Latest Polling Thread, Part Eleven
April 13, 2010 - 8:43pm
+_+
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I am trying to get a fix on what the Leger poll reveals for the Quebec City Region. I am making an educated guess that it comprises 9 ridings, 5 held by the Cons, 3 by the Bloq and Portneuf held by the Conservative-backed independent Arthur. It includes the 5 seats in Quebec City proper plus Lotbiniere, Montmorency, Levis and Portneuf .
The total votes in these ridings in the last election (lumping Arthur with the Conservatives) was C 37, B 33, L 14 and N 11. The poll indicates C 27, B 34, L 17, N 16, a swing from the Cons to the Bloq of 11%. If this is uniform through the region the Bloq wd gain Beauport (Con majority 4%) and Portneuf (Ind majority 2&). They would just miss Charlesbourg (12%). The Cons would keep Lotbiniere (22%), Louis St Laurent (20%) and Levis (22%)
As for the other Conservative seats in the province, Beauce (52%) and Megantic (19%) seem safe but the others are certainly shaky: Roberval (4%), Jonquiere (15%), Pontiac (8% over the Liberals) and Montmagny etc. narrowly won in the byelection.
Recent Conservative polling numbers in Quebec are consistent with Leger, generally speaking 14-18 %, substantially down from the 22% they received last election. I therefore think that the conservatives may well use half of their quebec seats.
Say what about the Bloc support?
Over 90% of the closest polls, from the national polling companies, leading up to the last election were either dead-on, or showing less support, than what the Bloc actually received, in votes, in the last election.
October 14, 2008 Election Results - 10% & 49 seats
October 13, 2008 Poll ARS - 9%
October 13, 2008 Poll EKOS - 9.8%
October 12, 2008 Poll NR - 9.5%
October 12, 2008 Poll EKOS - 10%
October 12, 2008 Poll H/D - 11%
October 11, 2008 Poll NR - 10%
October 11, 2008 Poll SC - 10%
October 11, 2008 Poll H/D - 10%
October 10, 2008 Poll SC - 9%
October 10, 2008 Poll H/D - 9%
October 10, 2008 Poll ARS - 9%
- from Post 93 in the previous thread
Augustus
I don't think they will win back any of those seats, from the Conservatives or from the Liberals.
It's also important to remember that the BQ outpolls what they actually get on Election Day. Observers of Quebec voting trends are familiar with this fact. That is why the BQ was polling 40-42% going into Election Day 2008, and why they ended up with only 38% in the end. The Federalist vote tends to be more hidden and ends up being higher than expected on Election Day.
Therefore, the actual BQ vote will be several points lower than what you are seeing in the above polls.
The BQ was only able to defeat one, weak Conservative MP in 2008 despite all the controversy over the arts, and it lost 2 seats to the Liberals.
Leger Federal Polling for 2010 in Quebec
Party / 2008 E / Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / Change
Bloc - 38% / 40% / 38% / 37% / 38% / No change
Libs - 24% / 23% / 27% / 25% / 21% / Down 3%
NPD - 12% / 15% / 12% / 14% / 17% / Up 5%
Cons - 22% / 17% / 16% / 17% / 17% / Down 5%
Say what about the Bloc support?
Over 90% of the closest polls, from the national polling companies, leading up to the last election were either dead-on, or showing less support, than what the Bloc actually received, in votes, in the last election.
Many of the polls leading into October 14, 2008 had the BQ at 40-42%. On Election Night it received only 38%.
Many observers also predicted the Conservatives would lose half their Quebec seats in October 2008 - they only ended up losing one.
Wow a drop in within the margin of error in an opinion poll compared to the final vote. OMG Augustus you are infailiable. I bow down before you. Hail Ceasar!!!
I'm sorry when you show up at Rabble plugging the Tories like you and do with a name Like Augustus which only suggests that you love or have a strong affinity for a strong authoritarian govenernment of some kind is highly suspect. I on the other hand will call you out for what you are an agent provacatuer.
I think you're kind of missing the point I'm trying to make about Quebec elections. The federalist vote is often underrepresented in pre-election night polls. On election night, the BQ has often done less well than expected in seats and popular vote than many predictions leading into it. Conversely, the federalist vote often ends up being higher than expected.
Historically many voters in Quebec have been more open to admitting to being sovereigntists to pollsters than to being federalists. Sometimes this is referred to as a hidden vote. Pollsters sometimes try to take it into account, but it can be hard to do:
"Over time, some Quebec pollsters came to add a federalist vote bonus to their pre-election forecasts to make up for a recurring difference between federalist voting intentions and the actual ballot box results. They put a bigger proportion of the so-called discreet voters in the federalist column."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777565--hebert-will-olympics-change-minds-in-quebec
But Augustus, what the people here have been pointing out is that, in overall vote share, the BQ vote only fell by .5% between the last poll and the actual vote. Moreover, the result the BQ received was pretty much at the center of the average support the party had registered througout the campaign.
Even if Augustus is right that polls inflate the Bloq vote (which is not altogether clear) that doesn't mean the Conservative vote is underestimated. There may welll be three federalist parties on rather equal footing in the next election. The Liberlas opened a clear lead over the Conservatives last time. I doubt that the Cons will be seen as the default federalist option.
And really, one mustn't judge what happened in 2008 as a pattern set in stone--just because the Tories saved all but one of their seats that time doesn't mean they'll do so next time...
Let's keep in mind that in the 2004 and 2006 elections the final polls seriously underestimated Liberal support and overestimated Tory support. In 2008 the Tories did a bit better than what the final polls were projecting. So these rules are meant to be broken. I think that this theory about the shy federalists in Quebec is starting to fade away - in the last Quebec provincial election in Ddec. 2008 - the PQ actually did better than anyone was expecting.
There were also a lot of campaign dynamics in the final days of the last election, and a lot of movement. This makes it hard to say whether polls were inaccurate, or they were trying to measure a moving target. The Liberals do seem to get a bit of a ballot-box bonus in a lot of places, though, don't they.
Augustus,
It sure looks like the Bloc is holding its own at the moment, and after Quebeckers have a chance to digest the latest Charest mess, the Bloc may well increase its support in the next election.
Bloc election results
Election / Canada % / Quebec % / Seats
GE 2008 / 10% / 38.1% / 49
GE 2006 / 10.5% / 42.1% / 51
GE 2004 / 12.4% / 48.9% / 54
GE 2000 / 10.7% / 39.9% / 38
GE 1997 / 10.7% / 37.9% / 44
Say what about the Bloc support?
Over 90% of the closest polls, from the national polling companies, leading up to the last election were either dead-on, or showing less support, than what the Bloc actually received, in votes, in the last election.
Many of the polls leading into October 14, 2008 had the BQ at 40-42%. On Election Night it received only 38%.
