Re Stockholm's comment on my last post - Harper has not regained his Sept-Nov 10 point plus lead YET, but the trend lines are clear. Unlike other posters, I think the leader approval ratings are critical, probably more important than the horse race numbers at this point in the electoral cycle, and Harper has a strong lead there despite prorogation and all the other mini-scandals, Iggy is absolutely abysmal on every leadership attribute and Layton is a strong 2nd nearly across the board
The challenge for the NDP is to translate Layton's personal support into NDP votes at the ballot box, and we won't do that with Joe Comartin trying to dredge up the Jaffer issue at the Justice committee or with Layton's limits on prorogation motion (though I support the content of the motion).
It's a scary thought. Harper gets to replace the GG in the fall, postpones the detainee issues by using Iacobucci, and breaks the election date legislation once again with a dissolved parliament to go against Iggy as his main competition... barring a big shift to the NDP.
Layton and Duceppe are bound to gain points against Harper and Iggy.
I'm with WCL on the importance of leaders. In a campaign I think Iggy will self-destruct fast and swingers will be swayed.
But it'd have to be tempting to not force an election, just to keep Iggy around as long as possible. The Cons are getting whatever they want.
WCL, I think I disagree with you a bit as to the potential impact of the Jaffer issue. It goes to hypocrisy, arrogance and entitlement ... the fact that the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals on any of it.
This may not win over Conservative voters to the NDP, but it helps avoid any consolidation of the Liberal vote behind the Conservatives, and hopefully demoralizes a few more Conservatives to sit on their hands. In more than a few seats in the west, it's as good for us if some Liberals return home after voting Conservative in the last election.
Of course that won't be sufficient to get our own vote up; I think that will take a combination of staying on the impact of the recession and talking about a Green recovery.
But I think the fact that people think the government is on the wrong track, Harper's own numbers are falling, and Iggy's are tumbling, while Jack is on the move upwards, is the best possible combination of circumstances for us at this stage of the game.
Re Stockholm's comment on my last post - Harper has not regained his Sept-Nov 10 point plus lead YET, but the trend lines are clear. Unlike other posters, I think the leader approval ratings are critical, probably more important than the horse race numbers at this point in the electoral cycle, and Harper has a strong lead there despite prorogation and all the other mini-scandals, Iggy is absolutely abysmal on every leadership attribute and Layton is a strong 2nd nearly across the board
Yes, but Harper's approval ratings have been declining steadily over the last couple of months. I would never expect him to suddenly fall behind Iggy as "best person for PM" - but the fact is his personal numbers have taken a beating and that will hurt him.
These are the issues that most people will vote on come election time.
Quote:
Economic optimism muted (Nanos Economic Monitor, First Quarter 2010)
The latest Nanos Economic Monitor indicated that although optimism on the strength of the economy continues, it has become muted in the first quarter of 2010. Canadians were somewhat less likely to believe that the economy will strengthen in 2010's first quarter (down five percentage points since last quarter).
Canadians kept a generally positive attitude towards real estate but the attitude has softened in this quarter. Canadians were less likely to believe that real estate value will increase in the next six months (41.7%) compared to the last quarter of 2009 (46.0%).
When asked whether their personal finances were better or worse off, the gap closed this quarter. Eighteen percent of Canadians said they were better off in the first quarter of 2010 compared to 28.4 percent of Canadians who said they were worse off this quarter.
Canadians views on the security of their jobs have slid since the last quarter. Canadians were marginally less likely to believe that their jobs were secure in the first quarter of 2010 (46.4%) compared to the last quarter of 2009 (50.4%).
There are likely a number of factors at play. First, the recent Canadian federal budget, with its message of restraint and a fragile recovery has likely had a psychological impact on Canadians.
Second, with mixed economic news continuing to come out of the US it is unlikely that average Canadians will feel the recovery has taken hold in Canada until the economic outlook in the US improves. On the positive side of the ledger, real estate continues to buoy Canadian's economic confidence.
The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with regional breakdowns. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the quarter to quarter change from the last Nanos Economic Monitor completed between December 10th and December 13th, 2009.
Economic Strength Question: In the next six months, do you think the Canadian economy will become stronger, weaker or will there be no change?
National (n=1,000)
Stronger 43.9% (-5.0) Weaker 14.0% (+1.7) There will be no change 38.1% (+4.1) Unsure 4.0% (-0.8)
Real Estate Value Question: In the next six months, do you believe that the value of real estate in your neighbourhood will increase, stay the same or decrease?
National (n=1,000)
Increase 41.7% (-4.3) Stay the same 43.6% (+0.4) Decrease 8.9% (+1.3) Unsure 5.9% (+2.7)
Personal Finances Question: Thinking of your personal finances, are you better off, worse off or has there been no change over the past year?
National (n=1,000)
Better off 18.4% (+2.5) Worse off 28.4% (-2.8) No change 50.7% (+0.6) Unsure 2.6% (-0.1)
Personal Debt Question: In the next six months, do you believe that your personal debt will increase, stay the same or decrease?
National (n=1,000)
Increase 20.8% (+1.6) Stay the same 43.0% (-0.1) Decrease 30.4% (-1.4) Unsure 5.8% (-0.1)
Job Security Question: Would you describe your job, at this time, as secure, somewhat secure, somewhat not secure or not at all secure?
National (n=1,000)
Secure 46.4% (-4.0) Somewhat secure 19.2% (+0.3) Somewhat not secure 4.3% (-1.3) Not at all secure 13.6% (+2.7) Unsure 16.5 (+2.2)
The Nanos Economic Monitor is a research initiative which tracks the economic mood on key indicators every quarter.Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Economic Monitor."
Canadians may be tuning out this issue but they are not tuning out economic ones, and surprise, surprise, Canadians are not quite as excited about Canada's economic recovery as the banks are
Canadians are tuning out of Afghanistan detainee controversy.
That seems to me to be more about the way the questions were asked, than the actual level of concern or not. If they had asked do you think the government has the right to stonewall parliament and cover up their knowledge of Afghans being tortured I have a sneaking suspicion the outcome might have been different.
Where's that weekly EKOS poll. One before when the Liberals got into trouble they decided they would not release polling results on a weekly basis. Deja vue?
Thee regional variations are getting to be a bit of a joke, mostly because of the small sample sizes. The Liberals, for example, are down 13% in Manitoba / Saskatchewan in a single week.
I would like to see EKOS and other national pollsters poll individual provinces one by one. Then we might have a 1000 person sample for the Atlantic, for example, which would give us a much better fix on what is really going on.
That seems to me to be more about the way the questions were asked, than the actual level of concern or not. If they had asked do you think the government has the right to stonewall parliament and cover up their knowledge of Afghans being tortured I have a sneaking suspicion the outcome might have been different.
Sure. If you ask people if they'd be mad as hell if the government shut parliament down to cover up a torture scandal, then yeah, people would say, yes, mad as hell.
If you ask people if there's anything the Conservative government did a few months ago that's bothering them, you will get many blank looks.
Only the Grrens are up. From 6.7% in the election to 10.4. Which no one believes is real.
I have suggested before that a high Green vote in the polls is bad for the Conservatives because much of it can be expected to shift to the opposition parties come election day
Ekos also has "other" at almost 3% (because they stupidly decided to start prompting for other) but in the last election other parties got about 1% of the vote.
While I am not a big fan of individual poll results--
When you drill down this poll is actually quite interesting--
First it has the NDP at 22% in Ontario. I think this is in part a reaction to the HST which is negative to both Liberals and Cons. If that is the case between now and July and then following as people experience the tax this could increase.
Secondly, the Liberals' thinkers conference has not been positive and these numbers are from before that news came out. Two of the big stories that came out of the conference was Fowler's comment that the Liberals will do anythign to get elected regardless of the merits and the proposal ideas to move to the right on medicare-- limiting it and privatizing parts of it. If left-leaning Liberals don't like what they see the NDP would welcome their support.
I do not like to interpret polls individually because there is a context of more long term trends but those trends appear solidly favourable to the NDP.
The only concern is the Cons inching back up to 35% I suspect that support might have trouble with the scrutiny of an election. Problem is the Liberals will face the same problem as that crew do not appear ready for prime time either.
The NDP I think right now is benefitting largely form a negative trend against the other parties-- if the party can produce good policies and a good campaign it might seal the deal and have a record result. It will take that extra policy and campign push to bring new support home but that support is there for the taking if the party can make no mistakes and deliver a platform and campaign that connects.
Again, I am writing in the context of this poll but mostly in response to wider longer trends and political realities...
I assume that was 1988 but that was a poor campaign-- still ended as a record though.
If a campaign started at 20% there could be enough momentum to equal the Cons and Liberals by the end of the campaign-- they are only in the 25-35% range themselves so it would only take another 5% to match.
I would not assume we are at 20% based on one poll but this is encouraging and we could cross that 20% by fall if things go well.
To be able to start an election campaign from 20% would be a real advantage, one we haven't had in the past, so far as I can remember. What's the highest we ever started from in the past?
The NDP was between 13% to 21% in the last election (writ was dropped on September 7)
The NDP need to be aggressive in promoting their vision for Canada. Of course everyone will benefit from a social democratic government but people don't seem to understand that. They think they will be 'taxed to death' and 'Taliban Jack' will coddle terrorists.
It was the NDP (CCF) that started Medicare, and with their influence Canada developed some other social programs too. That history needs to be repeated until the public gets it.
There are only two very real threats to a democratic socialist government, one is a capital strike, the other is a fascist coup like they always do in any latin american country that elects a people's government. Likely a capital strike is the preferred method for Canada , no overt armies, just a whole lot of rich people packing up and leaving with their toys cuz they don't like the rules. This would have to be dealt with before any progress could be made by an NDP government intent of changing things for the better.
12.7% for the Greens????? When other recent polls give them barely half that. How can anyone take EKOS seriously?
The Greens shot their bolt in the last election, falling well short of their deluded expecations. They have done little since to attract support and have wilted badly in all the byelections.There is no rational basis to think they can even hold their vote, let alone double it.
The CBC and the Star should get a new pollster and stop publishing these fictional numbers
Not only that but because Ekos also prompsts for "other" other, they get 3.1% other. So this poll has the Green/Other vote at 15.8%!! which is is literally double what fringe and no name parties got last time and is not picked up in any other polls. I think we can safely drop Green/Other to 7% and divvy it up among the other parties in which cae we are really at Tories 34.5, Libs 29, NDP 17.5 or there abouts which is more in line with what Ipsos and ARG are saying.
Layton won the Ekos "beer" poll, but this time they only asked about Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Ironically, the beer poll, with fewer possible responses offered, had a higher response rate than the horserace vote intention question.
If I had to eat excrement I'd at least find some comfort if Harper had to eat it as well.
I actually don't like Beer much-- prefer wine.
