Upcoming Federal by-elections

I'm waiting to see if Elizabeth May will jump into the NEW WESTMINSTER-COQUITLAM by-election, so she can ruin the NDP's chances at victory, just like she did in CENTRAL NOVA.

There's some speculation at the end of a Canadian Press story on CTV.ca online tonight that Dion would like to step down at some point after the Liberal convention, but is looking for an international environmental job.

Meantime, it looks like Réal Ménard backed off the idea of running municipally, if I correctly understand the French idiom in this story from a few days later.

Thanks for those 2 updates, OO - Ménard is being very vague and ambigious in that article- saying he has nothing to announce "yet" and that he is still reflecting on how best to serve his constituents.  It's the kind of thing you say when you know you are going to run but you want to keep your cushy MP job for a few more months without being criticized.  I like Ménard a lot, though, and he's toyed with running provinicially before and then declined, so it's still up in the air.  I know Rocheleau and the NDP organization in the riding are working to prepare for a possible by-election.

Dion will be gone by the end of the year, I predict.  Either there will be an election this fall and he won't run again, or he'll resign his seat to accept a university post or international position as per the speculation in the article. 

I predict May will not run in any of the by-elections.  She is nowhere in Quebec, her French is shaky, and New West-Coquitlam is not a good fit for the Green message. She'll run in the next general election and then resign unless she wins a seat, which is less likely than ever, IMHO.

I like Ménard a lot too, WCL.  The two seats, Hochelaga and St-Laurent--Cartierville, make for two very good test-runs for the NDP in Montreal, I believe: one an east-end francophone seat in the top-ten of low-income ridings in the country with the second-highest percent tenants in 2006; the other a west-island seat in the top 10% of ethnically-diverse ridings and the highest proportion of Arab voters, still a very high rate of tenants, and again a very high percent of low-income residents.

The Bloc didn't have much vote to speak of in Dion's old riding, while the Conservatives didn't have much against Ménard.  The question is, with the incumbents gone, who can scoop up the Liberal vote in StL-C and the Bloc vote in Hochelaga.  Obviously the parties that hold the seats will try to run high-profile candidates to keep them.  I'm looking forward to seeing how things unfold, and I'm glad to hear the Hochelaga preparations are already well underway just in case.

2011 could be a big year for byelections given all the provincial elections that are taking place that year. Otherwise, BC and Nova Scotia have probably seen their window of federal candidate draws pass. Until 2011, the only provincial election is in New Brunswick.

New Brunswick opens up the possibility of Liberals jumping ship to try and be in government or the ressurection of the political careers of Charles Isaac Hubbard or Paul Zed

The BQ will probably hold the seat, but the Liberals have an outside shot at it as they are on the rise in Quebec, including in Francophone Quebec.

The Liberals held the Montmagny-l'Islet side in 1997 and 2000, but the redistributed seat put them back quite a bit in the 2000 Transposition, and they placed third there in the last two elections.  I know you folks are in the middle of a new Leader rosy glow right now, but even "outside shot" is a bit of a stretch here, unless you can recruit some kind of superstar candidate.

Considering debator that the liberals are corinating the most "regressive supposed progressive" lib leader, outside shot is way off the mark.

Moving up from the low teens among francophones was a real challenge there.

Looks like we can add Bill Casey's riding to the list now ...

Independent MP Casey to be Nova Scotia's new man in Ottawa

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/04/28/ns-bill-casey-intergovernmental-affairs.html

Well i guess that settles one thing for sure. If EMay decided to run in another byelection and her choices were New Westminster-Coquitlam, North Nova or one of these green 99 and 44/100ths dead zones in Quebec - the obvious place for her to run would be North Nova which is right next door to Central Nova.  Of course her chances of winning there would still be zilch - but I think that would be a better place for her to run than across the country in vancouver - not that May has been known for applying any rationality to her political decisions in the past.

Well- I heard it here.

This is some strange. In the first place, there is no substantive or personal reason for Casey not to serve out his term.

He is a really honourable guy. Not to mention he doesn't need the money. I think it is SO unlikely it is a patronage appointment to get him out of the way

Maybe its some weird poke in the eye at Harper and to make Rodney look good, and 'strong', with the election coming up. But that sounds pretty far fetched.

If it was done with Harpers blessing it would be a combination kiss and make up for all the conservatives, make Rodney look good, etc. I can't see that there would be an advantage for the Cons in a by-election. The announced candidate for the Cons is Scott Armstrong who is loved by all sides among the scrappers in that family fight. Maybe it would be easiest for him to win in an orchestrated by-election love-in????

Even if it was something like that, calling a by-election here means they'd have to call it for New Westmisnster where the Cons will want to run out the clock and not have a by-election.

But maybe they've done this in case the general is not this Fall and there will have to be a by-election in New West. The time for Casey to make the shift would be now so Rodney can bask in the glow. And between Casey and the federal and provincial parties they EASILY have the resources to keep a de facto consitiency office running after it is officialy shut down... keep the constituents happy, lots of time for escort Scott around as the 'MP in waiting,' anooited by Saint Bill. Something like that.

I'm just winging it off the top of my head.

Good entertainment even if none of it turns out to reel... I mean true. Eh?

Its going to put EMay in a real interesting pickle.

She can't possibly win here.

But I don't see how she can decline running. She has paid resources right next door, but I'm guessing that for all they've put into Central Nova, still pretty thin volunteer resources.

So what would it look like when she can't even beat a noboby?

And right close to home.

If the NDP wins the NS provincial election, could they parlay the momentum into make a major stab at winning North Nova? If they can do so well in Central Nova - why not in North Nova?