Many observers also predicted the Conservatives would lose half their Quebec seats in October 2008 - they only ended up losing one.
I think you're kind of missing the point I'm trying to make about Quebec elections. The federalist vote is often underrepresented in pre-election night polls. On election night, the BQ has often done less well than expected in seats and popular vote than many predictions leading into it. Conversely, the federalist vote often ends up being higher than expected.
Historically many voters in Quebec have been more open to admitting to being sovereigntists to pollsters than to being federalists. Sometimes this is referred to as a hidden vote. Pollsters sometimes try to take it into account, but it can be hard to do:
"Over time, some Quebec pollsters came to add a federalist vote bonus to their pre-election forecasts to make up for a recurring difference between federalist voting intentions and the actual ballot box results. They put a bigger proportion of the so-called discreet voters in the federalist column."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777565--hebert-will-olympics-change-minds-in-quebec
Actually, it can almost all be attributed to voter turnout. Older, higher income people are more likely to vote, younger & lower income less likely. There was no "ballot box bonus" in the 1995 referendum, because there was a 93.5% voter turnout.
There were also a lot of campaign dynamics in the final days of the last election, and a lot of movement. This makes it hard to say whether polls were inaccurate, or they were trying to measure a moving target. The Liberals do seem to get a bit of a ballot-box bonus in a lot of places, though, don't they.
That bungled Stephen Dion interview on CTV that Mike Duffy chose to show where Dion couldn't understand a question being asked of him,and where Dion asked for the question to be redone numerous times, cost the Liberals support during the last few days of the election. Those outakes or bloopers made Dion look like very un-prime ministerial just a few days before the vote. This probably landed Duffy his seat in the Senate. After that event, Duffy had no claim left to impartiality and Harper must have been grateful for the dozen or more seats Duffy moved to the Conservatives.
I think that event had a lot to do with the Liberals replacing Dion ASAP after the election. Dion's hearing problem wasn't something that could be rectified. It made it impossible for him to communicate to the level expected of a leader of a major party.
Augustus,
It sure looks like the Bloc is holding its own at the moment, and after Quebeckers have a chance to digest the latest Charest mess, the Bloc may well increase its support in the next election.
Bloc election results
Election / Canada % / Quebec % / Seats
GE 2008 / 10% / 38.1% / 49
GE 2006 / 10.5% / 42.1% / 51
GE 2004 / 12.4% / 48.9% / 54
GE 2000 / 10.7% / 39.9% / 38
GE 1997 / 10.7% / 37.9% / 44
Do you notice the decrease in seats and popular vote for the BQ in the last 3 elections? It went from 49% to 42% to 38%, and from 54 seats to 51 seats to 49 seats.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with Jean Charest, but there will not necessarily be a correlation with the federal election, particularly since we have no idea when it will be.
How many times have we heard from right-wing federalists the Bloc are finished but they keep bouncing back every time. How could that be? Cherry-picking results is exactly that. It's quite clear that the Bloc are basically holding their own, and based on past performance, we can expect them to do well in the next election as well. And yes federalist Charest's troubles could very well be a bonus for the Bloc.
It's obvious that it is the Liberals that are in deep trouble in Quebec as the following polling shows.
Leger Federal Polling for 2010 in Quebec
Party / 2008 E / Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / Change
Bloc - 38% / 40% / 38% / 37% / 38% / No change
Libs - 24% / 23% / 27% / 25% / 21% / Down 3%
NPD - 12% / 15% / 12% / 14% / 17% / Up 5%
Cons - 22% / 17% / 16% / 17% / 17% / Down 5%
Most Quebec insiders I know expect the BQ to lose several seats in the next election.
That's all I can think of to say on this topic for now.
Btw, you sound quite enthusiastic about the BQ.
Let's take an honest look at what has happened in recent Quebec elections, and let the results, and the trends, speak for themselves.
Party / 1997 / 2000 / 2004 / 2006 / 2008 / Change
Bloc / 37.9% / 39.9% / 48.9% / 42.1% / 38.1% / Up 0.2%
NPD / 2% / 1.8% / 4.6% / 7.5% / 12.2% / Up 10.2%
Cons / 22.5% / 11.85 / 8.8% / 24.6% / 21.7% / Down 0.8%
Libs / 36.7% / 44.2% / 33.9% / 20.85 / 23.8% / Down 12.9%
Most Quebec insiders I know expect the BQ to lose several seats in the next election.
That's all I can think of to say on this topic for now.
Btw, you sound quite enthusiastic about the BQ.
Yes, the trend is that other than the one election in 2004 when the BQ benefitted from the sponsorship scandal, all other elections have shown a declining vote for them.
Augustus, you can cherrypick all you want.
The overall trend is down for the Liberals and the Conservatives, and up for the NPD and the Bloc in Quebec.
There is no upward trend for the BQ - your own numbers demonstrate as much.
Augustus, there is no movement one way or another in Quebec (within the margin of error), and there hasn't been anything major for a while. Quebecers see through Harper, and he's got a 75% disapproval rating, last I checked. Ignatieff opportunistic flip-flopping today on healthcare, two weeks after the fact, proves he's an opportunist (tried to woo the PLQ by going along, then does a u-turn when he realises this is a bad idea on so many levels, etc.). Jack's 17% is the political equivalent of the "miss congeniality" award at a beauty pageant.
And, by the way, these days Quebecers care even less about federal politics than the usual... we're otherwise busy with our own political crisis right now. Last week, Charest had a 77% disapproval rating. This week, after the Bellemare public confession? Who knows. Sky is the limit.
And, of course, making people cease to care about politics is another conservative objective.
And, of course, making people cease to care about politics is another conservative objective.
Not what I meant. We need to get rid of Charest first. And as for federal politics, there is not much interest here.
EDIT: I'll add an example. From what I can gather, there is something going on with some former federal minister. Last night, it was squezed with international news at the end of Radio-Canada's Téléjournal. I don't think TVA even covered the story at all.
Most Quebec insiders I know expect the BQ to lose several seats in the next election.
That's all I can think of to say on this topic for now.
"Most" does not equal "all"--and naturally, those with a vested interest in a non-BQ party are more likely to bet against the BQ. It isn't that the BQ *will* gain seats; just that a gain isn't out of the question.
Well, more to the point--not simplistically paranoid about the BQ.
And look at it this way: I wouldn't have bet on Reform losing seats in 1997. That doesn't mean I would have supported Reform.
Augustus, there is no movement one way or another in Quebec (within the margin of error), and there hasn't been anything major for a while. Quebecers see through Harper, and he's got a 75% disapproval rating, last I checked. Ignatieff opportunistic flip-flopping today on healthcare, two weeks after the fact, proves he's an opportunist (tried to woo the PLQ by going along, then does a u-turn when he realises this is a bad idea on so many levels, etc.). Jack's 17% is the political equivalent of the "miss congeniality" award at a beauty pageant.
