New polling thread

I found out recently that one grandfather was a staunch supporter of the CCF in days gone by.  I also read recently a book by John Boyko of Lakefield, Ont., who described how the Conservatives and Liberals worked together with the Communist Party to kill the CCF.  No doubt I will get lots of bashing from various posters for that statement, but it was Boyko's perspective, and it does ring true with some things i've seen.  Apparently there had been a directive from Moscow that to uphold 'real socialism', pretenders like the CCF had to be squashed.  Unfortunately, attacks from the right and the far left were successful. 

Now we have people on this board debating whether the NDP should come out in defense of words like 'socialism' when most people in the country don't really know what it means.  In the past I've tried to say that those who are passionate about this should consider that it would be more useful for the causes they hold dear to work harder at articulating the specifics/directions of what good policy would look like. 

Upholding and clearly standing firm on directions in support of people and planet in the face of economic and ecological onslaught would seem to be a good approach in many provinces.

 It also depends on what time of day each polling firm makes their calls, as some times favor certain aspects of the population more or less.

Also, in general, the scientific credentials of polling is being watered down quite a bit as the number of people in their original samples do not participate or are simply not available. There is likely to be a class differentiation in that regard as well.

I wish we had a 538.com in Canada.

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

"Amyone can publish any poll any time between elections and there is absolutely no way to prove their so-called polling results are accurate. "

Far be it from me to try to defend Ipsos-Reid - but this is bullshit. You can't just go out and make up whatever numbers you want. That would be a criminal act called FRAUD. There are industry standards and there are laws etc... If Ipsos says they polled 1,000 Canadians by phone - then they did. and if they didn't, then call the police and ask them to launch an investigation.

People can take issue with methodologies such as the exact wording of the questions and what order they were asked in etc... but the notion that they just make up numbers out of thin air is ludicrous.

I sure hope this is true but it surprises me given our experience here in Guelph in the by-election last summer. Some hoser out of Alberta (the brother of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge) did a poll apparently using telemarketing cold call equipment. There is no evidence of any kind that I have seen to suggest that this person has even minimal competence to conduct a reliable poll. As far as anyone knows it was only the second poll they had ever done, and the first was that infamous push poll on whether Mortgentaler "the abortionist" should receive the Order of Canada. I got called in both cases. In the election poll, two of four candidate's names were mispronounced; there was a two-week gap between the first and second halves of the poll; and then the question changed for the second half. Information about the poll would be posted on this KLRVu website, then changed, then removed; the numbers quoted were very difficult to credit; etc.

The purported outcome of that piece of nonsense was a Conservative win -- when that aborted by-election was almost certainly a toss-up between the Liberals and the NDP. The results were reported straight up in the local newspaper, and it knocked the wind right out of the NDP campaign.

Then a couple weeks later there was another poll by some Green company, again which no one outside the party had ever heard of, that put the Greens in second place. The Greens ended up coming in a distant third in the general election.

So you're saying that a concerned voter could have contacted the police about this?

Those polls took place. People can debate the methodology of the technology that was used and people can debate the question wording. As it turned out those polls in Guelph were not all that off the mark. The NDP in come in a distant fourth and it was just about the strongest result for any Green candidate in the whole country.

Using "robocalls" is a perfectly acceptable way to conduct a poll. Ekos did it nationally in the last election and they were pretty accurate and it is now standard practice in the US - and the polls in the presidential election were very accurate. You can argue that local newspapers should have standards about what polls they choose to publicize - so complain to the Guelph Mercury about that.

But Ipsos is the world's largest public opinion research company and they have arrangements to have their polls published by respected media outlets (you may or may not like their editorials). There is not the slightest chance that they would take the risk to their reputation of fabricating polling numbers and never actually polling anyone at all.

If you have reason to believe that someone is committing FRAUD by publishing polling numbers that claim to be based on a telephone survey of 1,000 people when in fact they didn't poll anyone at all and it was all made up - then YES by all means call the police and tell them that you have reason to believe that fraud is being committed.

There is also a trade association for the market research industry called MRIA (Marketing Research and Intelligence Association) that tries to maintain quality control standards and practices in the industry. You can complain to them too, if you think that blatant fraud is being committed. But the evidence will have to be more than just "I don't believe these numbers, because none of my friends think that way".

Why does polling even exist?

Because social scientists, marketers, political parties, governments, the media and the general public have a desire to know and understand what people think about issues of the day and what peoples' motivations and values are etc...

But just think, if polling didn't exist, we would still have other ways of knowing what people think - we would all listen to talk radio call in shows and we would asume that the views expressed reflected what people thought!

The technology exists to survey people - s it is going to happen. YOu might as well ask, why does media exist? why does academia exist? why does the Internet exist?

Those polling tactics which came from CPC and GPC camps gave huge momentum to one flat campaign, and some momentum to a  campaign with energy but no traction. 

No doubt some NDP vote bled to LPC and GPC camps depending on the voters mindset as the By turned into a National.

If you were a traditional LPC/NDP strategic voter and your purpose was to stop the CPC, your vote went to the LPC. If you were an LPC/NDP strategic voter and you believed the GPC poll that they were in 2nd, you moved your vote to the GPC.

The GPC pulled off a lie, similar to Central Nova.

The CPC turned their lost, flat and dismal By Election campaign into a face saving effort and eventually challenged a distant 2nd.

The NDP Held a base vote, but required a response to discredit the questionable polls from companies that no media quotes today. The public believed those polls. And yet both polls were not close come election day.

