NPD surging in Quebec - Part 3

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NPD surging in Quebec - Part 3
NorthReport

The NDP/NPD has finally moved into the technological age, and not a moment too soon either. Money can't necessarily buy happiness, but it sure can help in certain areas. Laughing

 

Thomas Mulcair

 

Winning in Quebec

 

http://www.ndp.ca/council-2010-live

NorthReport
NorthReport

Keep nature in its place

 

Group urges new park for city. Urban need for 'places to get away to'

"If we can stitch a pattern of lands that can still be protected in the Montreal archipelago, maybe then we'll have a chance of preserving something that's valuable for future generations," said Mulcair, who was Quebec's environment minister from 2003 to 2006.

One of the ways to do that is to "rigorously apply existing laws, namely the ones that apply to the protection of wetlands, something that's sorely lacking when we look at cities like Laval that allow landfills to go ahead unchecked."

The afternoon rally drew about 50 participants and spectators. The event -which also drew the support of the David Suzuki Foundation - was held as part of the United Nations' International Year of Biodiversity.

Support for the project has grown significantly since the coalition was formed in 2007, organizers said. Besides the 80 organizations now involved -double the number three years ago -the coalition includes 14 mayors.

They represent four Montreal boroughs (Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Cote Saint-Luc, Plateau Mont-Royal and Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie) and 10 municipalities (Beaconsfield, Boisbriand, Boucherville, Brossard, Hudson, Longueuil, Montreal West, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Senneville and Westmount).

 

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Keep+nature+place/3514933/stor...

Doug

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP/NPD has finally moved into the technological age, and not a moment too soon either. Money can't necessarily buy happiness, but it sure can help in certain areas. Laughing

 

Great, except that it doesn't look like you can watch it now if you happened to have missed it.

NorthReport

You're right Doug.  Jeesh!

NorthReport

Layton keeps calm and carries on

As he says, "you can get a lot done, if you don't take credit for it -- but it's hard, in politics. You need to put something on the sign at the end of the day."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Layton+keeps+calm+carries/3571128/story.html

 

NorthReport

Remontée des conservateurs au Canada et au Québec

 

Layton - 24%

Harper - 22%

Ignatieff - 15%

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201009/29/01-4327951-remontee-des-conservateurs-au-canada-et-au-quebec.php

currents

It may well be sobering to check the new EKOS poll on the CBC website. The NDP is in fifth place in Quebec behind the Greens with 8.7%.

Optimism is the opium of the masses.

 

KenS

Its not a question of polling company biases- which most of us watching them dont think is a major driver. Even setting that question aside, EKOS like any on the national polls has a very small sample size for Quebec, With their high MOEs they can be all over the place.

NorthReport

And EKOS is connected to which political party is it again.............. 

Who does the CBC/EKOS think they are kidding?

Show us one, just one, bit of truth that EKOS has a clue about the political landscape in Quebec?

The political polling nonsense that went on this past summer was just that, nonsense.

The Liberals are, and have been for an  extended period of time now, 4%, to 8%, to 10% behind Harper in the polls and as scientific reasearch has shown, from the time the writ is dropped until the actual election day, there will be an additional increase of 10% in that gap between Harper's Cons, and Ignatieff's Libs. If the Liberals had half a brain, they would dump Ignatieff now. If you think this makes me happy, it doesn't, as I'm probably one of the last persons in Canada that wants to see a Harper majority, but if the Liberals continue with their constant stupidity, that is going to be the end result. The Liberals are dead in the water in Quebec, and most everyone knows it. 

Stockholm

Exactly, Leger and CROP are Quebec-based pollsters who have published results of major surveys of 1,000 or more Quebecers - this is far more reliable than numbers from the small Quebec sub-sample of a national survey done by Toronto-based anglo polling companies.

ottawaobserver

I'm hoping they post video of both speeches (Mulcair and Layton) to the website soon, as they were both were well worthwhile.  The council meeting just wrapped up, so hopefully when they get back to the office, the videos will follow along shortly.

Debater

Large Quebec samples can be important, but if they are at odds with all the national polls, questions should be asked.  All the other national polls have the NDP much lower, and have the Liberals above the Cons.  CROP is the only one I've seen with the NDP so high and with the Cons tied with the Libs.

But let's assume this CROP poll is accurate.  The most important number hasn't been talked about yet.  The BQ is at only 32% according to CROP!  That is pretty much the lowest they have ever been and would be a big drop in support from the 38% they got in 2008.  How come this hasn't been commented upon yet?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it could have major implications.