And, by the way, these days Quebecers care even less about federal politics than the usual... we're otherwise busy with our own political crisis right now. Last week, Charest had a 77% disapproval rating. This week, after the Bellemare public confession? Who knows. Sky is the limit.
Quebecers don't like most of their leaders - federalist or separatist, so there's nothing unusual about that. I know myself as I've spent a lot of my life in Quebec.
Thinking ahead to the next federal election Duceppe must be rubbing his hands with glee at the mess Charest has created. I can see the possibility of the Bloc picking up seats in the next election whereas it appears that both the Libs and the Cons will lose seats next time around. I think it may even be time for a Quebec provincial NPD.
Quebecers don't like most of their leaders - federalist or separatist, so there's nothing unusual about that. I know myself as I've spent a lot of my life in Quebec.
There is "don't like" and there is "despise". Denis Lessard from La Presse writes:
Chez les francophones, les deux tiers mettent en doute l'intégrité du premier ministre.
C'est le constat percutant auquel arrive Angus Reid dans un sondage mené pour La Presse les 13 et 14 avril auprès de 800 personnes.
«La confiance à l'égard de M. Charest est sérieusement ébranlée», observe Jaideep Mukerji, vice-président d'Angus Reid au Québec.
Pauline Marois certainly looked happy when I saw her at the press conference yesterday. She could barely contain her excitement. She is definitely enjoying the scandal.
And it's true that the only way Duceppe and Marois can hope to succeed in the next election is by hoping for a scandal in the federalist parties - it's the only way they can do well. They only prosper when there is a scandal in the other parties because they have no new ideas of their own and can't win on their own merit.
Consequently, they are likely to go on prospering for many years to come.
The PQ has been out of power for 7 years and even lost Official Opposition status a couple years ago, so they haven't exactly prospered.
As for the BQ, their best years are likely behind them.
Anyway, enough about Quebec polling! It's time to await the new national polls later this week to see if the numbers have changed since the Guergis scandal erupted. I suspect the Conservatives won't lose too much support over it, but there could be a decrease of a point or two.
I'm also wondering if Jack Layton's cancer might cause a 'sympathy vote' bounce in NDP support?
Or will the Afghan testimonies have any effect on Conservative support?
I'm also wondering if Jack Layton's cancer might cause a 'sympathy vote' bounce in NDP support?
Or will the Afghan testimonies have any effect on Conservative support?
No. He already got that in a post-announcement poll last month. That ship has sailed.
YOur wish has come true - the latest Ekos has Tory support crashing and last weeks 6 point lead is now just 2 points.
I say we pull the plug on the government and the election should be a referendum on Helena Guergis and everything she represents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/ekos-federal-vote-intention-fullreport-100414...
YOur wish has come true - the latest Ekos has Tory support crashing and last weeks 6 point lead is now just 2 points.
I say we pull the plug on the government and the election should be a referendum on Helena Guergis and everything she represents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/ekos-federal-vote-intention-fullreport-100414...
A more neutral reading of those poll numbers might be that the LIBERALS, imagine that, have staged a rally from 6 months ago, when they were in free fall and trailing the Tories by almost 15 points;
now in part because of the Tory fall, they are neck and neck. No other opposition party has changed position that much. A national electio would be a Liberal-Tory affair.
The Liberals have made no headway to speak of-- they run in a track from 27% to 31% not even getting out of the margin of error.
The NDP is running in a 4-point track as well between 16% and 20%
The Cons and Greens are where teh bigger fluctuations are occurring.
As much as I ahve gone on about methodology there is some sense here and the Greens could well come up winners in this.
As most people will remember the Greens were also sinking in the polls and relevance. However, disaffected Conservatives who want to vote on principle may find a temporary home there. These Conservatives tend to hate the NDP and Liberals so if theya re upset at scandals or policies of the Cons they can either stay home or go for the Greens as a protest (knowing they are extremely unlikely to elect someone by accident).
The latest dip in Cons support shows a corresponding Green increase. I am assuming these are Con supporters making a protest. It is possible that they are only doing this because it is a poll and that in a general election they would vote Conservative anyway or that they really are upset enough to vote Green but have not been convinced to go either for the hated Liberals and Iggy or a progressive party that goes against their regressive views.
It is also possible that with soem work NDP or Liberals might be able to continue to work on these upset Cons and get them to vote for one of their parties rather than throw their support as a protest.
In any case, while methodology might explain the high Green support there is another possibility that could explain that shift as well and that could well be where the upset Tories are hiding.
umm...actually support for the Green party went DOWN a bit this week compared to last. The Liberals gained 1.7% and the NDP gained 0.5%.
Stockholm, the Green in the Ekos poll that show the Cons at 31% are at 11%. Don't YOU think that is kinda a big number for them?
I'm looking at some bigger trends than a week. Compare the Greens to where they were averaging 4 months ago and compare the Cons with where they were 4 months ago and I think some possibilities may come to mind especially as nobody else is moving much at the moment.
Plus I'll add that I ahve heard anecdotally as well Cons tell me that they would go Green before Liberal or NDP-- others here have heard this sentiment before as well and expressed it.
Ekos has been wildly high-balling Green support for the past year - it doesn't seem to matter if Tory support is 40% or 31%. While you may here the odd anecdote about disaffected Tories voting Green - the fact is that a couple of weeks ago when Ekos asked everyone about the "second choice" - Green voters were pretty evenly split between NDP and Liberal with almost none citing the Tories as their second choice.
I strongly suspect that these so-called die-hard Tories who say they would vote Green before they would vote Liberal or NDP are really saying that they may not vote at all.
Incidentally Nanos's last poll that showed the Liberals and Tories in a dead heat had Green support at only 5% - so its not as if there is any evidence that anytime Green support is low - Tory support is higher.
The fact that Green support is so heavily concentrated among 18-24 year olds also makes me sceptical about how many of them are disaffected Tories. I don't know too many 21 year olds "gentle people with flowers in their hair" are core Tory supporters who want to vote Green as a protest.
I’ve been looking at the age groups, gender and education of who votes for who where. I’ve noticed the greater than 65-year-old male with the substandard education being the conservatives power base. It’s been that way for some time with Alberta being the culprit, till now. …And it’s reflecting in the polls. So I attribute the slight change to that. The only similarity to the Greens would be if all the greater than 65 year old males didn’t vote conservative …then the conservatives would be in the same percentage points as the Greens.
You must realize the greater than 65 year old person suffers from dementia more than any other age group …they suffer from Alzheimer’s more than any other age group and they suffer from senility more than any other. Mix that with the fact that they are the PRIME target of con artists and con men and hence easily led down the garden path and manipulated by white collar criminals (conservatives) and you can see why the conservatives crack heads have seized them…they give them rides to the voting booth and target them with their ads and local riding polling. The biggest factor of all is that they ACTUALLY vote when they are called to.
