+_+
As the NDP now has 20% support, what does the NDP have to do to move its support to 25%, Part 5
Sun, 2010-05-02 22:23
#1
As the NDP now has 20% support, what does the NDP have to do to move its support to 25%, Part 5
Sun, 2010-05-02 22:28
#2
Layton calls for hearings into Arctic oil exploration
BP Exploration Company Ltd., which operates the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded and sank off the coast of Louisiana two weeks ago, has acquired three offshore licences totaling more than 6,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea, the part of the Arctic Ocean at Canada's northwestern edge.
The company is not actively drilling for oil in the region. But according to a 2009 community update newsletter, it has conducted seismic tests that it bills as "the first step in our search for oil and gas."
The company plans to collect data -- including water chemistry, weather and ice conditions and wildlife presence -- from the three sites in the summer and fall of this year.
Other companies, including Chevron Canada and ExxonMobil Canada, have secured rights to explore the Arctic Coast for oil.
Layton said Sunday that BP and the others have also applied to the National Energy Board for an exemption, should they one day drill in the area, to a requirement that they also drill relief wells in the event of a blowout like the one in Louisiana. The April 20 explosion killed 11 workers and set off a leak that threatens to become the worst oil disaster in U.S. history.
"We're going to be urging that emergency hearings take place and that the experts be brought forward, including BP and the others, so that Canadians can know what the decisions are before us," Layton told Question Period. "And then we'll design a plan accordingly so that we can try to prevent what's taking place in the Gulf."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100502/layton-oil-...
Mon, 2010-05-03 00:17
#3
Know which ones it wants to target, nominate early, help get the ridings built up, help the ridings raise money, send the Leader and other caucus members in frequently around local issues, help the candidates raise their profile in the local media, make sure the federal party has its own organizers in the field ...
... oh wait, they're doing all that already. So, what else. Anyone?
Mon, 2010-05-03 00:48
#4
I think a more important question then how to reach 25% is how to reach 55 seats.
If the NDP could reach 55 seats it would eclipse the BQ. Its bargaining position would increase substantially vis a vis the other parties. If the BQ can get 55 seats with 11% of the vote, maybe the NDP can somehow increase the effciency of it's vote so it can regularly get 55 or so seats in most elections. Maybe the NDP should have more enclaves of support similar to the Labour party in the UK?
With the NDP at 55 seats, the House of Commons would most likely be limited to minority governments and the chances of the NDP participating in a coalition government would greatly increase.
At 55 seats, Harper's ability to create a neo-conservative revolution would be blocked.
So I'll rephrase the question:
"As the NDP now has 37 seats, what does the NDP have to do to move its support to 55 seats?"
Mon, 2010-05-03 07:57
#5
I dont see "help get the ridings built up". Not in Nova Scotia anyway.
This may still depend on the section. We're good at election campaigns here. But advance work- even in the most ripe targets- is not part of the organizational culture here. The distant second showing in CCMV being the most recent manifestation and consequence of that.
Mon, 2010-05-03 09:47
#6
A party that is the defacto alternative can pound at the government and get elected.
A third party normally has to advance a popular program to attract votes from the other opposition parties.
A third party that has never governed nationally has an additional challenge in looking ready to govern so in addition to having a popular program, the party has to look responsible and the program needs to be complete in every area.
The form of the release is a huge issue as well. It can be hard to get attention for it-- People will not read a big long thing on the web -- so a way of getting it in people's hands is important-- something like the red-book is one way. Having it small format- pocket sized and easily available would be an improvement on the red book format.
Organizing debate and discussion forums around ideas is another way with the result published on the web shortly after each meeting.
I believe a strongly substantive campaign is required to go above the 20%. It is also the right thing to do in terms of accountability.
I do agree that many of the right conditions for a surge are in place and the party is doing a fairly good job of it.
