Initial post-election polling thread

281 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

WATCH: From orange crush to orange crash: Mulcair's popularity hits rock bottom

The Globe and Mail

Jan. 13 2016

Nik Nanos

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-from-orange-crush-t...

You might be optmistic saying this is rock bottom for Mulcair's personal (un)popularity. I think we will see single digits -- of course at 10.3 we are not far.

Classic case of appealling to the people who will never like you sacrificing the support of the people who had liked and supported you.

Yet there are New Democrats here who still call him an asset. Why? Are they so down on their party that they really think they cannot do better than this? Frankly I think I might be less down on the NDP in leaving than someone who stays becuase they think this is all they can do.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Classic case of appealling to the people who will never like you sacrificing the support of the people who had liked and supported you.

Yet there are New Democrats here who still call him an asset. Why? Are they so down on their party that they really think they cannot do better than this? Frankly I think I might be less down on the NDP in leaving than someone who stays becuase they think this is all they can do.

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

Nathan Cullen announced he will NOT be running for the leadership if Mulcair doesn't get a mandate from the grassroots.

“I’m in favour of Tom staying on.”

What if, he was asked, the review vote goes against the leader and there is a leadership race to follow. “Not interested,” he said. “And no, I’m not being coy.”

He doesn’t feel it in his gut. Although he ran a spirited campaign for the leadership in 2012, he finds the ambition lacking now. “I didn’t get into politics with the core belief that I was designed to lead the party.” It’s fine, he explained, “if you’re an egomaniac and you just love the sound of your voice. But if you’re not built that way, the cost is significant.”

Other potential leadership aspirants are lying low. Megan Leslie, who lost her Nova Scotia seat, has told colleagues that she is not going to challenge the leader. Peter Julian is ambitious but is intent on remaining loyal. Alexandre Boulerice, the Quebecker who has thunderous power as a Commons inquisitor, went public in the election campaign against Mr. Mulcair’s position allowing women to wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. He is a future star, but is unlikely to make a move against a fellow Quebecker at this time.

Despite what happened in the campaign, party members respect the strengths of Mr. Mulcair. Mr. Cullen, who would have liked to have seen a bolder campaign, is among that number.

He is disappointed, as are many. But disappointment isn’t enough to take down a leader. It takes despair, and at the moment the despair isn’t there.

These are highlights of the article. The full text is below

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/lack-of-a-leadership-rival-b...

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Classic case of appealling to the people who will never like you sacrificing the support of the people who had liked and supported you.

Yet there are New Democrats here who still call him an asset. Why? Are they so down on their party that they really think they cannot do better than this? Frankly I think I might be less down on the NDP in leaving than someone who stays becuase they think this is all they can do.

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

Nathan Cullen announced he will NOT be running for the leadership if Mulcair doesn't get a mandate from the grassroots.

“I’m in favour of Tom staying on.”

What if, he was asked, the review vote goes against the leader and there is a leadership race to follow. “Not interested,” he said. “And no, I’m not being coy.”

He doesn’t feel it in his gut. Although he ran a spirited campaign for the leadership in 2012, he finds the ambition lacking now. “I didn’t get into politics with the core belief that I was designed to lead the party.” It’s fine, he explained, “if you’re an egomaniac and you just love the sound of your voice. But if you’re not built that way, the cost is significant.”

Other potential leadership aspirants are lying low. Megan Leslie, who lost her Nova Scotia seat, has told colleagues that she is not going to challenge the leader. Peter Julian is ambitious but is intent on remaining loyal. Alexandre Boulerice, the Quebecker who has thunderous power as a Commons inquisitor, went public in the election campaign against Mr. Mulcair’s position allowing women to wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. He is a future star, but is unlikely to make a move against a fellow Quebecker at this time.

Despite what happened in the campaign, party members respect the strengths of Mr. Mulcair. Mr. Cullen, who would have liked to have seen a bolder campaign, is among that number.

He is disappointed, as are many. But disappointment isn’t enough to take down a leader. It takes despair, and at the moment the despair isn’t there.

These are highlights of the article. The full text is below

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/lack-of-a-leadership-rival-b...

You seem to answer your own question: they do not want to appear disloyal. Perhaps they all know that there is no way he survives and do not want to be the trigger. But Mulcair is not an asset. Any number of leaders could do better than 10.3 % in personal popularity. There is no reason to think  Mulcair is all or the best the NDP can do. I do see that a number of them may not want to openly declare.

