Re-Thinking Charitable Status in Canada

I heard an interesting interview with Greg Oliver, President of the Canadian Secular Alliance, on the radio yesterday about the charitable status of religious organizations in Canada, and the effect of that status on tax revenues. Given the most recent federal budget in Canada, with a whopping budget deficit not expected to be in the black for another 3 - 4 years (no one can really accurately predict these things given the wide swings in global economic activity), every billion dollars of federal revenue and expenditure seems fairly relevant.

In Canada, to qualify as a charitable, an organization must fall within one of four categories of work: 1) the relief of poverty, 2) the advancement of education, 3) the advancement of religion, or 4) other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable, according to an 1891 ruling in the United Kingdom (Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel). Number three certainly seems to stand apart from the others, and given that this definition is based on a British court ruling from over 120 years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit this definition. The other three categories seem fair enough. When asked to define charity, most people would probably say something about giving to the poor. The advancement of education is one very specific and effective way of reducing poverty and advancing society and so logically belongs in the definition of charity. In a country such as Canada with a Common Law system, the rulings of the courts are what ultimately determine much of the law. Therefore the fourth definition of charitable status (as defined by the courts) is inescapable. But the advancement of religion? Should we use tax revenue to support that cause? Surely not. 

As pointed out by the host of the interview I was listening to, religious organizations do much poverty relief work and as such should qualify for charitable status. Certainly so. Any organization, religious or secular, which performs work aimed at reducing poverty should retain its status as charitable. There are many organizations which straddle more than one of the four definitions above, and their status as charitable should remain based on whichever of the other three apply. But what about organizations that have the sole purpose of promoting religion? We do realize what this means? An organization that supports young indoctrinated men and women coming to your door to disturb you at dinner time while they launch into their sales pitch for Mormonism is supported by your tax dollars. Does that seem right? 


The financial side of things is perhaps as important as the rationale. The total tax revenue lost to Canada as a result of organizations that are defined as charitable based solely on definition three above is about $1.8 billion per annum. So, any religious organization that mixes their proselytizing with some poverty relief or education is not included in that figure. In other words, if the federal government would recognize that the advancement of religion, alone and not in conjunction with any other benefit, is not an activity it wants to support financially, Canadians would now be $1.8 billion closer to eliminating the deficit. 


The current conservative government in Canada sold Canadians on its abilities to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit (which they created while a minority government one should point out) during their five years in office. Canadians bought what they were selling. Canadians bought into the fear that said that we needed a strong hand on the tiller in this global economic storm. Yet, the government won't shore up an easy $1.8 billion along the way because they believe that the advancement of religion is an activity that is worthy of financial support by every tax payer in Canada. Just so we're clear on the dollar amount here, every single Canadian citizen pays over $50 per year specifically to promote religion. Not to help religious organizations alleviate poverty or educate children, but solely to promote religion in society.


Shame.

What If I'm Wrong?

The question inevitably exits any religious person's mouth in conversation with an atheist, usually when every other argument has failed. Typically it is presented as a variation of Pascal's famous wager. "What if you are wrong?" Then, the insinuation goes, you will burn in a hot hell for all eternity while your Christians relatives prance around on cool green grass in heaven and refuse to even dip their finger in water and moisten your lips to relieve a bit of the agony. Surely that thought is enough to get you to change your mind and accept Jesus as your personal saviour?

But, it is worth really examining that question. Richard Dawkins has been asked this question in public and more or less makes fun of the sincere but simple questioner in the audient. (See video here). That is certainly one approach, and probably after being asked the question a thousand times, and with limited time to respond, I might take the same such approach. Really, though, there are two main issues to consider: 1) what if the atheist is wrong about there being no God; and 2) what if the Christian is wrong about there being a God. It is only fair to ask the Christian to consider the same question.