Another issue is the decision by the CTV to no longer cover all parties in most discussions. It has been over a year now that the CTV has abandoned showing any attempt at looking unbiased. It provides panels now of only two people for most stories with a Liberal and a Conservative only. When it covers other parties it does it by themselves with the CTV often taking the place of the Conservatives in approach. At times it does not even bother with the Liberal and just interviews the Conservative and those are quite often too friendly to be called journalism. This is the Power Play format where the CTV pretends there are only 2 parties in anything important. This is not the only example of media bias but the fact that they are getting away with it when it is so blatant is a problem. Perhaps those supporting other parties should start writing to the CTV to complain. It is a problem because they will do a full interview with Layton on something by himself and then that is the excuse to go the next week with just Cons and Liberals on the panels-- you have to actually see the interviews to appreciate how it is an art form to get the NDP out of the way and then have the conversations that matter without them.
The BQ is almost no longer covered by cTV.
Mon, 2010-05-03 11:24
#7
I remember reading that Ralph Benmergui had the grand scheme to lobby the networks to start including someone from the Green party when they have panels of MPs or pundits - looks like that has been a total failure. (Of course one might be nasty and ask how you can have an MPs panel and include someone from a party with no MPs).
Mon, 2010-05-03 12:17
#8
Well I am not going to start to compare the NDP with sitting members, committee members, official standing in the House, popular vote within 10% of the official opposition with the Green Party...
I do think the Greens should have more coverage than they do get on some issues but there is no comparison to the NDP which is a fully functional participant in parliament.
The media have been increasing their role as kingmaker over the last number of years. Previously, they used to promote parties but the line between news and opinion has never been so blurred. My problem is their pretense at getting the full story without bias even more than the bias itself.
Mon, 2010-05-03 14:34
#9
Agree heartily with everything Sean in Ottawa just said above. The CBC is only barely better.
Mon, 2010-05-03 17:57
#10
Another issue is the decision by the CTV to no longer cover all parties in most discussions. It has been over a year now that the CTV has abandoned showing any attempt at looking unbiased. It provides panels now of only two people for most stories with a Liberal and a Conservative only. When it covers other parties it does it by themselves with the CTV often taking the place of the Conservatives in approach. At times it does not even bother with the Liberal and just interviews the Conservative and those are quite often too friendly to be called journalism. This is the Power Play format where the CTV pretends there are only 2 parties in anything important. This is not the only example of media bias but the fact that they are getting away with it when it is so blatant is a problem. Perhaps those supporting other parties should start writing to the CTV to complain. It is a problem because they will do a full interview with Layton on something by himself and then that is the excuse to go the next week with just Cons and Liberals on the panels-- you have to actually see the interviews to appreciate how it is an art form to get the NDP out of the way and then have the conversations that matter without them.
The BQ is almost no longer covered by cTV.
What's the point of CTV giving a lot of coverage to the BQ? They get a lot of coverage in French on Radio-Canada. Their MP's often refuse to speak English or don't participate in certain panels, so there's not a lot an English network can do.
Mon, 2010-05-03 22:54
#11
Another issue is the decision by the CTV to no longer cover all parties in most discussions. It has been over a year now that the CTV has abandoned showing any attempt at looking unbiased. It provides panels now of only two people for most stories with a Liberal and a Conservative only. When it covers other parties it does it by themselves with the CTV often taking the place of the Conservatives in approach. At times it does not even bother with the Liberal and just interviews the Conservative and those are quite often too friendly to be called journalism. This is the Power Play format where the CTV pretends there are only 2 parties in anything important. This is not the only example of media bias but the fact that they are getting away with it when it is so blatant is a problem. Perhaps those supporting other parties should start writing to the CTV to complain. It is a problem because they will do a full interview with Layton on something by himself and then that is the excuse to go the next week with just Cons and Liberals on the panels-- you have to actually see the interviews to appreciate how it is an art form to get the NDP out of the way and then have the conversations that matter without them.
The BQ is almost no longer covered by cTV.
What's the point of CTV giving a lot of coverage to the BQ? They get a lot of coverage in French on Radio-Canada. Their MP's often refuse to speak English or don't participate in certain panels, so there's not a lot an English network can do.