That said they lacked guts on the Ways and Means motion and ought to have stood up there if not on the leadership issue. Maybe most of the NDP MPs with guts lost.

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

True.

Many posters on Babble have pointed this out in recent weeks.

I think I also posted about this subject just a week ago myself when I talked about how Andrew Coyne wishes Canadian leaders could be removed by their own party as easily as Australian leaders.  But in the Canadian system, it is much harder to remove a leader if the leader doesn't want to go.  Tony Abbott was removed by his own party in Australia.  So was Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1990.

But in Canada, unless someone organizes a rival leadership campaign (eg. Mulroney vs. Clark in 1983), a leader will often be able to stay on, even if they are unpopular. (eg. Selinger in Manitoba).

Pondering

Removed to put in more suitable thread.

scott16

Debater wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

True.

Many posters on Babble have pointed this out in recent weeks.

I think I also posted about this subject just a week ago myself when I talked about how Andrew Coyne wishes Canadian leaders could be removed by their own party as easily as Australian leaders.  But in the Canadian system, it is much harder to remove a leader if the leader doesn't want to go.  Tony Abbott was removed by his own party in Australia.  So was Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1990.

But in Canada, unless someone organizes a rival leadership campaign (eg. Mulroney vs. Clark in 1983), a leader will often be able to stay on, even if they are unpopular. (eg. Selinger in Manitoba).

Please tell me why can't Niki Ashton, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Erin Weir, Alexandre Boulerice, etc. lead the party.

I also don't believe we can rule out Nathan Cullen regardless of what he said. Although I believe that Nathan Cullen should be avoided like the plague because he is politically identical to Mulcair. In My opinion his stance on cooperation is completely irrelevent now and was before.

I await your answer Debator

Sean in Ottawa

scott16 wrote:

Debater wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

True.

Many posters on Babble have pointed this out in recent weeks.

I think I also posted about this subject just a week ago myself when I talked about how Andrew Coyne wishes Canadian leaders could be removed by their own party as easily as Australian leaders.  But in the Canadian system, it is much harder to remove a leader if the leader doesn't want to go.  Tony Abbott was removed by his own party in Australia.  So was Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1990.

But in Canada, unless someone organizes a rival leadership campaign (eg. Mulroney vs. Clark in 1983), a leader will often be able to stay on, even if they are unpopular. (eg. Selinger in Manitoba).

Please tell me why can't Niki Ashton, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Erin Weir, Alexandre Boulerice, etc. lead the party.

I also don't believe we can rule out Nathan Cullen regardless of what he said. Although I believe that Nathan Cullen should be avoided like the plague because he is politically identical to Mulcair. In My opinion his stance on cooperation is completely irrelevent now and was before.

I await your answer Debator

At this point Jack Layton's tie would be a more popular and effective leader. Mulcair has lost the confidence of supporters and the result is the party is shrinking. The party is shrinking due to his selfishness

Any person would be better than Mulcair and there are potential prospects. More would come out once Mulcair is gone.

Debater

scott, I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.  I was just agreeing with Terry Towel that when there's not an obvious successor available, it can be difficult for a party to replace a leader.  I also said it's usually more challenging to do so in Canada compared to the UK & Australia.  The people you list are obviously free to try and lead the NDP if they want to.  I wasn't saying they couldn't.

Sean, you may be right that Mulcair & his inner circle are selfish and closed off to suggestions from other people in the party.  Defeated NDP MP Francoise Boivin gave an interview last week in which she alleges that Mulcair & his inner circle didn't listen to suggestions from people like her during the election.  Boivin says Mulcair & his team had a more individualistic approach than Layton did.

The interview is in French here:

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201601/...

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

scott, I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.  I was just agreeing with Terry Towel that when there's not an obvious successor available, it can be difficult for a party to replace a leader.  I also said it's usually more challenging to do so in Canada compared to the UK & Australia.  The people you list are obviously free to try and lead the NDP if they want to.  I wasn't saying they couldn't.

Sean, you may be right that Mulcair & his inner circle are selfish and closed off to suggestions from other people in the party.  Defeated NDP MP Francoise Boivin gave an interview last week in which she alleges that Mulcair & his inner circle didn't listen to suggestions from people like her during the election.  Boivin says Mulcair & his team had a more individualistic approach than Layton did.