Yes it would be nice if they actually shifted there vote to the party that is responsible for the pensions they receive and the FREE Medicare they receive but the conservatives have done a remarkable job conning them into believing the NDP are bad little socialists.
Ekos has been wildly high-balling Green support for the past year - it doesn't seem to matter if Tory support is 40% or 31%. While you may here the odd anecdote about disaffected Tories voting Green - the fact is that a couple of weeks ago when Ekos asked everyone about the "second choice" - Green voters were pretty evenly split between NDP and Liberal with almost none citing the Tories as their second choice.
I strongly suspect that these so-called die-hard Tories who say they would vote Green before they would vote Liberal or NDP are really saying that they may not vote at all.
Incidentally Nanos's last poll that showed the Liberals and Tories in a dead heat had Green support at only 5% - so its not as if there is any evidence that anytime Green support is low - Tory support is higher.
The fact that Green support is so heavily concentrated among 18-24 year olds also makes me sceptical about how many of them are disaffected Tories. I don't know too many 21 year olds "gentle people with flowers in their hair" are core Tory supporters who want to vote Green as a protest.
As I said those who say they may vote Green who are upset Cons are just as likely to vote Con in the next electiona s anything else. They may also refuse to do a poll feeling they have no choices- based on their mood right now.
I have seen the stats about Green supporters second choices-- and they do not all agree. However, that does not mean they are not pissed Tories-- after all a pissed Tory might place the Cons as last, right up till they decide to go back and vote for them. A better question (rarely asked but that has been at times) is what did you vote in the last election. Problem is people may not be honest about it.
Don't put much stock in the demographics of Green support. If they got even a full point directly from the Cons that would not change the overall demographics the numbers of irritated Cons that could go to the Greens is not enough to swamp their demographics (The Green vote is not THAT low) but it is enough to make a difference to their totals if it stuck.
My guess is that it is unlikely to stick so the cons support is probably closer to 33 than 31 and the Greens on this alone in the single digits.
Remember the Hiesenberg principle (the act of observation changes the result). In this caseAny change is exaggerated. So if the cons have a bad week likely more Con supporters are likely to tell a political polster to get stuffed than Liberal supporters as they don't want to think of politics when a good news week might want them to admit an association to politics and their party of choice.
I agree that in the next election, when the votes are counted Green supporter is unlikely to be more than 5% - but i think that all parties will gain from that. I tend to think that a lot of people who flirt with voting Green are essentially people know that they don't like Haroer but they haven't decided who they prefer - so they park with the Greens.
I’ve been looking at the age groups, gender and education of who votes for who where. I’ve noticed the greater than 65-year-old male with the substandard education being the conservatives power base. It’s been that way for some time with Alberta being the culprit, till now. …And it’s reflecting in the polls. So I attribute the slight change to that. The only similarity to the Greens would be if all the greater than 65 year old males didn’t vote conservative …then the conservatives would be in the same percentage points as the Greens.
You must realize the greater than 65 year old person suffers from dementia more than any other age group …they suffer from Alzheimer’s more than any other age group and they suffer from senility more than any other. Mix that with the fact that they are the PRIME target of con artists and con men and hence easily led down the garden path and manipulated by white collar criminals (conservatives) and you can see why the conservatives crack heads have seized them…they give them rides to the voting booth and target them with their ads and local riding polling. The biggest factor of all is that they ACTUALLY vote when they are called to.
Yes it would be nice if they actually shifted there vote to the party that is responsible for the pensions they receive and the FREE Medicare they receive but the conservatives have done a remarkable job conning them into believing the NDP are bad little socialists.
This is a touchy topic (associating voting behaviour and mental illness). Buddy Kat does not go very far in this (thankfully) and I hope others don't take the temptation. I say this because that would trivialize a serious problem (I have just written a survey of mental illness in Canada for my employer and it was truly gut-wrenching.
People who have mental illnesses usually do not have their ideology affected. There are many reasons for right wing idealogy from lack of awareness, upbringing, prejudice, greed, fear etc. I would not want poeple to think that a person who is mentally ill is any more likely to vote Conservative or that Conservatives are more likely to be mentally ill. These are offensive concepts.
I do acknowledge that the elderly are less likely to embrace change and so in theory that might lead them to the Conservative party based on its name. That is of course ironic as this party is in fact the one bringing the greatest change (and its negative).
I think it may even be time for a Quebec provincial NPD.
Québec Solidaire is the social democratic party in Quebec. Quebec would be served well by a federalist social democratic party but under FPTP that isn't about to happen.
YOur wish has come true - the latest Ekos has Tory support crashing and last weeks 6 point lead is now just 2 points.
I say we pull the plug on the government and the election should be a referendum on Helena Guergis and everything she represents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/ekos-federal-vote-intention-fullreport-100414...
EKOS Report
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/ekos-data-tables-100414.pdf
National
CON: 31.4%
LIB: 29.0
NDP: 16.4
GRN: 11.1
BQ: 8.8
Ontario
LIB: 36.6
CON: 31.1
NDP: 16.5
GRN:11.9
Quebec
BQ: 34.7
LIB: 24.1
CON: 16.0
NDP: 12.3
GRN:10.8
BC
CON: 32.5
LIB: 25.7
NDP: 24.3
GRN:12.9
Direction Canada heading in
Wrong Direction: 47.6
Right Direction: 43.1
In other words, the Conservatives are still on top despite all the challenges they face. Ignatieff is still not able to close the deal.
Btw, I notice that the BQ is only at 34.7% in this poll.
Augustus, you can't assume that BQ losses will lead to Conservative gains. In Quebec now, it's just as likely that BQ voters will switch to the NDP, since it's closer to the BQ's policies than the Tories will ever be.
Are we talking about seat losses or vote losses? If some BQ votes go NDP both the Liberals and Cons could win seats as the NDP is way back and in some cases both of those parties are close seconds.
That said, I would not be making ANY assumptions about the BQ vote. It might not go anywhere. They still can field good candidates and run good campaigns -- there is no seat they hold that I'd count them out and a good many they do not hold could still be threatened by them.
Are we talking about seat losses or vote losses? If some BQ votes go NDP both the Liberals and Cons could win seats as the NDP is way back and in some cases both of those parties are close seconds.
That said, I would not be making ANY assumptions about the BQ vote. It might not go anywhere. They still can field good candidates and run good campaigns -- there is no seat they hold that I'd count them out and a good many they do not hold could still be threatened by them.
You've got it.
Of course pollsters aren't biased.
CBC pollster/Liberal adviser?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/cbc-pollsterliberal-adviser/article1542838/
EKOS today.
