What'll take to move the NDP from its current 20% in the polls to 25% in the next election, Part 4

I'm not that supportive of the idea of special "labour delegates" but I really don't think this is the main issue that is stopping the NDP from a major breakthrough.  The Liberals have long been able to campaign like NDPers.  Ignatieff however can't really campaign at all - and his inclinations are centre-right.  The NDP ought to stress it is the party of actual liberalism in this country.

I would not call this second pollster confirming since the NDP did not stay up there for the first pollster.

Still it is a good poll especially in the regionals which indicate where that support is coming from.

It is worth pointing out however that this is a big poll over 2 weeks so that is also encouraging.

These numbers are very different than the last time the NDP hit 20% in the polls.

Then, they did it with high numbers in Atlantic and Quebec regions-- not particularly efficient for seats. This time they have enough to hold what they have in Atlantic and Quebec -- perhaps gain a couple and then good numbers in Ontario. the real story is Sask and Manitoba and BC. The change there would deliver quite a few seats and puts the NDP into very efficient numbers for seats.

It is also a clear indication that this is being driven by ethics which explains why people don't go to the Liberals.

These are good numbers to start a campaign from. If these numebrs were to hold at the start of a campaign first palce at the finish would not be out of reach- provided the campaign went very well. In context another 4% from the Cons and 3% from the Liberals would be 1st place. This is not an impossible goal.

I am trying to find it-- I had heard vision critical had another poll since the March 29th at 20%--

In any case we do need to see a couple back to back from a couple different pollsters to call this a trend but it certianly is welcome.

The fact that Layton's personal numbers have edged past Harpers in some polls is a good sign as well.

The key to me is where the first place party is not the Liberals. The NDP being within 10 of the Cons is a very important number. I hope to see this tightening confirmed in the next couple polls.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am trying to find it-- I had heard vision critical had another poll since the March 29th at 20%--

In any case we do need to see a couple back to back from a couple different pollsters to call this a trend but it certianly is welcome.

The fact that Layton's personal numbers have edged past Harpers in some polls is a good sign as well.

The key to me is where the first place party is not the Liberals. The NDP being within 10 of the Cons is a very important number. I hope to see this tightening confirmed in the next couple polls.

That is unlikely to be the case.  I don't expect to see those numbers last.

I also don't see those numbers lasting.

I think over the next few weeks with the Guergis/Jaffer controversy still at the Cons; the issue of contempt of parliament; the detainee issue and the HST that these numbers won't last.

I suspect the NDP will go up further, the Cons will dip further and the Liberals will become more frustrated.

It is also possible that the Liberals could go up as well-- It is possible that all three of the biggest parties will end up within the margin or error of each other. Bu Augustus I agree, these numbers won't last.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Augustus, based on what?  If you're going to participate, you need to put your money where your mouth is, or no-one will take you seriously.

Based on the fact that over the past half-century the NDP has never been able to get over 20% of the vote in a federal election.

Btw, I don't always expect to be taken seriously.    I don't always take other people seriously.  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

We might even see annoying little threads from North Report about how the NDP can go from "the current" 25% to 30%...

Hey, come on.  NR starts a lot of interesting threads that get us all talking, Sean.  I for one appreciate that.

BTW: If the UK election goes the way it seems to be going - the NDP can exploit the results in three ways:

1. Third party that always gets 18/19% of the vote surges to as much as 30%

2. Very strong possibility of some sort of accord/coalition involving LibDems and Labour to keep the Tories out - how can "coalition" be such a bad thing if they are doing it in the "mother of all parliaments"?

3. Lib Dems will almost certainly demand and get some type of electoral reform as part of the deal - again good role model for Canada.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

We might even see annoying little threads from North Report about how the NDP can go from "the current" 25% to 30%...

Hey, come on.  NR starts a lot of interesting threads that get us all talking, Sean.  I for one appreciate that.

Hey now-- that was a joke since the content of my post clearly supports NR's point of view-- even the idea of the numbers not staying the same -- but actually increasing I think NR would have no trouble with!

