerous occasions, at several of his homes, and vacationed with him. The unsavoury association has led to Andrew Windsor’s being named in a civil case, filed in Florida, by one of Epstein’s underage victims. Virginia Roberts has stated that Andrew Windsor was one of the men Epstein paid her to have sex with when she was 17. “I had sex with him (Andrew) three times, including one orgy,” Roberts has said.

Buckingham Palace, on Andrew Windsor’s behalf, has denied the claims but there is widely circulated (albeit also disputed) photograph of “Andy”, as Ms. Roberts says she called him, with his arm around the teenager’s bare midriff. The photograph is part of the documentation filed in the Florida legal action aimed at Epstein. The flight logs of Epstein’s private jet confirm that Virginia Roberts and Andrew Windsor were both in New York, London and the Virgin Islands on the dates that Roberts attests he abused her.

Additionally, Johanna Sjoberg, one of Epstein’s masseuses, has accused Andrew of groping her breast when she was twenty-one.

Andrew Windsor’s tawdry associations have led to his forced resignation from his role as an ambassador for British trade.

What about the man who could actually be our next head of state? Charles Windsor had a long-standing friendship, dating from the 1970s, with famous British radio and TV personality, Jimmy Savile, who was arguably Britain’s most prolific pedophile. The Washington Post reported that : “In all, Savile is believed to have abused at least 500 girls and boys, some as young as two…”.

Savile’s behaviour while he was alive attracted attention and led to widespread suspicion that he was a sex offender. The matter was raised in a documentary about him in 2000, and he was questioned by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in 2007. Jimmy Savile was not charged during his lifetime. But someone as close to him as Charles Windsor must have been aware of his reputation.

In fact, it has been suggested that Savile wasn’t investigated and prosecuted during his lifetime because of his fame and high-placed friends. He was a welcome guest of the British royals throughout the time he was abusing children, and even acted as a counsellor of sorts to Charles and Diana. It has been reported that his behaviour with young women staff on these visits was often inappropriate but nothing was done about it.

Prince Charles was a dinner guest at Savile’s Scottish cottage, which is presumed to be the site of much child abuse. Savile was knighted in 1990. Prince Charles gave him expensive gifts when he was alive and led the tributes at his funeral in 2011.

Jimmy Savile wasn’t Charles Windsor’s only sex offender friend. He also had an enduring friendship with Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop who was convicted and jailed for sexually exploiting and abusing 18 boys and young men. One of his victims killed himself in 2012.

Charles Windsor provided this friend with a home for over 20 years and there is evidence that the prince lobbied for him to be accepted back into the ministry after Ball was forced to step down as bishop of Gloucester. Reporting on the case, The New York Times argued that “Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball…”.

If one’s associations have a bearing on one’s eligibility to play a role in government, Charles and Andrew Windsor certainly ought to be disqualified.

What roles have we assigned them?

Both men are the Queen’s heirs and, as such, Canada’s Prime Minister, Governor General, Members of Parliament, the members of the judiciary, armed forces, and the RCMP, have sworn fealty to them. An oath of allegiance and faithfulness to the Queen “and her heirs and successors” is part of the inauguration for these positions, and is also required of new citizens.

As matters stand Charles Windsor is also in line to officially hold Canada’s highest office of head of state.

Considering their close friendships with Epstein, Savile and Ball — and the flawed judgement they reveal — it is entirely inappropriate that we assign state roles to Charles and Andrew Windsor. Some government officials and all new citizens should not be required to pledge fealty to them. It should be recognized as well that Charles Windsor is unfit to be Canada’s next head of state.

(And if we were to take steps to prevent him from ascending to the office, he wouldn’t be sorely missed. According to a July 2016 Forum Research poll, 54% of Canadians did not want him as head of state even before the later revelations of his intervention on behalf of Peter Ball!)

As noted, a Conservative candidate’s eligibility to serve in Parliament is being questioned because of her connection to a white nationalist. An evaluation of Prince Andrew’s associations and judgement has already forced his resignation as a British trade representative. Can we really contemplate that our standards, as an independent member state of the United Nations, permit us to keep the Windsor brothers on in their current symbolic ceremonial roles in Canada?