I've had a glass of wine in the company of Layton (like many it was a public function- I don't know Layton or his wife personally but I certainly would want to get to know them if I had the chance). Layton comes across very well one on one. Like someone you would want as a friend -- not because of his position.
I would not have had as enjoyable a time if it had been Ignatief. Layton is not arrogant. Ignatief strikes me as arrogant.
Since the next election will likely be decided in Ontario:
EKOS POLL - Ontario
CON: 35.3
LIB: 32.8
NDP: 15.4
GRN: 13.8 !
OTH: 2.7
There is no way the Greens will get 14% of the vote in Ontario. Most of these votes will go to the NDP and Liberals. If these numbers hold, the Cons will lose a lot of seats in Ontario.
And Harper and the CONS have alienated the other parties so much that if the Cons don't win more seats then they did last election, Ignatieff will likely become Prime Minister by default.
The equation to watch will be:
NDP + LIB> then CON
If the NDP and Liberals combined win more seats then the CONS then Harper is toast.
The problem is it is not Harper who is toast but Ignatieff. I have said before the Liberals need to change their leader now if they have any hope whatsoever for the next election. Unfortunately political parties move way too slowly when they get into trouble with their leaders.
It is only the NDP that has any chance of stopping a Cons majority government. The sooner Canadians wake up to that fact the better.
Quote:
Ignatieff's Approval Continues to Plummet in Canada
The popularity of Canadian opposition leader Michael Ignatieff remains extremely low, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 16 per cent of respondents approve of the Liberal Party leader, down three points since February.
The approval rating for Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper remains stable at 29 per cent. New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton holds higher numbers, at 32 per cent.
NR, they don't have time to change their leader, even if they had a constitutional opening to do so. And anyways, leaders need longer than 12 months to grow into the job, so changing now won't really help them I don't think. The problem with Ignatieff is that, just as with Martin, everyone read everything they wanted to into him, and the main thing they wanted was a savour. Unlike Martin, Iggy didn't even have 20 years of political experience to drawn on either. This is why it's amateur hour on the Rideau.
Ignatieff is a prime example of how, snide remarks about professional politicians aside, political leadership is a complex skill to learn, and it requires a different kind of wisdom than academia or business for that matter.
It is only the NDP that has any chance of stopping a Cons majority government. The sooner Canadians wake up to that fact the better.
With only 1 in 5 Canadians at best currently supporting the NDP, the NDP cannot single handidly stop the Cons from getting a majority.
NDP support hitting 25% would help prevent a Harper majority but even if that happened other things would also have to happen in order to prevent a Harper majority:
Namely, BQ support must stay close to 10% and Liberal support must stay close to 30%
Under FPTP, if the CONS can get a 8%+ lead, they have a good shot at obtaining a majority.
The Cons must be prevented from getting a lead of 8% or more.
For argument's sake let's say the NDP hit 25% support. Even that historically high level of support would not be enough to prevent a CON majority single-handidly. Here are the numbers:
NDP: 25%
BQ: 9%
GRN: 6%
LIB: 27% (still required in order to prevent a CON majority)
CON: 33%
As far as I can tell, the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap. Until then, BQ and Liberal support will also be required to stop the CONS.
the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap.
Just wondering what you would consider evidence of such a potential movement or growth in NDP support. What sort of leading indicators are you looking at?
the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap.
Just wondering what you would consider evidence of such a potential movement or growth in NDP support. What sort of leading indicators are you looking at?
You would think that the list of NDP candidates would be a major factor in how the voting may go in the next federal election, wouldn't you?
Once the NDP finishes unveiling it's team, in Quebec especially, the polls should reflect an increased confidence in Jack Layton's leadership.
NR, they don't have time to change their leader, even if they had a constitutional opening to do so. And anyways, leaders need longer than 12 months to grow into the job, so changing now won't really help them I don't think. The problem with Ignatieff is that, just as with Martin, everyone read everything they wanted to into him, and the main thing they wanted was a savour. Unlike Martin, Iggy didn't even have 20 years of political experience to drawn on either. This is why it's amateur hour on the Rideau.
If those GW Bush-level approval ratings continue for Iggy into the fall, I can a scenario where the Libs hold their noses and back Harper until fall 2011 in order to axe Iggy and hold a leadership convention. Forget the semi-tight horse race numbers, everybody knows the Libs should be at least 5 points up on the Cons given the dismal performance of the gov't over the last few months, prorogation, Guergis debacles, Afghan cover-up, climate change embarrassements, etc.
Iggy is really hanging on by a thread right now - the main driver of the "Canada 150" conference was internal, to convince Lib members that there is an actual policy development process going on which will include them in a meaningful way. This is totally false of course, but there is no other rationale for that gathering of elites spewing conventional wisdom from the early 90s about two-tier health care, deficit hysteria, productivity crisis and the usual right-wing corporate BS.
If Rae, Kennedy and Coderre held a news conference and said Iggy had to go, he'd be gone. Donolo is a front for the Rae/Chrétien faction and he has zero personal loyalty to Iggy. There was a brief flurry of enthusiasm during prorogation but it is slowly sinking in to the caucus and the party that the Liberal strategy is not working and that Harper is headed for a majority unless there is a major change in direction. If Iggy doesn't turn things around by summer, I predict a serious drive for removing him as leader will emerge in the early fall, before Harper can pull the plug for the general election.
As far as Winnipeg voters go, the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff continue to suffer from the drubbing the party took across the country after Ignatieff pledged last September to bring the Conservative government down at his first opportunity.
In June 2009, six months after Ignatieff took over as leader from Stéphane Dion, the Liberals had climbed within spitting distance of the Conservatives in Winnipeg, with 32 per cent of decided voters to the Conservatives 36 per cent. In December, that had plummeted to 24 per cent while the Conservatives had jumped to 43 per cent.
And that would be even if it weren't for the present somewhat unique situation: the Liberals don't have to do well. All that has to happen in the election is for Harper not to get a majority. Even with a weak Liberal campaign eroding the Liberals position, Harper crew are still a long way from being poised for a majority.
Hardly iinspiring if you are a Liberal. But they aren't looking for inspiring. They'll take it.
And that would be even if it weren't for the present somewhat unique situation: the Liberals don't have to do well. All that has to happen in the election is for Harper not to get a majority. Even with a weak Liberal campaign eroding the Liberals position, Harper crew are still a long way from being poised for a majority.
Hardly iinspiring if you are a Liberal. But they aren't looking for inspiring. They'll take it.
Now that we have 5 parties splitting the vote it won't take much to win government. Dion almost became PM last time with just 27% support!
Ignatieff's personal approval numbers are so low that he might be able to excede expectations during the next election. Much like Turner did in 1988, Joe Clark did in 1979, and Stanfield did in 1972. Ignatieff's campaign skills are an unknown. Can he give better interviews and speeches then Dion did in the 2008 campaign? Is he a better debater then Dion was? The 5 week period of the next election will decide Ignatieff's fate one way or another. A few percentage points here or there will make all the difference.
Isn't First-Past-the-Post wonderful?
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
Someone I was speaking with yesterday put things rather well: the Liberals keep looking for a silver bullet -- *anything* that will quickly return them to their perceived rightful status as the natural governing party, except of course for doing the hard work involved in rebuilding their party from the grassroots up.
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
That situation has the makings of finally raising public awareness of the need for electoral reform in a country with a multi-party system but a parliamentary system made for two-and-a-half parties.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media will probably respond with a not-so-subtle campaign to just try and consolidate some of the parties so we can return to a majority FPTP government instead.
Now that we have 5 parties splitting the vote it won't take much to win government. Dion almost became PM last time with just 27% support!
Ignatieff's personal approval numbers are so low that he might be able to excede expectations during the next election. Much like Turner did in 1988, Joe Clark did in 1979, and Stanfield did in 1972. Ignatieff's campaign skills are an unknown. Can he give better interviews and speeches then Dion did in the 2008 campaign? Is he a better debater then Dion was? The 5 week period of the next election will decide Ignatieff's fate one way or another. A few percentage points here or there will make all the difference.
Isn't First-Past-the-Post wonderful?
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
I agree the low expectations for Iggy do set the stage for a Turner 1988 scenario, but there isn't yet a galvanizing issue like free trade to drive that kind of seismic shift. I disagree that Iggy's campaign skills are unknown - the 2006 Liberal leadership race was a prime example of his lack of such skills. It takes a lot to be the front-runner and not win a delegated convention - even Turner in 1984 and Campbell in 1993 won their conventions despite horrific gaffes during the leadership races. Iggy losing to Dion in 06 was a huge indictment of his lack of clear convictions, inability to rally new supporters and distruct of Iggy among the Liberal base, which is still a latent problem for him even now.
Ignatieff's biggest problem is that he come across as elitist to the average Canadian voter. The CBC had a discusssion this morning how the the Conservative candidates in the UK are hiding which school they went to, unless it was, what we call in Canada, a public school. People want the guy next door as their leader, not someone who lives in West Vancouver or Westmount. The problem is though, very few of our neighbours will become prime minister. Another advantage for Harper is that to a certain extent he has a wrap on the West, apart from BC that is. The poll that just came out in Manitoba is a good example. Progressives are going to have to do a much better job of getting their act together.
"If I were a Liberal, I would be weeping," Mr. Gregg said.
Allan Gregg sure isn't a Liberal. He's a Conservative spin doctor.
With the Conservative government at just 32%, Gregg is probably shedding a tear or two for the Cons.
At 32%, Gregg is probably remembering the waning days of the Mulroney government when the Cons numbers were in the low 30's. He was one of the main architects of the Cons 2 seat debacle in 1993. Just thinking about that makes me shed a tear for him.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Liberals should be "weeping" when they are only 3% behind the Tories and would almost certainly form some sort of minority/coalition/accord government if an election produced this popular vote split.
Probably the most significant part of the HD poll follows:
Who would you trust most to manage the economy:
Conservatives - 30% (more than Libs & NDP support combined)
Liberals - 20%
NDP - 9%
I think this accurately reflects a key problem facing the NDP - the (real or false) perception that the party are not good stewards of the economy.
Poll after poll indicates that the economy has been the greatest concern of Canadians for at least two years. I say that because I can't remember the last time another issue was.
Not trusted on the main issue of concern to people is a sure way to get stuck at a certain level of support.
Frankly too...I'm a little surprise that the Liberals are so low on that issue and they have to find a way to pull even with the Cons if they want to grow. At least that's the way I see their predicament - if more people trust them, then more people will vote for them.
But but the liberals did it boom boom....As the old excuse goes. Seriously after Malroney, Harris and Harper, I can not undertand how anyone thinks they are stewarts of good fiscal anything. Dont people ever look at results...oh yeah they don't or socialist policies would be the norm worldwdide.
After the millions and millions the Conservative government has spent on advertising "Canada's Economic Action Plan", I'm surprised it's as LOW as 30%.