Cons - 31%
Libs - 27%
NDP - 16%
----------------------
EKOS of the Week: Oh, Liberals. Can't you keep it together for one little weekly polling cycle?Before we plunge onward, downward and inward to the cross-country breakdowns, however, the truly obsessive amongst us -- and I know I'm not alone -- will want to take a moment to celebrate the unheralded, but welcome return of the daily results, which can be found on page 4 of the data tables for this week, wherein we discover that on April 14th, the NDP was polling ahead of the Liberals! Of course, by the next night, they had dropped by eight points, and never made it back to anything close to that 24.8 percent high point during the rest of the cycle, but still, no one can take last Wednesday away from them.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/04/ekos-of-the-week-oh-li...
Daily poll data is usually meaningless as pollsters balance where they are calling over the whole survey not individual nights unless you are paying huge amounts and a huge amount of sample is purchased. This poll likely called the areas the NDP are strongest in the first night and filled those quotas.
EKOS - 22 APR 2010
CON: 31.7
LIB: 27.1
NDP: 16.3
GRN: 12.6
BQ: 9.5
Ontario
LIB: 34.6
CON: 33.1
NDP: 17.0
GRN: 13.1
Quebec
BQ: 38.4
LIB: 22.7
CON: 13.8
GRN: 12.0
NDP: 9.8
BC
CON: 34.7
NDP: 28.1
LIB: 21.6
GRN: 13.3
How often in the past has a federal government polled under 32%? Having the support of less then 1/3 is really pathetic. So much for democracy.
These Green numbers are really inflated. They're pushing down the totals for the NDP and Liberals.
Just as I predicted last week. The troubles of Jaffer and Guergis are not being blamed on the Conservative Government. Most Canadians are distinguishing between the actions of J & G and the Government itself. So far the public does not blame J & G's problems on the Conservatives.
What takes the cake is Quebec: Green 12.0 vs NDP 9.8?!?
Why would they be pushing down the numbers for the NDP and Liberals?
EKOS is not considered a Conservative pollster.
This is so funny. As if anyone considers the Liberal CBC to be neutral politically.
Federal Tories question CBC's impartiality
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/22/13687981.html
NR, they can raise a bundle of money for the Conservative Fund off that story. There's a reason the letter was signed by the chief Conservative fundraiser, Irv Gerstein ;-)
This is so funny. As if anyone considers the Liberal CBC to be neutral politically.
Federal Tories question CBC's impartiality
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/22/13687981.html
As if anyone considers the Toronto Sun to be neutral politically.
What takes the cake is Quebec: Green 12.0 vs NDP 9.8?!?
Looks like the Conservatives are doing a lot better than the NDP in Quebec right now.
Not any more.
EKOS
Quebec
Bloc Quebecois: 38.4% (+3.7%)
In other words, the Conservatives are still on top despite all the challenges they face. Ignatieff is still not able to close the deal.
Btw, I notice that the BQ is only at 34.7% in this poll.
Not any more.
EKOS
Quebec
Bloc Quebecois: 38.4% (+3.7%)
38% is the number they got in Election 2008. That means they have not grown at all in support. (And remember, their true support level is usually several points lower).
This gets funnier and funnier by the minute.
Pollster Frank Graves apologizes,denies anti-Tory bias
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-fr...
This is so funny. As if anyone considers the Liberal CBC to be neutral politically.
Federal Tories question CBC's impartiality
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/22/13687981.html
As if anyone considers the Toronto Sun to be neutral politically.
Oh my God, there's talking about it on the CBC and the Globe and Mail as well. How could they!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/04/an-apology----and-an-e...
He sounds like a fool.
More evidence that the Tories have been damaged by the Guergis/Jaffer affair. Two weeks ago, Ipsos-Reid gave the Tories a 10-point lead 37-27-15. Now its shrunk to six points - 35-29-16. It was just on Global News.
Left Green Alliance: 38.9 (NDP: 16.3 + GRN: 12.6)
CON: 31.7
LIB: 27.1
BQ: 9.5
Try the math again.
Good one George!
Yes. Good one. George can add.
NR, myself and probably George have never made a mathematical error.
So what about an absorption of the Green party, or even some other fringe parties by the NDP?
Could it help to get to 25%?
More evidence that the Tories have been damaged by the Guergis/Jaffer affair. Two weeks ago, Ipsos-Reid gave the Tories a 10-point lead 37-27-15. Now its shrunk to six points - 35-29-16. It was just on Global News.
Those are all changes within the MOE, Stockholm. For the Cons to be 6 points up after the saturation coverage of Jaffer/Guergis is actually good news for Harper and especially bad news for the Libs. EKOS actually had the Libs down about 2 points from the previous poll (again, within the MOE). The Jaffer/Guergis "scandal" is having absolutely no impact on voter opinion overall - as other posters have said, voters are distinguishing between their opinion of Helena/Rahim vs their view of the government and of the various political parties. Nobody is gaining any ground from this affair and that's why Layton's original decision earlier this week to distance the NDP from this issue was exactly right.
More evidence that the Tories have been damaged by the Guergis/Jaffer affair. Two weeks ago, Ipsos-Reid gave the Tories a 10-point lead 37-27-15. Now its shrunk to six points - 35-29-16. It was just on Global News.
There is no evidence that the Guergis/Jaffer scandal is having any major negative impact on the Conservatives. Most Canadians do not associate the actions of these two people with the Conservative Party.
And as I said in a previous post on polling last week, Ipsos-Reid overestimated Conservative support in its last poll so what we are seeing in this new poll is simply a more accurate reflection of true support levels.
I tend to agree that the Guergis/Jaffer scandal peaked about two weeks ago and that its time to move on. But I think that it is having an indirect affect on the Tories. Week after week, as we do nothing but talking about the sordid scandalous lives of two people who were the heart and soul of the Tory party - its a massive distraction for the Tories who cannot get out their message on anything else. Its the Tories that need to create some momentum and get up into the high 30s and be in striking range of a majority - otherwise its a 100% certainty that they will be out of power after the next election.
I'm not sure that we can say that there is "no" evidence that the guergis/Jaffer scandal is not having SOME impact on Tory support. This story has sucked up all the oxygen in the room ever since early February ande coincidentally, the Tories have been stalled in the polls since that time as well.
So then you believe that were it not for the oxygen being "sucked out of the room" by this scandal, the Tories would naturally gain momentum? It's revealing that you think the only limit on Tory fortunes is the public embarassment of a scandal, not momentum generated by opposition policy views.
There is no evidence that the Guergis/Jaffer scandal is having any major negative impact on the Conservatives.
These scandals limit the Conservatives ability to run an effective election campaign. These sort of scandals give the opposition parties more ammo for their election campaigns and in general these scandals sour the mood of Canadians toward the incumbent government.