Firstly there are Anglos in Quebec that watch TV; secondly most people who watch political shows already know how they will vote and want to see what people are saying and thirdly the stuff about the BQ not wanting to appear speaking in English is baloney-- they are very happy to send people out to explain their point of view. I have never, ever heard of the BQ refusing to speak English. Give us some sources for this-- I think you make this stuff up. Presently the BQ leader is on a cross country speaking tour talking to Canadians about his ideas--
It is about ideas that are repesented in parliament by the votes of other Canadians. I live in Ottawa and I do listen (with revulsion perhaps) to what Conservatives from Alberta have to say as part of the political landscape.
Mon, 2010-05-03 23:18
#12
Agreed. If you want to understand the state of play politically in a multi-party system, you need to hear from all the parties.
... an argument I expect we'll hear from the Liberals when they get pushed into third place behind us ;-)
Wed, 2010-05-05 21:53
#13
Speaking of the 50 seat Liberals........
Chretien says nothing, speaks volumes
Still, having the talkative Chretien opt to say nothing about Mr. Ignatieff actually speaks volumes about the Liberal's predicament as a late, great party with no revival in sight.
The amateur-hour mistakes piling up under Michael Ignatieff's reign have to stop soon or the party could, predicts a senior party strategist who has served three Liberal leaders, hit the rocks at just 50 seats, which would guarantee a Conservative majority.
If that happens and Prime Minister Stephen Harper axes public financing for political parties, as he almost certainly will, the party Jean Chretien built into a majority monolith will crumble into long-term dust.
The list of brain dead activity in just the weeks since the party's Deep Thinkers conference has become the Red Book to self-annihilation.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/05/...
Thu, 2010-05-06 00:39
#14
peterjcassidy
Know which ones it wants to target, nominate early, help get the ridings built up, help the ridings raise money, send the Leader and other caucus members in frequently around local issues, help the candidates raise their profile in the local media, make sure the federal party has its own organizers in the field ...
... oh wait, they're doing all that already. So, what else. Anyone?
I like this because it looks to the ground war we need to fight. Many of the posts here emphasize the air war, the central campaign message or issue
First there are about 80 ridings last election that got over 25% of the vote and we were usually first or second in them.All these 80 or so ridings should be considered winnable and priorized. Add another 10 or 20 ridings picked for strategic reasons to get between 80 to 100 priority ridings. If the central campaign lends these ridings $20,000, secured by the rebate and conditional on the riding campaign spending at least $40,000, that would involve an expenditure or credit arrangement of $1.6 to $2 million. As these ridings are certain to get the 10% necessary for the rebate the credit should be easy to arrange and the party will get the money back a short time after the election. The increase in vote will pay back year after year in the $1.75 per vote now $2 per vote subsidy. And if we win any ridings, 1o or 40 or 55 it will be 99% ridings in this prioeity list.
I would add to that lending $10,000 to the about 160 ridings that got10% to 25 %, secured by the rebate conditonal on them spending at least
$20,000 . That would involve anothe expenditure or credit of about $1.6 million, piad back by the rebate and vote subsidy. For the remainign 50 or soidigns tha got under 10$ or expected to get under 10%.$5,000 if they soend #10,000. total; cost about $500,000.
Overall cost to get 25% of the vote and 55 seatsa botu $3. 5 million that comes bck and with increased refvenue year after year.
Thu, 2010-05-06 01:10
#15
Firstly there are Anglos in Quebec that watch TV; secondly most people who watch political shows already know how they will vote and want to see what people are saying and thirdly the stuff about the BQ not wanting to appear speaking in English is baloney-- they are very happy to send people out to explain their point of view. I have never, ever heard of the BQ refusing to speak English. Give us some sources for this-- I think you make this stuff up. Presently the BQ leader is on a cross country speaking tour talking to Canadians about his ideas--
Of course it's not made up. It's a fact that the BQ does not speak English in the House of Commons or even in Committees. Anyone watching Question Period or Committees since 1993 can see this. As a result, it makes the English networks less likely to cover the BQ, and English Canadians are less likely to pay attention to them.
There are also times when the BQ is absent from English political panels when MP's from all the other federalist parties are present.