I don't think the ad campaign has benefited them much nationally. On the one hand people know it is public money being used to promote the Cons and secondly it is a reminder of a program widely seen to favour some some parts of the country over others.
However, it is also possible that in some of the places that received the most money there are local benefits and some of those are swing ridings purposefully chosen to receive money exactly for that purpose. So I think that the political benefit of the so called action plan was local and would not show up nationally.
People are fickle and the Cons might find they lose some of those seats anyway.
Yes, Liberal PM's in minorities have acted as though they had majorities, but were any of them as arrogant and incompetent as Harper? (and yes, I know Trudeau was arrogant - that's a given).
With regard to the trust in managing the economy question that RedRover seems to relish talking about. Quite frankly, no matter what the NDP says or does for the next 100 years - you will never see a plurality of people saying they trust the NDP the MOST to "manage the economy" until Canada elects an NDP government and it manages the economy well. I think that it is a question that you can never ever "win" on until you have a track record. I think that people also interpret the question as "who is the best bean counter?" and people will always choose whoever looks like a banker. There are other questions though, like "who do you trust most to protect the interests of the average Canadian?" etc... where the NDP tends to do much better.
I think that in the end, the goal for the NDP is to neutralize the question on economic management. First of all we see that about 40% of voters don't trust ANYONE to manage the economy. I actually think that more and more people think that it doesn't really matter who is in power when it comes to the economy since its all about global conditions. Secondly as the recovery kicks in people start to see "economic management" as a less and less of a concern while they see things like unemployment, pensions etc...as bigger and bigger concerns and those are issues where the NDP is much better places.
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
The Conservative government has weathered several controversies - such as its decision to prorogue Parliament - and remains firmly ahead of the opposition in terms of voter support, a new poll by Ipsos Reid suggests.
The Tories have secured a 10-point lead over the Liberal party, says the poll, which was conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global National.
-------------
These numbers are almost identical to those from the last election campaign, Bricker said.
"And we already know the results of that," he said.
A series of high-profile incidents involving the Tories in recent months have done little to sway voters over to the Liberals, Bricker said.
Among the controversies have been allegations the Tories covered up the fact that Canadian soldiers were handing detainees over to Afghan authorities despite the fact Canada knew the detainees would likely be tortured.
"The things that have been happening have not been fundamental about how Canadians make decisions about the government," Bricker said. "It's not like the average Canadian is paying that much attention to it. . . . The big issue that Canadians care the most about, which is the economy, is clearly improving in the minds of the public, and given that the thing they're really judging the government on is headed in the right direction, you can see why the gap is increasing."
Not sure why, but for some reason Ipsos-Reid and Darrell Bricker tend to inflate their polling numbers for the Conservatives. It gives a misleading result, and is a bit frustrating.
Its interesting that among francophones, the Liberals are actually in FOURTH place with only 16%, compared to the NDP at 17% and the Tories at 18%. I wonder whether the federal Liberals might be getting singed a bit by the EXTREME unpopularity of the provincial Liberals. Anyways, at this rate the happiest guy in town has to be Tom Mulcair!
Its interesting that among francophones, the Liberals are actually in FOURTH place with only 16%, compared to the NDP at 17% and the Tories at 18%. I wonder whether the federal Liberals might be getting singed a bit by the EXTREME unpopularity of the provincial Liberals. Anyways, at this rate the happiest guy in town has to be Tom Mulcair!
The parties are basically tied amongst that demographic, and 1% point differences is too small to reach any conclusions. This Quebec poll is not particularly reliable, IMO.
Augustus, i realize that from your Tory POV, you better HOPE that this poll is "unreliable". But the fact is that the large sample polls in Quebec that Leger and CROP do on a monthly basis with sample sizes of 1,000 or more are actually HIGHLY reliable and in the last few elections were much closer to the final results than were those skimpy Quebec sub-samples of national polls done out of Toronto.
Its true that there is essentially a three way tie for second place between the Liberals, Tories and NDP in Quebec. The thing is that for the NDP which was at 1% in Quebec as recently as 2000 and which only elected an MP in Quebec in a general election for the first time in 2008 - there are worse things in life than to be tied with the parties like the Liberals and Conservative - each of whom have totally dominated Quebec in my lifetime. We know from a weight of research that BQ voters tend to have the NDP as their second choice by a solid margin. This tells me that while the NDP may be tied with the other federalist parties with 17% - they have by far the most growth potential if support for the BQ starts to decline.
The BQ is going to lose seats in the next election, not gain them.
And if wishes were horses, I would ride, ride, ride.
ETA: I don't know that they are, and I don't know that they aren't. You've asserted this with no evidence or argument. And thus can't be taken seriously.
These numbers are not that dramatic when it comes to seats. There are few 3-way seats in Quebec. The BQ are running against the cons in some parts, the Liberals in others so those two parties can almost be added together to compare against the BQ-- so the BQ are not running away with anything. The NDP is not concentrated and so has few possible seats even if tied-- don't you love the FPTP system?
These are not numbers that suggest significant change in seats.
If this trend continues the NPD will win between 2 and 5 seats in the next election in Quebec alone, and will finally become a national party truly in contention for the Government of Canada.
Of most interest to us amongst the 3-way seats there are in Quebec are Gatineau and Brossard-La Prairie. Of the 4-way seats worth looking at, there are Hull-Aylmer, Jeanne-Le Ber and maybe Saint-Lambert.
But what if things continue to get completely shaken up in that province? We should continue to try and build in seats like Westmount-VM, NDG-Lachine East, Rosemont, Hochelaga, Rosemont, Shefford and even Laurier Ste-Marie, to be ready for any opportunities that could present themselves suddenly. We have great candidates in most of those places, who seem to be committed to more than one election.
I'm inclined to agree that on paper its hard to see where the NDP gets a seat in Quebec after Outremont and Gatineau, but the fact is that IF NDP support actually did zoom from 12% to 17%, I can almost guarantee that there would be a few surprise wins or near wins in seats that could not have been predicted from the results in 2008. Remember that when the Tories came from no where to win 10 seats in Quebec in 2006 - they were almost all seats where Tory support had been almost non-existent in 2004.
Fair enough, but it was in areas that arguably had a history of Créditiste/Union Nationale support and the right demographics / values. Similarly, while past results might not predict areas of possible NDP breakthroughs, there are other markers that could be better predictors, don't you think?
The BQ is going to lose seats in the next election, not gain them.
And if wishes were horses, I would ride, ride, ride.
ETA: I don't know that they are, and I don't know that they aren't. You've asserted this with no evidence or argument. And thus can't be taken seriously.
You sound a bit snarky.
A detailed analysis is not necessary. Most Quebec observers and experts have chronicled the declining support for the BQ and for sovereignty. They have lost support in the last 2 elections and Duceppe's recent attempt to travel over Canada promoting separation has been seen by most as an act of desperation. Most Quebecers are not interested in it, and even the first leader of the BQ, Lucien Bouchard, has said to forget about it happening in the near future.
The BQ has been low in most of the polls in recent months, and the overall trendline is a declining one. Focusing on the odd poll that shows a higher number is unreliable.
What can't be taken seriously are most of the seats above that you mention as NDP targets - the only one that can go NDP is Gatineau. The rest are Liberal-BQ and Conservative-BQ contests.
Provincial politics always filters into the federal scene and vice a versa, federal politics filters into provincial politics.
Both these preasures currently favour the provincial and federal nationalist parties in Quebec, the PQ and BQ. Both Charest and Harper are unpopular in Quebec. Charest's Liberals are floundering so the PQ is riding an upswing that will likely land them in government after the next provincial election. This bodes very well for the BQ. Coupled with the federalist vote being splintered between four parties, the BQ could win more seats with the same 38% of the vote they got in the last election, as long as the second place party moves down closer to 20%. Isn't FPTP wonderful!
The BQ is the biggest beneficiery from FPTP. Nationally they have just 10% of the vote but are almost guaranteed getting almost twice that support in the H of C. Maybe that's why electoral reform is the strongest in Quebec. Quebec is the best bet Canada has of getting rid of FPTP.
The ebb and flow between provincial and federal politics is interesting to watch.
Provincial politics in BC is headed against the Cons. The NDP will be making pickups both provincially and federally there. This means the Cons are going to have to pick up seats outside of BC just to maintain power.
The Cons greatest hope is in Ontario. The McGuinty's government is weak and will likely lose the next election. Interestingly, one thing helping McGuinty is the unpopularity of the Harper Conservatives. If John Tory had won the last provincial election, Harper would likely be on his way out. And if the Dion-Layton coalition had taken power McGuinty would likely be a doomed man.
And if there's one thing that hobbles the federal NDP more then anything to this very day, it's the memory of the Rae government that left office 15 years ago. The Rae government had the misfortune of being saddled with a deep economic recession that in turn saddled the NDP across Canada with the reputation of being bad custodians of the economy. That the recession was caused by Mulroney's free trade policies is conveniently forgotten. In any case, unpopular provincial governments in Ontario and BC during the 90's crippled the federal NDP during that decade and into the early parts of the 2000's.
I think the lesson to learn from this ebb and flow is that governments eventually always lose their popularity. And that the unpopularity of governments bring down their provincial or federal cousins even if they are not in power. So McLauchlan and McDonough would likely have succeeded to a much greater extent had they not been saddled with the unpopularity of Rae, Harcourt and Glen Clark. And Layton should count himself lucky he does not have to deal with that kind of provincial drag. This experience lends itself to the belief that the NDP might be better served if the federal and provincial wings operated under different names. Right wingers seem to have mastered the art of disassociation by establishing a new party whenever they have become discredited. See Progressive Conservative, BC Social Credit, Reform, BC Liberal, Saskatchewan Party, Alliance, Conservative, Wild Rose etc....
Most importantly the lessons of the past point to the importance of enacting permanent change when in government. Governments eventually fall, so it is important to affect change when given the chance. The greatest regret of NDP governments in BC and Ontario is that they were so scared of losing power, they never dared to establish major change. In the end, they lost power anyway and had nothing major to show for it. And they took down the federal NDP for a decade to boot.
Well, unqualified unsupported statements may bring out my snarky qualities a bit. I'll try and do better.
But if what you say is correct, that makes it hard to explain why the Bloc continues to show such a dominant standing in the Quebec polls. I thought they were vulnerable last time, but in fact Duceppe proved himself quite adroit during the campaign, and played the issues perfectly to their advantage. What happens when he leaves is another question altogether, I grant you.
Note that I did not claim the NDP would win any of those seats next time, under current circumstances. Also no-one predicted the NDP would win any number of the Ontario seats we won provincially in 1990.
My point was to say that if things shifted massively and suddenly in Quebec, where might we hope for some breakthroughs, and where were the 3-way and 4-way seats that were more conducive than less. For example, I left Louis-Hebert off the list. Jeanne-Le Ber is viable enough that the Bloc actually advertised against the NDP there -- in a seat they held and were defending -- so it's not totally far-fetched, Lou. More like saying that Edmonton Centre is a better NDP target than Macleod.