I do believe the LPC candidate in Guelph is as useful to the LPC as Don Emerson was to the LPC in BC.  Just a vehicle for personal gain, and if the CPC came up with an offer, he would be their man.

Another reason I laugh at people who vote Liberal as a strategic vote. You end up with a Blue Liberal similar to what they are strategically trying to prevent.  I believe the female CPC candidate is personally to the left of the LPC candidate. And today, a fine line can be drawn between the Ignatieff Liberals and the Harper Conservatives.

<cough>  <cough>

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/ 

I have my doubts about that bizarre Robins Research crap too - but no one ever publicizes their releases and I would never even know about it were it not for babble - so in the end that's just a tree falling in the forest.

I'm prepared to accept that there is a fine distinction between the Liberal and CPC platforms. However, when push came to shove on voting day, it was painfully evident that NDP Tom King was not our man. He ended up with only 6 out of 220 polls, versus Mike Nagy, the Green with almost 20% of polls (and a sweep of the nine polls on campus where Tom King teaches). Under those circumstances I was not prepared to effectively endorse the CPC's hamfisted interference in the local riding association when they removed the elected candidate, Brent Barr, to substitute Gloria Kovach -- the loser in the nomination contest. We had also had ample opportunity see just how far Gloria was prepared to stand for whatever principles she may have when, in the weeks coming up to the by-election, this 18-year, highly competent city councillor turned Council into a circus, using it as a megaphone for CPC hot button issues. She humiliated herself by trying to bamboozle a young reporter. Every word out of her mouth was a script. And, needless to say, she didn't show up for a single candidates meeting (maybe other than the one at the old folks home).

I was also not prepared to hand Harper this seat because I do believe that if and when that man and his cabal attain a majority, we will see more backsliding in four years than will ever be made up in my lifetime.

And you know what? I voted NDP for almost two decades straight, and never elected one single member.

So, laugh at me all you want, I guess.

I just hope the people in the NDP head office are not as naive about what polls are used for, as are some of the comments being posted here. The same as the press, polls are often used to manipulate, as has been clearly shown here, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Another part of the big lie is to suggest that most pollsters are not manipulators, but only a few are. The main difference is that some pollsters are a bit smoother than others. I'm not saying every single pollster is corrupt, but come on, we are dealing with money and power here, and some people are very, very greedy for them both.

I understand your reasoning.  I understand that Kovach became a straw puppet for the CPC.  I understand you not wanting to hand Harper this seat. 

The people who voted for Emerson for the same reasons.

The Guelph MP showed all the characteristics of a floor crosser. But even as an LPC MP he will be one to support the backsliding of both a Harper Government or a Liberal Government under Ignatieff. 

He is a Conservative with a red sweater.

I've seen manipulative questions asked in polls and I've seen fair questions. Its up to you to read the wording and draw your own conclusions. But there is nothing manipulative about asking people how they would vote. Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the results.

The NDP is well aware of the power of polling and that's why they do lots of polling themselves to test messaging and determine where their resources should be allocated.

What a bunch of poppycock. The "coalition" was more than acceptable to many Canadians. What was acting against it was not the BQ but the anti-Dion sentiment, which was a groundswell of antagonism which was widely supported here. Polls in the new year showed support for the coalition was around 50%. Notably this happened after Dion was given the boot.

Screw all this shilly-shallying double talke. Only the extreme right thought the BQ element was a problem, and guiding NDP policy views on the basis of what they think is like trying to sell porno mags to born again Christians.

Now I am not talking about anti-francophone sentiment when I say this, even though it was persent in these events, but when was the last time anyone pointed out that saying you would "not hire a black person to do a sales job" because "the public wouldn't like it" is just as racist as saying you wouldn't hire them because you don't trust black people?

The point is this: acting in accord with principles you don't agree with is just the same as supporting those principles. In other words saying the NDP should not have sought the support of the BQ because of the bad optics, is just the same as saying looking for the support of the BQ was wrong in principle. It is tacit support for principles which you would like to say you don't adhere to without the benefit of basic honesty.

 Its shere cowardice in the fact of prejudice in this case. The member representing the BQ are legitimate representatives of Canadian people, and as such have the same rights and responsibilities as other Canadian MP's.

 That is what "federalism" is about. Don't you get it?

Are you going to stand up for the rights of Quebec citizens to elect their own representatives, and have them respected or are you not?

I don't think Sean is saying that the NDP should not have involved the BQ in the coalition - the coalition could never have happened without them. He is just pointing out that it is a fact that the BQ's involvement was a weakness that the Tories cynically exploited. Recognizing that there is a price to be paid for including the BQ doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it - just a recognition of a fact.

All things being equal, I would prefer if the Liberals and NDP together had a majority for the simple reason that its a lot easier to keep a coalition of two partners together than to keep three parties together.

Np. That was part of the drum roll that the dyed in the wool jingoists marched too. What sewered the optics among normal Canadians was the image of Dion as an embarassing bafoon.

I hate to say it because I wish that it wasn't true, but i think that when Harper went on his rampage about the coalition being a sell-out to treacherous separatists - it resonated very strongly in English Canada and not just with the Tory base.

I agree with Stock. This is the degree I think it is the reality:

I expect Harper will be soon back to pushing hard on the Liberals. Not to the degree and lack of finesse as with pushover Dion, but bask at soon nontheless.

When Dion was around- and equally important before Harper finaly got caught overplaying his hand in the Fall- they just hammered away almost without limit.

Now they are going to be sticking their finger into the wind at each possible conjucture, and calibrating the amount of push according to the read of the wind.