Thu, 2010-05-06 01:19
#16
Well, if that's the mood in the Liberal caucus, I would expect the next step to be a series of resignation announcements from the older MPs who will become pensionable in June. Meaning that, even if there weren't a general election soon, there might be a series of highly significant by-elections instead.
ETA: Sorry, got distracted and forgot to hit Post. This was a response to post #12 about the Liberal MP saying they'd be lucky to get 50 seats.
Thu, 2010-05-06 02:55
#17
Know which ones it wants to target, nominate early, help get the ridings built up, help the ridings raise money, send the Leader and other caucus members in frequently around local issues, help the candidates raise their profile in the local media, make sure the federal party has its own organizers in the field ...
... oh wait, they're doing all that already. So, what else. Anyone?
I like this because it looks to the ground war we need to fight. Many of the posts here emphasize the air war, the central campaign message or issue
First there are about 80 ridings last election that got over 25% of the vote and we were usually first or second in them.All these 80 or so ridings should be considered winnable and priorized. Add another 10 or 20 ridings picked for strategic reasons to get between 80 to 100 priority ridings.
100 ridings may be spreading resources too thin. Maybe thinking smaller will reap more rewards? I think the NDP should give extra special consideration to winning 55 - 60 seats. Winning that amount would be a real game-changer. To best accomplish this, I'm not sure how many seats the NDP should target. My guess would be 75 seats. The BQ's big advantage is that they only have to worry about 60-65 seats. Maybe the NDP should prioritize a similar amount?
It's important to remember that under our FPTP system, the ultimate goal is to win seats, not votes. The BQ wins 15% of the seats on just 9% of the votes. The Conservatives get 40 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with relatively few votes. And the Liberals get dozens of seats in Toronto with a very efficient vote. For the NDP to be successful under FPTP they'll have to find similar "enclaves of support" that allow their vote to be efficient. Prioritizing 70 or so seats may be the best way to establish an enclave of seats for the NDP.
The election in the UK teaches this lesson well. If the Liberal Democrats win 33% of the vote tomorrow, they will still be lucky to win only 20% of the seats.
Hopefully, one day, we'll have fair voting so parties don't have to establish "enclaves" of support. But for now the leaders of the federal NDP should memorize the 75 ridings in Canada that the NDP should excel in. Surely the NDP can come up with 55 - 75 exceptional candidates to run in the next election.
Thu, 2010-05-06 03:08
#18
The NDP is down to 16% in today's Nanos Poll.
Looks like the NDP may not have 20% support afterall. 
Thu, 2010-05-06 13:03
#19
Surely the NDP can come up with 55 - 75 exceptional candidates to run in the next election.
Don't forget it's not the NDP that's tasked with finding candidates, it's the riding associations. Ottawa Observer is right when he says that the best thing that the NDP can do, and it doing, is supporting riding associations and keeping the brand so that they can interest great candidates.
For one thing, it's great that the NDP does not parachute candidates. Furthermore, with the Local Victories Campaign they are subsidizing the fundraising efforts of RAs by 50%.
The best thing the NDP can do is present a vision for Canada that's accessible and inspiring.
Mon, 2010-05-10 13:25
#20
There is only one way to increase the seats that the NDP can get: Inspire Canadians
Those who lead inspire us. We follow those who lead not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with why that have the ability to inspire those around them, or find others who inspire them.
This is from TEDtalks
Ideas worth spreading
Here's the link:
Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action
http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector?feature=chclk#p/u/5/qp0HIF3SfI4
Mon, 2010-05-10 13:48
#21
Actually, I think Peter J. Cassidy hit the nail on the head: we do have to target AT LEAST 100 ridings. Here are some reasons why:
1) It's all well and good to only target 60, but if that's all you target even if everything goes perfectly, you will only get 60. Moreover, even if you win all 60 you leave yourself in a difficult spot for determining your next tier ridings for the following election cycle.
2) People like to vote for winners - if we're not at least pretending like we want to win, we won't. Another thing that adds to that is that running anemic campaigns in urban ridings that surround our target ridings does not help. It's fine for people to see an NDP presence in their own riding, but if all they see/hear about on their way to work, etc is Lib/Tory, they may think we're a lost cause in their riding even when we're not.