Meanwhile, I'll agree with the broad outlines of JKR's general point about the influence of the provincial political cycle on federal politics, except to note that if the BC Liberals, Ontario PCs and Quebec Liberal Party are supposedly hurting the federal Conservatives, it does not follow that the federal NDP should change its name to innoculate itself somehow from the fortunes of its political cousins. Also McLauchlin and McDonough's terms had other problems of their own as well.
Wishful thinking perhaps, and little, if any, substance to your comments about the Bloc.
Look at the latest polling results for the Bloc which shows them presently at the identical polling as they received in the last election when they won 49 seats. At the present time there is absolutely nothing to suggest they will get less than that in the next election probably in 2011.
NorthReport wrote:
If this trend continues the NPD will win between 2 and 5 seats in the next election in Quebec alone, and will finally become a national party truly in contention for the Government of Canada.
In fact, if this Leger poll were actually the popular vote in Quebec in the next election, the BQ would probably win back two seats they lost very narrowly last time to the Liberals (Brossard-LaPrairie and Papineau - sorry Justin Trudeau) and they would also probably win about 5 seats that are currently held by the Tories/Andre Arthur (MIKR, Roberval, Beauport-Limoilou, Portneuf-Jacques Cartier and perhaps Jonquiere and Charlesbourg). They could conceivably get as many as 57 seats in Quebec that way - but that would be their absolute ceiling.
In fact, if this Leger poll were actually the popular vote in Quebec in the next election, the BQ would probably win back two seats they lost very narrowly last time to the Liberals (Brossard-LaPrairie and Papineau - sorry Justin Trudeau) and they would also probably win about 5 seats that are currently held by the Tories/Andre Arthur (MIKR, Roberval, Beauport-Limoilou, Portneuf-Jacques Cartier and perhaps Jonquiere and Charlesbourg). They could conceivably get as many as 57 seats in Quebec that way - but that would be their absolute ceiling.
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.
I'm not trying to make an ex cathedra prediction of exactly what will happen in an election that could be years away. I'm just saying what would happen IF the popular vote were exactly what the Leger poll says.
Fine, but I'm just pointing out that the BQ is only at 38% in this poll which is where they were on Election Night in 08, and that on top of that their actual vote is probably more like 35-36% in this poll since you usually need to deduct a couple of percentage points to get an accurate picture of how many people will actually show up and vote for the BQ.
So they are not ahead of where they were last time. They are at the same place, and possibly lower if you take into account historical voting trends.
Yeah, but the Tories are wayyyy lower than they were in the last election. If Leger is to be believed about 5% of the population has shifted from BQ to NDP. That doesn't help the Tories much since the places where the NDP is picking up BQ votes are NOT the places where Tory MPs sit.
The issue I think most people are nt addressing is the shape of the NDP support in Quebec. It is very thin and very wide for the most part. What this means is there is now a base that has been built in most of the province for the NDP that did not previously exist. This base in itself at 17% may not win any new seats for the NDP-- or it could deliver perhaps Gatineau. However it should not be dismissed. The party has a very high tipping point in the provicne because of the flat support across the province. This means that the party could get 1-2 seats however, a bump of ten more points, perhaps the result of a superb campaign or a problem with another party's campaign, and that number could suddenly go from 1-2 seats to 20-30 seats with almost no stops in between.
This is in contrast with both the Liberal and the Conservative support which is very concentrated. The BQ support in fact has some strongholds but it is also a wide base and there is a narrow range they could move in that could make the difference of almost half their seats .
I don't think the NDP is presently on the edge of the big 20-30 seat breakthrough, but when that happens there will likely be little warning and a tipping point where dozons of seats could be in play at once. This is why even at 17% we can't point to many new seats as they would be part of a much larger number that suddenly could be in play at a higher level of support.
So the question could be what number does the NDP vote start to be efficient in Quebec and how many seats are we talking about-- the number could be about 8% higher than current polling say around 25% and at that level we could be looking at some 20 seats while at 20% it could be just 2 seats. This might justify a huge gamble in the province to try to push the NDP to those numbers.
For those dreaming of a Mulcair-led NDP, that alone could be a factor that could provide that bump. That said I'm not suggesting a leadership change as the party exists across the country and there is no reason to dump Layton. However, the strategy of raising the profile in the party for Mulcair, a strategy that Layton clearly supports, is obviously a good one that already is showing progress.
The other thing we can consider is this: if the party did score a showing of over 15% of the vote in the next election in the province, while it would not win many new seats it likely would help identify the 20 seats or so the party should spend their efforts in for the following campaign when the party would want to hit a 25% more efficient vote level.
Those who think I am being silly about these numbers and the speed of growth the party could achieve need to look at the swings Quebec has delivered in the past. There is no reason to assume that over 20 seats in Quebec needs to be far in the future.
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
It's unlikely that the Conservatives are going to lose much to the BQ in the next election. If the Conservatives were going to lose a lot of seats to the BQ, it would have happened in 2008 when the BQ were given an accidental gift over the arts controversy. That is the only thing that saved them. Even then, they could only defeat one MP in Louis-Hebert.
If the other Conservatives in Quebec City didn't go down in 2008, they're unlikely to go down next time.
Exactly Nicky, this is why I have said the NDP have a high threshold to win seats but once that is reached it will be a flood. There are variations within regions so the NDP does not need to be first for that flood to get started -- I would argue that likely that would happen somewhere around 25% -- of course that depends on where the other parties are. There are only two provincially viable parties: the BQ and the NDP. The Cons and Libs are regional which makes them efficient in low numbers but restricts growth. The NDP is inefficient in low numbers but could deliver large numbers past a tipping point.
This is the opposite of the way national NDP votes look like across the rest of the country.
Augustus-- most people who predict Quebec politics end up being wrong.
The Cons have no goodwill to speak of in the province and so are a mistake away from losing more seats.
I do take your point though that the Con vote in the province is already at a base level and it would be unlikely to go much lower.
What could happen is that vote could spread out and become less efficient and therefore cost a couple more seats even with similar vote totals-- especially if the Cons look like they might lose power.
Augustus-- most people who predict Quebec politics end up being wrong.
The Cons have no goodwill to speak of in the province and so are a mistake away from losing more seats.
I do take your point though that the Con vote in the province is already at a base level and it would be unlikely to go much lower.
What could happen is that vote could spread out and become less efficient and therefore cost a couple more seats even with similar vote totals-- especially if the Cons look like they might lose power.
Re Stockholm's comment on my last post - Harper has not regained his Sept-Nov 10 point plus lead YET, but the trend lines are clear. Unlike other posters, I think the leader approval ratings are critical, probably more important than the horse race numbers at this point in the electoral cycle, and Harper has a strong lead there despite prorogation and all the other mini-scandals, Iggy is absolutely abysmal on every leadership attribute and Layton is a strong 2nd nearly across the board
The challenge for the NDP is to translate Layton's personal support into NDP votes at the ballot box, and we won't do that with Joe Comartin trying to dredge up the Jaffer issue at the Justice committee or with Layton's limits on prorogation motion (though I support the content of the motion).
Don Newman giving a clear message of what could come:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/18/f-vp-newman.html
It's a scary thought. Harper gets to replace the GG in the fall, postpones the detainee issues by using Iacobucci, and breaks the election date legislation once again with a dissolved parliament to go against Iggy as his main competition... barring a big shift to the NDP.
Layton and Duceppe are bound to gain points against Harper and Iggy.
I'm with WCL on the importance of leaders. In a campaign I think Iggy will self-destruct fast and swingers will be swayed.
But it'd have to be tempting to not force an election, just to keep Iggy around as long as possible. The Cons are getting whatever they want.
WCL, I think I disagree with you a bit as to the potential impact of the Jaffer issue. It goes to hypocrisy, arrogance and entitlement ... the fact that the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals on any of it.
This may not win over Conservative voters to the NDP, but it helps avoid any consolidation of the Liberal vote behind the Conservatives, and hopefully demoralizes a few more Conservatives to sit on their hands. In more than a few seats in the west, it's as good for us if some Liberals return home after voting Conservative in the last election.
Of course that won't be sufficient to get our own vote up; I think that will take a combination of staying on the impact of the recession and talking about a Green recovery.
But I think the fact that people think the government is on the wrong track, Harper's own numbers are falling, and Iggy's are tumbling, while Jack is on the move upwards, is the best possible combination of circumstances for us at this stage of the game.
Of course, I have no read on Quebec whatsoever at the moment.
Re Stockholm's comment on my last post - Harper has not regained his Sept-Nov 10 point plus lead YET, but the trend lines are clear. Unlike other posters, I think the leader approval ratings are critical, probably more important than the horse race numbers at this point in the electoral cycle, and Harper has a strong lead there despite prorogation and all the other mini-scandals, Iggy is absolutely abysmal on every leadership attribute and Layton is a strong 2nd nearly across the board
Yes, but Harper's approval ratings have been declining steadily over the last couple of months. I would never expect him to suddenly fall behind Iggy as "best person for PM" - but the fact is his personal numbers have taken a beating and that will hurt him.
These are the issues that most people will vote on come election time.
The latest Nanos Economic Monitor indicated that although optimism on the strength of the economy continues, it has become muted in the first quarter of 2010. Canadians were somewhat less likely to believe that the economy will strengthen in 2010's first quarter (down five percentage points since last quarter).
Canadians kept a generally positive attitude towards real estate but the attitude has softened in this quarter. Canadians were less likely to believe that real estate value will increase in the next six months (41.7%) compared to the last quarter of 2009 (46.0%).
When asked whether their personal finances were better or worse off, the gap closed this quarter. Eighteen percent of Canadians said they were better off in the first quarter of 2010 compared to 28.4 percent of Canadians who said they were worse off this quarter.
Canadians views on the security of their jobs have slid since the last quarter. Canadians were marginally less likely to believe that their jobs were secure in the first quarter of 2010 (46.4%) compared to the last quarter of 2009 (50.4%).
There are likely a number of factors at play. First, the recent Canadian federal budget, with its message of restraint and a fragile recovery has likely had a psychological impact on Canadians.
Second, with mixed economic news continuing to come out of the US it is unlikely that average Canadians will feel the recovery has taken hold in Canada until the economic outlook in the US improves. On the positive side of the ledger, real estate continues to buoy Canadian's economic confidence.
The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with regional breakdowns. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the quarter to quarter change from the last Nanos Economic Monitor completed between December 10th and December 13th, 2009.
Economic Strength Question: In the next six months, do you think the Canadian economy will become stronger, weaker or will there be no change?