Next election the Cons won't be able to run as the party that's against political corruption like they did in 2006. Because of these scandals, next election the Liberals will no longer be on the defensive like they've been in the recent past and the NDP and Bloc will be able to label both the Conservatives and Liberals as being corrupt. The Conservatives days as being the party that will clean up Ottawa are now over.
These scandals have put the Conservatives into minority territory. If they can't get a majority government at the next election, the opposition parties will likely not support their throne speech. The Cons probably need to get 38% in the next election just to stay in power. These scandals are working against that possibility.
The Conservatives are not going to enjoy seeing Jaffer and Guergis make cameo appearances in political commercials during the next election.
I tend to agree that the Guergis/Jaffer scandal peaked about two weeks ago and that its time to move on. But I think that it is having an indirect affect on the Tories. Week after week, as we do nothing but talking about the sordid scandalous lives of two people who were the heart and soul of the Tory party - its a massive distraction for the Tories who cannot get out their message on anything else. Its the Tories that need to create some momentum and get up into the high 30s and be in striking range of a majority - otherwise its a 100% certainty that they will be out of power after the next election.
I'm not sure that we can say that there is "no" evidence that the guergis/Jaffer scandal is not having SOME impact on Tory support. This story has sucked up all the oxygen in the room ever since early February ande coincidentally, the Tories have been stalled in the polls since that time as well.
What do you mean? I agree that at the moment the Conservatives probably couldn't win a majority with these numbers, but they have the numbers to win another minority, and if they win another minority they are the ones most likely to be in power after the next election.
The Conservatives are unlikely to be out of power until the Liberals can win a minority - until that time, the Conservatives are in the driver's seat.
So then you believe that were it not for the oxygen being "sucked out of the room" by this scandal, the Tories would naturally gain momentum? It's revealing that you think the only limit on Tory fortunes is the public embarassment of a scandal, not momentum generated by opposition policy views.
Putting words in people's mouths.
Its not that the Cons would otherwise "naturally" gain momentum. Its that they are under the gun: not immediately necessarily, but eventually they have to gain momentum or they are out. And even the possibility of them gaining momentum is out of the question as long as stuff like this is going on; and before that, the reaction to prorogation; and before that the Afghan detainee dodges....
What do you mean? I agree that at the moment the Conservatives probably couldn't win a majority with these numbers, but they have the numbers to win another minority, and if they win another minority they are the ones most likely to be in power after the next election.
The Conservatives are unlikely to be out of power until the Liberals can win a minority - until that time, the Conservatives are in the driver's seat.
Its a foregone conclusion that anything less than a Conservative majority in the next election means the Tories are out of power. The opposition parties will vote down ANY Tory throne speech after the next election no matter what it contains and then the GG will invite the leader of the next largest party to try to form a government. Its as simple as that. I think the chances that the Liberals or the NDP or the BQ will repeat the mistake of November 2008 and allow a Tory throne speech to pass - is NIL.
So then you believe that were it not for the oxygen being "sucked out of the room" by this scandal, the Tories would naturally gain momentum? It's revealing that you think the only limit on Tory fortunes is the public embarassment of a scandal, not momentum generated by opposition policy views.
Putting words in people's mouths.
Its not that the Cons would otherwise "naturally" gain momentum. Its that they are under the gun: not immediately necessarily, but eventually they have to gain momentum or they are out. And even the possibility of them gaining momentum is out of the question as long as stuff like this is going on; and before that, the reaction to prorogation; and before that the Afghan detainee dodges....
If one actually thought that the Tories were stagnant anyway, one would have to agree with Augustus's view, which is that the scandal has not impacted Tory fortunes negatively, but Stockholm's position is in opposition to that point. The position put forward by Stockholm here, suggests that the scandal has put a cap on Tory fortunes and is acting as disinsentive. Naturally, this implies that otherwise their standing in the polls would be climbing.
It's fairly easy to conclude therefore that the opposition has nothing else to offer that would otherwise suck the "oxygen out of the room", and act as a disinsentive against Tory fortunes.
" Naturally, this implies that otherwise their standing in the polls would be climbing."
Again, no such thing was said, nor does what you say necessarily follow.
Read what was said [and I have also said at other times]: the Conservatives are stuck, and have been since long before this scandal. They must get unstuck, or lose government... and there is no possibility of getting unstuck as long as there are things like this going on. If there was not this current scandal, they would only have a possibility, not that they would be ["naturally"] rising without this sort of thing.
If it wasnt for this scandal maybe the Cons might be getting on track. Them having that 'maybe' denied is significant, but even if it was not denied to them, it was only a maybe. Scandals aren't the only thing stopping them.
Stockholm asserts that the scandal is having an impact. Yet there is no measurable change in the polls. They are not losing support, which would be logical if the scandal was having an impact. So, if we agree with Stockholm, and say the scandal is having an impact and the polls are the same, this logically means that they would be polling higher if there was no scandal.
So, is the scandal having an impact... yes or no?
Well according to the Ipsos poll, what was a 10 point Tory lead is now a 6-point lead and Ekos also found that while in late February the Tories seemed to have a bit of wind in thenr saisl after the Olympics and after the release of some positive economic numbers - that up ward trend quickly got short-circuited as all discourse turned to Guergis and Jaffer. We will never know for sure whether the Tories would be doing better right now if Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer had never been born - or how much better - since we don't have crystal balls. But having the national media focus on these two for the past two months cannot be good for the Tories and my HYPOTHESIS is that it is helping to create a bit of a lower ceiling on Tory support in the short-term
That is what I thought, and I agree. The problem then is that this is disinsentive to support the Tories, not insentive to vote for someone else which is at work. I mean there are some serious problems here if you can have a pretty major patronage scandal going on, on top of some pretty nasty bad press in regards to the Afghan torture issue, and still the opposition can't build any meaningful momentum. The NDP is still wallowing at its traditional 16% like it has for the last 10 years basically, and nothing is happening there.
It's so bad, I was half thinking the polling threads should simply be called: "NDP at 16 to 17% in the Polls", for all future polling threads, knowing that this would be accurate in 9 out 10 polls reported.
The problem is that the NDP (or anyone) can't get traction on the issues to create insentive for them to vote. The fact that this is still happening when there are major disinsentives to vote CPC makes this very clear. Even worse for the NDP, given how badly Ignatief is performing.
In a non-election period all we can do is try to set the stage for an advance during an election campaign. The Liberal Democrats in the UK have been rattling at 17%/18% for the past few years and then surged into the high 20s once the election campaign got underway.
Its a foregone conclusion that anything less than a Conservative majority in the next election means the Tories are out of power. The opposition parties will vote down ANY Tory throne speech after the next election no matter what it contains and then the GG will invite the leader of the next largest party to try to form a government. Its as simple as that. I think the chances that the Liberals or the NDP or the BQ will repeat the mistake of November 2008 and allow a Tory throne speech to pass - is NIL.