Augustus wrote:

It's up to Canadians to decide whether or not they want a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Polls appear to show that many Canadians are against the idea because it is viewed as overturning the results of an election.  The party that wins the most seats in Canada is considered the party that has the greatest right to govern.

You can expect Stephen Harper to campaign against the coalition in the next election.

GOOD!! I really hope that Harper spends the entire election campaign attacking the idea of a coalition government - that way when the Liberals, NDP and BQ get far more seats than the Tories get - it will give the coalition wayyyy more legitimacy!

Can you produce ANY recent poll that actually says that Canadians have any objection to parties in a minority parliament forming accords or coalitions with each other?? NO, you can't because they don't exist!

NorthReport wrote:

If Harper's numbers keep dropping the way they have been, the Conservatives may well be looking for a coalition partner themselves?

Who do you think that would be?

I think it would be the blue Liberals, to be honest with you, although that depends on how many of them there are left (to mix up my metaphors).

It will definitely be one factor to consider, the extent to which remaining Liberals are prepared to negotiate any arrangement with the NDP other than supine deference.  The two parties' relative bargaining strengths will undoubtedly be decided based on how many seats each would win in the next election, and where they are located.  If the NDP has a stronger position than the blue Liberals are comfortable with, I could see some of them throwing in their lot with the Conservatives.

From what we know of their basic modus operandi, they would instantly begin to plot to oust Harper, and advance their own candidate for leader.

Augustus wrote:

It's up to Canadians to decide whether or not they want a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Polls appear to show that many Canadians are against the idea because it is viewed as overturning the results of an election.  The party that wins the most seats in Canada is considered the party that has the greatest right to govern.

You can expect Stephen Harper to campaign against the coalition in the next election.

But also remember Ontario in 1995 (though that was a case where the provincial Liberals got more votes yet fewer seats).

And when it comes to "acceptability of an idea", it may depend on how many fewer seats the Liberals might have--remember that there was a yawning seat-total gap btw/Dion and Harper, but if it isn't so yawning btw/Iggy + Harper and there's enough Layton caucus to make a coalition entity, then it's more likely that Canadians might be okay with giving it a try.

Under such a circumstance, Harper "campaigning against a coalition" could well backfire--that is, unless a similar coalition in Britain backfires in the interrim...

Augustus wrote:

You can expect Stephen Harper to campaign against the coalition in the next election.

Layton can defend against this in much the same way Clegg has in the UK. Layton could just announce that he's willing to work with anyone, even "the man on the moon" as long as they don't come in third place in the vote.

Nick Clegg will work with 'man from moon'

So Layton could say that he would work with either Harper or Ignatieff as long as they don't come in third place. That would diffuse Harper's campaign against coalitions.

I disagree with Clegg that third matters that much.  Parliament should respect the will of the majority of it's elected representatives.  That's far more important than partisan seat counts.  Harper has shown he can't work with others and he's prorogued and bullied his way through several short term minority governments.  It's time to give someone else a chance.  I can't stand Iggy and if he doesn't play serious ball with the NDP than it would be better to endure another Harper minority just to get rid of such an incompetent Liberal leader.  The Conservative should run an election on how they can't get along with the majority of Canada's elected MPs, I'm sure that will win them a lot of new support...that said they just might be stupid enough to do it if their jaw droppingly idiotic abortion antics this week are any indication.

ottawaobserver wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

If Harper's numbers keep dropping the way they have been, the Conservatives may well be looking for a coalition partner themselves?

Who do you think that would be?

I think it would be the blue Liberals, to be honest with you, although that depends on how many of them there are left (to mix up my metaphors).

It will definitely be one factor to consider, the extent to which remaining Liberals are prepared to negotiate any arrangement with the NDP other than supine deference.  The two parties' relative bargaining strengths will undoubtedly be decided based on how many seats each would win in the next election, and where they are located.  If the NDP has a stronger position than the blue Liberals are comfortable with, I could see some of them throwing in their lot with the Conservatives.