National (n=1,000)
Stronger 43.9% (-5.0)
Weaker 14.0% (+1.7)
There will be no change 38.1% (+4.1)
Unsure 4.0% (-0.8)
Real Estate Value Question: In the next six months, do you believe that the value of real estate in your neighbourhood will increase, stay the same or decrease?
National (n=1,000)
Increase 41.7% (-4.3)
Stay the same 43.6% (+0.4)
Decrease 8.9% (+1.3)
Unsure 5.9% (+2.7)
Personal Finances Question: Thinking of your personal finances, are you better off, worse off or has there been no change over the past year?
National (n=1,000)
Better off 18.4% (+2.5)
Worse off 28.4% (-2.8)
No change 50.7% (+0.6)
Unsure 2.6% (-0.1)
Personal Debt Question: In the next six months, do you believe that your personal debt will increase, stay the same or decrease?
National (n=1,000)
Increase 20.8% (+1.6)
Stay the same 43.0% (-0.1)
Decrease 30.4% (-1.4)
Unsure 5.8% (-0.1)
Job Security Question: Would you describe your job, at this time, as secure, somewhat secure, somewhat not secure or not at all secure?
National (n=1,000)
Secure 46.4% (-4.0)
Somewhat secure 19.2% (+0.3)
Somewhat not secure 4.3% (-1.3)
Not at all secure 13.6% (+2.7)
Unsure 16.5 (+2.2)
The Nanos Economic Monitor is a research initiative which tracks the economic mood on key indicators every quarter.Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Economic Monitor."
What do you think?
Cheers, Nik
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/161
Canadians may be tuning out this issue but they are not tuning out economic ones, and surprise, surprise, Canadians are not quite as excited about Canada's economic recovery as the banks are
Canadians are tuning out of Afghanistan detainee controversy.
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/03/canadians-are-tuning-out-of-afghan...
That seems to me to be more about the way the questions were asked, than the actual level of concern or not. If they had asked do you think the government has the right to stonewall parliament and cover up their knowledge of Afghans being tortured I have a sneaking suspicion the outcome might have been different.
Where's that weekly EKOS poll. One before when the Liberals got into trouble they decided they would not release polling results on a weekly basis. Deja vue?
it comes out every Thursday
It looks like the Liberals are heading back down into Dion polling territory again.
Libs - 2008 election - 26.3%
Latest Ekos poll - 27.7%
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/24/ekos-poll-mar25.html
Quelle surprise!
EKOS of the Week: And the losers of the week are ... the Liberals!
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/ekos-of-the-week-and-t...
Thee regional variations are getting to be a bit of a joke, mostly because of the small sample sizes. The Liberals, for example, are down 13% in Manitoba / Saskatchewan in a single week.
I would like to see EKOS and other national pollsters poll individual provinces one by one. Then we might have a 1000 person sample for the Atlantic, for example, which would give us a much better fix on what is really going on.
Interesting idea.
The firms do it to drum up paying business. And I can see how it might do just as well at that.
nicky, I agree. That's why Kady does such a great job of ridiculing the regional results.
That seems to me to be more about the way the questions were asked, than the actual level of concern or not. If they had asked do you think the government has the right to stonewall parliament and cover up their knowledge of Afghans being tortured I have a sneaking suspicion the outcome might have been different.
Sure. If you ask people if they'd be mad as hell if the government shut parliament down to cover up a torture scandal, then yeah, people would say, yes, mad as hell.
If you ask people if there's anything the Conservative government did a few months ago that's bothering them, you will get many blank looks.
It looks like the Liberals are heading back down into Dion polling territory again.
Libs - 2008 election - 26.3%
Latest Ekos poll - 27.7%
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/24/ekos-poll-mar25.html
So what parties doing better compared to the last election?
Only the Grrens are up. From 6.7% in the election to 10.4. Which no one believes is real.
I have suggested before that a high Green vote in the polls is bad for the Conservatives because much of it can be expected to shift to the opposition parties come election day
Ekos also has "other" at almost 3% (because they stupidly decided to start prompting for other) but in the last election other parties got about 1% of the vote.
Sweet pic!
'Dion-Land Is Scary Territory'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/blogolitics/dion-land-is-scary-terr...
ARS
Conservatives gain now lead Liberals by 6 points in Canada
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/03/conservatives-gain-and-now-lead-li...
Awesome.
While I am not a big fan of individual poll results--
When you drill down this poll is actually quite interesting--
First it has the NDP at 22% in Ontario. I think this is in part a reaction to the HST which is negative to both Liberals and Cons. If that is the case between now and July and then following as people experience the tax this could increase.
Secondly, the Liberals' thinkers conference has not been positive and these numbers are from before that news came out. Two of the big stories that came out of the conference was Fowler's comment that the Liberals will do anythign to get elected regardless of the merits and the proposal ideas to move to the right on medicare-- limiting it and privatizing parts of it. If left-leaning Liberals don't like what they see the NDP would welcome their support.
I do not like to interpret polls individually because there is a context of more long term trends but those trends appear solidly favourable to the NDP.
The only concern is the Cons inching back up to 35% I suspect that support might have trouble with the scrutiny of an election. Problem is the Liberals will face the same problem as that crew do not appear ready for prime time either.
The NDP I think right now is benefitting largely form a negative trend against the other parties-- if the party can produce good policies and a good campaign it might seal the deal and have a record result. It will take that extra policy and campign push to bring new support home but that support is there for the taking if the party can make no mistakes and deliver a platform and campaign that connects.
Again, I am writing in the context of this poll but mostly in response to wider longer trends and political realities...
To be able to start an election campaign from 20% would be a real advantage, one we haven't had in the past, so far as I can remember.
What's the highest we ever started from in the past?
I assume that was 1988 but that was a poor campaign-- still ended as a record though.
If a campaign started at 20% there could be enough momentum to equal the Cons and Liberals by the end of the campaign-- they are only in the 25-35% range themselves so it would only take another 5% to match.
I would not assume we are at 20% based on one poll but this is encouraging and we could cross that 20% by fall if things go well.
The NDP was between 13% to 21% in the last election (writ was dropped on September 7)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008
It was between 16% & 20% when the govt fell in 2006 (Nov 28)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006
The NDP need to be aggressive in promoting their vision for Canada. Of course everyone will benefit from a social democratic government but people don't seem to understand that. They think they will be 'taxed to death' and 'Taliban Jack' will coddle terrorists.
It was the NDP (CCF) that started Medicare, and with their influence Canada developed some other social programs too. That history needs to be repeated until the public gets it.
There are only two very real threats to a democratic socialist government, one is a capital strike, the other is a fascist coup like they always do in any latin american country that elects a people's government. Likely a capital strike is the preferred method for Canada , no overt armies, just a whole lot of rich people packing up and leaving with their toys cuz they don't like the rules. This would have to be dealt with before any progress could be made by an NDP government intent of changing things for the better.
ARS
Canada
Cons - 35%
NDP - 20% (Only 15% behind the Cons)
BC
Cons - 35%
NDP - 28% (NDP is only 7% behind the Cons in BC)
AB
Cons - 62%
NDP - 6%
MB/SK
Cons - 46%
NDP - 20%
ON
Cons - 36%
NDP - 22% (NDP is only 12% behind the Cons in ON)
QC
Cons - 16%
NDP - 16% (Now tied with the Cons in Quebec?)
AC
Cons - 33%
NDP - 28% (NDP is only 5% behind the Cons in AC)
Liberals, CBC, Toronto Star out with their latest poll:
Cons - 32.2%
Libs - 27%
NDP - 16%
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/31/ekos-poll-apr-1.html
12.7% for the Greens????? When other recent polls give them barely half that. How can anyone take EKOS seriously?
The Greens shot their bolt in the last election, falling well short of their deluded expecations. They have done little since to attract support and have wilted badly in all the byelections.There is no rational basis to think they can even hold their vote, let alone double it.
The CBC and the Star should get a new pollster and stop publishing these fictional numbers
Not only that but because Ekos also prompsts for "other" other, they get 3.1% other. So this poll has the Green/Other vote at 15.8%!! which is is literally double what fringe and no name parties got last time and is not picked up in any other polls. I think we can safely drop Green/Other to 7% and divvy it up among the other parties in which cae we are really at Tories 34.5, Libs 29, NDP 17.5 or there abouts which is more in line with what Ipsos and ARG are saying.
I don't read polls published on April Fools day.
Actually the Cons dropped more than the Libs but don't let a msp misleading headline bother you.
EKOS Mar 31 Poll
Cons - down
Libs - down
NDP - up
Tories slip but Liberals slide further in latest poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-slip...
Layton won the Ekos "beer" poll, but this time they only asked about Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Ironically, the beer poll, with fewer possible responses offered, had a higher response rate than the horserace vote intention question.
And they pay them money for this?
Iggy would have won if the question was directed to drinkers of fine chardonnay. Harrrumph.
If I had to eat excrement I'd at least find some comfort if Harper had to eat it as well.
I actually don't like Beer much-- prefer wine.
I've had a glass of wine in the company of Layton (like many it was a public function- I don't know Layton or his wife personally but I certainly would want to get to know them if I had the chance). Layton comes across very well one on one. Like someone you would want as a friend -- not because of his position.
I would not have had as enjoyable a time if it had been Ignatief. Layton is not arrogant. Ignatief strikes me as arrogant.
Since the next election will likely be decided in Ontario:
EKOS POLL - Ontario
CON: 35.3
LIB: 32.8
NDP: 15.4
GRN: 13.8 !
OTH: 2.7
There is no way the Greens will get 14% of the vote in Ontario. Most of these votes will go to the NDP and Liberals. If these numbers hold, the Cons will lose a lot of seats in Ontario.
And Harper and the CONS have alienated the other parties so much that if the Cons don't win more seats then they did last election, Ignatieff will likely become Prime Minister by default.
The equation to watch will be:
NDP + LIB> then CON
If the NDP and Liberals combined win more seats then the CONS then Harper is toast.
The problem is it is not Harper who is toast but Ignatieff. I have said before the Liberals need to change their leader now if they have any hope whatsoever for the next election. Unfortunately political parties move way too slowly when they get into trouble with their leaders.
It is only the NDP that has any chance of stopping a Cons majority government. The sooner Canadians wake up to that fact the better.
The popularity of Canadian opposition leader Michael Ignatieff remains extremely low, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 16 per cent of respondents approve of the Liberal Party leader, down three points since February.
The approval rating for Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper remains stable at 29 per cent. New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton holds higher numbers, at 32 per cent.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35321/ignatieffaas_approval_continues_to_plummet_in_canada[/quote]
NR, they don't have time to change their leader, even if they had a constitutional opening to do so. And anyways, leaders need longer than 12 months to grow into the job, so changing now won't really help them I don't think. The problem with Ignatieff is that, just as with Martin, everyone read everything they wanted to into him, and the main thing they wanted was a savour. Unlike Martin, Iggy didn't even have 20 years of political experience to drawn on either. This is why it's amateur hour on the Rideau.