I don't see how you can be so categorical, Stockholm. I agree with Augustus - as long there is a clear Cons plurality of seats and in the popular vote, it's much more likely the Cons will stay in power. If the result is close to the 2008 election, which I think is likely despite the current polls, all Harper has to do is buy off one of the opposition parties and his Throne Speech is in the bag. The BQ has shown they will happily vote with Harper if they can get some goodies for Quebec, and both the NDP and Libs will be about to launch leadership campaigns if their standings are the same or worse as the last election, so the Libs at least will likely keep propping up Harper as they've done to date.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Iggy gets 27% of the vote and Harper gets 36-38% that the people will just accept that Iggy will take power a month later? I think that's ludicrous. Unless the Libs get back to at least their 2006 result of 100+ seats, which I think is highly improbable, Iggy will be gone and the Libs will prop up Harper for another year until the Libs select the next leader.
That is what I thought, and I agree. The problem then is that this is disinsentive to support the Tories, not insentive to vote for someone else which is at work. I mean there are some serious problems here if you can have a pretty major patronage scandal going on, on top of some pretty nasty bad press in regards to the Afghan torture issue, and still the opposition can't build any meaningful momentum. The NDP is still wallowing at its traditional 16% like it has for the last 10 years basically, and nothing is happening there.
It's so bad, I was half thinking the polling threads should simply be called: "NDP at 16 to 17% in the Polls", for all future polling threads, knowing that this would be accurate in 9 out 10 polls reported.
The problem is that the NDP (or anyone) can't get traction on the issues to create insentive for them to vote. The fact that this is still happening when there are major disinsentives to vote CPC makes this very clear. Even worse for the NDP, given how badly Ignatief is performing.
I think you're right that all 3 parties are stuck in a holding pattern right now. It's probably very frustrating for the strategists of all 3 parties to see all these things going on and not be able to get out of the polling quicksand.
Each time a party goes up in support, it falls back down. It goes up, and then it comes back down. The Conservatives fall back down to minority position each time they have come close to majority territory, the Liberals steal a couple points ever few months when the Conservatives mess up and then end up losing it again because of Ignatieff's incompetence, and the NDP is stuck in position as well despite the mistakes of the 2 bigger parties.
I think you're right that all 3 parties are stuck in a holding pattern right now. It's probably very frustrating for the strategists of all 3 parties to see all these things going on and not be able to get out of the polling quicksand.
I think this holding pattern is with us for the long-term. As long as the House of Commons is divided up 4 ways, there isn't much room for the parties to grow. The parties are stuck in quicksand for the foreseeable future.
When the Alliance and Conservatives merged the political landscape changed. Here is what it looks like now:
The BQ has 8% of the vote locked up and has 40 safe seats.
The NDP has 14% of the vote locked up and has 25 safe seats.
The Liberals have 24% of the vote locked up and have 70 safe seats.
The Conservatives have 28% of the vote locked up and have 95 safe seats.
And the Greens have 5% of the vote locked up and no safe seats.
So only 20% of the vote is not locked up and there are only 80 unsafe seats.
And of the 20% that isn't locked up, the NDP probably can only get half of that vote so the NDP's ceiling is 24% of the vote and something like 65 seats.
And with these kind of numbers, minority governments are close to becoming the rule. Only the Conservatives seem to have an outside shot of gaining a majority government.
And we also have to remember--as of yet, the scandal isn't ballooning into Watergate territory, from what I can tell. As an electoral "dealmaker", it's still relatively remote from the consciousness of most Canadians, including Tory supporters who'd rather take a "Lukiwski distance" than withhold their support altogether...
Are you seriously suggesting that if Iggy gets 27% of the vote and Harper gets 36-38% that the people will just accept that Iggy will take power a month later?
And if Iggy gets 29% and Harper gets 35% Iggy can easily become PM.
If the NDP and Liberals have more seats after the next election then the Conservatives, the Harper government will be replaced.
I agree and you better believe that after the next election, Iggy will be willing to do ANYTHING to find a way to become PM because either he finds a way to make a deal with the NDP and have a non-aggression pact with the BQ and become PM or he is politically dead. There are two and only two possible outcomes for Iggy after the next election - find a way to become PM (either by winning the most seats or by making a deal with the NDP) OR be a footnote in history along with Stephane Dion. What do you think he will choose.
As for the BQ, the Tories have stated categorically that they will campaign in the next election on scrapping the federal funding of political parties. That would deprive the BQ of over 80% of its operating budget. The BQ will NEVER allow Harper to stay in unless they want to sign their own suicide note and end up in bankruptcy court!
Obviously, the price of BQ support would be for Harper to drop the plan to scrap the subsidy for political parties - just as he did in December 2008, the last time the Opposition actually stood up to the bully and tried to take him down. Harper will do that in a second, he is solely interested in retaining power. Never make the mistake of thinking Harper has strong principles that he will adhere to no matter what. One lesson of the coalition crisis is that Harper will do any ideological or policy turn necessary to stay at 24 Sussex Drive.
Iggy has already turned down a chance to be PM in January 2009 and didn't get axed then - he has said a coalition with the BQ will never happen under his leadership. If Harper offers a reasonable Throne Speech post-election and the spread between the parties is close to the 2008 results, Harper will stay in power, make no mistake. The only way your scenario has any chance is if the NDP and Libs alone have a majority without the BQ, which is very unlikely in the current political context.
The difference was that in January 2009, Iggy was able to delude himself into thinking that he could turn down the NDP, then sweep to a big win in a snap election later in 2009 and become PM without having to work with those pesky smaller parties. The Liberals were more than happy to give him that chance. If Iggy fights an election campaign and doesn't win outright - the knives in the Liberal party will be sharpened to the max. Either he finds a way to return his party to power - or he will be forced to resign. Its as simple as that. A leader always gets one shot at winning an election. Iggy will have had his shot.
As much as I never give credit to Harper for consistency or principle - I very much doubt that there is any way that your scenario would happen WCL. You are basically saying that in the next election, Harper will try to frame the entire campaign as him against a "coalition with "socialists and separatists"" and he will make scrapping the public financing of parties a centrepiece of his platform. I find it hard to imagine that a week after the next election Harper would turn around and make a deal with the BQ whereby they prop him up indefinitely in exchange for them getting money in the form of a constinues public financing of parties. If Harper were really that unprincipled then if I were Duceppe, I would push for MAXIMUM humiliation of Harper and insist on lots of public pictures and photo ops with Harper and force him to sign an actual piece of paper where he makes concrete commitments to the "separatists". Maybe while the BQ has him by the balls they can also demand that all the extra seats for Alberta and BC be ditched and also demand billions in extra transfers to Quebec.
I just don't see that happening.