Firstly, what if atheists are wrong and there is a God? Pascal's Wager is very illogical, of course, mostly because it assumes that if you decide to bet on the fact that there is a god, then you have to pick which one you believe exists. If you're wrong on that one, then you're no better off than if you didn't pick one at all. (This is the general approach that Dawkins takes in the video: he asks the Christian audience member to consider what happens if some other god turns out to be the one true one). But let's assume for a second that we're talking about the Biblical God. Let's ignore the thousands of other gods that humans have created and focus on the Christian God. If I, as an atheist, am wrong, then yes indeed I will go to hell. I will surely regret my decision and life on earth because a few decades lived as a Christian would be a small price to pay to avoid an eternity of hell, no question. But, what is really important is not that simple arithmetic, but the plausibilty of me being wrong. Consider what the Christian God would have to be like in order for that to be the case. The character presented by modern Christians as the loving father is not possible. What loving father could possibly sentence his own children, often through their own ignorance rather than simple disobedience I might add, to an eternity of suffering. I'd hate to see my own son suffer for five minutes, let alone all eternity. Of course, the standard Christian response to this is that God gives us free will, but not without consequence. Again, what loving father would give his child unlimited free will to decide whether to love him and to be obedient, and then when the child decides to follow his own path in life would shrug with an attitude that says: "Oh well, I tried to warn you, it's your problem if you suffer all your life as a result of being disobedient."? Only a monstrous father, selfish, vindictive and petty, would behave that way. Consider, in addition, that in the case of the fatherly Kingdom of Heaven, he knows all along what the outcome is. So, before you are ever born, indeed before he ever created the universe, he knew I was going to be an atheist and decide not to follow him, as are billions of others in human history. Yet, he decided to go ahead and set up this system that permanently punishes his disobedient children for all eternity. And all just so that he could create some children that have free will to decide if they want to relate to him or not, because he only likes the company of humans who have decided of their own free will to hang out with him. Petty hardly seems a strong enough word for this type of approach, does it? Insecure, immature, petulant, vindictive, mentally insane, evil, are all terms that we might use to describe a man who approached parenthood in such a manner. So, if I am wrong, then yes I will go to hell, but it will be because the god that Christians worship is nothing of loving father that they claim. What would an eternity of heaven in the presence of such a control freak paternal figure be like?

Secondly, what if Christians are wrong and there is no God? Well, this one might be a bit more simple. They are missing out on the one life they will ever have. At first they may not feel that they are missing out. Every Christian I've ever met always insists that they love their Christian life and that they would still be a Christian even if there was no afterlife. Yeah, right. Both of those statements ring very false. Christians love their Christian life yet walk around full of guilt. They walk around choosing ignorance over science and wonder. They prefer the simple non-explanation of how nature came into being and how it works over the amazing and wonderful truth. They prefer to share their guilt with others by poniting out that we are all born miserable and worthless sinners. (Again, what parent could possibly look at their new-born baby and actually believe this?). Christians may not think they are missing out on life by living as a Christian but they are. I know. I was a Christian through my young life, and it warped my sense of reality big-time. It caused me to live life in a specific way that I never would have done had I believed there was no god. I never would have felt the constant burden of sin and guilt, occasionally "washed away" by the blood of The Lamb. I never would have shunned science and had a superior attitude towards people who actually knew far more than I did about reality. I looked down on people who had spent their entire lives collecting knowledge on topics. I looked down on them because I figured they didn't really have the truth. They were at a disadvantage because they didn't know God. What a pathetic and wasteful way to go through life. I can't count how many relationships I missed out on because of my own arrogance and ignorance, how many friendships were superficial because I dismissed potential friends as too "wordly".

If you are a Christian, I challenge you to really think about this question: What if YOU are wrong? What are you missing out on in life? What attitudes are you going through life with that are entirely wrong and inappropriate? How much of this wonderful, complex, and beautiful world are you dismissing because you are so focused on serving a figment of your imagination?

The Kony Effect

Everyone who had an internet connection in March was probably aware of the Kony2012 campaign going "viral". One day no one had heard of Invisible Children, Joseph Kony, or Jason Russell. Seemingly the next day everyone had watched and "liked" his short documentary somewhere on the internet, outraged that children were conscripted unwillingly as child soldiers.

Then, as we all know, the backlash happened. Within a day or two of the Kony2012 message going viral and thereby undoubtedly exceeding Russell's dreams of publicity, the critics wrote their critiques and basically destroyed Kony2012. They say there is no such thing as bad press, and at first you might be tempted to think that all the criticism simply furthered the cause of Invisible Children. But, the opposite is actually the case. In order to be successful in bringing Joseph Kony to justice, there needs to be sustained political pressure, not simply a 24-hour awareness by the Facebook generation and then a quick move on to watching the Oscars. By heavily criticizing Russell and the Kony2012 campaign, the majority of viewers seemed to switch off and move on. The political pressure never mounted, and Kony will almost certainly remain at large until he dies of some natural cause in a shack somewhere between Uganda and Tanzania.