The interview is in French here:

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201601/...

And I think there is a tradition in the NDP that the leader knows when it is time to go and makes a move before others look for the job. Clearly Mulcair is testing this by not making the decision himself. This is unfortunate. Correct me if I am wrong -- he could become the first NDP leader to lose a leadership review. That is destructive. I think there are probably more than a few who do not want to openly call for the ehad of the leader wh o are irritated that Mulcais is putting the party in this position.

He has firmly blown up any chance of having anything other than a permanent bad legacy and reputation. If he had had better judgement he could have left on better terms with less damage to the party and to his own reputation.

josh

When there's an opening, people will come out of the woodwork. You can count on that.

josh

scott16 wrote:

Debater wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The problem is that there is no real successor to Mulcair waiting in the wings

True.

Many posters on Babble have pointed this out in recent weeks.

I think I also posted about this subject just a week ago myself when I talked about how Andrew Coyne wishes Canadian leaders could be removed by their own party as easily as Australian leaders.  But in the Canadian system, it is much harder to remove a leader if the leader doesn't want to go.  Tony Abbott was removed by his own party in Australia.  So was Margaret Thatcher in the UK in 1990.

But in Canada, unless someone organizes a rival leadership campaign (eg. Mulroney vs. Clark in 1983), a leader will often be able to stay on, even if they are unpopular. (eg. Selinger in Manitoba).

Please tell me why can't Niki Ashton, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Erin Weir, Alexandre Boulerice, etc. lead the party.

I also don't believe we can rule out Nathan Cullen regardless of what he said. Although I believe that Nathan Cullen should be avoided like the plague because he is politically identical to Mulcair.

Agree with you on Cullen.

brookmere

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong -- he could become the first NDP leader to lose a leadership review.

Prior to membership voting for leader, which first took place when Layton was elected, the leader formally stood for re-election at each convention and there were no leadership reviews. At any convention any member could run for leader. However no incumbent leader ever faced a serious challenger.

 

 

Debater

From David Coletto at Abacus:

Trudeau son and father most popular PMs; Harper most unpopular

January 17, 2016

http://abacusdata.ca/popularity-prime-ministers/

Debater

New #CROP poll:

Federal race (Quebec only):

#LPC: 51%;

#NDP: 21%;

#CPC: 12%;

#BQ: 11%

https://sondage.crop.ca/survey/start/cawi/Rapport%20politique%20-%20Jan%...

Debater

The Week in Polls: Trudeau and Couillard lead, Ontario PCs win, Alberta NDP in third

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2016/02/the-week-in-polls-trudeau-and-c...

Debater

Rachel Notley's Job Approval Rating Tumbles, Brad Wall Still Most Popular Premier: Poll

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/17/rachel-notley-job-approval-ratin...

---

Facing re-election, Brad Wall, Greg Selinger are Canada's most and least popular premiers

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-premiers-approval-feb15-1.3451743

Pondering

Debater wrote:

The Week in Polls: Trudeau and Couillard lead, Ontario PCs win, Alberta NDP in third

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2016/02/the-week-in-polls-trudeau-and-c...

This is depressing:

The Liberals led in Quebec with 36%, followed by the PQ at 29% and the Coalition Avenir Québec at 21%. In fourth stood Québec Solidaire at 10%.

That represented a drop of three points for the PQ since November, but remarkably the Liberals improved their score slightly despite satisfaction with the government sliding three points to only 29%. Fully 62% of Quebecers said they are dissatisfied with the government.

If Quebec had an NDP provincial party it would win, maybe even a landslide. New parties have had no trouble starting up in Quebec. I am lucky where I live that QS wins the seat but in other ridings I would be forced to vote Liberal to avoid a Peladeau win. Voting for either Couillard or Peladeau would make me nauseous.

I hadn't thought of it before but Mulcair might be a good choice to lead a Quebec provincial NDP. I think he could win first time out. He has much more respect than Paladeau and Couillard throughout Quebec. He would have no trouble attracting top notch candidates for all the ridings.

Debater

It's an interesting idea to ponder what Mulcair might be like as a Provincial Leader, but the problem is that it's late in his career to make such a switch, plus he has lost popularity in Québec since last year.

Pondering

Debater wrote:

It's an interesting idea to ponder what Mulcair might be like as a Provincial Leader, but the problem is that it's late in his career to make such a switch, plus he has lost popularity in Québec since last year.