I thought the riding was called "Cumberland - Colchester - Musquodoboit Valley". I think they tried to call it North Nova for awhile, but that's not how Casey gets recognized by the Speaker in the House.

Since there may be a lot of talk about that riding over the next while - let's just refer to it from now on as CCMV.

Rodney Macdonald has also suggested a provincial election in NS may be just days away.
I wonder if the appointment for Casey is contingent on the PCs being reelected? Presumably if the NDP would win they would want their own man or woman in Ottawa.

Interesting, will we be hearing a press release from the EMay camp, or will she ignore it and hope for a federal election prior?

Rodney suggested the election is just days away- stating the obvious.

Anyway, referring to my reflections above when I first heard about this... that its so strange leads one to consider just about anything.

As to the possibility I posed of it being something more than the crassesst of politics... after listening to the Premeir at the press conference, I guess not. Not even a hint of discussions with the PMO.

So its no orchestrated kiss and make up love in or anything like that- just a gimmick of Rodney trying not to look pathetic.... get some of the heroe's glow, make him not look so cozy with Harper [which everyone's probably forgotten, but they wouldn't think of that].

And no- the NDP would leave him in place if they are govt. a]- they can work with him, and b] it would look awful to shunt him aside.

This appointment is a desperate move by a Premier who's looking at any means to boost his standing with Nova Scotia voters before having to call an election.

Rodney MacDonald thinks that by having Bill Casey as Nova Scotia's 'point man' in Ottawa, somehow some of Casey's good standing with the voters will rub off on the Premier.

The Conservatives will easily win this by-election, and if it forces Elizabeth May to become the Green candidate there instead of New Westminister, all the better for the NDP's chances to hold that seat.

Bring on the Nova Scotia election!

"You folks"?  Do you mind if we stop trying to label the political allegiances of posters here and just focus on discussion of the actual ridings?  It's interesting on this thread I am called a Liberal, and on another one I was called a Conservative.  One thing I am not is a Conservative.  I supported the NDP a lot when Ed Broadbent was in Parliament and worked on one of his campaigns, but I have also voted Liberal too.  Like millions of other Canadians, I am a Liberal-NDP swing voter.  Neither party should take us for granted since we can determine elections.  Now, with that issue hopefully put to rest, let's focus on the actual discussion:

The only party showing any momentum in Quebec right now is the Liberals - that doesn't mean they are going to start winning every riding, but they are certainly in contention in places they haven't been since the Chretien years.  In fact, even before Ignatieff took over, they were already going up in Quebec even under a weak leader like Dion.

For example, did you know that on election night in October the Liberals almost beat the BQ in a riding in the Gaspesie?

Just wondering!

If (when) Paul Crete resigns his seat to run provincially, would Mario Dumont try going federal and run for the Conservatives in that federal riding?

Why on earth would he want to run for a party that is on the verge of being wiped out in Quebec?

It's not a bad question David.  Why, you ask, Debater?  Perhaps because if it were a by-election and the Conservatives poured body and soul into it (or, in their case, a truckload of cash), and the hint was that Dumont would become a cabinet minister, that's something Dumont might not mind for awhile.  Then he could segue into a leadership bid when Harper steps down.  That should keep the seat for him.

The Libs did come in a strong second in the Haute Gaspesie riding, with Nancy Charest as their candidate.  That riding will be vacant in the next election, since the BQ member is stepping down.  Do you know if Charest will be running again there, Debater?

I'll second that!

"Then he (Dumont) could segue into a leadership bid when Harper steps down."

Not a chance. There is no way that the Tories would give the slightest consideration to having Dumont as their federal leader. His English is quite poor, he supported the Yes side in the last referendum and he proved a total flop as opposition leader in Quebec. Enough said?

No, not as leader. But Dumont would be a very credible Quebec lieutenant. He wasn't able to recruit enough decent candidates to make a go of the ADQ, but his personal popularity is still a not-insignificant asset.

OTOH, he'd likely be something of a loose cannon: I can't imagine him shutting up because Harper tells him to.

I don't know how much chatter there will be about C.C.M.V.

It contains 5 provincial seats, Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, Colchester North, Cumberland North, Cumberland South, and Truro-Bible Hill.  All of which have faithfully voted (provincially) Conservative since 1998.

Casey has good standing with the voters despite having announced his support for the federal Liberal-NDP coalition back in December?

But . . . but . . . I thought all the voters considered the coalition toxic and would punish its supporters? At least, that's what I keep reading from the punditry and the commentariat.

I'm puzzled that CCMV is considered a Conservative lock by many babblers- the NDP finished 2nd in 2008 (and I believe in 2006 as well) there and their results were going up from 2000-2008 until Casey won the landslide as an Independent in 2008.  After the way Harper treated Casey, the Altantic Accord betrayal, etc, I would think CCMV voters would be itching to punish the Cons in a by-election where the government is not at stake - and would possibly lean NDP given Dexter's popularity and the likelihood of an NDP government being elected provincially in early June.  Is an NDP upset at all possible in CCMV, or just a West Coast pipe dream? I am totally ignorant of NS politics at the riding level, so please enlighten me!

I agree that Harper will put on a full-court press to get Dumont to run in Crête's federal seat - it would be Mario's only shot at being in government, but he just moved to Montreal with his family so it will be hard fo him to justify coming back to politics that soon.  If he ran, though, he would have a decent shot at winning the seat on his personal appeal.  Mario is a total loose cannon but Harper is roadkill in Quebec now, so he needs a game-changer.

May will have to run in CCMV whether she wants to or not, to back down from that race would be a humiliation for her. 

No, I don't I'm afraid.  I don't have a phone line to the Liberal HQ.