Some of the criticisms were valid. It is possible or even probable that Invisible Children could be more financially responsible. It is likely that the West doesn't have all the answers to the problem of child soldiers, and if Kony were arrested then another man would likely pop up to replace him. But does that mean we should simply move on and forget about Kony? Absolutely not. Even if someone else does pop up and replace Kony, a message will be sent that eventually justice will be served. If we then go after then next war criminal, and the next, and the next, then I propose that we can change this world for the better.

Some of the criticisms were out to lunch. I read one critique in which the writer said he was tired of westerners thinking they have all the answers and tired of us coming in and splashing money around trying to solve complex problems. "Ugandans know what is best for Uganda", was a common criticism of the Kony2012 movement. Really? Then why are Ugandans allowing their children to be conscripted into being soldiers who then turn on their parents, sometimes being forced to murder them? I don't really see this as a debatable morality that is OK so long as Ugandans are OK with it.

Ultimately, the Kony2012 effect in early 2012 was an illustration of the instant hero / instant villian society we live in. Culture in the west is largely driven by media (increasingly by social media). Generations of westerners have been raised on television shows in which a handsome, likeable character turns out to be the despicable villian, all within 46 minutes (while they are also persuaded in the other 14 minutes of the hour that one gas-guzzler is actually more efficient than another). Life is not that simple. Not everyone is either a hero or a villian. We are all humans, complicated and full of both heroic and villainous traits. How many of us actually like to be judged by people in a few seconds? Would you like to be permanently written off as a villian just because you cut someone off in traffic once and it was caught on an iPhone and published to YouTube? Probably not. Would it be a fair analysis of your entire life and character? Definitely not.

Yet that is what happened to Russel and the Kony2012 campaign. Instant hero one day. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter and even in the mainstream media was all over him with praise for trying to make the world a better place. Then, seemingly hours later, the whole package was villified  and thrown out because it wasn't quite as shiny as originally percieved.

Welcome to the new world of instant judgement and hero/villian status. You better have your ducks in a row and make sure every one of them is squeaky clean before you ever go public with anything.

Budget Day Aftermath

Canada is currently a country in which dogma, superstition, fear, religious belief, and agenda rule the day over rational, reasonable, evidence-based decisions.

I have written previously about how Canada's Minister of State for Science and Technology is igorant of basic science like evolution. The man appointed to oversee science-funding decisions in the country doesn't even know how long humans have been around, or where we come from. He does, however, believe that putting on a pair of running shoes or high heels involves evolution.

So one might assume that the latest Conservative government budget was full or equally ridiculous policies. One would not be disappointed if one did so.

Canada's projected budget deficit, following the latest budget, is about $21.1 billion dollars. A lot of money, to be sure. It is no enviable task that the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has over the next few years to bring that deficit back to zero by the time the next election rolls around in 2015, as the Conservatives have pledged to do. (I'm still trying to figure out what they did with the record surpluses they inherited when they came into office and managed to turn them into record deficits). No one likes to see their programmes cut, and there are no popular cuts, just less unpopular ones. Everyone can always find a problem with the budget, no matter how carefully it is put together. I'm sure I could go through Canada's budget carefully and point out all the silly waste of money (e.g. corporate tax cuts, huge prison costs associated with the lastest un-needed crime bill), but one needn't go that far to point out the irrational, fear-based approach to this budget.

The deficit is around $20 billion or so. Yet, the Conservative Party plans to spend anywhere from $35 - $90 billion (depending on cost overruns) on F-35 fighter planes for the military. That means, they plan in the next few years to throw away anywhere from 1.6 to 4.3 times the annual budget deficit. At the highest end, that means that they could do away with that one expense, and balance the budget for the rest of their mandate until 2015. With one expense cut they could avoid cuting funding to any other department in government, they could avoid cutting health-care transfer payments to provinces, they could avoid raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 (as they just did). Will they? Not a chance.