I realize people here zero in on the NDP numbers, but don't they have to be looked at in relation to the BQ and other parties?  If the BQ were to fall that far, it would probably benefit the Liberals and the Conservatives.  What would happen to the seat count in Quebec?

BQ-Liberal races that the Liberals almost won in 2008 would probably go to the Liberals, even if the Liberal vote remained stagnant from last time.  What would happen in Ahuntsic, Jeanne-Le Ber, Brome-Missiquoi and other ridings if the BQ vote fell through the floor?

It would also probably mean that all the Conservative seats would be safe, as well as there being the opportunity for the Cons to pick up new seats from the BQ.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most important question to be asked when looking at this CROP poll is:  what would be the effect of the BQ falling to just 32% in Quebec?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

So, in analyzing public opinion in Quebec, if we see a divergence between Quebec only polls (with a sample size of ~1,000 and a margin of error of ~3%) and the Quebec subsample of national polls (with a Quebec sample size of <250 and a margin of error of >6%), we should obviously discount the polls with a margin of error of ~3% and assume that the polls with a margin of error of >6% are spot on.

Debator, what colour is the sky in your world?

Debater

Malcolm wrote:

So, in analyzing public opinion in Quebec, if we see a divergence between Quebec only polls (with a sample size of ~1,000 and a margin of error of ~3%) and the Quebec subsample of national polls (with a Quebec sample size of <250 and a margin of error of >6%), we should obviously discount the polls with a margin of error of ~3% and assume that the polls with a margin of error of >6% are spot on.

Debator, what colour is the sky in your world?

I said above that we will assume for the purposes of this discussion that the CROP poll is accurate.

The question I asked was:  what do you think of the BQ being down to only 32% in the CROP poll, and how would that affect the distribution of seats?

Btw, it is "Debater".

KenS

First of all is the question of why the BQ is down, and how long it is expected to last.

Because there are 4 serious parties now, its hard to say what the main causes are. IF most or the biggest part of the drop has gone to the NDP, then I'd expect volatility there. But I think its more likely that with the 3 federalist parties ranging from doing very well [NDP] to holding their own [Cons], its likely that the BQ would go down in the polls even without any thing going the wrong way for them.

I'm just guessing, but my hunch is theres nothing to hang a hat on in that drop. And even if they stay there, youd really have some idea of where the shifts were in relation to the regions and the other parties.

nicky

Debater is right that the most important feature of the Crop poll is the 6% drop in the Bloq vote since the election. He asks how this wd affect the seat total.

I think the answer is not very much because there tends to be relatively few marginal seats in Quebec. The poll shows the NDP up 6%, the Cons up 1% and Debater's beloved Liberals down 1%.

There is no regional breakdown so let's assume that the swing is constant accross the province.

There wd therefore be a 7% swing from the Bloq to the Cons. The only seat to fall wd be Chicoutimi. The Cons would also come close to preserving their bylection gain in Montmagny -Etc. and just miss Louis Hebert and Abitibi -Etc.

The swing from the Libs to the Bloq wd be 5%. The Libs would gain Brome, Haute Gaspesie -Etc, Ahuntsic and Jean Le Ber.

The only NDP gain would be Gatineau. Their next best seat would be Westmount where the Lib lead would be reduced from 46 /23 to 45/29

Currently the seat totals are B 48 L 14 C 12 (including Montmagny and Portneuf) N 1. This would change to B 43 L 18 C12 and N 2.

Sean in Ottawa

On a couple points -- there are actually several marginal seats in Quebec that the BQ won last time with the Liberals as close second. In as much as debater comes off as biased is there really anything to gain by denying this point and being biased the other way? These numbers if translated into an election would see quite a few seats flip. Debater, I suspect wanted others to acknowledge this and so asked it as a question but the point is obvious this is not a bad poll for the Liberals as well given the reality of the situation on the ground.

Secondly with reference to several polls with a higher margin of error, you don't take the one with the lower margin of error and toss out several with a higher margin of error. In fact if you assume the margin of error is the issue you add and weight them all according to sample size. Multiple small polls seen together in theory are better than one single one given differences in methodology. All should be taken with a truckload of salt. As those who have followed what I write here know I have been a polling skeptic for a long time due to the issues I have seen in polling. I think taking one poll or even selectively taking multiple polls ignoring others in between is not productive.