I want to quickly say something about why I will still be voting for the Justin Trudeau Liberals in the October 21, 2019 Canadian election, despite the prime minister’s latest self-inflicted wounds.

The most apt summary of the background I’ve run across has come from Lauren O’Neil at blogTO : “Canada’s political sphere is reeling … in the wake of a bombshell leak featuring not one, but four separate images of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in brown and black-face makeup … The PM has apologized profusely for his actions, all of which took place at least 18 years ago, but his ruling Liberal party is nonetheless shaken with only one month left to go before a federal election … It’s terrible timing for Trudeau and his supporters, many of whom have expressed disappointment in Canada’s notoriously tolerant leader … American comedians, on the other hand… well, any time is a good time to take a break from Trump material.”

The American comedian I’ve been most influenced by myself here has been Bill Maher — on the September 20 edition of “Real Time With Bill Maher.” And while careful not to tread too politically incorrectly, Mr. Maher did make clear enough that he does not regard what Mr. Trudeau did at least 18 years ago as an altogether cataclysmic catastrophe.

I do think it is altogether inappropriate and just plain wrong for a white person to show up at a public event (or anywhere else) in brown and black-face makeup. As Justin Trudeau has himself immediately recognized and apologized for, it was incredibly stupid and insensitive for him to have done such a thing, even 18 or more years ago at an Arabian Nights party, long before he was prime minister of Canada.

I certainly similarly agree that brown, black, and all so-called “visible minority” Canadians have been and still are treated unfairly and wrongly by all too many so-called “white” Canadians.

As someone whose paternal grandparents came to Canada in the early 20th century from South London in England, I agree as well that at one recent enough point in Canadian history too many so-called “British Canadians” believed they were somehow superior to all other Canadians.

At the same time, I was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (all First Nations or Indigenous words) just before the end of the Second World War in 1945. I have lived here virtually all my life. Society in this city (aka the 6ix in the 21st century) — and other parts of the country — has grown astoundingly more “culturally diverse” in my lifetime. Toronto (like several other Canadian big cities) and Canada at large are better and more interesting places because of this.

In Toronto today (we are told, and it does look that way in ordinary life too) the majority of the population was born outside Canada. So-called visible minorities are now the majority — or soon will be. While much still needs to be done to combat various forms of continuing racism in Canadian life, the blunt fact that Toronto and other places like it have become so culturally diverse so rapidly must qualify as some serious evidence that racism is not quite as big a problem in our country as sometimes suggested. And for better or worse I do believe that some older so-called “white” people can reasonably claim a positive role in the blossoming of Canadian cultural diversity over the past half century.

In at least some respects it also strikes me that Justin Trudeau’s stupidity and insensitivity over brown and black-face makeup 18 and more years ago has similarities to what was widely seen as his disastrous trip to India just last year — when “Trudeau, alongside with his household, was ruthlessly mocked for dressing up in various Indian outfits and even accused of cultural appropriation by some.” The Liberal prime minister is a former drama teacher who still sometimes likes to dress up in stupid and insensitive ways, and he deserves to be mocked and criticized on this account.

In the end, however, I at least try to judge prime ministers by the policies and programs they put in place while in office (and by who they appoint to their cabinets) — not by their symbolic “image” or “wokeness” or conformity to hasty judgments by media personalities. For my tastes and values, the Justin Trudeau Liberals have over the past four years implemented much more progressive and culturally diverse public policies than the Stephen Harper Conservatives, who governed Canada for more than nine long years from 2006 to 2015.

For me nothing Justin Trudeau has done — 18 years ago, last year, or even last week — is a reason to return to a retrogressive Conservative government under Harper’s successor Andrew Scheer. In my view any voter who imagines that a Scheer Conservative regime will actually be more supportive of Canadian cultural diversity, or Indigenous reconciliation, or gender equality, or a secure economic base for the great majority of working Canadians, is living in a dreamland not unlike the mythical realm of the Wizard of Oz.