Why? Fear. Irrational fear of the same sort that keeps people scared as hell of hell and buying into religion. Canada has never once been invaded by air. We have not been invaded at all since the 19th Century. And yet we will spend between 1.6 and 4.3 times the annual budget deficit to buy fighter aircraft in case we need to repel an air attack for the first time. If we did ever face an air attack, which country(s) would be potential candidates to invade? Possibly, Russia or China, and conceivably India or the United States in a much changed world in the future where water is scarce. Would any number of F-35 fighter jets help in that case? No. Canada will never own enough fighter jets to repel an air invasion by any of those countries. It is an utter and complete waste of money based on irrational fear.

And what is the long-term cost? Well, every year that we continue with a budget deficit, as the Conservatives have committed to do until at least 2015, increases the national debt which we currently pay $30 billion annually to service with interest payments. The numbers keep going around and around like a washing machine, but somehow the laundry never quite comes out clean.

The Myth of Government Job Creation

Seemingly every political campaign nowadays boils down to the economy and jobs. Most conservative leaning parties make it their number one issue. The Conservative Party of Canada is widely acknowledged to have been elected in 2011 due to their incessant messages indicating that they are the only party capable of "strong" stewardship of the economy and of job creation. In America, the Republicans sound like a broken record on two issues: cutting government spending and job creation (never mind that the two are in conflict). The Republican message is one of massive tax cuts to corporations and leaving the market to itself so that the big employers can create lots of jobs. Many provincial governments in Canada mimic this pattern of the job creation message in election campaigns. Who can blame them? After all, it has proven very effective. People are motivated by fear and the fear of not having a job tops the list for many people.

But there are some major problems with this approach of governance. Firstly, governments are not traditionally in the business of creating jobs. Certainly the government is a very large employer itself, but in order to create government jobs there must be increased government expenditure (and therefore taxation) and most conservative minded voters are against "big government" in which the government itself employs lots of people. Traditionally the role of government is to implement law, and to run social services with tax revenues, not to "create" jobs. Now, of course, government legislation can have an effect on the economy and on job creation and unemployment rates. But, not nearly as much as people think.

The first myth is the one of corporate tax cuts. There is a belief that cuts in taxation to corporations will actually create more jobs and therefore decrease the unemployment rate. While there is some truth to this, the link is not nearly as strong as most voters think it is. In Canada, the Conservatives cut the corporate tax rate by 2% to bring it down to one of the lowest rates in the Western World. Yet, it has had virtually no effect on the unemployment rate whatsoever. In fact, the latest numbers in Canada suggest that the unemployment rate has inched upwards a bit. Many, many corporations these days are in the business of moving money around with relatively few employees rather than in the business of employing large numbers of people in manufacturing or service positions. We all know that large manufacturing corporations produce their goods in China and other places outside the country, so giving them a tax break doesn't help employ Canadians (or Americans in the States). Even of the large corporations in Canada, many do not have a massive effect on the employment rate as the corporate tax rate changes. Many of the wealthiest Canadians and Americans are in the business of trading stocks and investing, not in the business of employing people to make things. As many as 85% of the wealthiest North Americans aren't in the business of making anything at all. Cutting corporate tax rates does two things: it makes corporations richer and, not surprisingly in the modern economy of very little competition, that wealth is usually not passed on to consumers by way of lower prices. The rich get richer. Secondly, the tax cut to corporations must be made up elsewhere by the government, and of course the place it is made up is in personal tax revenues. The poor get poorer.

The second myth is that we need constant growth and job creation. Think of the unemployment rate over the past several years or even decades. It really doesn't change dramatically. It shifts up and down a few points here and there as the economy goes up and down in cycles. But an economy that creates many jobs really doesn't ever get rid of unemployment. Even in relatively negative economic times, there are always job ads in the newspapers. There are almost always jobs available. Only in the Great Depression (and not since) were there basically no jobs even for those willing to work at anything. So, a government that is elected on a "job creation" mandate is destined to fail even if they are successful in the short term by "creating" some jobs (or allowing the free market to do so). Because in the long run, the population simply goes up, immigration increases, and the actual number of unemployed stays roughly the same. At the next election cycle, the same old message of job creation can be run again, often with the same success. Nothing changes.