I didn't know the BQ member wasn't running again.  Thanks for the info.  Was that announced recently?  I hadn't heard that.  Perhaps he is leaving because he knows he will be defeated next time?

If the Libs could come within 600 votes of taking it under Dion, it's likely they can take it under Igantieff.

No, Debater, it's for health reasons.  Give up the partisanship for a second, winning isn't everything.

? ? ?  That's what this whole topic is about - who can win in what ridings  And aren't you normally quite partisan?

Anyway, are you saying you believe the health reasons?  That may be part of it, but I don't think it's the full story - he saw the results in October and can see what's likely to happen in the next election.

That's like David Emerson saying he was leaving for family reasons - everyone knew it was because he couldn't win in that riding as a Conservative.  He knew it would go Liberal or NDP and it ended up going NDP.  I think Mr. Roy has seen similar writing on the wall, and thus I think that contributed to the "health reasons"

Not generically.  It was a Nancy Charest vote more than it was a raw Liberal vote.

If an upset's possible, then we're looking at an NDP sweep or near-sweep of NS.  Look: we're talking about 69% vs 12.3% re second place last time around; it's just that fewer Dipper voters felt comfortable parking their vote on principle with Casey than Tory or Liberal voters.  (And the NDP was still third behind the Grits in 2006--though not by too much.)

And you draw this conclusion not even having read the story or knowing the man's age?  This may be the last time I even engage you on something this silly, but at my age and looking at the guy's photograph, it seemed quite plausible to me, particularly because he's saying so this early.  The Bloc may be many things, but scared of Liberals is not one of them.

I'm certainly partisan, but I'm not blind and I've lived a little.

I'm not sure if scared is the right word, but they are concerned right now.  There was an article out earlier this week pointing out that the BQ is now getting ready to go after Igantieff - they wouldn't be doing that if they weren't considered about his rising numbers in Quebec.

Remember, the only party to take seats away from the BQ in October was the Liberals, and that trend is likely to continue in the next election.

If the BQ starts to fear losses in Quebec - they could decide to prop up harper for several YEARS.

Well the BQ is pretty much guaranteed to lose seats to the Liberals in the next election - it's just a question of how many and whether or not what they lose to the Liberals can be offset by what they can take away from the Conservatives.

"Pretty much guaranteed", eh?  The same way Paul Martin was pretty much guaranteed to win a 220-seat majority, or Stephen Harper was finished after the 2004 election?

Debater, NOTHING is guaranteed in electoral politics, and pretending otherwise doesn't help your reputation for insightful and considered political analysis on this board.

Let alone nothing is guaranteed, or even 'sort of guaranteed'... as to what is even likely, looked at right now, with all the caveats that entails...

In Quebec the Cons are looking to have nowhere to go but down.

All the Bloc has to do is stay close to where they are and they stand to pick up a chunk of seats on that.

As always, the Liberal vote is so concentrated in Quebec [and even the francphone vote being somewhat that way] that big province wide gains, or even gains in the Montreal breakdown- that the lions share of those gains are in seats they already have. And in seats where they are close enough to the Bloc, Cons going down can lead to more gains for the Bloc than the Liberals.

Another factor is that a number of those seats where the Liberals are in range of the Bloc is that they had those seats and lost them. The several I can think of, losing them closely in 2006 turned into losing them by a much larger margin in 2008. That is largely because the incumbency factor kicks in, and while rolling that boulder uphill is not impossible... probabilities again, the odds are that predictions do not pan out for things like 'we don't have Dion holding us back anymore, and we were only 1,000 votes behind last time'.

Right now at least, it looks like the contingencies of the Liberals getting ANY seats [or more than 1 or 2] from the Bloc are MUCH greater, than is the likelihood the Bloc is going to pick up seats [and more of them] from the Cons.

I didn't say it was guaranteed - I  said it was "pretty much" guaranteed; I qualified what I said and am aware of how language works.  What my statement meant is that unless the Liberal vote drops significantly in Quebec before the next election, it is almost a sure thing that they will pick up new seats there.  I therefore provided for the possibility that the projection can change.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to always scold me and give me lessons on politics and the use of language.  You are not my mother.

Finally something we can agree on !

The BQ support is actually not that entrenched in Quebec these days - it is a struggle for them just to get to 40%, and they only got 38% in October.  Their days of getting 49% of the vote and 54 seats seems to be over.

Incidentally, L. Ian MacDonald, who probably knows more about Quebec politics than any of us, recently wrote that the Liberals can win 30 seats in Quebec in the next election.  That's a little high IMO, but it shows how things are shifting.

Shows how much some people can spin stuff. Operative word is they could. If I tell Ian that $1,000 of his next paycheck rides on his prediction, do you think he'd say '50% probability for that 30 seat figure.

It isn't even guaranteed the sun will keep shining out of Iggy's orifices. And if it does, and a whole bunch of things also go right, yes, they might win 30 seats. Its a reasonable hope for them to entertain.

As to the BQ- the fact it is unlikely they are back to 49% of the vote and 54 seats means squat. Their vote is highly efficient in getting seats. As long as they stay even close to 38-40%, the Liberals can't make more than piddly gains. And unless the trend changes more than they usually do, the highest probability is that the Bloc is going to have at least enough seats to guarantee us AT LEAST another minority government.

You're right that the BQ vote is "efficient" if by efficient you mean they receive a very disproportionate number of seats relative to their popular vote!  As Ed Broadbent said a few years ago in his report on democratic reform, of all the parties, the BQ receives the most seats for the fewest votes under first past the post.