It's not at all late because he is well known as a provincial politician. Mulcair remains highly respected in Quebec. Quebecers knew that running federally and representing the NDP Mulcair had to take certain stances. Quebecers have a strong pragmatic streak and the PQ and Liberals have kept us between a rock and a hard place with no place to go. Mulcair could be much more himself which is a moderate old fashioned small L liberal federalist. Couillard is a Conservative as is the entire Liberal party in Quebec. The PQ has gone off the deep end again with Peladeau. CAQ is also right-wing. There is no moderate center left to vote for.

 

Debater

The reason I think a return to provincial politics is too late for Mulcair is because:

1.  There is no provincial NDP yet in Québec.

2.  Mulcair's only other option would be the Québec Liberals, and Couilliard already has that job.

3.  Mulcair is 61 years old, which is late in the game to be making another switch.

4.  Mulcair is already in the middle of an NDP Leadership race, and is already in danger of being viewed as damaged goods.

5.  In Québec itself, Mulcair now ranks below Trudeau in popularity, and as Chantal Hébert wrote last month, Mulcair & the NDP have failed to make an impact in Québec during and did not get involved in the activist movements within Québec over the past several years.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I think the pro-austerity field is pretty crowded in Quebec, what with the CAQA, the PLQ, and the PQ. We would not really need another pro-austerity Mulcair-led Quebec National NDP. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Mulcair is called old and grizzled because he is not clean-shaven. Discrimination against the bearded is a generational problem in Canada. 

Debater

Jeffrey Simpson is 5 years older than Mulcair, so it wasn't age discrimination -- just a realistic comment on Simpson's part.

Simpson is just pointing out the realities of generational change that Mulcair faces.

quizzical

yup it was ageist. doesn't matter if dude is 5 years older he can still, and did, use ageist descriptors.

my aren't you quite the little main stream media supporter?!

Pondering

Debater wrote:

1.  There is no provincial NDP yet in Québec.

2.  Mulcair's only other option would be the Québec Liberals, and Couilliard already has that job.

 

My point is that he would be the perfect candidate to start an NDP provincial party. Even if Couilliard quit Mulcair still wouldn't get the job because he is insufficiently right wing.

Debater wrote:
3.  Mulcair is 61 years old, which is late in the game to be making another switch.

It is his age and experience that would give him the gravitas to start a "new" provinical party.

Debater wrote:
4.  Mulcair is already in the middle of an NDP Leadership race, and is already in danger of being viewed as damaged goods. 

He may or may not lose but he will only be damaged goods on the federal stage not the provincial stage. If you haven't noticed Quebec doesn't worry overmuch about what the rest of Canada thinks of us.

Debater wrote:
5.  In Québec itself, Mulcair now ranks below Trudeau in popularity, and as Chantal Hébert wrote last month,

Trudeau won't be running in any provincial elections. Even if he were that doesn't mean he would win against Mulcair here. What Quebec wants in a federal politician is different from what they want in a provincial politician. Running in Quebec Mulcair could come out against Energy East which I suspect is his natural inclination.

Debater wrote:
Mulcair & the NDP have failed to make an impact in Québec... 

That isn't true. Mulcair and the NDP both made huge inroads in Quebec. The NDP is a much higher profile party in Quebec than before Mulcair. In the final moments of the campaign voters decided the Liberals were offering more than the NDP on the federal stage. That wouldn't be at all true at the provincial level.

Debater wrote:
... and did not get involved in the activist movements within Québec over the past several years.

Why would they? The NDP is a federal party. I doubt they got involved with activist movements anywhere in Canada. QS only gets 10% of the vote in Quebec so it's not like social activists here have sewed up the moderate progressive vote.

Quebec has no equivalent to the Liberal or NDP federal parties provincially. There are zero options for people who vote Liberal/NDP federally.

Our choices are sovereignist or conservative or extreme left. There is nobody for moderates to vote for. Not a single centre-left or even centre to vote for.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada. 

quizzical

why it's not the NDP which caused social programs to deteriorate? weird comment.

 

Debater

montrealer58 wrote:

I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada. 

Chantal Hébert wrote a column a while ago in which she spoke against the need for a provincial NDP in Québec.

She pointed out that Québec's day care program and many other social initiatives were set up just fine without a provincial NDP.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada. 