Ignatieff is a prime example of how, snide remarks about professional politicians aside, political leadership is a complex skill to learn, and it requires a different kind of wisdom than academia or business for that matter.
It is only the NDP that has any chance of stopping a Cons majority government. The sooner Canadians wake up to that fact the better.
With only 1 in 5 Canadians at best currently supporting the NDP, the NDP cannot single handidly stop the Cons from getting a majority.
NDP support hitting 25% would help prevent a Harper majority but even if that happened other things would also have to happen in order to prevent a Harper majority:
Namely, BQ support must stay close to 10% and Liberal support must stay close to 30%
Under FPTP, if the CONS can get a 8%+ lead, they have a good shot at obtaining a majority.
The Cons must be prevented from getting a lead of 8% or more.
For argument's sake let's say the NDP hit 25% support. Even that historically high level of support would not be enough to prevent a CON majority single-handidly. Here are the numbers:
NDP: 25%
BQ: 9%
GRN: 6%
LIB: 27% (still required in order to prevent a CON majority)
CON: 33%
As far as I can tell, the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap. Until then, BQ and Liberal support will also be required to stop the CONS.
Thanks bekayne for the polling stats.
Event & Date / Cons / Libs / NDP / Bloc
FE Oct 14.08 / 38% / 26% / 18% / 10%
HD Sep 8.08 / 36% / 28% / 15% / 9%
Writ Dropped Sep 07.08
SU Sep 6.08 / 43% / 25% / 15% / 8%
EK Sep 4.08 / 37% / 24% / 19% / 6%
EN Sep 2.08 / 38% / 28% / 19% / 8%
SC Aug 31.08 / 37% / 29% / 17% / 8%
AR Aug 28.08 / 36% / 28% / 18% / 9%
IR Aug 28.08 / 33% / 31% / 16%
IR Aug 28.08 / 34% / 31% / 14%
NR Aug 27.08 / 33% / 35% / 17% / 8%
HD Aug 24.08 / 33% / 34% / 15% / 9%
FE Jan 23.06 / 36% / 30% / 18% / 11%
FE Jun 28.04 / 30% / 37% / 16% / 12%
the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap.
Just wondering what you would consider evidence of such a potential movement or growth in NDP support. What sort of leading indicators are you looking at?
the NDP will only be able to single handidly prevent a CON majority if it can somehow grow its support to consistently be around 30% not 25%. And there is very little evidence that the NDP is about to make that kind of historic leap.
Just wondering what you would consider evidence of such a potential movement or growth in NDP support. What sort of leading indicators are you looking at?
You would think that the list of NDP candidates would be a major factor in how the voting may go in the next federal election, wouldn't you?
Once the NDP finishes unveiling it's team, in Quebec especially, the polls should reflect an increased confidence in Jack Layton's leadership.
So, David, you'd say leadership numbers in the polls, and the quality of candidates being attracted to run for the party are two leading indicators?
It will also take issues-- platform from the NDP and negative issues scandals etc from the Cons or Liberals.
NR, they don't have time to change their leader, even if they had a constitutional opening to do so. And anyways, leaders need longer than 12 months to grow into the job, so changing now won't really help them I don't think. The problem with Ignatieff is that, just as with Martin, everyone read everything they wanted to into him, and the main thing they wanted was a savour. Unlike Martin, Iggy didn't even have 20 years of political experience to drawn on either. This is why it's amateur hour on the Rideau.
If those GW Bush-level approval ratings continue for Iggy into the fall, I can a scenario where the Libs hold their noses and back Harper until fall 2011 in order to axe Iggy and hold a leadership convention. Forget the semi-tight horse race numbers, everybody knows the Libs should be at least 5 points up on the Cons given the dismal performance of the gov't over the last few months, prorogation, Guergis debacles, Afghan cover-up, climate change embarrassements, etc.
Iggy is really hanging on by a thread right now - the main driver of the "Canada 150" conference was internal, to convince Lib members that there is an actual policy development process going on which will include them in a meaningful way. This is totally false of course, but there is no other rationale for that gathering of elites spewing conventional wisdom from the early 90s about two-tier health care, deficit hysteria, productivity crisis and the usual right-wing corporate BS.
If Rae, Kennedy and Coderre held a news conference and said Iggy had to go, he'd be gone. Donolo is a front for the Rae/Chrétien faction and he has zero personal loyalty to Iggy. There was a brief flurry of enthusiasm during prorogation but it is slowly sinking in to the caucus and the party that the Liberal strategy is not working and that Harper is headed for a majority unless there is a major change in direction. If Iggy doesn't turn things around by summer, I predict a serious drive for removing him as leader will emerge in the early fall, before Harper can pull the plug for the general election.
Federal polling in Manitoba:
Cons - 47%
Libs - 23%
NDP - 21%
As far as Winnipeg voters go, the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff continue to suffer from the drubbing the party took across the country after Ignatieff pledged last September to bring the Conservative government down at his first opportunity.
In June 2009, six months after Ignatieff took over as leader from Stéphane Dion, the Liberals had climbed within spitting distance of the Conservatives in Winnipeg, with 32 per cent of decided voters to the Conservatives 36 per cent. In December, that had plummeted to 24 per cent while the Conservatives had jumped to 43 per cent.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/harpers-tories-enjoy-support--in-...Id be surprised if the Liberals push Iggy out.
And that would be even if it weren't for the present somewhat unique situation: the Liberals don't have to do well. All that has to happen in the election is for Harper not to get a majority. Even with a weak Liberal campaign eroding the Liberals position, Harper crew are still a long way from being poised for a majority.
Hardly iinspiring if you are a Liberal. But they aren't looking for inspiring. They'll take it.
Id be surprised if the Liberals push Iggy out.
And that would be even if it weren't for the present somewhat unique situation: the Liberals don't have to do well. All that has to happen in the election is for Harper not to get a majority. Even with a weak Liberal campaign eroding the Liberals position, Harper crew are still a long way from being poised for a majority.
Hardly iinspiring if you are a Liberal. But they aren't looking for inspiring. They'll take it.
Now that we have 5 parties splitting the vote it won't take much to win government. Dion almost became PM last time with just 27% support!
Ignatieff's personal approval numbers are so low that he might be able to excede expectations during the next election. Much like Turner did in 1988, Joe Clark did in 1979, and Stanfield did in 1972. Ignatieff's campaign skills are an unknown. Can he give better interviews and speeches then Dion did in the 2008 campaign? Is he a better debater then Dion was? The 5 week period of the next election will decide Ignatieff's fate one way or another. A few percentage points here or there will make all the difference.
Isn't First-Past-the-Post wonderful?
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
Someone I was speaking with yesterday put things rather well: the Liberals keep looking for a silver bullet -- *anything* that will quickly return them to their perceived rightful status as the natural governing party, except of course for doing the hard work involved in rebuilding their party from the grassroots up.
Isn't First-Past-the-Post wonderful?
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
That situation has the makings of finally raising public awareness of the need for electoral reform in a country with a multi-party system but a parliamentary system made for two-and-a-half parties.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media will probably respond with a not-so-subtle campaign to just try and consolidate some of the parties so we can return to a majority FPTP government instead.
Now that we have 5 parties splitting the vote it won't take much to win government. Dion almost became PM last time with just 27% support!
Ignatieff's personal approval numbers are so low that he might be able to excede expectations during the next election. Much like Turner did in 1988, Joe Clark did in 1979, and Stanfield did in 1972. Ignatieff's campaign skills are an unknown. Can he give better interviews and speeches then Dion did in the 2008 campaign? Is he a better debater then Dion was? The 5 week period of the next election will decide Ignatieff's fate one way or another. A few percentage points here or there will make all the difference.
Isn't First-Past-the-Post wonderful?
The next government, whether Conservative or Liberal, might be the first that has the support of less then 1/3 of the electorate. How would Canadians respond to that?
I agree the low expectations for Iggy do set the stage for a Turner 1988 scenario, but there isn't yet a galvanizing issue like free trade to drive that kind of seismic shift. I disagree that Iggy's campaign skills are unknown - the 2006 Liberal leadership race was a prime example of his lack of such skills. It takes a lot to be the front-runner and not win a delegated convention - even Turner in 1984 and Campbell in 1993 won their conventions despite horrific gaffes during the leadership races. Iggy losing to Dion in 06 was a huge indictment of his lack of clear convictions, inability to rally new supporters and distruct of Iggy among the Liberal base, which is still a latent problem for him even now.
Ignatieff's biggest problem is that he come across as elitist to the average Canadian voter. The CBC had a discusssion this morning how the the Conservative candidates in the UK are hiding which school they went to, unless it was, what we call in Canada, a public school. People want the guy next door as their leader, not someone who lives in West Vancouver or Westmount. The problem is though, very few of our neighbours will become prime minister. Another advantage for Harper is that to a certain extent he has a wrap on the West, apart from BC that is. The poll that just came out in Manitoba is a good example. Progressives are going to have to do a much better job of getting their act together.
Harris/Decima
Cons - 32%
Libs - 29%
NDP - 17%
Canadians issue 'indictment' of both Tories
and Liberals in poll
"If I were a Liberal, I would be weeping," Mr. Gregg said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-issue-indictment-...
"If I were a Liberal, I would be weeping," Mr. Gregg said.
Allan Gregg sure isn't a Liberal. He's a Conservative spin doctor.
With the Conservative government at just 32%, Gregg is probably shedding a tear or two for the Cons.
At 32%, Gregg is probably remembering the waning days of the Mulroney government when the Cons numbers were in the low 30's. He was one of the main architects of the Cons 2 seat debacle in 1993. Just thinking about that makes me shed a tear for him.
Yeah, I'm not sure the Liberals should be "weeping" when they are only 3% behind the Tories and would almost certainly form some sort of minority/coalition/accord government if an election produced this popular vote split.
Full Harris Decima results here:
http://www.harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/2010/04/07/hd-2...
Full Harris Decima results here:
http://www.harrisdecima.com/sites/default/files/releases/2010/04/07/hd-2...
I think Greg may be grabbing for some tissues over the numbers in Ontario:
LIB: 38%
CON: 32%
NDP: 17%
GRN: 12%
And their must be a few tears in his beer when he looks at BC:
CON: 33%
NDP: 29%
LIB: 22%
GRN: 15%
And a third place finish at 16% in the polls in Quebec is sure to pull Greg out of his bout of melancholy:
BQ: 39%
LIB: 23%
CON: 16%
NDP: 11%
GRN: 9%
Probably the most significant part of the HD poll
Would you trust most to manage the economy: Here, 30% chose
the Conservatives, 20% Liberals, 9% NDP
Probably the most significant part of the HD poll follows:
Who would you trust most to manage the economy:
Conservatives - 30% (more than Libs & NDP support combined)
Liberals - 20%
NDP - 9%
Probably the most significant part of the HD poll follows:
Who would you trust most to manage the economy:
Conservatives - 30% (more than Libs & NDP support combined)
Liberals - 20%
NDP - 9%
Looks like None of the Above is going to win a majority government by a landslide.