From what we know of their basic modus operandi, they would instantly begin to plot to oust Harper, and advance their own candidate for leader.

I doubt the Liberals would want to form a coalition with the Conservatives.  I think they would only do it with the NDP.  Working with the Conservatives would not be considered acceptable with their left-wing base in Toronto or in Quebec where they want to make more gains.

In any event, the Conservatives are against a coalition anyway.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make my point clearly.  I was speculating that if the Liberals and NDP did come to an arrangement, it might peel enough blue Liberals away from that party to join the Conservatives ... .either formally or in another kind of coalition.

I doubt the Candidate list is known publicly enough to affect polling.

I think this is in large part a reaction to the scandals and things the NDP has said before that is resonating.

There are a lot of people that may be open to a message from the NDP but I assume that will come in an election and this bump in the polls is a geture of faith from an electorate that is listening-- If I'm right then on the one hand the NDP has done little recently to get this support and is benfitting from long term investment and this is just the start of it if things are managed well. The real moves would be in a campaign.

Ottawa Observer is suggesting that the Liberals could be open to erosion from left and right if they fall much further and is clear they need to jump one way or another in a coalition situation. It is a reasonable idea and we may see some of that, On the other hand since Ignatief is right wing enough the greater erosion could be to the NDP. If the Liberals were to fall below the NDP the damn could break on the left side and those on the right may have so little left that they just walk to the conservatives.

This is of course the NDP's wish- no Liberals and a more polarized electorate with more honest and clear choices. This is a long shot but as I have said elsewhere, this is the kind of political change that allows almost no warning when it happens. This could happen through a single campaign.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Almost a third of Canadians want a Conservative government. They are the bedrock of opposition to a coalition.

I don't think that people who vote Conservative have any real issue with the idea of coalition government - they just have an issue with anything that means the Tory party being out of power. If the Conservatives found some way to form a coalition of their own that meant that Harper remained PM - Tories would suddenly be the world's biggest fans of coalition government. Imagine if the Canadian Alliance and the PCs had not merged in 2003 and that in the 2004 election, the Liberals were the biggest party but the CA and the PCs combined had mofre seats than the Liberals - how much does anyone want to bet that in that scenario, the CA and PCs would form a coaltion and all the pundits on the right would be lecturing us about how coalition government is perfectly acceptable etc...etc...look at Australia - either you have a Labor Party gov't or you have a rightwing COALITION government of the Liberals and the National Party.

There is no grand principle behind the Tory opposition to coalition government - its just a reflection of the fact that at this particular point in time - coalition means - the Liberals and NDP coalescing to dump the Tories - so of course Tories don't like it. But down the road - Tories would be the biggest fans in the world of coalition gov't if it meant them being in power.

The CBC in BC seems to give the government MP's in BC an easy ride and they are not really all that nice to Ignatieff.  Of course they are just plain nasty to the NDP but that has always been the way.  I think the Cons complaining about bias in the news media is laughable. 

Augustus wrote:

It's up to Canadians to decide whether or not they want a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Polls appear to show that many Canadians are against the idea because it is viewed as overturning the results of an election.  The party that wins the most seats in Canada is considered the party that has the greatest right to govern.

You can expect Stephen Harper to campaign against the coalition in the next election.

On your first point -- absolutely not. You get to vote for the party you choose not for the arrangement they make or even for the potential arrangement. This keeps coming up where pundits say voters voted for a minority government. No, in many cases they did not -- they voted for majorities but just could not agree as to the party.

Many polls have showed that an NDP-Liberal coalition is quite popular. You are fiddling with facts to suggest that the poll results which were in fact not overwhelming from December 2008 apply to today.

The party that wins the most seats is not considered the party with the greatest right to govern. That was a fiction Harper tried to peddle with at best temporary success but over time people have come to realize that was not true-- it took time for people to become educated. Most of those who actually vote know better. The party that can command the support of the majority of seats in parliament has the right to govern. We have been down this road before -- Ask David Peterson and Bob Rae since they are both Liberals now I am sure they can explain it.