He can't be worse than Couillard and Peladeau and would likely be head and shoulders better than them. He would be fierce attacking the federal government and demanding more support for social programs like medicare. He would lay the destruction of the system at the feet of successive PQ and Liberal goverments and federal cuts under the Liberals and the Conservatives. He would demand big increases in corporate taxes point out how extremely they have been cut.

swallow swallow's picture

It's an interesting thought, for sure. It's also true that Quebec even under right-wing goverrments has more progressive social policy in most areas than any NDP-governed province (current or former). 

Debater

I don't think Mulcair intends to go back into provincial politics.

josh
Debater

Looks like the Liberal support is still strong (above October 19 levels) and that the CPC is still holding steady.

It appears to be the NDP that has dropped off the most recently.

Aristotleded24

montrealer58 wrote:
I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada.

Do you mean how the NDP in Manitoba allowed child care to deteriorate by increasing staff wages, increasing the number of spaces, and providing pension benefits to child care workers?

swallow swallow's picture

There's an improvement, for sure, but right-wing Quebec governments still seem to maintain far more extensive social programmes than any NDP government in recent Canadian history. I am not sure why that is - lack of boldness by NDP governments? More conservative voter populations in provinces where the NDP contends for power? Overly cautious leadership once power is won? I have no doubt that Manitoba and Saskatchewan are far better for their NDP governments than they would have been otherwise, but it can hardly be disputed that their social programmes are less extensive than those in Quebec - where even austerity-minded governments are about trimming the cost of social programmes, not eliminating them altogether. I don't mean this to sounds like a "Quebec is better" comment, I jsut wonder what it is that has prevented NDP governments from moving to the level of social programmes that Quebecers are fortunate enough to have in place. Is it sinmply that socail democracy is more entrenched in Quebec sicne the Levesque government? 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

There's an improvement, for sure, but right-wing Quebec governments still seem to maintain far more extensive social programmes than any NDP government in recent Canadian history. I am not sure why that is - lack of boldness by NDP governments? More conservative voter populations in provinces where the NDP contends for power? Overly cautious leadership once power is won? I have no doubt that Manitoba and Saskatchewan are far better for their NDP governments than they would have been otherwise, but it can hardly be disputed that their social programmes are less extensive than those in Quebec - where even austerity-minded governments are about trimming the cost of social programmes, not eliminating them altogether. I don't mean this to sounds like a "Quebec is better" comment, I jsut wonder what it is that has prevented NDP governments from moving to the level of social programmes that Quebecers are fortunate enough to have in place. Is it sinmply that socail democracy is more entrenched in Quebec sicne the Levesque government? 

The Quiet Revolution in Quebec was about social justice not language. Language was a means of identifying the enemy but so was religion in the form of the Catholic Church. That is why secularism is so much more important and organized religion regarded with so much more suspicion.

The PQ used to be left wing which forced the Liberals to also move to the left, or at least pretend to. Over the years the PQ has moved to the right. The formation of CAQ which is right wing nationalist pulled the PQ farther right and now under Peladeau the transformation is complete.

The Liberals are dismantling social programs and have included things so basic as primary education in their cuts.

The PQ opposes, but as soon as they are elected they change their tune. Chantal Hebert remains an insightful and knowledgable political commentator but she is farther right than I thought. At one time I voted PQ even though they are separatist because they were also the provincial progressive choice. That is no longer the case and the popularity of independence is waning.

At the very least a provincial NDP would force the PQ to move back to the left.

swallow swallow's picture

Could agree with parts of that and disagree with others, but I'm mostly curious why the NDP governments in several provinces have failed to reach the level of social programme which everyone in Quebec, even the pro-business right-wing Liberals and pro-xenophobia right-wing PQ, both endorse.

It's a question about NDP governments, not really about Quebec. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Could agree with parts of that and disagree with others, but I'm mostly curious why the NDP governments in several provinces have failed to reach the level of social programme which everyone in Quebec, even the pro-business right-wing Liberals and pro-xenophobia right-wing PQ, both endorse.

It's a question about NDP governments, not really about Quebec. 

It's about the people not the government. It's true that governments influence public opinion but public opinion is also affected by other factors. In Canada that includes predominant cultural backgrounds of citizens. It isn't the government that is more left in Quebec it's the people. That's why I believe that the NDP would be wildly successful in Quebec.