The third myth is that there is actually any difference between political parties in terms of job creation. Recently in Canada, a new leader was chosen for the New Democratic Party. The NDP, traditionally a left-of-centre party that has never been in power was most recently elevated to become the Official Opposition in the 2011 federal election. The new leader, Thomas Mulcair, was immediatly (on the same evening as his election to party leader) attacked by the Conservative Party as being a socialist who will raise taxes and kill job creation. The NDP undoubtedly will raise the corporate tax back up by the 2% that the Conservatives lowered it, should they be elected. But that will provide some tax relief to the rest of Canadians in their personal income taxes. The effect on job creation will be nill.

Ultimately, as so often in politics, it all boils down to fear. Without fear amongst voters the Conservatives never would be elected in Canada. Without fear the United States never would have invaded Iraq (or become involved in the Vietnam War, or countless other engagements such as the first Iraq war in 1991). Without fear, people like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would never stand a chance in politics. I wish for a day when more and more voters can think for themselves rather than having politicians tell them what to think. Sadly, we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

There is an old adage that the best salesman is one who begins by selling you the problem and then conveniently has the only solution to the problem they created. That seems so true in many walks of life. In religion people are sold the solution to hell after the same salesman has created the problem for them. In politics, the modern successful politician sells voters the problem of job creation and then tells them that he alone has the solution. 

The F-Word

Fuck. There, I said it. Now if you were planning to read this post in the hopes of catching a glimpse of the word "fuck" in writing, you can stop right here fully satisfied.

The dirtiest F-word in the English language, however, is actually "faith". The word faith, or rather the concept of faith, is inexplicably revered in our society. When there is no evidence to explain someone's position or belief, the concept of faith is put forward as a trump card to justify one's belief. "You just have to have more faith" is a common catch phrase eminating from anyone of religion who is trying to convince that their religion is true. When you have faith, it all makes sense.

Where would we be if we applied the concept of faith to every aspect of our lives as, well religiously, as the religious do?

Imagine you visit the doctor's office with a nasty respiratory infection that turns out to tuberculosis. The doctor tells you that there is evidence that a lengthy treatement with specific types of antibiotics will have a positive effect, but that alternatively you can go home and drink six glasses of water each night before bed and have faith that the water will flush the TB out of your system. Which option would you pursue?

Imagine the Wright Brothers had never existed. No one had ever successfully applied Bernouilli's Principle to the wing of an aircraft to produce lift and flight. Yet, imagine that by the 1960s or so, technology somehow existed to still build a Boeing jetliner that resembled the jetliners of the 1960s but without the proper technology to actually fly. Would you trust a Boeing executive who asked you to join on the maiden trans-Atlantic flight, and urged you to just have faith the great beast would fly?

Imagine for a minute that you are about to graduate high school. You have one exam left, a calculus exam in one week's time that you must pass in order to graduate. You have two options: you can either study calculus all week or you could have faith that God will help you pass the exam even though you know you really don't deserve to. Which do you do?

These ludicrous examples are, of course, all easily dismissible. So why is faith not dismissed so easily elsewhere in society. Why are political candidates not dismissed outright as viable candidates when they promote faith-based programmes instead of programmes based on evidence and research? Why are the terminally ill told to take courage in the fact that everyone is praying for them and that they should have faith that God can heal them?

Why is faith not recognized as the absurd and even evil idea that it really is? Faith asks that you set aside all knowledge and evidence, and believe in something just because you want it to be true or because someone else wants you to believe it. A dirty, dirty word that should never be taught to children.

Canada's Watergate Will be Swept Under the Rug..."Democracy" Continues

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I am no radical. I am an educated person with a stable long-term career who makes investments in mutual funds and real estate like any other good capitalist. I'm no "left-wing nut-bar", as Kevin O'Leary rudely labels Chris Hedges at 3:30 of this video:

No, I consider myself part of the traditional establishment. I believe in the fundamentals of capitalism that have made the Western world so wealthy and have increased life expectancy and quality of life. And yet...I find myself growing ever more sceptical about the "system".

Two things about our current system make me very uncomfortable. The first is the modern approach to capitalism. Capitalism is supposed to provide opportunities for all through a free market. The success of sellers of goods and services that are bought and sold on that market is, in theory, to be determined by the quality of their products. If you sell a nicer loaf of bread that someone else does, then more people will buy your bread. Cost, of course, also has a large bearing on that success. If someone else undercuts your price and  their product is still acceptable to the consumers, then likely they will be more successful. That is how the system is supposed to work.