The Liberals financial situation is serious enough- and Team Iggy is going to need at least a year to begin to turn that around- so that pushing the Liberals into an election is a good thing for the Cons long game whether or not the Cons can come out of another election with any seat gains [and even if it has the likely enough prospect of losing them some seats].

But heres the caveat on that which I see for the Cons: they are unlikely to get a majority in the forseeable future. At a minimum, its not going to look good enough that they can bank on getting a majority. Which means, a coalition governemnt is a possible outcome of an election.

I think that if the read at the time is that an election outcome will most likely NOT produce an outcome with a combined majority for the NDP and the Liberals, then Harper will push with impunity. Because then the worst case scenario is a Coalition that includes another agreement with the Bloc. And that is a prospect that Harper Crew can safely figure will not happen again because it is so unpopular, or if it does happen will soon enough return the Cons to government. 

I think the Cons would also take some risk with the possibility of a straight up Lib/NDP majority coalition.... because of the likelihood it will fail or hand them golden opportunities.

But if the only likely outcome of an election besides them continuing to govern is another Lib/NDP/Bloc agreement, in that case Harper will fly right ahead.

Two things killed what would have likely been much more public support for the coalition: 1) Dion 2) the BQ involvement.

If you can't see that then you don't get out much.

To recognize a reality does not mean that you agree with what is behind it anymore than it would be to say that by observing unfairness means you agree with it.

Politics is about public majority perceptions-- not about what is right an moral. We need to work on these perceptions. It is very difficult for Canadians to accept what is seen as a paradox in the existence of the BQ. As an opposition it is easier to ignore but as a foundation for government (even only a reliance on the maintenance of an agreement to not defeat the government), there is a lack of public trust in the party from elsewhere in Canada. That this is tinged with  bigotry and ignorance is a fact that is quite obvious to many observers but it is not only that. Many Canadians simply cannot get their heads around a party having any, if only remote power, when it is committed to destroy the federation as people understand it.

While technically the BQ ought to be as legitimate a partner under the terms expressed, politically it is likely a non-starter as any party involved would be criticized. It did not help that the "socialists" were in the same breath as the "separatists" when the government was referring to unacceptable partners but I certainly believe that the NDP would be recognized as a reasonable coalition partner.

 I suspect that the purpose of the BQ which remains a paradox should serve to remind Canadians that there is unfinished business here and it is difficult to build bridges to Quebec without this being addressed. It is a fantasy of federalist politicians that this is something that will whither and die without it being addressed. this is only one more example of why this does need to be balanced. That said the relationship between Quebec and Canada is not one that can be expected to be finalized -- this is unrealistic with any relationship. It does need to be put on a better track and understanding for any other progress to be possible including an easier day-to-day management of politics in our country.

This means that Canadians need to recognize the meaning of self determination and negotiation when it comes to Quebec and practically, there needs to be a consensus among Quebecers regarding the relationship they desire with Canada. We should not be hostile to this as it is a prerequisite to resolving this issue and this issue is a prerequisite to having business as usual at the national level.

Fine, ya'll go on determining NDP policy on the basis of Tory attack ads. Looks good on yah.

I'd be really interested in seeing what international perception of Stephen Harper and Canada's New Government is.

No one is suggesting "determining NDP policy on the basis of Tory attacks ads". But it would be nuts to just ignore and be unprepared for any future Tory attacks on this issue.

So, I say, No, NDP "policy" should not be determined on the basis of Tory attacks ads - and no one here is saying anything different. But YES, NDP communications and tactics have to be prepared for Tory attack ads. That is all anyone is saying.  

"I'd be really interested in seeing what international perception of Stephen Harper and Canada's New Government is."

What international perception??? Do you seriously think anyone outside of Canada spends one nano-second even formulating an impression of our government? Let's not flatter ourselves.

Really? Because I was getting the distinct impression people were saying that it was a mistake to form a coalition with the Bloc, ala "Personally, I believe an NDP-Liberal coalition is a politically saleable prospect provided it did not depend on the BQ."

The reaction to an agreement with the BQ was so strong I doubt it needed any attack ads.

And there's no percentage trying to figure out a feasible means to end run that. If such a means exist, it is not possible the Iggy Liberals would go there.

Really? Where is the poll on that. I didnt talk to one person who raised it as an issue. The only thing was ever commented on was Dion.

 And if it is as you say, why did the coalitions approval rating start climbing after Dion was gone. It would still have depended on the Bloc's support.

 This is such a red herring, Even the NDP was pointing out that Harper's attacks upon forming  coalition with the Bloc were hypocritical since he had proposed basically the same thing. Where was the strong public outrage then? Nowhere. Nor did it happen this time.

It was fiction. A few Tory Stormtroopers picked up on the theme, but that was just so they could have some kind of quasi arguement against it.

I did talk to such anti-BQ bigots, though I may not be expecting much progressicity [sic] from them in the future.

But the question of polls showing a link, remains to be seen.

Exactly, you are expecting to win their vote? Don't even bother.

I will bother, as  I want them to see reason. You can't always choose your family. Or your neighbors.

What would Tommy do?

I was surprised at the opposition to the BQ role from progressive (union) circles people I know.

Their issue cannot be reduced to bigotry- they were concened that a party that is not loyal to the institution should not have any control over it.

I think to dismiss the opposition as coming from only "Conservative storm troopers" is out of touch with what happened. The public discomfort was real.

The polls moved somewhat to be sure but other things were happening:

1) more desperation as the economy worsened;

2) it became less likely that the coalition was a real rather than theoretical prospect

3) some people likely became more aware of how limited the BQ's role was

Still the upward momentum was one, maybe two polls-- maybe accurate or not and still not overwhelming.