The NDP in Alberta, even with a majority government, still must take into account what the public is prepared to accept. Albertans would not stand for the level of taxation that exists in Quebec.

No other province in Canada has experienced a democratic revolution. Perhaps that is why I so passionately believe that a democratic revolution is more possible in Canada than any other country in the world.

Quebec Solidaire which is far left has 10% support in Quebec. Does any other province have an equivalent to that?

Debater

Trudeau 36 points ahead of opposition in Nanos preferred Prime Minister tracking

By Nik NanosNanos Research — Feb 23 2016

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/23/trudeau-36-points-ahead-of-o...

 

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Trudeau 36 points ahead of opposition in Nanos preferred Prime Minister tracking

By Nik NanosNanos Research — Feb 23 2016

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/23/trudeau-36-points-ahead-of-o...

I think the second set of numbers is more interesting.

Preferred Prime Minister – Asked about their preferences, 51.4% of Canadians said they preferred Trudeau in the tracking completed February 19th, 2016 while 14.9% preferred Ambrose, 11.4% preferred Mulcair, 4.8% preferred May and 16.5% were unsure who they preferred as PM.

Qualities of a Good Political Leader – Asked a series of independent questions for each federal party leader, 70.8% of Canadians thought Trudeau had the qualities of a good political leader and 54.4% thought similarly of Mulcair. Almost four in ten (38.4%) Canadians thought May had the qualities of a good political leader while 33.4% thought Ambrose had the qualities of a good political leader.

Mulcair is thought to be a good leader by 54.4% of people even though only 11.4% would give him the job of PM.  I think that's an interesting phenomenon to explore.

Aristotleded24

Ambrose dead last as leader even behind May? Ouch! Is there something to that or just that they don't know Ambrose that well?

bekayne

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ambrose dead last as leader even behind May? Ouch! Is there something to that or just that they don't know Ambrose that well?

They know her too well

Badriya

Debater wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada. 

Chantal Hébert wrote a column a while ago in which she spoke against the need for a provincial NDP in Québec.

She pointed out that Québec's day care program and many other social initiatives were set up just fine without a provincial NDP.

 

Chantal Hebert is correct.  That being said, the PQ used to be a Social Democratic Party, just like the NDP, before both became parties of neoliberalism.

 

Badriya

Debater wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

I am just worried if the NDP set up a branch in Quebec, social programs will deteriorate to their levels in the rest of Canada. 

Chantal Hébert wrote a column a while ago in which she spoke against the need for a provincial NDP in Québec.

She pointed out that Québec's day care program and many other social initiatives were set up just fine without a provincial NDP.

 

Chantal Hebert is correct.  That being said, the PQ used to be a Social Democratic Party, just like the NDP, before both became parties of neoliberalism.

 

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Ambrose dead last as leader even behind May? Ouch! Is there something to that or just that they don't know Ambrose that well?

Ambrose is just the interim leader and she's not in the running for PM in the first place. She is however polling a bit above the Con vote in the election. May on the other hand has had a high profile for years. Her approval doesn't translate into votes for the GP, as we saw last October.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
Quebec Solidaire which is far left has 10% support in Quebec. Does any other province have an equivalent to that?

I think that such a voter base exists in some other provinces, it just votes NDP.  I think what happened in Quebec is that the move of the PQ away from social democratic principles led to an opening for QS. You can certainly criticise NDP provincial governments elsewhere for the same thing to some extent, but the voter base and groups such as organized labour still find the NDP to be the best viable party and believe that starting a far left party would accomplish little. 

swallow swallow's picture

QS is hardly "far left" - it is a social democratic party that has remained social democratic, unlike the NDP and PQ which accept neo-liberalism with a human face. That said, I'd agree that the PQ's lurch to the right creted space for QS - and in Quebec, the PQ also went xenophobic, which provincial NDP's have not done, so that helps them. 

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

Trudeau 36 points ahead of opposition in Nanos preferred Prime Minister tracking

By Nik NanosNanos Research — Feb 23 2016

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/23/trudeau-36-points-ahead-of-o...

 

Media personality Alex Pierson wonders why Nik Nanos is only polling 13 year olds in this poll?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rm6_ylI8UY

Debater

That appears to be a Sun News clip from a couple of years ago.

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

That appears to be a Sun News clip from a couple of years ago.

But the point is the same. These polling firms are just polling teeny-boppers for these polls on Trudeau, according to her.

Pages