But in practice what we have is a market all driven by marketing, not by quality or price of products. Think about it. When you go to by a product, be it a new computer or a pair of shoes, how often do you consider buying a product from a manufacturer that you've never heard of? No, you buy a Toshiba, Sony, or some other major name-brand product. That is all fine, and the name-brand is supposed to assure you of a certain level of quality. But, where is the opportunity for the new fledgiling capitalist in the computer market. Someone who has significant skill in manufacturing high quality computers has zero chance of any success on the open market. The major manufacturers will out-market that individual, and if that doesn't work, then they'll simply buy up his company thereby making the individual very wealthy, and put an end to their competition. This is the real key to the problem in modern capitalism: complete lack of competition. How many choices do I have if I want a cell phone provider? Maybe three. How many choices do I have if I want to open a bank account? Maybe five in Canada (all with identical products and services). How many choices do I have if I want electricity to flow into my home? One.

The second thing that makes me uncomfortable about our current system is the process of democracy, or lack thereof. I don't even have time to get started on the problems in the United States, but what is going on in Canada is equally frightening. In the last federal election, in May 2011, the Conservative Party won a majority and have been in power since. Now, in the past few weeks, reports have surfaced indicating that tens of thousands of Canadians may have had their right to vote illegally tampered with. Many Canadians receive automated telephone calls prior to the election asking them what party they were likely to vote for. If they responded that they were likely to vote for anyone other than the Conservative Party, then they were often directed to false voting addresses thereby decreasing their chances of actually being able to vote. On top of that, the automated callers often falsely identified themselves as being from Elections Canada, an independant non-partisan body. This is, of course, all illegal in an election.

The normal reponse to these reports, one would assume, would be to assist a full investigation to find out exactly what happened. No matter what party one supports, surely everyone can agree that we want a fair election process. We want all the votes to count and we want everyone who wants to vote to have their say. Yet, the government's response to this scandal has been the exact opposite of aiding an investigation. First they dismissed a young twenty-something party supporter and claimed that it was all his fault and claimed that it was an isolated incident. As reports came in or more and more fraud in tens of electoral ridings all across the country and it became obvious that a single 24-year old was probably not capable of organizing this kind of fraud, the government then blamed the opposition parties. They claimed that the Liberal Party was responsible since they had hired an American company to manage some of their election phone calls and some of the fraudulent calls had been traced to an American company. Then, it was pointed out in debate in the House of Commons that the American company hired by the Liberal Party was not the same one used in the fraudulent calls, the Conservatives did not apologize but simply claimed that it was all part of a vast smear campaign against their party by the opposition parties who were sore losers in the election. Most recently, a Conservative dominated parliamentary committee voted not to give Elections Canada more power to investigate the issue properly.

Wouldn't the simple and right answer be to investigate this openly and fully and find out what actually happened? The Conservative Party, though they have yet to be found actually guilty of anything, are certainly behaving as though they don't want the scandal investigated openly and fully. Why not?

The implications of this are enormous. My prediction is that, given there are another 3 years or more until the next election, the whole issue will be swept under the rug and voters won't care by the time the next election rolls around. In the next election campaign, the Conservative Party will claim that it is all about the economy and that they are the best suited party to foster a strong economy (despite the fact they are running massive deficits leading Canada in the same failed path that countries like Greece, Spain, and even the United States are on). Voters will not care about some theoretical scandal that happened a few years ago. They just won't care.

And yet the implication is that the Conservative Party possibly never was actually elected. We will never know who actually should have won the 2011 Canadian federal election, just as we will never know who should have won the 2000 American presidential election. No one actually knows whether Gore or Bush won more electoral college votes because the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Republicans and Democrats alike will argue until they are blue in the face that they each should have won, but the truth is that no one will ever know. The same goes for the most recent election in Canada. No one will ever know how many seats the Conservative Party should have won, and whether they actually won a majority or not.

But, this whole scandal might help explain one thing: how during the election campaign, absolutely no one, except the leader of the Conservative Party, predicted a Conservative majority. What did he know that the rest of us didn't?