If you didn't talk to anyone who disliked the agreement with the Bloc, which rock are you living under?

"Really? Because I was getting the distinct impression people were saying that it was a mistake to form a coalition with the Bloc, ala "Personally, I believe an NDP-Liberal coalition is a politically saleable prospect provided it did not depend on the BQ.""

You are mistaken. You were quoting someone else. Not me. I do agree though that a simple Liberal-NDP coalition that is NOT dependent on the BQ is an EASIER thing to sell than such a coalition that is dependent on the BQ. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue the latter if the math after the next election leaves us no choice. The more parties you have in the coalition/agreement, the more there is for people to object to - so fewer parties is always better than more.

According to the polls support for the coalition did go up after Dion stepped out of the picture. But the percentage of Canadians favouring the coalition was still well below the sum of the vote of all the parties backing the coalition.Whether you like it or not - there are a lot of people, especially in western Canada who voted Liberal, NDP or Green who (wrongly in my opinion) are vulnerable to whipped into a frenzy about the role of the BQ in a coalition gov't. You can't just pretent that this sentiment doesn't exist and that nothing needs to be done to argue against it.

I can picture communications strategies that would see going ahead with the Coalition regardless of the anti-Bloc sentiment... essentially that people get used to the real animal.

And like Stock said, after another election the multi-party talks will be worth a try.

But the Liberals are just super unlikely to go for it again. Its no sure thing at all and hard enough to get them aboard doing a majority coalition with the NDP. Add the Bloc on top of that, and it flys apart.

Yes, I am saying its questionable whether the NDP even in its own right will want to do the very uphill PR boulder rolling of another agreement with the Bloc. But the fact that is true, you multiply it for the Libs many times.... because they only barely [might] want another deal with the NDP already. 

Unless the Liberals win a majority of their own, they may not have any choice in the matter of a coalition with the NDP. What if the NDP demands cabinet seats otherwise it will refuse to back a Liberal minority gov't?

 In some ways, the NDP is in a stronger position if the Liberals remain the second biggest party and then it becomes mandatory for the Liberals to get a more concrete agreement with the NDP if they are going to form a government.

I agree with Stockholm here-- and I think the next election may well see a majority between the NDP and Liberals. I think such a government would be well accepted and likely fairly stable for a time.

I don't think its too likely to be like that. Stock and I were among the small handful around here who said that all things considered they thought Iggy would choose for th Coalition. Granted, no one said it was even close to definite or something like that.

I think Iggy will even be somewhat less likely to go for a Coalition after an election. The better the Libs do in the election, and/or the Cons look like they are in trouble, the more likely he'll sit tight and wait for them to self-destruct.

And who knows how likely any of that will be.

As to the chances that a Lib/NDP majority will look possible when there is a chance for an election: that would depend largely on the Bloc losing a lot of support [and looking to stay there this time], AND the Cons not being the major beneficiaries of that. Right now its not looking to me that anytime this year that will look like the most likely outcome in Quebec of an election.

Given the Libs financial situation, they are only going to push the button if they are confident they can come out of the election as government [without Bloc support]. There is certainly a possibility of that outcome. But I doubt its going to be likely to be what the Libs will need: that before triggering an election odds are best they will be government.

Well, I think that if the next election results in anything less than a Tory majority, Ignatieff will have to decide once and for all if he wants to be PM. Letting Harper stay in at that point really won't be an option.

Which right-wing party try to form some kind of coalition with the Bloc a while back? Don't you think that if Harper tries to run anti-coalition ads in the next election, it could be bounced back to haunt him. Isn't this a bit or very hypocritical!

Maybe, NR, but it takes an awful lot of explaining first, in order to get to make the point with voters.  So it's not quite so powerful.

I thought Iggy would opt to defeat Harper when he had the chance, too, Ken.  That he didn't tells me the Libs believe they have a chance of forming a government on their own.  They may not actually have such a chance, but they believe they do; and so they don't want to legitimize the NDP, or be caught in bed with the Bloc whom they expect their future Quebec strategy will rely on counterfoiling.

Whether Iggy goes for a coalition after the next election will depend on the regional distribution of their support vs. the NDP's, in part as well, I suspect.  They are making some noises in western Canada, but as Bill Tieleman pointed out the other day, their BC Federal Liberal website [71] is so out of date, it still features Dion as leader and its splashscreen is the Green Shift.  They have a LONG way to go out west, in other words.  And they'll have a pathetic turnout at their federal convention in Vancouver to boot (isn't it timed around the date of the provincial election?).

Their universe of winnable seats is a lot smaller than it was, which even Robert Silver acknowledged the other day in his Globe and Mail blog [72].  So, instead they're banking on some kind of big sweep based on Ignatieff's charismatic leadership.

Ignatieff seems to be trying to position himself to reclaim Liberal-Conservative swing voters, but they don't have the party machinery the Conservatives have to find out who they are and how to talk to them.  Meantime, Iggy may be leaving some territory quite open to the NDP ... both on the left side of the spectrum as well as geographically.

And, again, I just don't get all the so-called tactical brilliance he's supposed to have.  Meantime his spinmeister WarrenK and his stupid frat-boy political games are showing every potential of blowing up on him down the road.

The NDP landed a couple of punches on Iggy this past week with the whole situation around the Nfld MPs' budget vote.  If they keep up this kind of intelligent exploitation of openings the Liberals are leaving for them, and otherwise maintain a relentless attack on EI and Daycare cuts against the Conservatives, I think they are positioning themselves very well.