3) There are dozens upon dozens of ridings across the country where we run $10000 campaigns year after year (when the others spend the limit), and then wonder why we can't break the 15-20% mark. Winnipeg South Centre (my riding) is one of those - we sort of gave up in 2006 because we only got 22%. Well we only spent about $20000 - the Libs and Tories spent $80000 apiece. The Free Press did a poll during that election which showed a close 3-way race, but without any staff/resources to do a last-minute push, strategic voting pushed us back to that number.
4) Sometimes you have to spend a lot of resources on campaigns that are not likely to win, in order to keep building momentum for the next campaign - if we had done that last time in our riding, I have no doubt we would be a clear target this time; instead, we didn't even have a candidate until nearly 3 weeks into the campaign and no resources - and ended up with 15% on E-day. This time, we already have a great candidate nominated (Dennis Lewycky) and if we ran a fully-funded campaign we would stand a very good chance of winning (we hold 3 of the 4 provincial ridings in the area). We are hoping to have about $30000 raised in advance of the campaign and a slew of people getting involved - but some extra help from FO would help us prove that this one is winnable.
Mon, 2010-05-10 17:29
#22
I agree with Winston. However, I'm not a "he", NK. ;-)
I would favour a larger number of targets versus a smaller number, but realize that this means working hard ahead of time. Of course FO can always do more. But in the absence of well-developed ridings, necessary as it is Federal Office's effort no matter how large would not be sufficient to win in most cases.
Mon, 2010-05-10 18:27
#23
The NDP has to be careful not to diffuse its resources to widely either. I think one of the things that hurt the UK Liberal Democrats is that their surge into first place encouraged them to spread their resources more widely, hoping to maximize their seat count, should that vote have held up. It was a gamble that didn't pay off because becoming a contender for government made them a bigger target for Labour, the Conservatives and the Media, all of whom mercilessly pounded them during that period, which limited their growth to one percent nationally. If a similar scenario plays out here, the NDP could surge to 25% or so, get hammered, then fall back to 19-20% and fail to make many gains in seats. Or worse, actually loose seats. The Lib Dems, despite growing their vote, failed to pick up some fairly close losses last time, including ones against Labour, whose overall vote fell substantially.
Tue, 2010-05-11 00:58
#24
Yes, but I think their strategy was entirely based on riding the wave, whereas the NDP has done a lot more preparatory work and has a lot more substance behind it. To the contrary, one could argue that the only remaining significant impediment to the NDP doing better is the perception that it can't do better. A strong campaign in a lot more seats is an essential part of changing that.
What the LibDems did do is move into second place in a lot more seats, where they can build for next time. The NDP already has a very good roster of strong second place finishes that can be turned next time, plus a stable of very strong candidates who are in a position to challenge for a stronger performance in the upcoming election.
I understand why closely targetting a smaller number of seats was important when we were fighting back from brink, but I think it would be a mistake to be too conservative in that way this time.
This post from the Jurist is worth a read on the parallels between the two situations:
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-lessons-learned.html
Tue, 2010-05-11 01:02
#25
What the LibDems did do is move into second place in a lot more seats, where they can build for next time. The NDP already has a very good roster of strong second place finishes that can be turned next time, plus a stable of very strong candidates who are in a position to challenge for a stronger performance in the upcoming election.
But they also lost quite a few seats, so it's a wash.
Tue, 2010-05-11 04:05
#26
I ran across this sentence in an omnibus review of political books in the 30 April 2010 TLS :"Twenty years after Margaret Thatcher's victory over socialist economics, polls suggest that the public still hankers for what Blair offered in 1997, a competently managed market-led economy with decent public services funded as much as possible by bankers' taxes, social tolerance and no foreign wars: the quiet life agenda." I think that would apply to the Canadian public too. Here's the link: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7110578.ece
Some have argued here that it is the riding associations that should attract and hold good candidates. One problem is that few "star" candidates want to run in jolly-good-try ridings and accept the plaudits of a grateful RA for having soared to 18% of the popular vote over weak fair-trade coffee on election night. We seem generally to have a problem with recruiting (and holding) talent. I still don't understand why the Liberals got Ujjal Dosanjh, Gerard Kennedy, and, yes, the hated Bob Rae. We should own these guys. Partisan politics aside, I don't think their opinions are out of sync with most party members, and they are eminently elelctable.Why are we wasting Paggy Nash running against Kennedy? And provincially in Ontario, how could we have failed to recruit Eric Hoskin, and why did we waste Cathy Crowe running against him?