Probably the most significant part of the HD poll follows:
Who would you trust most to manage the economy:
Conservatives - 30% (more than Libs & NDP support combined)
Liberals - 20%
NDP - 9%
I think this accurately reflects a key problem facing the NDP - the (real or false) perception that the party are not good stewards of the economy.
Poll after poll indicates that the economy has been the greatest concern of Canadians for at least two years. I say that because I can't remember the last time another issue was.
Not trusted on the main issue of concern to people is a sure way to get stuck at a certain level of support.
Frankly too...I'm a little surprise that the Liberals are so low on that issue and they have to find a way to pull even with the Cons if they want to grow. At least that's the way I see their predicament - if more people trust them, then more people will vote for them.
It is sad that a third of Canadians trust the Cons on the economy after they have repeatedly missed the numbers and the policies.
In other news Charlie Brown believes there is a 30% chance that Lucy won't pull the ball away and let him fall on his face.
It is sad that a third of Canadians trust the Cons on the economy after they have repeatedly missed the numbers and the policies.
What's even more sad is that the minority Conservatives get away with acting as if they have a majority - now in their fifth year.
But but the liberals did it boom boom....As the old excuse goes. Seriously after Malroney, Harris and Harper, I can not undertand how anyone thinks they are stewarts of good fiscal anything. Dont people ever look at results...oh yeah they don't or socialist policies would be the norm worldwdide.
After the millions and millions the Conservative government has spent on advertising "Canada's Economic Action Plan", I'm surprised it's as LOW as 30%.
I don't think the ad campaign has benefited them much nationally. On the one hand people know it is public money being used to promote the Cons and secondly it is a reminder of a program widely seen to favour some some parts of the country over others.
However, it is also possible that in some of the places that received the most money there are local benefits and some of those are swing ridings purposefully chosen to receive money exactly for that purpose. So I think that the political benefit of the so called action plan was local and would not show up nationally.
People are fickle and the Cons might find they lose some of those seats anyway.
Yes, Liberal PM's in minorities have acted as though they had majorities, but were any of them as arrogant and incompetent as Harper? (and yes, I know Trudeau was arrogant - that's a given).
With regard to the trust in managing the economy question that RedRover seems to relish talking about. Quite frankly, no matter what the NDP says or does for the next 100 years - you will never see a plurality of people saying they trust the NDP the MOST to "manage the economy" until Canada elects an NDP government and it manages the economy well. I think that it is a question that you can never ever "win" on until you have a track record. I think that people also interpret the question as "who is the best bean counter?" and people will always choose whoever looks like a banker. There are other questions though, like "who do you trust most to protect the interests of the average Canadian?" etc... where the NDP tends to do much better.
I think that in the end, the goal for the NDP is to neutralize the question on economic management. First of all we see that about 40% of voters don't trust ANYONE to manage the economy. I actually think that more and more people think that it doesn't really matter who is in power when it comes to the economy since its all about global conditions. Secondly as the recovery kicks in people start to see "economic management" as a less and less of a concern while they see things like unemployment, pensions etc...as bigger and bigger concerns and those are issues where the NDP is much better places.
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
One person's dissent is another person's conspiracy theory I guess. LOL
Wow.
There's a difference between valid and constructive dissent and obvious "concern trolling"
Cons - 37%, up 3%
Libs - 27%, down 1%
NDP - 15%, down 3%
Bloc - 10%, up 1%
Tories nab 10-point lead over Liberals: poll
The Conservative government has weathered several controversies - such as its decision to prorogue Parliament - and remains firmly ahead of the opposition in terms of voter support, a new poll by Ipsos Reid suggests.
The Tories have secured a 10-point lead over the Liberal party, says the poll, which was conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global National.
-------------
These numbers are almost identical to those from the last election campaign, Bricker said.
"And we already know the results of that," he said.
A series of high-profile incidents involving the Tories in recent months have done little to sway voters over to the Liberals, Bricker said.
Among the controversies have been allegations the Tories covered up the fact that Canadian soldiers were handing detainees over to Afghan authorities despite the fact Canada knew the detainees would likely be tortured.
"The things that have been happening have not been fundamental about how Canadians make decisions about the government," Bricker said. "It's not like the average Canadian is paying that much attention to it. . . . The big issue that Canadians care the most about, which is the economy, is clearly improving in the minds of the public, and given that the thing they're really judging the government on is headed in the right direction, you can see why the gap is increasing."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Tories+point+lead+over+Liberals+poll/2789...
Not sure why, but for some reason Ipsos-Reid and Darrell Bricker tend to inflate their polling numbers for the Conservatives. It gives a misleading result, and is a bit frustrating.
Good news from Quebec according to Leger:
BQ - 38% (about the same as last month)
Libs - 21% (down 4%)
Tories - 17% (unchanged)
NDP - 17% (up 3%)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/federal-libe...
Its interesting that among francophones, the Liberals are actually in FOURTH place with only 16%, compared to the NDP at 17% and the Tories at 18%. I wonder whether the federal Liberals might be getting singed a bit by the EXTREME unpopularity of the provincial Liberals. Anyways, at this rate the happiest guy in town has to be Tom Mulcair!
You've got that right Stock.
The NPD is now within 4% of 2nd place with a credible pollster in Quebec.
Fantastic news.
--
Good news from Quebec according to Leger:
BQ - 38% (about the same as last month)
Libs - 21% (down 4%)
Tories - 17% (unchanged)
NDP - 17% (up 3%)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/federal-libe...
Its interesting that among francophones, the Liberals are actually in FOURTH place with only 16%, compared to the NDP at 17% and the Tories at 18%. I wonder whether the federal Liberals might be getting singed a bit by the EXTREME unpopularity of the provincial Liberals. Anyways, at this rate the happiest guy in town has to be Tom Mulcair!
The parties are basically tied amongst that demographic, and 1% point differences is too small to reach any conclusions. This Quebec poll is not particularly reliable, IMO.
The BQ could win 55 seats or even more with these kinds of numbers.
Augustus, i realize that from your Tory POV, you better HOPE that this poll is "unreliable". But the fact is that the large sample polls in Quebec that Leger and CROP do on a monthly basis with sample sizes of 1,000 or more are actually HIGHLY reliable and in the last few elections were much closer to the final results than were those skimpy Quebec sub-samples of national polls done out of Toronto.
Its true that there is essentially a three way tie for second place between the Liberals, Tories and NDP in Quebec. The thing is that for the NDP which was at 1% in Quebec as recently as 2000 and which only elected an MP in Quebec in a general election for the first time in 2008 - there are worse things in life than to be tied with the parties like the Liberals and Conservative - each of whom have totally dominated Quebec in my lifetime. We know from a weight of research that BQ voters tend to have the NDP as their second choice by a solid margin. This tells me that while the NDP may be tied with the other federalist parties with 17% - they have by far the most growth potential if support for the BQ starts to decline.
The BQ could win 55 seats or even more with these kinds of numbers.
The BQ is going to lose seats in the next election, not gain them.
The BQ is going to lose seats in the next election, not gain them.
And if wishes were horses, I would ride, ride, ride.
ETA: I don't know that they are, and I don't know that they aren't. You've asserted this with no evidence or argument. And thus can't be taken seriously.
These numbers are not that dramatic when it comes to seats. There are few 3-way seats in Quebec. The BQ are running against the cons in some parts, the Liberals in others so those two parties can almost be added together to compare against the BQ-- so the BQ are not running away with anything. The NDP is not concentrated and so has few possible seats even if tied-- don't you love the FPTP system?
These are not numbers that suggest significant change in seats.
If this trend continues the NPD will win between 2 and 5 seats in the next election in Quebec alone, and will finally become a national party truly in contention for the Government of Canada.
Party / 08 Election / Leger / Change
Bloc / 38.1% / 38% / down 0.1%
Libs / 23.8% / 21% / down 2.8%
NPD / 12.2% / 17% / up 4.8%
Cons / 21.7% / 17% / down 4.7%
Of most interest to us amongst the 3-way seats there are in Quebec are Gatineau and Brossard-La Prairie. Of the 4-way seats worth looking at, there are Hull-Aylmer, Jeanne-Le Ber and maybe Saint-Lambert.
But what if things continue to get completely shaken up in that province? We should continue to try and build in seats like Westmount-VM, NDG-Lachine East, Rosemont, Hochelaga, Rosemont, Shefford and even Laurier Ste-Marie, to be ready for any opportunities that could present themselves suddenly. We have great candidates in most of those places, who seem to be committed to more than one election.
I'm inclined to agree that on paper its hard to see where the NDP gets a seat in Quebec after Outremont and Gatineau, but the fact is that IF NDP support actually did zoom from 12% to 17%, I can almost guarantee that there would be a few surprise wins or near wins in seats that could not have been predicted from the results in 2008. Remember that when the Tories came from no where to win 10 seats in Quebec in 2006 - they were almost all seats where Tory support had been almost non-existent in 2004.
Fair enough, but it was in areas that arguably had a history of Créditiste/Union Nationale support and the right demographics / values. Similarly, while past results might not predict areas of possible NDP breakthroughs, there are other markers that could be better predictors, don't you think?
The BQ is going to lose seats in the next election, not gain them.
And if wishes were horses, I would ride, ride, ride.
ETA: I don't know that they are, and I don't know that they aren't. You've asserted this with no evidence or argument. And thus can't be taken seriously.
You sound a bit snarky.
A detailed analysis is not necessary. Most Quebec observers and experts have chronicled the declining support for the BQ and for sovereignty. They have lost support in the last 2 elections and Duceppe's recent attempt to travel over Canada promoting separation has been seen by most as an act of desperation. Most Quebecers are not interested in it, and even the first leader of the BQ, Lucien Bouchard, has said to forget about it happening in the near future.
The BQ has been low in most of the polls in recent months, and the overall trendline is a declining one. Focusing on the odd poll that shows a higher number is unreliable.
What can't be taken seriously are most of the seats above that you mention as NDP targets - the only one that can go NDP is Gatineau. The rest are Liberal-BQ and Conservative-BQ contests.
Provincial politics always filters into the federal scene and vice a versa, federal politics filters into provincial politics.
Both these preasures currently favour the provincial and federal nationalist parties in Quebec, the PQ and BQ. Both Charest and Harper are unpopular in Quebec. Charest's Liberals are floundering so the PQ is riding an upswing that will likely land them in government after the next provincial election. This bodes very well for the BQ. Coupled with the federalist vote being splintered between four parties, the BQ could win more seats with the same 38% of the vote they got in the last election, as long as the second place party moves down closer to 20%. Isn't FPTP wonderful!