If the Liberals need our support down the road, they'll have to renegotiate for it all over again.  Seen in that light, the 6 cabinet seats represent a floor of what should be sought next time, and we would have a strengthened hand to go after Afghanistan or other relevant policy items as well.

The Liberals are definitely the wild card in what is to come.

The Cons are firmly in the drivers seat, and to what degree they go back to governing as if they had a majority will change according to what they think can be expected of the Liberals.

And for the Liberals their finanical situation- specifically the albatross of their accumulated deficit- is their hard limit on choices. By no means the most important factor in their choices- but a pretty hard limit nonetheless.

If the next election is anytime less than a year from now [if not for longer even], the increased accumulated debt following the election means they will have to go into the election with confidence they will be governing after it. From government they can work a combination of changing the election financing rules and/or just making sure they don't fall quickly into another election.

For that minimum of a year until the Liberals can turn around their basic financial picture they simply cannot afford to go into an election that can have an outcome of Harper still in power and controlling when the next election is.

Since the Cons are unlikely to be able to get a majority in this short to medium time frame, then the Liberals know that the Coalition path is available to them following an election.

The Liberals could therefore choose to tip us into an election at any of the guaranteeed confidence votes- starting with one of their 'Harper report cards' coming up within a couple months.

But I'm pretty sure they will not choose an election at any time when the polls show it most or too likely Bloc support would be required for a Coalition government. Nor do I think they will choose an election where they have to work out a deal with the NDP with little more seat strength than they have now.

In other words: if Bloc could be required, then choosing an election is out of the question; if Liberals don't look to be safe expecting a seat gain of at least say 20, choosing an election still unlikely. And their financial situation seals that they will not go anyway even if it looks a bit iffy.

The Cons know this and are the flip side: there is still lots of room for them getting their way with legislation because the Liberals are on an even shorter rope financially than they were doing Dion's tenure. How aggressively the Cons push the legislative agenda back their direction will be an inverse of the Liberals electoral chances at that moment.

If the Liberals are looking strong enough in the polls [mostly the party internal polls and focus group testing] then Harper will not push them at all. At the other extreme- if the NDP and Liberals getting a combined majority looks unlikely- Harper will push his agenda aggressively and visibly cut Iggnatieff down to size.

I think that Team Iggy miscalculated with those 'Harper report cards'. Yes, they wanted some increased opportunities on being able to pull the plug on Harper if he is looking exposed. But they should have learned that confidence votes cut two ways for them [not to mention, so far only against them].

I don't know what idiot rocket scientist picked the first of those confidence votes for 2 months down the road. We never get big shifts in voter intentions in that time, so what we see know is what we'll see then. And what I see is lots of room for Harper pushing on the Liberals.

Harper might not choose to push hard or much when that vote comes up. But thats the best the Liberals can hope for. Hardly a recipe for the Liberals getting back in control of the agenda.

If Harper goes ahead and decides to push at the time of that vote, then he gets to already cut Iggy down to size.... setting up for defining the Liberals as being the same as what they have been.

Iggy clearly has enough hubris to pass plenty around to his team. Not that rocket scientists like Kinsella needed any.

I think they had a general  expectation to get back on top of the agenda and spinning. First step is to be strong. And from strength maybe you'll never need the Coalition [or even threat of Coalition] again. If it turns out you do, you go there then. But being strong comes first.

Chest thumping follows.

I guess it was infectous for them.

If Iggy gets even a small dose of swallowing down in the coming confidence vote, I think the handwriting on the wall is going to make it clear they have to shift. They won't have time for his vacuous posturing games. Its going to be clear that the menu is going to be more crow coming, and that the only way to end it is to pull the plug on Harper.

Not the path they wanted.... nay, that they expect to have. But better than the alternative.

Everything keeps changing, but I'm guessing that by Fall and the confidence vote then, that even if the polls don't look very good the Liberals will once again decide that it has to be an election.

I just now contradicted something I said only 12 hours ago: 

This would be what Team Iggy intends to do- the plan, such as it is.

I had earlier run the numbers on the Libs financial situation. And had thought generally about the implications, but not really applied it. For example to the question above.

The reality is that the Liberals would have to come out of an election surprisingly strong and Harper would have to be really totally on the ropes for Iggy to back off from forming a Coalition government and wait for the self destruction to hand the Libs the reigns of government without partners.

The latter is Iggy's and the Liberals painfully obvious preference. But unless Harpers edifice is showing unequivocal signs of utterly crumbling, after an election anytime in the next year [at least] the Liberals are going to have to assure there won't be another one for at least a year.

hyprocritical or not, the many photos of grinning Layton, Dion and Duceppe will be prominently featured in a huge and wellfunded Tory campaign.

At the center of that will be Harper hammering at the idea that "a vote for Jack is also a vote for Gilles."  "No matter who you vote for today, these people will ignore your wishes and form their own govt if they lose".

The NDP cannot afford to ignore this inevitable strategy.

Waiting for the election campaign will be too late, and delaying until then means that all three Oppostion parties will end up sounding the same with their denials....

The NDP has to do what Ignatieff is doing: distance themselves from the idea and display a separate identity again.

What happens after an election is a different story.

They

No one is going to campaign as future coalition partners. i fully expect Layton to run for PM again and if the question of a coalition arises he will say the same thing as Iggy - "after we see the makeup of the next Parliament the parties will meet and see what combination of parties can produce stable government".

Two new polls

Strategic counsel

Harris Decima

The poll suggests the Tories and Liberals were statistically tied, with 33 per cent and 31 per cent support respectively, well ahead of the NDP at 15 per cent, the Greens at 10 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at 10 per cent.