It already did happen in Dec 2008 - Harper was going to scrap public financing and then he reversed himself due to pressure from the BQ and other opposition parties. Harper has already recognized Quebec as a "nation" - a massive concession to Quebec going far beyond anything in Meech and Charlottetown and won more seats in the West in the 2008 election with zero political backlash in English Canada. Again, you are mistaking tactical announcements and posturing from Harper as principle. The political parties subisdy is a a convenient distraction just like the "law-and-order" bills, gun registry abolition, etc, that Harper brings out and jettisons where convenient. He cares absolutely nothing about the substance of any of those issues - that's why he keeps killing his own bills via prorogation and election calls!
Yeah, it's pretty clear Harper has a very pragmatic approach to Conservative pet wedge issues and the party's supporters have shown time and again they don't mind. At this point, expecting Harper's "principles" to ensure his position on anything is very foolish and he and Emerson showed immediately after the Conservatives first achieved power how unconcerned they were with positions taken during the campaign once the ballots had been counted.
If Harper offers a reasonable Throne Speech post-election and the spread between the parties is close to the 2008 results, Harper will stay in power, make no mistake.
So Harper needs to get over 37% to stay in power.
The Conservatives have been below 37% for quite some time now.
Harper has already recognized Quebec as a "nation" - a massive concession to Quebec going far beyond anything in Meech and Charlottetown and won more seats in the West in the 2008 election with zero political backlash in English Canada.
I'm afraid you are 100% WRONG about that. All Harper did in 2007 was have the House of Commons pass a symbolic resolution recognizing Quebec as a nation. It was completely non-binding, wasn ot a law, did nothing to the constitution and is widely regarded in Quebec as being "nice words, but no substance". Its worth noting that Tory support DROPPED in Quebec from 2006 and 2008 - so clearly Quebecers didn't see it is that big a dea - let alone a "massive concession".
In contrast, the Meech Lake Accord would have enshrined Quebec as a distinct society right in the constitution - it also would have given Quebec the power to veto future constitutional changes, guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons forever and guaranteed that 3 justices of the Supreme Court would be from Quebec and also devolved all kinds of powers to the Quebec government. The Charlottetown accord did much the same stuff.
In contrast, the Meech Lake Accord would have enshrined Quebec as a distinct society right in the constitution - it also would have given Quebec the power to veto future constitutional changes, guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons forever and guaranteed that 3 justices of the Supreme Court would be from Quebec and also devolved all kinds of powers to the Quebec government. The Charlottetown accord did much the same stuff.
And Harper's planning on expanding the House of Commons to 338 seats while not adding any seats to Quebec. Under this arrangement Quebec would be underrepresented in Parliament.
The BQ are sure to take advantage of this in the next election.
I think its also worth noting that while Harper may be totally craven and unprincipled - I don't know if I would say that about Duceppe. In the next election, Duceppe will run as the "anti-Harper" in Quebec and as the bulwark against the Tories. Its hard to imagine him propping up the Tories when there is a chance to have a Liberal/NDP accord in power - and i think that Quebecers would be up in arms if Duceppe did that - and why would he? what's the advantage to him?
And Harper's planning on expanding the House of Commons to 338 seats while not adding any seats to Quebec. Under this arrangement Quebec would be underrepresented in Parliament.
Quebec has been over-represented in Parliament up until now. Why shouldn't other regions of the country have a chance at having more weight for their voices for a change?
As Maxime Bernier correctly pointed out last week, Quebec often whines about what it doesn't have and is never satisfied. When are they going to acknowledge that they have been treated very generously?
I hope Harper campaigns across Quebec in the next election haranguing Quebercers about how generously they have been treated and telling them how ungrateful they are. That tactic would probably lead to a Tory wipeout in Quebec - zero seats and less than 10% of the vote.
Well I certainly think we can see what the NDP strategy for Quebec is. I'm not sure whether Jack Layton or Thomas Mulcair is behind it, but the NDP appears to be in favour of giving Quebec disproportionate representation compared to the rest of Canada.
What I am curious to know is how NDP members and voters in the rest of the country feel about the new NDP policy on Quebec? Do NDP voters in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario feel it is okay for the NDP to support preferential treatment for Quebec?
I hear that Linda Duncan's Conservative opponent in Edmonton-Strathcona may use this against her in the next election.
Having the NDP win a seat in the last election in Alberta seems to really be bothering the Conservatives. It's probably because the NDP stands a good chance of winning one or two additional seats in Alberta in the next election.
The Conservatives have now had 4 years in power and yet are unable to obtain a majority. At some point Canadians will tire of the charade and boot them out.
Having the NDP win a seat in the last election in Alberta seems to really be bothering the Conservatives. It's probably because the NDP stands a good chance of winning one or two additional seats in Alberta in the next election.
The Conservatives have now had 4 years in power and yet are unable to obtain a majority. At some point Canadians will tire of the charade and boot them out.
Let's be honest here - Edmonton-Strathcona is the only winnable seat for the NDP in Alberta. None of the other seats are close. To suggest that other seats in Alberta are winnable for the NDP is silly, but the NDP is welcome to try.
To my knowledge, Ed-Strathcona was the only riding in Alberta during that election where another party's workers supported the ND candidate, as in the "Liberals for Linda" campaign. (Recall how the Libs and NDs also worked together to vote for Cons Joe Clark to defeat Reform a few years ago?)
Funny how amnesia sets in and everyone forgets how these anti-right victories ever happened. The centre-left is utterly powerless in Alberta without parties working with each other... I wonder when they'll figure that one out.
Excellent point - "outwest".
Actually, when it comes to "rebalancing" relative to the new OntAltaBC seats, it wouldn't take any more than 5 added seats tops for Quebec to be up to snuff--maybe only a couple...
Let's be honest here - Edmonton-Strathcona is the only winnable seat for the NDP in Alberta. None of the other seats are close. To suggest that other seats in Alberta are winnable for the NDP is silly, but the NDP is welcome to try.
I certainly hope that's what the Conservatives think and are banking on, becasue the NDP is running hard in Edmonton East (which we've held in the past by the way) and Edmonton Centre.
By all means, keep snoozing your way through those campaigns!
Well I certainly think we can see what the NDP strategy for Quebec is. I'm not sure whether Jack Layton or Thomas Mulcair is behind it, but the NDP appears to be in favour of giving Quebec disproportionate representation compared to the rest of Canada.
What I am curious to know is how NDP members and voters in the rest of the country feel about the new NDP policy on Quebec? Do NDP voters in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario feel it is okay for the NDP to support preferential treatment for Quebec?
I hear that Linda Duncan's Conservative opponent in Edmonton-Strathcona may use this against her in the next election.
YOu obviously have some powers of telepathy and fantasy because as far as I know all parties except the BQ will support the new seat distribution.
Closing for length.