Tue, 2010-05-11 08:35
#27
"Star" candidates who don't understand that it can take more than one try to win a seat become divas after the election is over, and are thus questionably worth the effort plus also at a high risk for defecting to another party that makes a better offer. Some of our best, and best-ensconced MPs had to run several times to win their seats and are now routinedly elected with half of the vote or so (think Joe Comartin, for example).
Augustus, the LDs lost 8 seats and gained 5 for a net loss of 3 if I recollect correctly.
I read this run-down of yesterday's negotiations last night, which gave a lot of interesting background. Looks like Labour played its negotiating hand remarkably well yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/general-election-2010-live-blog
Tue, 2010-05-11 13:12
#28
remind
I still don't understand why the Liberals got Ujjal Dosanjh, Gerard Kennedy, and, yes, the hated Bob Rae. We should own these guys. Partisan politics aside, I don't think their opinions are out of sync with most party members, and they are eminently elelctable.
That they would go to the Liberals indicates their opinions are out of sync with leftish ideologies, and I know not about Kennedy, but I hated Ujaal in the BCNDP, and indeed did not vote for them when he was leader. His actions during and after the GL standoff were reprehensible.
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:08
#29
The NDP is at 21%? Why, I watched a 2-hour shows on politics on the CBC just now and never heard this reported once!
(so what else is new)
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:13
#30
Don't worry you can count on the At Issue panel to pontificate on the NDPs poor performance and how it is a heart beat away from disappearing if it will make you feel better.
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:19
#31
The NDP is at 21%? Why, I watched a 2-hour shows on politics on the CBC just now and never heard this reported once!
(so what else is new)
That poll litersally just came out in the last hour so give it time...I was actually pleasantly surprised at how the media publicized the ARG poll about how Layton would beat Harper but Iggy would not.
IN reality the Nanos poll is not all that different from the Ekos poll - they just have Green/Other at 5% instead of 13% and the other parties all go up by about 4 points!
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:32
#32
And the NDP comes in at a not too shabby 21%, eh!
I suppose the answer is keep doing what Layton and Co have been doing all along. 
How many seats will that bring the NDP now across Canada and the NPD in Quebec in the next election?
The trend appears now for the NDP to hit 25% maybe even before the election is called. Sweet!
The one thing I particularly enjoy about Nanos Research is that Nik came to us via CPAC, and so is not affiiliated to any political party, and the least biased of all the pollsters. As well of course as having the best track record in forecasting results.
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:41
#33
Oh Stockholm, they mentioned the poll alright, but just to say that the Conservatives had gone down because of the G8/G20 issue.
As to the reporting of the Angus Reid survey, they reported the Layton scenario mockingly as a way to say "boy, see how bad Iggy sucks; he's worse than Layton".
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:43
#34
Probably the biggest impediment for many voters to support the NDP is that they feel it will give the Conservatives a majority. With the Liberals continuing to support all Harper's right-wing legislation, because they are so terrified of an election, what's the difference.
If the NDP could get to 25% support before the next election, a lot of former Liberal supporters who are concerned about a Harper majority will then have no choice but to support the NDP financially and to vote for Jack Layton's NDP.
With the NDP's strong campaign for the seniors' vote with a national pharmacare program it is definitely doable.
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:45
#35
Hi, NR; welcome back!
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:56
#36
If the NDP could get to 25% support before the next election, a lot of former Liberal supporters who are concerned about a Harper majority will then have no choice but to support the NDP financially and to vote for Jack Layton's NDP.