Northreport, the poll does not say what you just wrote in your last paragraph, as it says the NDP is at 17%. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Strategic Counsel Poll - Quebec - Greens in LAST FIRST PLACE!

Greens - 26%

Libs - 24%

BQ - 22%

Con - 17%

NDP - 12% 

Hmmmmmm... a massive shift in Quebec politics, or just that 1/20 poll? 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/VoteIntention0209.pdf

Those Quebec numbers are - to put it mildly - ABSURD. They might as well show the Communist Party getting 60% of the vote in Calgary!

This is not that 20th poll - this is someone in SC`s data analysis department making some gross error. The numbers they have in Quebec for the Liberals, Tories and NDP seem in line with what most other polls say regarding Quebec, but Quebec is the weakest place in canada for the Greens - they got almost no support there at all in the election and they are invisible. I suspect that Green support is about 20% lower than that poll says and BQ support is about 20% higher - which means that at the national level the Liberals, Tories and NDp are unchanged, but the Greens should be at about 8% not 13% and the BQ shoud be at about 10% not 5%.

I can`t believe that the Globe would even publish something so obviously wrong.

NANOS Poll Feb. 12/09.

Con: 34%
Lib: 33%
NDP: 16%
BQ: 10%
Green: 7%

Ontario

Lib: 43%
Con: 34%
NDP: 15%
Green: 9%

"I was surprised at the opposition to the BQ role from progressive (union) circles people I know.

Their issue cannot be reduced to bigotry- they were concened that a party that is not loyal to the institution should not have any control over it.

I think to dismiss the opposition as coming from only "Conservative storm troopers" is out of touch with what happened. The public discomfort was real."

Another aspect of that public discomfort was the calendar. The country had just gone through an election campaign, which the Tories had won, albeit a minority.
Like it or not, many people wanted them to get on with it, and saw the coaltion as a sleazy end run. Constitutional, but a surprise to many of the great unwashed who did not know this was even possible.
The Opposition, or more accurately the Libs and NDP, were fortunate that the GG turned down what Hrper undoubtedly asked for - an immediate election. He'd have won handily if she'd agreed.
Now... less certain, and more so as time passes.

doube post

I think the main issue was people don't even know how our political system in Canada works. There was a poll out where an embarassingly huge number of Canadians thought we elected our prime minister directly like the president of the United States. As such, the Conservatives were able to successfully paint the coalition alternative as illegitimate and upsetting the established order. Having the Bloc in the coalition didn't help the legitimacy question either. Most of what I ever hear people say about the Bloc Québécois is how they represent/are anglophone-hating, Canada-destroying separatists. What happened to the :rolleyes: smiley?

The important thing is that the whole episode was a learning experience for everyone - and in the NEXT election campaign a lot more people will be aware that the government is NOT necessarily formed by the largest party - but rather by who can gain the confidence of the house.

Agreed. Public opinion is an evolving thing and over time things can change.

I think the public is moving toward the idea of a coalition ousting the biggest party as being possible and there has been enough debate to make this more salable.

The involvement of a separatist party in a coalition has been discussed but not sold and I fear we have made no progress there. The fact that this party represents real people and their right to representation should not be curtailed simply because of the political will they expressed. There ought to be more of a discussion of political inclusiveness and maybe this will happen over time.  We eventually have to come to a time when all MPs are looked at equally with an equal right to participate fully in the national government. It is a point of fact that the BQ not only cannot on their own break up the country, they have not only a right to participate in national government as long as one exists, they have an obligation. This obligation comes in part from the place they take up and the democratic legitimacy of the elections that brought them.

I hope we will recognize this. 

I do not want to turn this into an Israel politics thread except to use that example of a country that has minority parties that have unacceptable positions who nonetheless are required to form a national government at times and have to set aside some objectives that come from  these positions to work with other parties through coalition building.

Anyone who was just watching the 2nd reading vote on the Budget Implementation Bill was treated to the scene of Michael Ignatieff being in such a hurry to support the budget, that he jumped up to vote yes before even the Conservatives could.

I hope they clip that video and play it over and over again!  Especially as it was on the occasion of the Liberals' 50th vote in support of the Conservatives.

Although it's rough going for us in the polls now (although not as bad as I feared), there are already a few signs that the commentariat is realizing that the Liberals might have been sold a pig in a poke (see, for example, Jim Travers' column of today, Paul Wells' acknowledgement in his blog [89] that the Budget Implementation Bill is sneaking in an awful lot of non-stimulus-related but ideological items, and Aaron Wherry's noting [90] of Liberal MP Glen Pearson's apparent second thoughts [91]).

It's interesting, because I'm not sure I saw Pearson voting today, even though I saw him sitting in the House during QP.  Also conspicuously absent from today's vote were Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh.

Meantime, it is becoming clear that part of the Conservatives' deal with Iggy was to trash the NDP ... they are currently trying to set the NDP up to take the blame for delays in stimulus funding, that would otherwise be attributed to the requirements for cost-sharing and exploring P3 options.  I believe this is a trap we should be prepared for.

They are also developing and testing their lines on the coalition, but I'm of mixed views on how well they will work down the road.  It's interesting to read that Sean in Ottawa thinks some progress has been made on the communications front, notwithstanding ongoing unease about the role of the Bloc.

ottawaobserver...

Why would Harper agree to attack the party that has kept him in power by spliting the left? 

How does a withered ndp hep the cons electorally?