However, the "efficient" vote will only hold up for so long.  The Liberals are likely to make more than piddly gains in Quebec based on the current numbers.  The Liberals took 2 seats from the BQ in October when they were much lower in the popular vote, and almost won in half a dozen others.  The Libs can easily pick up 10 seats or more in Quebec based on their current numbers.  The next election for the BQ is likely to resemble 1997 or 2000 in which they lost a number of seats.

Another interesting thing to watch in Quebec down the road will be the issue of Duceppe himself.  Many people thought the last election would be his last - it now appears he plans to stay on for another.  But when he retires, the BQ vote may go down further.  Nanos research shows that many people vote BQ because of Duceppe and the BQ may lose voters when he leaves.  

"Nanos research shows that many people vote BQ because of Duceppe and the BQ may lose voters when he leaves."

...and their second choice tends to be the NDP.

It was up until recently - it is now beginning to increase for the Liberals again now that Ignatieff is there.  BQ voters clearly didn't like Dion.

Where do I get this feeling Debater that is only an expression of what you hope is happening?

It may sound likely to you- but based soley on what you hope.

Its pretty basic knowledge of the dynamic of voter choices in Quebec that the Liberals are consistently the last choice of BQ voters- and that was true long before Dion. It was true even when Quebec friendly Paul Martin was leader.

That said, IF the Bloc is dropping in vote share, then that could tip a seat or two to the Liberals in close 2-way races... even if BQ voters do not switch to the Liberals. But when that kind of shift is happening, it is usually widely known [not just political junkies] and BQ voters are more likely to show up, and to tip against their second choice because they don't like the Liberals.

But that's a pretty modest dynamic, which IF it happens [and the Bloc is showing no signs now of headed towards that], might tip a seat or 2 to the Liberals.

Debater, can we call you Master?

Ken S, the analysis I am doing is not based on what I hope happens - it is based on the results of the last election, polling trends, and the wisdom of others more knowledgeable than us such as Chantal Hebert, L. Ian MacDonald, etc.

It seems to be that your analysis (and that of a couple of other posters on this subject) is based more on what you hope happens than on actual objective observation.  Is it your prediction that the Liberals are only in contention to pick up 2 seats in Quebec next time?  Isn't that prediction based on your dislike of the Liberals?

The same thing happened when I was talking about how the Gatineau seat is one of the ones the Liberals will probably win back next time and someone then (inaccurately) said that the Liberals weren't even in contention there last time and that it was only a BQ-NDP race.  I then had to post the actual results to show that was incorrect and that the NDP only finished 1 percentage point ahead of the Liberals in the riding.

There was also a lack of objectivity involved in the Westmount race last fall - people predicted that Anne Lagace Dowson would be able to win.  Marc Garneau ended up beating her by a 2-1 margin.  Jeanne Le Ber was also supposed to be a seat the NDP was in contention in.  The NDP finished a distant 3rd.

I'm just trying to engage in some objective discussion of the ridings, but if you would like to base your predictions more on what you hope happens than on the actual trends, there's nothing I can do.  I have tried to help by posting the views of experts on these subjects along with the actual results, but I think I'm going to move on to another topic soon.

By "more knowledgeable", I presume that you mean "people who confirm your own pre-conceived biases". Hebert didn't think Mulcair would win the by-election; she didn't think he'd be re-elected; her record as a prognosticator is actually pretty bad. MacDonald is still spinning for Brian Mulroney. 'Nuff said there.

"I have tried to help by posting the views of experts on these subject."

I have met a number of these self-styled "experts" over the years. They can be smart people, but they are not privy to any secret information and when it comes to pontificating about what the future holds in Canadian politics - they are essentially just political junkies like any of us that post on babble who are simply expressing their personal views on what they think will happen. The only difference between L. Ian MacDonald and Chantal Hebert and "debator" and Scott Piatkowski and Kens and myself are that the first tow get their personal opinions published in mass circulation media, while the rest of us don't. But quite frankly I don't think MacDonald or Hebert's personal opinions are necessarily worth anything more than the personal opinions of some of the more interesting people who post on babble. It just happens that the moment someone gets a soapbox like a column in a newspaper - the are suddenly anointed as an "expert" and suddenly we are supposed to hang on their every word - no matter how often they are wrong, wrong and wrong. For example in the US, Dick Morris is considered an "expert" because of his work for Clinton and for various Republicans etc... yet I keep reading his columns he has been 100% dead WRONG on every single solitary prognostication he made about American politics over the past year. (If you don't believe try reading all his columns from the past year and you'll see - wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong 100% of the time).

Hebert did not predict that Mulcair would not be re-elected in October as far as I know - if you have an article, please link to it.  The point is whether or not the general trends predicted are accurate or not - it's hard to predict individual races precisely.

Yes - that's the point.  MacDonald is a PC, not a Liberal.  If he says the Libs are going up in QC, it's not because he works for them.

Btw, pollster Christian Bourque said earlier this week that Ignatieff is the type who will appeal to Quebec  Is he going to be accused of being biased too?

Anyway, I noticed that you didn't deny that the NDP's own predictions have often been over-optimistic or inaccurate in places like Westmount, Jeanne Le Ber, Gatineau etc.

I also think the NDP is spending too much time on Quebec - the NDP only has one seat in Quebec.  All its other seats are outside Quebec and it's important for the NDP to focus on those rather than on out of reach ones in QC.  It's time to win seats in Saskatchewan again and in Ed Broadbent's old riding of Oshawa.  Those used to be places where the NDP could win.

I am suspicious of anyone who wants to reduce the amount of political competition in a democracy.

Well you have managed to prove one thing Debater- that I was a fool for engaging with you.