(And if that reminds you of Australia, look what happened there this past May 18, 2019, when conservatives finally won an election that many had said was all sewn up for the local cause of democracy, diversity, freedom, and progress! And, altogether finally, in tribute to the Torontonian who taught me a great deal of what little I really know about racism in Canada today, “RIP Charles Roach : ‘Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery ; none but ourselves can free our minds.’”)

Bruce Anderson and David Coletto at Abacus Data have come up with (I think) an especially helpful and interesting take on the October 21 Canadian federal election, in reporting on their latest “national survey of 4,549 Canadians, completed on August 28.” (The Anderson and Coletto report is dated September 5.)

They start by noting that, Canada-wide : “If an election were held at the time of the survey, the Conservatives (34%) and Liberals (33%) would capture the same amount of popular support, followed by the NDP at 17%, the Greens at 9%, and the BQ at 4%.”

This is broadly consistent with recent polling results from other sources. Éric Grenier’s latest CBC Poll Tracker averages, eg (dated September 5 as well), give Conservatives 33.8%, Liberals 33.4%, NDP 13.5%, Greens 10.4%, BQ 4.4%, Peoples Party of Canada 2.9%, and Others 1.6%.

M. Grenier’s September 5 update also projects more seats for Liberals than Conservatives — but not quite a majority in the House. And a very close race between Liberals and Conservatives in popular vote, but with more seats to Liberals as a result of their more geographically efficient vote, is the current common folk wisdom about the October 21 Canadian election.

Anderson and Coletto’s latest Abacus Data ruminations, however, add two further refinements to this folk wisdom — that help explain why the Liberals are likely to win more seats (on current polling numbers at least).

The first refinement might be called the pure “Tale of Two Races” model. This notes that, broadly speaking again, there is a dramatic difference between the popular vote numbers in two different regions of the country.

As Anderson and Coletto put it : In the two turbulent Prairie energy provinces of “Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Conservatives have a massive 38-point lead over the Liberals.” But in the more laid-back “rest of the country, the Liberals hold a five-point lead” over the Conservatives.

Deconstructing the “rest of the country” gives the more refined “Or More” Model. In the words of Bruce Anderson and David Coletto : “Our latest numbers show the Liberals with a substantial lead (13 points) in Atlantic Canada, a 12 point lead in Quebec and a 4 point lead in Ontario. BC is a tie between the Liberals and Conservatives with the NDP and the Green parties together corralling 36% of the vote, considerably higher than their combined impact in any other region.”

This suggests a classic Canadian five-region model : (1) BC with Liberals and Conservatives tied (but a combined NDP/Green vote greater than either of the two leaders) ; (2) the Prairies with a commanding Conservative lead (and here we include Manitoba with Alberta and Saskatchewan, as implied by polls showing a Conservative victory in the Manitoba provincial election this coming Tuesday, September 10) ; (3) the most populous province of Ontario where the Liberals have a 4 point lead ; (4) the unique French-speaking majority province of Quebec where the Liberals have a 12 point lead, and (5) Atlantic Canada where Liberals have a 13 point lead.

Looked at through this kind of political lens, to summarize the current Canadian election race as a very close contest between Liberals and Conservatives, while apt enough in some ways, can be quite misleading in others. And somehow (again I think myself) to summarize the still long enough journey to October 21 as “A Tale of Two (Or More) Races” is just more interesting, and makes more sense.

[UPDATED 12:10 AM ET, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019]. There was a time not too long ago (late September 2017?) when newly elected Manitoba NDP leader Wab Kinew seemed likely enough to become the first Indigenous premier of a modern Canadian province. And this milestone would fit nicely with the past of a democratic political community that nowadays recognizes the Métis icon Louis Riel as one of its founders.

Then what Dan Lett at the Winnipeg Free Press deftly summarizes as Mr. Kinew’s “checkered past” started to catch up with him.