Hi, AnonA,  I haven't fully thought through all the strategic ramifications, but there are significant blocks of NDP-Conservative swing voters in the interior of BC, especially ridings dependent on the resource industries, and even though the Liberals' numbers are going up in BC in the national samples, they don't have much of an organization presence outside of Vancouver to capitalize on it.

Also, don't forget there are provincial elections taking place this spring in BC and probably Nova Scotia, where the NDP are challenging for government.  Harper is almost certainly trying to talk the NDP down provincially as well as federally.

Anyways, that's what I've come up with so far.  No doubt others have other ideas.  Does that make any sense to you, AnonA?

Nothing from Harper makes much sense anymore. if he was dumb enough to do that idiotic economic statement - he is also dumb enough to mishandle the NDP. I think that his strategic acument is highly overrated. The emperor has no clothes!!

It took about two years for people around here to grow tired of an give up on debating whether the NDP is "the party that has kept Harper in power by spliting the left?"

Thankfully, lately when that crops up as a statement it is completely or mostly ignored.

At any rate, the reality is that no party ever engages in a strategy to help a rival because it harms another rival they want to harm the most. Thats a side benefit, but tin foil folks turn it into the primary goal.

There are a lot of seats in play between the Cons and the NDP. And its a pool of seats up for grabs where moves by the Conservatives often have a lot of success.

When the Cons come out with their negative ads around the Coalition the biggest target will probably be Cons/Lib swing voters primarily in Ontario [Libs consorting with profligate socialists and treasonous seperatists].

But there is fertile ground for a totally different target in the West- especially Interior BC and Vancouver Island, but the rest of BC and Saskatchewan as well. A huge slice of the electorate there drifted from Reform to the NDP over the course of a few years after the folding of Reform into the new Conservative Party. Many of these people had always identified most with the NDP. But they liked the populist side of Reform [and some strategic voting may have gone into the mix in those earlier years when the NDP was an also ran in the hinterland West].

These folks are primed for all the standard arguments against the Coalition- not just the anti-Bloc ones.

In fact, the NDP brain trust had to have known they were taking a big risk with these voters had the Coalition gone ahead. I'm guessing they figured the practice of the actual Coalition government would bring them around, and I'd tend to agree.

But its anybody's guess whether there is a longer term price to paid by the NDP for having tried to do a Coalition, without the guaranteed initial adverse reactions tempered by people getting to see some benefits in the actual practice. These populist voters in BC have long memories and take things like that seriously. [Countering that, they do also have a pretty strong affinity for the kind things that Jack Layton and Caucus tend to bring onto the public stage.]

How does the fact that the NDP took substantial risks with Western voters to have a partnership with the Liberals and bring down Harper square with the perception that the NDP's number one goal is to prop up the Conservatives and bring down the Liberals?

The NDP lead the LPC across the 4 Western Provinces. It doesn't take but a minute movement for the NDP to lose that seat in ALB.

In my region and surrounding, the LPC activists have been engaged in a letter writing campaign trashing the NDP, who were there best buds in Nov.

The CPC need those NDP seats as bad as the LPC needs them.

The CPC need just a few seats, the LPC could win all NDP seats and still not reach Majority threshold.

It is very clear that the LPC have decided that the CPC are better partners to trash the NDP then were the GPC.

The CPC do not believe that the LPC can pull the plug because of their fiscal troubles, and the electorates not wanting to have an election.

The CPC are positioning for a majority they are likely to come short of, and the LPC are looking to stick it to the NDP like they did in 04 and tried to do in 06, and totally screwed up in 08.

The NDP needs to ride on policy, and Mr. Layton needs to shift gears or be stuck in the mud.  This is more difficult as the media appears to be on a campaign of Iggy praising and Jack Bashing, even though this budget, is a piece of SHIITE. 

Considering the NDP response to IGGY's support of the CPC did not appear orchestrated, and appeared as if they didn't see it coming, then they will make two mistakes, if they do not LOUDLY position themselves away from this garbage budget with good reason.

The irony is that people CANNOT understand why the NDP announced that they were against a budget before it came before them. NDP insiders know why, but PEOPLE don't and are unlikely to understand.

Yet, here are the two parties who created this monster, ready to blame the NDP for the contents of the budget.

I hear it on the street.

"Ignatieff is doing a good job by putting the government on notice, and it was the NDP who forced the government into this poorly designed budget, I won't vote for them next time".

Putting the government on notice. Yup, no teeth, no meaning, no content, but people lap it up.

There is NO splitting of the left. People are very naive to believe that there is a splitting of the left. Considering that there are people who vote NDP/CPC (ONLY), LPC/GPC (ONLY), LPC/NDP (ONLY), LPC/CPC (ONLY) and some GPC/NDP (ONLY),  suggests to me  that there is no LEFT splitting, but possible choices that depend upon the variables heading into any election campaign. One can argue that the REFORM party, while successful in crushing the Kim Campbell PCs, did as much damage to the NDP, as a choice to mark a ballot. People rejected, LPC, PC, and NDP, and went to Reform.

That is not lost upon the CPC.

Nor is it lost upon the LPC that the fear of the Reform and Alliance, became a rallying call for NDP voters to back the Liberals or face ... CUTS TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND HEALTH CARE :)

Both the CPC and LPC are looking at the MILLIONS of NDP votes, and are going to campaign to make the NDP look distasteful.

If you look at the results of the last election, there really aren't all that many NDP-held seats that the Tories would have any chance of winning - especially given that Tory support almost certainly has no where to go but DOWN what with the recession etc... Edmonton-Strathcona would be one and then maybe one or two suburban Vancouver and that's about it.