Biases are fine. I engage with people that have very strong biases, and the opposite of mine. Some of them their bias even gets in the way of presenting a balanced view. [Balance is difficult. Thinking one is engaged in 'objective analysis' in this field is nothing more than conceit.]

I engage with these people because they have something more than their biases to offer.

You don't.

Bye.

It's silly to take your ball and go home.

I was reporting accurately what is being said by most Quebec analysts and pollsters and you raked me over the coals for it even though I was proven right.  I was not the one being biased.

All you needed to do was just acknowledge that based on the current trends, the Liberals are likely to pick up a number of seats in Quebec.  Yet you went to great contortions to say that they will only pick up 2 seats in QC.  Is that still your prediction?  I hope you will consider changing it so you do better in your election polls.

Some Greens (and me) commenting on whether or not May should/will run in CCMV.

http://reportongreens.blogspot.com/2009/04/another-quick-question.html#links

I just logged a comment that follows up on May's Globe blog interview last night.

I hope she does run in CCMV. It would mean that she doesn't run in New Westminster-Coquitlam, which would be an irritating distraction for the NDP, and best of all if she runs in CCMV she almost certainly lose regardless so it would be a good way to further destroy her credibility - esp. if she comes in fourth.

Consider this when it comes to when any by-elections can be held.

Nova Scotians will almost certainly be going to the polls on June 9th.

Harper won't call a by-election in C.C.M.V. or any other vacancies untill sometime after that.

My bet would be an early August call for a September date, just before the House of Commons returns from it's summer recess, so he can bask in the glow of a 'stunning Conservative victory' in the riding. (At least that's what the Conservative spin doctors will tell anyone who'll listen!)

Nope.

Because he'd be obliged to call one in NWC as well. The Cons want that seat, and have a crack at it in a generl, but not a by-election. So they want to stall till the general on that one [and can easily do so at least till the Fall... and if there is no general call it at the last minute for bloody April if they want].

So CCMV will just have to go with that flow.

Exactly - and that's why I said on another thread that the Elections Act should be reformed to require a by-election to be called within one month of a vacancy rather than the current one which allows the PM almost unlimited time to do so.  Ed Broadbent saw the abuse that a PM can cause with by-elections when he was trying to run in Ottawa Centre under Paul Martin.

Are we going to see any changes proposed to the Elections Act to require by-elections to be called earlier the way Ed Broadbent has suggested?

It should keep being brought up. But at best it will be a long haul because neither the Libs or Cons want to see it happen.

The fact it should be called for has nothing to do with figuring out the dynamic we can expect to see unfold around the by-elections [if there are any].

What has been the practice in those provinces where the NDP governments have had to call a by-election - have they called them within one month or have they waited until it was politically opportune.

Have any of the NDP governments in BC, Sask, Man. or Ont. brought this in when they were in government and if not why not?

Will those babblers on here from Nova Scotia bring this issue up if that province goes to the polls in the next month or so especially since there is a good possibility of an NDP win there.

Keep in mind that there is a law that says that a byelection must be called within six months of there being a vacancy. Dawn Black resigned on April 12 (I believe) so Harper must call these byelections by some time in October.

Indeed, and since there will be at least 2 other seats vacant in October (CCMV and Paul Crête's federal seat), Harper will be obliged to call all 3 by-elections at once (I agree with David Young that the more likely scenario is an August call for a mid-Sept by-election, so the new MPs will be seated when Parliament resumes for the fall sitting).  The only wild card is whether Ménard will actually step down as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve's MP and run in the Montreal municipal election, and if so, when his actual resignation takes place. 

La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election!  Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician. 

On other points made above, does May not have any hope at all in CCMV? What if Casey endorses her? Any speculation on what role, if any, Casey will play in the by-election campaign? Again, I am shocked that the Cons are heavy favourites to win this by-election, given how they treated Casey in the last few years.

Also, I don't see why the Cons would not be competitive in the New West-Coquitlam by-election - it will be a tough hold for the NDP and the 2 candidates for the NDP nomination to date don't come close to Dawn Black's stature and profile in the riding.  The Cons easily took Surrey North when Penny Priddy stepped down (I know it was a general election but the same trends apply in New Westminster-Coquitlam IMHO). I'd say it's 50/50 right now whether the NDP or Cons take the seat in the by-election, depending on who the candidates are and how the May 12 provincial election reverberates in the by-election campaign.

1. There is absolutely ZERO chance of Casey endorsing May in any byelection. He now has a job as the NS governments representative in Ottawa. He cannot do anything partisan. In any case, Casey was always a mainstream Tory, he didn't revolt from his party over any environmental issues - it was all about the Atlantic accord. CCMV is easily the most big "C" Conservative riding in Nova Scotia. I suspect that any reasonable Tory candidate will win it easily and the bad blood between Casey and the Harper gang will be ancient history in that riding.

2. The Tories did not "easily take" Surrey North after Penny Priddy retired. It was actually a very close race and the Tories had the advantage of running Chuck Cadman's widow. Also, in the last federal election, the Tories did very well in BC and took 44% of the vote in the province. Their support has plumeted since then and byelections tend to favour the opposition. I'm sure that once the provincial election is out of the way, the NDP will shift to focussing on finding some really stellar people to run in NWC. The wild card will be the fact that the Liberals will almost certainly try to compete strongly and its hard to say what impact a stronger Liberal campaign would have on the race.

West Coast Lefty wrote:

La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election!  Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician. 

Yet you're viewing him through the prism of Liberal leadership.  It isn't like he was an unredeemable catastrophe in Cabinet or anything...