(As explained by Wikipedia, in much greater detail : “ In 2003, Kinew was convicted of impaired driving. Kinew has since quit drinking and in 2014 applied for a pardon … which was granted by the Parole Board of Canada in 2016. The Parole Board ruling removed from the Canadian Police Information Centre database references to his convictions on assaulting a taxi driver, a Driving Under the Influence conviction for refusing a breathalyzer sample, and two breaches of court orders … In the spring of 2003, Kinew was [also] charged with two counts of domestic assault related to allegations that he threw his then-girlfriend across a room during an argument. The charges were subsequently stayed. Kinew denies the allegations.”)

It is still possible that Wab Kinew will eventually become the first Indigenous premier of a modern Canadian province. But at this point it seems unlikely that this will happen in the Manitoba provincial election now less than a week away.

As Dan Lett has also explained, in the 2019 Manitoba election campaign “NDP Leader Wab Kinew” has been “straining under the weight of a particularly vicious attack campaign from the Tories about his checkered past.”

According to a recent Probe Research poll commissioned for the Winnipeg Free Press and CTV News Winnipeg, 39% of Manitobans see “Wab Kinew’s past” as “a serious issue” and “would struggle to vote for a party’s candidate when its leader has been accused of doing these things.”

Probe Research shows as well that 37% of Manitobans find “Premier and Progressive Conservative Leader” Brian Pallister’s “combative style” very “unhelpful” (and an additional 19% somewhat unhelpful).

Even so (to quote Mr. Lett again) : “according to the same poll, Pallister’s Tories continue to enjoy the support of 40 per cent of respondents, with the NDP and Liberals mired in second (29 per cent) and third place (21 per cent) respectively. Those numbers, if they hold through election day, will likely produce a second majority government” for Premier Pallister.

It may be that, despite the premier’s personal unpopularity, the Progressive Conservatives have somehow captured enough of the current mass imagination to count, with their slogan “Moving Manitoba Forward.”

If so, as a further sign of just how politics everywhere is in a somewhat bizarre state at the moment, the 2019 PC slogan is “word for word, the same one the New Democrats under former premier Greg Selinger used in the 2016 election, which saw the Tories sweep the NDP from power after 17 years” (Steve Lambert, Canadian Press).

(It may or may not be equally worth noting the similarity between the provincial PCs’ “Moving Manitoba Forward” in 2019 and the federal Liberals’ “Choose Forward” in the forthcoming October 21, 2019 Canadian federal election????)

On a very final note, according to Manitoba’s fixed election date legislation, the next Manitoba election was supposed to be a year from now in 2020. As in all such cases, however : “Nothing” in this legislation “affects the powers of the Lieutenant Governor, including the power to dissolve the Legislature at the Lieutenant Governor’s discretion.”

Which, translated into plain English, means the premier can still call an election whenever he likes, even if “the only reason an election is taking place on Sept. 10 is the PCs are well ahead in the polls, flush with money and are in position to easily win a second consecutive term in office.”

In any event, stay tuned for the final result this coming Tuesday. Even if it is just as the latest polls predict — a second consecutive majority government for the politicians who want to move forward this year.

Of course there always could be some big Moody Manitoba Morning surprise! But probably not.

UPDATE 12:10 AM, SEP 11, 2019 : No surprises in the end. As matters stand right now, according to the CBC News site, the Pallister Conservatives have a net loss of six seats for a total of 36, with 48% of the popular vote. The Liberals have a loss of one seat, for a total of 3 with 14% of the province-wide vote. Wab Kinew’s New Democrats have a net gain of seven seats, for a total of 18 with 31% of the vote. The Greens have no seats with somewhat better than 6% of the vote. And, to strike a more positive progressive note : “CBC News projects NDP candidates Jamie Moses and Uzoma Asagwara and PC candidate Audrey Gordon made history as the province’s first black MLAs.” All told, the Conservatives have retained a strong majority government (despite the loss in seats from their unusual heights of 2016). And Premier Pallister, to this point in his career, must be judged a quite smart politician!