Peggy Nash on target. 

 ---------------------------------

It's been called a pizza Parliament, but what we have in Ottawa is more like a "pretzel Parliament."

A House full of parties who have tied themselves up into knots.

We have a doctrinaire, rigid, crusading neo-conservative government, busy implementing a big-spending, deficit-creating mess of half-measures, introduced at budget time in an act of political expediency. In every conceivable way, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has become what he has campaigned against his whole life......

Layton now needs to untie the NDP's own knot, and get back on the track that has so far tripled the NDP caucus and doubled its vote.

Here's what Mr. Layton needs to do.

First, he needs to go after the Conservative government with relentless determination.

This Conservative government, even with an application of theatre makeup courtesy of the Liberal leader, is out of step with our times. Canadians are looking enviously at the end of the sorry neo-con chapter south of the border.

They want a message of change and hope in our country as well. Mr. Layton needs to take up the opposition

------------------------------------------------------- 

Hmm, there would definitely be seats in the interior of BC that could be vulnerable, depending how insecure folks are feeling in their resource sector jobs (and which way that makes them vote).  Some of ours could go Conservative ... or some of theirs could go NDP (think Kamloops, Kootenay-Columbia).  Also, sooner or later we're bound to break through in a Saskatchewan seat or two.

The more I think about it, the 2 provincial elections this spring do factor in heavily.  Rodney McDonald will do whatever Harper and MacKay tell him to do, and Gordon Campbell has also supported Harper when necessary.  So I'm sure he is doing whatever he can to hurt the NDP's chances in one or both of those provinces as well.

The NDP currently only has two seats in the BC interior - Skeena-Bulkley Valley which is essentially unwinnable for the Tories because it has such a large First nations vote and because Nathan Cullen is a lock and BC Southern Interior which couuld go Tory if they won a landslide - but it went NDP by several thousand votes last time.

That does not contradict the general point OO is making.

I can think right off the bat of several western seats now that are the Cons by a thread or not much, with NDP the only serious rival.

And there are many more that could easily be threatened in a couple election cycles. The Cons are not known for leaving things like that to chance.

Don't forget a few Ontario NDP-to-Tory possibilities, among them Hamilton Mountain, London-Fanshawe, Welland...as well as the surreally close call for Tony Martin in the Soo, for whatever reason...

The Sault's conservative party pulled out all the stops with a big campaign and concerted effort to defeat Tony. Cameron Ross is now headed for Afghanistan to do his bit for the conservative cause.

The Tories were wayyy behind the NDP in Hamilton-Mountain and London-Fanshawe and if they couldn't win those seats in 2008 when the Liberals were at an all-time low under Dion and when a whole chunk of treaditional Liberal voters went Tory - I don't see when they can ever win those seats in the future. The Tories have no where to go but down in Ontario after the Oct. '08 election.

And I think Welland, where Malcolm Allen won by only 500 votes over the Tory is actually more likely to fall to the Liberals than the Tories (Mahoney wasn't all that far behind, and the Tories are almost certainly headed downward).

ETA: Essentially the NDP had more like an 1100 vote margin of victory rather than 500 as the former NDP candidate ran there as an indpendent and got 600 votes, most of which would have gone NDP. 

Hate to say it but since all the NDP pickups last time were at the expense of a Liberal vote that probably hit the floor in '08, the NDP should expect a real battle in ridings like Sudbury and Welland and perhaps even '06 pickups like Trinity-Spadina and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

Looking forward to readings of the entrails that take into account the onset of recession, massive unemployment, shutting down of industries and other disturbances only a few months in the making.

It'll be interesting to see the sensitivity  of polls, regionally and sectorally as recession advances. Which party - NDP or LPC - is most likely to respond  to this situation and gain as a result, even while the folks in power shovel the pork into  marginal ridings?

I'm glad to see Layton travelling to places like Quebec City, Fredericton, Fundy Royal, and Sarnia during the break, and Alex Atamanenko doing a tour through rural SW Ontario.  Nice to see we're not in "save the furniture" mode, regardless of what the MSM and Libloggers are writing these days, or what the headline numbers in the polls say.

At worst, the polls say the NDP might be down one or two points from election day - but one year ago national polls looked a lot worse and we ended up doing quite well in the election.

I'm not saying the NDP is on a downward spiral, but since the NDP pickups in Ontario were at the expense of Liberals, they shouild expect real battles.  The North is a bit tricky - the Lib vote went way down, but now all these NDPers will have the advantage of incumbency.

I thought Olivia Chow was a total shoo-in in T-S last time with Dion at the helm.  Her margin of victory was the same as '06 - around 3500 votes. 

In Ontario, the best pickup opportunity for the NDP next time will be in Oshawa which is now a Tory seat. Otherwise, we may be just about maxxed out in Ontario - unless maybe Maria Minna retires or something. The main NDP pickup opportunities next time will be in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, maybe BC, maybe a seat or two in Sak. and of course Quebec is still a target.

Yeah, and if Gerard Kennedy was able to beat Peggy Nash he'll be hard to dislodge.  Beaches-East York - maybe if Stephen Lewis decides to run (highly unlikely).

I'm not so sure about Quebec - the left in Quebec is mostly sovereigntist and votes Bloc.  Outremont I think is Mulcair's personal seat rather than an NDP seat.

There are still some possibilities in Quebec. Gatineau was a near miss and Quebec is turning into more and more of a four-way race with BQ support eroding a bit more every time. We still don't know if Duceppe will even still be leader next time.

Long thread - feel free to continue in a new one!