You're right, adma, but I think his stint in the leadership hurt rather than helped people's perception of him as a potentially competent minister, and I think Liberals now kind of wish he'd slip away to a sinecure rather than run again.  I would mark him as a bit of a weak incumbent right now, and I certainly would be thinking about trying to recruit a strong candidate to run against him on the assumption that he might be weakened enough to at least step down the next time.

CCVM:  Presumably Scott Armstrong will be nominated. And Bill Casey will certainly help him [not that he will need it], he'd probably help any nominee. Politics is the opposite of a blood sport here, and he Cons are still more or less seen as PCs. People will vote on issues. Punishing the Cons will not come in. And its a riding where even without an incumbent, things favour the Cons... enough to comenstae for not liking Harper and worry about the economy. There is a longshot chance a by-election could change that enough, especially if May wre not only to run here, but declare early and campaign the whole time. But she won't do the latter.

NWC:  The Cons will easily be 'competitive'. But the odds are against them. Since the seat is within their reach, and a by-election would not favour them, why do you think they would not stall as long as possible? Let alone call a summer by-election? And potentialy put CCVM at least somewhat in play when they have a cakewalk there in a general election?

Right, but that's a LONG time for a PM to be able to wait to call a by-election.

As Ed Broadbent has said, the law should be that a by-election must be held within one month of there being a vacancy.

I agree 100%. In the UK when MPs resign or die and a riding becomes vacant, the byelection is typically called within DAYS of the vacancy occurring.

Thanks Stockholm, I had a brain freeze re Casey having to be non-partisan with his new appointment - I will bow to the consensus that CCMV is an easy Conservative gain.  I also stand corrected re the Surrey North results, it was indeed close so my memory of Election Night 2008 failed me in this case. 

I question your statement that the CPC support in BC has plummeted since Oct 2008, the polling I've seen indicates the Cons are still fairly strong in the West and the Prairies, the slippage to the Libs is in Ontario for the most part and the CPC is now back to marginal support levels in Quebec.  In any event, Dawn Black was a very popular and well-known incumbent and she only won by about 1,500 votes in 2008, so it would not be a huge leap for the CPC to take the riding. I have contacts on the ground in this area and there is no evidence of "stellar" people lining up to run for the NDP in this by-election.  There is a New West city councillor and a Coquitlam city councillor, both OK but neither one as compelling as Dawn Black was on the local scene here.

Thanks KenS, for the local CCMV context.  I concede it's a CPC lock unless something unusal happens, and even if May runs, she's not the same personality she was even last election, her star has faded a lot in my view.

Where we disagree on the by-election timing is that I'm convinced Harper wants to avoid a general election in 2009 like the plague.  The recent commentary indicating some kind of common ground between the CPC and the BQ (and in Chantal Heberts universe, the CPC and the NDP), and the general political landscape would likely push Harper to delay the writ drop until spring 2010.  He is putting all the Opposition days in the spring session very soon, and will reportely schedule the fall 2009 opp days for as late in the session as possible.  There is already informed reporting that the 2010 budget will be presented late in March after the 2010 winter Olympics.

Harper will wait because: a) waiting allows Iggy's honeymoon halo to tarnish (this is already happening according to the latest Ipsos and Nanos polling; b) the first game-changer is the Dec 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen, giving Harper a chance to contribute to an international agreement on GHG reductions by endorsing Obama's cap-and-trade plan, getting lots of photo ops with B.O. at the same time; c) the 2nd game changer is the 2010 Vancouver Olympics where Harper wants to stand in front of that torch and welcome the world to Canada.

Plus, having the by-elections (assuming it is just the 3 we know about now) is a can't lose proposition for the CPC - they don't hold any of those 3 seats now, and they are almost certain to pick up CCMV and they are competitive in New West-Coq. If the NDP wins in NWC, that's not bad for Harper either as it dents Iggy's momentum, same for a BQ hold in Crête's old federal seat.  So, at worst, they lose 3 seats they don't have now, and at best, they pick up 1 or possibly 2 seats and gain momentum leading up to the general election in spring 2010.

St-Laurent-Cartierville is one of the safest Liberal seats in Canada - that one's not going anything but Liberal.

I agree about Harper avoiding a general. I started a [sleepy] thread with an opening post that concludes that the BQ is in the catbirds seat for some time.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/so-lib-spin-bunk-what-lay-federal-politics

But a general may happen regardless. And Harper will be keeping his options open to call one in the event things turn his way. Admittedly unlikely... but the last year has been full of reversals. Maybe the rookie ignatieff finds an unexpected depth of talent for self-inflicted wounds? Whatever.

We're talking about a man who has already dragged out waiting for by-election calls to extreme lengths, for smaller strategic benefits than having a substantially better crack at NWC in a general.

It costs him nothing, and there is nothing material to gain in going earlier than he has to.

I can see him calling them in October for late November- if surviving the Budget vote looked pretty certain. But how can that be even pretty certain, even after a Fall confidence vote deal with the Bloc. Duceppe might change his mind, the political fallout of the deals may get onerous, etc. So I can also see Harper having the gall to call the bloody by-elections for April... just on the chance there might be a general first.

[And even to calculate the date so there is a repeat of last year: by-election Edays that fall a couple weeks before they will be trumped by a general election if it happens. Best of both worlds- NWC doesn't vote till the general, and the Cons have the resources to sluff off the drains of an inhumanly long campaign.]

Harper has also called byelections very quickly when  it suited him. When London North Centre became vacant, Harper called the byelection almost instantly.

"In any event, Dawn Black was a very popular and well-known incumbent and she only won by about 1,500 votes in 2008, so it would not be a huge leap for the CPC to take the riding. I have contacts on the ground in this area and there is no evidence of "stellar" people lining up to run for the NDP in this by-election.  There is a New West city councillor and a Coquitlam city councillor, both OK but neither one as compelling as Dawn Black was on the local scene here."