The BQ is the biggest beneficiery from FPTP. Nationally they have just 10% of the vote but are almost guaranteed getting almost twice that support in the H of C. Maybe that's why electoral reform is the strongest in Quebec. Quebec is the best bet Canada has of getting rid of FPTP.
The ebb and flow between provincial and federal politics is interesting to watch.
Provincial politics in BC is headed against the Cons. The NDP will be making pickups both provincially and federally there. This means the Cons are going to have to pick up seats outside of BC just to maintain power.
The Cons greatest hope is in Ontario. The McGuinty's government is weak and will likely lose the next election. Interestingly, one thing helping McGuinty is the unpopularity of the Harper Conservatives. If John Tory had won the last provincial election, Harper would likely be on his way out. And if the Dion-Layton coalition had taken power McGuinty would likely be a doomed man.
And if there's one thing that hobbles the federal NDP more then anything to this very day, it's the memory of the Rae government that left office 15 years ago. The Rae government had the misfortune of being saddled with a deep economic recession that in turn saddled the NDP across Canada with the reputation of being bad custodians of the economy. That the recession was caused by Mulroney's free trade policies is conveniently forgotten. In any case, unpopular provincial governments in Ontario and BC during the 90's crippled the federal NDP during that decade and into the early parts of the 2000's.
I think the lesson to learn from this ebb and flow is that governments eventually always lose their popularity. And that the unpopularity of governments bring down their provincial or federal cousins even if they are not in power. So McLauchlan and McDonough would likely have succeeded to a much greater extent had they not been saddled with the unpopularity of Rae, Harcourt and Glen Clark. And Layton should count himself lucky he does not have to deal with that kind of provincial drag. This experience lends itself to the belief that the NDP might be better served if the federal and provincial wings operated under different names. Right wingers seem to have mastered the art of disassociation by establishing a new party whenever they have become discredited. See Progressive Conservative, BC Social Credit, Reform, BC Liberal, Saskatchewan Party, Alliance, Conservative, Wild Rose etc....
Most importantly the lessons of the past point to the importance of enacting permanent change when in government. Governments eventually fall, so it is important to affect change when given the chance. The greatest regret of NDP governments in BC and Ontario is that they were so scared of losing power, they never dared to establish major change. In the end, they lost power anyway and had nothing major to show for it. And they took down the federal NDP for a decade to boot.
Well, unqualified unsupported statements may bring out my snarky qualities a bit. I'll try and do better.
But if what you say is correct, that makes it hard to explain why the Bloc continues to show such a dominant standing in the Quebec polls. I thought they were vulnerable last time, but in fact Duceppe proved himself quite adroit during the campaign, and played the issues perfectly to their advantage. What happens when he leaves is another question altogether, I grant you.
Note that I did not claim the NDP would win any of those seats next time, under current circumstances. Also no-one predicted the NDP would win any number of the Ontario seats we won provincially in 1990.
My point was to say that if things shifted massively and suddenly in Quebec, where might we hope for some breakthroughs, and where were the 3-way and 4-way seats that were more conducive than less. For example, I left Louis-Hebert off the list. Jeanne-Le Ber is viable enough that the Bloc actually advertised against the NDP there -- in a seat they held and were defending -- so it's not totally far-fetched, Lou. More like saying that Edmonton Centre is a better NDP target than Macleod.
Meanwhile, I'll agree with the broad outlines of JKR's general point about the influence of the provincial political cycle on federal politics, except to note that if the BC Liberals, Ontario PCs and Quebec Liberal Party are supposedly hurting the federal Conservatives, it does not follow that the federal NDP should change its name to innoculate itself somehow from the fortunes of its political cousins. Also McLauchlin and McDonough's terms had other problems of their own as well.
Augustus,
Wishful thinking perhaps, and little, if any, substance to your comments about the Bloc.
Look at the latest polling results for the Bloc which shows them presently at the identical polling as they received in the last election when they won 49 seats. At the present time there is absolutely nothing to suggest they will get less than that in the next election probably in 2011.
If this trend continues the NPD will win between 2 and 5 seats in the next election in Quebec alone, and will finally become a national party truly in contention for the Government of Canada.
Party / 08 Election / Leger / Change
Bloc / 38.1% / 38% / down 0.1%
Libs / 23.8% / 21% / down 2.8%
NPD / 12.2% / 17% / up 4.8%
Cons / 21.7% / 17% / down 4.7%
In fact, if this Leger poll were actually the popular vote in Quebec in the next election, the BQ would probably win back two seats they lost very narrowly last time to the Liberals (Brossard-LaPrairie and Papineau - sorry Justin Trudeau) and they would also probably win about 5 seats that are currently held by the Tories/Andre Arthur (MIKR, Roberval, Beauport-Limoilou, Portneuf-Jacques Cartier and perhaps Jonquiere and Charlesbourg). They could conceivably get as many as 57 seats in Quebec that way - but that would be their absolute ceiling.
In fact, if this Leger poll were actually the popular vote in Quebec in the next election, the BQ would probably win back two seats they lost very narrowly last time to the Liberals (Brossard-LaPrairie and Papineau - sorry Justin Trudeau) and they would also probably win about 5 seats that are currently held by the Tories/Andre Arthur (MIKR, Roberval, Beauport-Limoilou, Portneuf-Jacques Cartier and perhaps Jonquiere and Charlesbourg). They could conceivably get as many as 57 seats in Quebec that way - but that would be their absolute ceiling.
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.
I'm not trying to make an ex cathedra prediction of exactly what will happen in an election that could be years away. I'm just saying what would happen IF the popular vote were exactly what the Leger poll says.
Fine, but I'm just pointing out that the BQ is only at 38% in this poll which is where they were on Election Night in 08, and that on top of that their actual vote is probably more like 35-36% in this poll since you usually need to deduct a couple of percentage points to get an accurate picture of how many people will actually show up and vote for the BQ.
So they are not ahead of where they were last time. They are at the same place, and possibly lower if you take into account historical voting trends.
Yeah, but the Tories are wayyyy lower than they were in the last election. If Leger is to be believed about 5% of the population has shifted from BQ to NDP. That doesn't help the Tories much since the places where the NDP is picking up BQ votes are NOT the places where Tory MPs sit.
The issue I think most people are nt addressing is the shape of the NDP support in Quebec. It is very thin and very wide for the most part. What this means is there is now a base that has been built in most of the province for the NDP that did not previously exist. This base in itself at 17% may not win any new seats for the NDP-- or it could deliver perhaps Gatineau. However it should not be dismissed. The party has a very high tipping point in the provicne because of the flat support across the province. This means that the party could get 1-2 seats however, a bump of ten more points, perhaps the result of a superb campaign or a problem with another party's campaign, and that number could suddenly go from 1-2 seats to 20-30 seats with almost no stops in between.
This is in contrast with both the Liberal and the Conservative support which is very concentrated. The BQ support in fact has some strongholds but it is also a wide base and there is a narrow range they could move in that could make the difference of almost half their seats .
I don't think the NDP is presently on the edge of the big 20-30 seat breakthrough, but when that happens there will likely be little warning and a tipping point where dozons of seats could be in play at once. This is why even at 17% we can't point to many new seats as they would be part of a much larger number that suddenly could be in play at a higher level of support.
So the question could be what number does the NDP vote start to be efficient in Quebec and how many seats are we talking about-- the number could be about 8% higher than current polling say around 25% and at that level we could be looking at some 20 seats while at 20% it could be just 2 seats. This might justify a huge gamble in the province to try to push the NDP to those numbers.
For those dreaming of a Mulcair-led NDP, that alone could be a factor that could provide that bump. That said I'm not suggesting a leadership change as the party exists across the country and there is no reason to dump Layton. However, the strategy of raising the profile in the party for Mulcair, a strategy that Layton clearly supports, is obviously a good one that already is showing progress.
The other thing we can consider is this: if the party did score a showing of over 15% of the vote in the next election in the province, while it would not win many new seats it likely would help identify the 20 seats or so the party should spend their efforts in for the following campaign when the party would want to hit a 25% more efficient vote level.
Those who think I am being silly about these numbers and the speed of growth the party could achieve need to look at the swings Quebec has delivered in the past. There is no reason to assume that over 20 seats in Quebec needs to be far in the future.
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
The crosstabs in the Leger poll demonstrate how even the NDP vote is accross the province, and therefore how inefficient it may be in securing additional seats:
Total 17%, Montreal region 18%, Quebec region 16%, Rest of province 16%, Francophones 17 %, Allophones 16%
By contrast, the Liberal s have 29% in Montreal (vs 32 for the Bloq) and the Cons have 27 in Quebec region (vs 34% for the Bloq). The Liberals predominate among the Allophones by 45% to 18 for the Cons. The NDP just doesn't enjoy this kind of concentrated support that wins seats in a first past the post system.
On a more optimistic note, the Conservatives, although still strong in the Quecbec City Region have fallen below the Bloq, now I think for the second Leger poll in a row. This suggest a decline where it may actually cost them half of their seats or more.
It is hard to extrapolate the numbers because I don't know what Leger defines as the georaphical boundaries of the Quebec City region. Can anyone help on this point?
It's unlikely that the Conservatives are going to lose much to the BQ in the next election. If the Conservatives were going to lose a lot of seats to the BQ, it would have happened in 2008 when the BQ were given an accidental gift over the arts controversy. That is the only thing that saved them. Even then, they could only defeat one MP in Louis-Hebert.
If the other Conservatives in Quebec City didn't go down in 2008, they're unlikely to go down next time.
Exactly Nicky, this is why I have said the NDP have a high threshold to win seats but once that is reached it will be a flood. There are variations within regions so the NDP does not need to be first for that flood to get started -- I would argue that likely that would happen somewhere around 25% -- of course that depends on where the other parties are. There are only two provincially viable parties: the BQ and the NDP. The Cons and Libs are regional which makes them efficient in low numbers but restricts growth. The NDP is inefficient in low numbers but could deliver large numbers past a tipping point.
This is the opposite of the way national NDP votes look like across the rest of the country.
Augustus-- most people who predict Quebec politics end up being wrong.
The Cons have no goodwill to speak of in the province and so are a mistake away from losing more seats.
I do take your point though that the Con vote in the province is already at a base level and it would be unlikely to go much lower.
What could happen is that vote could spread out and become less efficient and therefore cost a couple more seats even with similar vote totals-- especially if the Cons look like they might lose power.
Augustus-- most people who predict Quebec politics end up being wrong.
The Cons have no goodwill to speak of in the province and so are a mistake away from losing more seats.
I do take your point though that the Con vote in the province is already at a base level and it would be unlikely to go much lower.
What could happen is that vote could spread out and become less efficient and therefore cost a couple more seats even with similar vote totals-- especially if the Cons look like they might lose power.
Indeed. I agree.
Long.
Advertising
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