If the NDP was at 25% a lot of former Liberal supporters would already be with the NDP
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:57
#37
The fact the party rose four points in a month and is near 21% is very exciting (yes, I said that) :)
I find it hard to believe that the G8/G20 could be the cause of this rise, and the Conservative slippage, but the party is up in every single region of the country in a one month period.
Christ, this is welcome news. Let's hope it keeps moving in the right direction next month or the rise is reflected in other polls. If either happens then I would have to actally admit that NorthReport actually started a thread with a valid title for once.
Mon, 2010-06-07 19:59
#38
I think the Liberals have a glass floor that is the NDP's glass ceiling - both located about 23-24%.
Break this floor/ceiling and the whole game changes federally....possibly forever (see Nova Scotia).
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:00
#39
Oh Stockholm, they mentioned the poll alright, but just to say that the Conservatives had gone down because of the G8/G20 issue.
Which is a very bizarre thing to say considering the Conservatives went up 6.1% in Ontario in this poll
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T424E.pdf
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:01
#40
Obviously some have already shifted for the NDP to be at 21%.
The NDP are not that far from it already - only 4% more.
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:03
#41
This is one reason I personally am hoping for an election. The upcoming election is likely to be a bigger game changer than anyone expects. That's my gut feeling anyway, and not based on anything than watching what is going on around the place and a sense that as little as people seem to like Iggy, it will be far worse when they actually see him everyday and have to listen to him in a debate. That is when the house of cards that is the current Liberal party will come crashing down.
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:11
#42
Harper is not in majority government territory here.
Party / Last election / Nanos / Change
Cons / 37.7% / 35.6% / Down 2.1%
Libs / 26.3% / 29.2% / Up 2.9%
NDP / 18.2% / 20.7% / Up 2.5%
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:16
#43
This actually is quite stunning showing a shift of 8.5% change in the NDP's favour between the NDP and the 2nd place Liberals:
Party / Previous Nanos / Today's Nanos / Change
Cons / 37.2% / 35.6% / Down 1.6%
Libs / 33.2% / 29.2% / Down 4%
NDP / 16.2% / 20.7% / Up 4.5%
Mon, 2010-06-07 20:18
#44
The NDP needs a one sentence, only a few words actually, about what they will do for post-secondary students, and not just university students, but trades folks as well.
Here's an example:
Eliminate Tuition Fees
Mon, 2010-06-07 21:09
#45
Harper is not in majority government territory here.
Party / Last election / Nanos / Change
Cons / 37.7% / 35.6% / Down 2.1%
Libs / 26.3% / 29.2% / Up 2.9%
NDP / 18.2% / 20.7% / Up 2.5%
Ironically, the Conservatives would win almost exactly the same number of seats as in the last election. The 10 or so seats they would lose in the West would be gained back in Ontario. That is, if you believe Harper is going to lose 33% of his support on the Prairies from the last election.
Mon, 2010-06-07 21:25
#46
Nanos has a history of having some very weird regional breaks - but his overall numbers seem reasonable
Mon, 2010-06-07 21:43
#47
The press the NDP have been getting is fairly positive. There is a lot of things in the party's favour right now.
I think Harper will get his wish and the coalition will be a main election issue. Except it won't go the direction Harper wants.
Mon, 2010-06-07 22:14
#48
I also wonder if this poll might reflect a bit of a positive feedback loop, in the sense that people heard or read that Layton could lead a winning coalition against Harper, which might make them more likely to support Layton, which might make him seem better able to lead a coalition against Harper, and so on and so on ...
Tue, 2010-06-08 00:03
#49
Jack, Don't take that Shot!
Coalition of unwilling NDP and Grit voters will never work. But Harper would like it.
Tue, 2010-06-08 00:38
#50
I totally agree. That is a good point of attack. Everyone is supposed to 'tighten their belts' while Harper hands 9 billion to his pals in the US MIC. Are fighter jets really what the majority of Canadians want to spend 9 billion dollars on right now?
Tue, 2010-06-08 00:43
#51
I think a more important question then how to reach 25% is how to reach 55 seats.
Bring in pro rep. If we had pro rep they would have 57 seats and the 31...