I don't expect NWC to be a cakewalk, but I think the factors tend to favour the NDP. A number of polls have shown Tory support falling in BC (while they remain popular on the Prairies). Keep in mind that in 2004, the NDP came within 60 votes in NWC and that was with a generic candidate who was nothing special and was NOT Dawn Black. I suspect that after the coming provincial election is out of the way, the NDP braintrust will start aggressively trying to get someone high profile to run. Its not as if the Tories have such grat choices either - Paul Forseth who Black defeated in '06 apparently wants to run again - but he is just the kind of dated old Reform Party type that won't go down well in this day and age and the woman who came close in '08 for the Tories is now a senator!

Sounds like what they said about Outremont.  But, by all means, continue to take it for granted, please.

The extent to which Outremont was ever a "safe" Liberal seat was a bit exagerrated. It went Tory in 1988 and in both 2004 and 2006 the Liberal vote was less than 40% - it was pretty clear that if the NDP and BQ votes could be unified the Liberals would be vulnerable. In contrast St. laurent has always gone Liberals sweeping margins. It is heavily non-francophone and has none of the intelligentsia that Outremont has.

Stockholm has it right.  The comparison between Outremont and St. Laurent is inaccurate.  

Outremont has not been a safe Liberal seat since the early 1980's when it was held by Pierre Trudeau's right-hand man Marc Lalonde.  The Liberals lost it in 1988, and though they won it back in 1993, both Martin Cauchon and then Jean LaPierre only won it by margins of about 2,000 - 3,000 votes over the BQ in those years.

St.Laurent on the other hand, has seen Liberal victories by tens of thousands of votes for many years.  In fact, Dion's margin of 62% in October was the largest margin of victory of any of the current 14 Liberal ridings in Quebec, and I believe was the largest of any Liberal riding in Canada except the 70% margins of a couple of the Newfoundland seats and maybe a couple in the GTA.

Please view the election results here - you will also notice that the NDP finished 4th in this riding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/098/

I engage in objective analysis of the numbers, and if I was a strategist for Jack Layton I would not suggest wasting a lot of money on this riding.  If you would counsel him to do so, I don't think Jack would be that impressed with your strategic planning!

Your smugness is really disgusting.

If pissing people off is your goal, you are doing a good job. And don't flatter yourself that its the content of what you have to say. It's just your charming way of going about what I guess you would call "debating".

Me, smug?  What about you and ottawaobserver?  You guys are always telling me I am less intelligent than you are.  What you don't like is that I provide proof with actual numbers.  I don't make stuff up.   I provide a link to the results of a riding so people can see it for themselves.

I was providing numbers and historical background to what Stockholm said above.

And I was asking a serious question - would an NDP analyst recommend spending resources in the St. Laurent riding?

Depends; after all, Dion did skew the picture in '08.  If he weren't running, though, I could imagine murmurs of the seat being "targetable", not unlike how some regarded LaSalle-Emard following PMPM's retirement--though there, too, the NDP finished a poor fourth.

So it's all a matter of how ambitious the NDP is--think of it as akin to spending resources in Scarborough-Rouge River.  (And don't laugh; with the right candidacy and campaign, a seat like that could make a good test case--after all, if it were in Greater Vancouver rather than Greater Toronto, it *would* be within NDP radar, definitely.)

That would depend how fluid the situation became.

In 2001 the average individual income in the riding was $27,421, compared with $18,540 in Montreal City and $21,888 in Metropolitan Montreal. Not the first target.

Still, when voters shift you never know:

Peterborough, 1958, 1960 by-election

PC 19032, 10246

Lib 7254, 5394

CCF/NP 1887, 13207

Neither I nor OO ever said or implied you were less intelligent. That's your passive-aggressive read.

OO explicitly challenged how much you know about election cycles. And its fair enough to say that the construction of my qestions implied what amounts to the same thing. And it takes a reasonably intelligent person to conveniently divert questions of how much one knows into people supposedly questioning your intelligence.

Nor would you have been questioned about how much you know if you weren't so prone to grand sweeping statements that are not backed up. And someone who thinks they have "proved" a statement because they sprinkled it with some numbers, and then tells people they should therefore admit they are wrong... thats a pretty good definition of one kind of smug.

adma wrote:

West Coast Lefty wrote:

La Presse is reporting today that Dion not only will not resign his seat, he will run again in the next election!  Apparently he has his heart set on being a Minister in Iggy's Cabinet, but anybody who saw his farewell speech to the Lib coronation, er convention, on Friday will know that Dion has not improved one iota as a politician. 

Yet you're viewing him through the prism of Liberal leadership.  It isn't like he was an unredeemable catastrophe in Cabinet or anything...

Actually, I'd argue that he was a complete disaster as Environment Minister. His Kyoto strategy consisted almost entirely of naming a dog after it.

For a sense of what Ms. Hebert had to say about the NDP, including its prospects in Quebec, a little over a year ago:

 http://www.thespec.com/article/330451

My recollection is that she made comments on one of the various talking head panels on which she is a regular that minimized Thomas Mulcair's chances in 2008, but I'd be hard pressed to point to a source.

If nothing else, this look back reinforces that reading the future from opinion polls is a mug's game at the best of times. In the current volatile political climate polling punditry cannot be taken seriously.

I know quite a bit about election cycles.  And both have you have implied that I am not smart because I have talked about polling trends or have referred to this political analyst or that one.

I have not made sweeping statements - I have backed up what I have said with links to polls, election results and individual ridings and know many of those results off by heart because I follow numbers and ridings so closely.

I have been correct in my numbers on the Gatineau, Outremont and St. Laurent ridings when others have been mistaken.

I don't know how accurate CTV's Power Play is with babblers, but there was some speculation tonight that Liberal Irwin Cotler was being offered a Senate seat in Montreal.

Not that there would be much doubt as to who'd win a by-election in Mount Royal, eh?

Of course there would be doubt.  One should never assume what the outcome of an election will be.  The NDP can win in Mount Royal if it works hard there.

I'm not familiar with this story though.  Why would a Liberal like Irwin Cotler be appointed to the Senate?  Harper will only appoint Conservatives to the Senate as he wants to get a majority in there.

Actually, Debater, given the Conservative party's entrés with the Jewish community, and the relatively strong candidate they ran there last time, I believe they would make a strong push for that seat.  I heard it said last time that, but for Cotler, the Jewish community in Montreal was ready to vote Conservative in that seat.  What the interim period has done for that relationship I have no idea, but it would be an interesting test of their current strength, depending on who the Liberals could recruit to run in Cotler's place.

The Liberal vote has indeed fallen in Mount Royal.  The Liberals only got 55% of the vote in Mount Royal on October 14.

It is also true that the Liberals lost some of the Jewish vote in a couple of other ridings such as Thornhill in Ontario where Susan Kadis lost the seat to Peter Kent.

However, that was under Dion.  Dion was bad at connecting with every single demographic - that was one of his many, many problems as a leader.  Ignatieff is planning to win that vote back and I believe the Liberal party is holding a fundraiser out in BC this week which is being attended by some prominent Jewish Canadians.

Anyway, who knows whether Cotler is leaving since it is just rumour at this point.  The Conservatives though have a big problem - Mount Royal is in Quebec.  This is a province where their numbers have fallen and Montreal is the worst part of the province for Conservatives.  They have yet to win a single seat in the city, and according to PQ analyst Josee Legault, they are unlikely to ever win a seat in the city of Montreal under Harper's leadership.

Also, Tory support in Quebec has totally collapsed since the election - so I think that losing Mount Royal by a 2-1 margin in October is about as well as they will ever do. Even if the Tories MASSIVELY improved their showing among the 33% or so of voters in Mount Royal who are Jewish (and that is a BIG "if") - they will be lucky to get even 5% of the vote among the other 67% of the riding. Considering how the Tories were obliterated in Outremont where the Jewish community is far more religious and small "c" conservative than it is in Mount Royal tells me that all of Harper's pathetic attempts to do what he thinks will attract Jewish voters will be a total failure.

I was reading that this guy from Coquitlam city council might be about to announce he is running for the NDP nomination in New Westminster-Coquitlam.

http://www.votefin.com/

He could certainly add some sex appeal to the NDP benches.

What goes on in Thornhill, stays in Thornhill?

Let me put it this way. I think that Harper's attempts to pander to Quebecers with junk like recognizing Quebec as a nation etc... and his attempts to pander to Jews by being more pro-Israel than most Israelis - have something in common. Both stratgeies will fail miserably.

But didn't the second "work" at least to some extent, last time? 

Its hard to say - the fact that the Tories totally bombed in Outremont where there is a very large orthodox Jewish population would indicate that their plot didn't work. In any case, in the most recent election, the Tories gained a lot of votes across the board from the Liberals in suburban areas because Dion was such a total flop. Let's see what happens next time.

If Harper really wants to go to such extraordinary lengths to win ONE riding (ie: Thornhill) - then I have a better suggestion for him - why not simply endorse the Tamil Tigers and then possibly sweep all the Scarborough ridings in the next election!

And Ignatieff is tripping over himself to be more pro-Israel than the Israelis too!

As I think I've said before, I don't think that Harper and Iggy are jumping through all these hoops just in order to win one or two seats out of 308 where there are enough Jewish voters that their votes could be "pivotal". I think its about both wanting to conform to what they regard as "elite opinion" on foreign policy...Harper and Ignatieff both seem to genuinely buy into neo-conservative foreign policy and for whatever reason, being pro-Israel is part of that package.

Let's get back to the upcoming byelections though.

"I engage in objective analysis of the numbers, and if I was a strategist for Jack Layton I would not suggest wasting a lot of money on this riding.  If you would counsel him to do so, I don't think Jack would be that impressed with your strategic planning! "

Let me, in a collegial way, offer some strategic thoughts. Firstm there is a lot to win and little to lose in spending money in this by-election,, A first  place finish would be worth big bucks. second place finish, major victory, third place, up from foruth  may not be too bad, Jack will keep me on staff.   What you dont;l want is to lose  and lose bad- too have yoru fote share drop to miniscule numbers, finish fifth or a very bad fourth,  written off in Quebe cby the pundits  and the public. Then, election finance rules, the relatively good financial postion of the NDP and  the ability to concentrate serious resources in a by-election means a decent campaing is doable for not that much-say a $50,000 budget,  good people from Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, across Canada,  city a few visits from Layton and Mulclai- should be able to ratchet up the vote a bit and who knows, maybe win.

Bottom line, we are in this game to win. GO JACK GO!!!

Well speaking of by-elections, Paul Crete finally officially resigned yesterday.  The House of Commons website shows yesterday (May 21, 2009) as being Crete's last day as a Member of Parliament.

This means the by-election for this riding is officially possible now, although as I have said in the past, until the parties reform the Elections Canada Act to require by-elections to be held earlier, the PM can abuse the process by keeping them vacant for months.

As Ed Broadbent once told me, by-elections should be held within one month of a vacancy.  I completely agree.

Long thread - feel free to start a new one!