I am a long NDP supporter and find the premature over-the-top celebration annoying and I sure would like to understand how 18% up one from 17% is surging; how 4th place is surging. I also believe that a real surge is possible so that we don't have to  celebrate non-victories in such an over-the-top manner.

I accept it is a good poll, and that the NDP's trend in Quebec has been good over the last few years -- but surging? What would be the headline if the NDP went up ten points? I'd like to think that could happen but then we would have already used up all possible headlines except "NDP surging in Quebec (and this time it is really, really, really true)"

I am still going to hope for a real surge and save my language accordingly.

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am a long NDP supporter and find the premature over-the-top celebration annoying and I sure would like to understand how 18% up one from 17% is surging; how 4th place is surging. I also believe that a real surge is possible so that we don't have to  celebrate non-victories in such an over-the-top manner.

I accept it is a good poll, and that the NDP's trend in Quebec has been good over the last few years -- but surging? What would be the headline if the NDP went up ten points? I'd like to think that could happen but then we would have already used up all possible headlines except "NDP surging in Quebec (and this time it is really, really, really true)"

I see your point Sean and i agree that going from 17% to 18% hardly qualifies as a "surge". BUT, 18% is a "surge" compared to the 12% the NDP got in Quebec in the last election - and while just looking at the numbers from 2008 - its hard to see any additional seats once you get past Gatineau - I can almost guarantee that if the NDP vote across Quebec actually did increase 50% from 12% to 18% - there would be some other pick-ups - though i cannot name the ridings.

I think that some of us are also crowing about these numbers because they fly in the face of the "conventional wisdom" that letting hjalf a dozen NDP backbencher vote to get rid of the gun registry was supposed to harm the NDP in Quebec more than anywhere else. This poll and others show that there is no evidence of this - so pardon me while i sip some champagne.

KenS

I dont think any more that there is reason to take issue with North Report's boosterist approach. He's so transparent that its easy for people to make their own allowances.

The one bone I would still pick is the pointless of the practice around here of a number of people pointing to the supposed party allegiances of specifc polling companies as reason to ignore some poll or other.

Have those of you who do this ever really take in what is polling companies do these public domain polls for?

To repeat: they do it to drum up paying business. And the means of doing this is to accurately as possible reflect where the public is at. If you let your biases influence your polling numbers, you would do yourself out of business you need. The polling companies spend a lot of money on these free polls. How their preferred party does in the polls is nothing next to their attempt to be at least as good as the rest in the accuracy of their polls.

The other public domain issue based questions can be very biased- by party preferences among other things. But they would be paying money for the privilege of a self-inflicted gunshot wound if they let their biases affect the straihjt up party preference polling.

Krago

For those interested in past federal polling in Quebec, Leger Markeing has a list of Federal Voting Intentions going back to 1995.  Check out the figures for June 2003.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

On a couple points -- there are actually several marginal seats in Quebec that the BQ won last time with the Liberals as close second. In as much as debater comes off as biased is there really anything to gain by denying this point and being biased the other way? These numbers if translated into an election would see quite a few seats flip. Debater, I suspect wanted others to acknowledge this and so asked it as a question but the point is obvious this is not a bad poll for the Liberals as well given the reality of the situation on the ground.

Yup.  That's all I was getting at.  If this CROP poll is accurate (and most people on this thread say it is) then it only makes sense to examine how a major drop for the BQ would affect the seat count.  Despite unimpressive numbers for the Liberals, a huge drop in BQ support could actually lead to a pickup of a number of BQ seats by the Liberals that the Libs almost won in 2008, as well as some by the Conservatives.

And you are right that there are more than just a few marginal seats in Quebec.  There are actually a couple dozen seats that could switch.  There is the first tier of marginals (eg. Ahuntsic, Jeanne-Le-Ber, Haute-Gaspesie, Brome-Missiquoi) that the Libs almost won in 2008, and there is a second tier of marginals that the BQ could also lose (eg. Laval, St. Lambert, Alfred-Pellan etc).

As for the Cons, not only would they likely keep all the seats they currently have, they could contend in several others, such as Louis-Hebert (which could also go Liberal depending on the split).  The Abitibi seat they came a strong 2nd in during 2008 could be another Con pickup.

And let's say that the NDP wins in Gatineau - that would be another lost BQ seat.

Good analysis, Sean.  Smile  Glad to agree with you for a change. Wink

Sean in Ottawa

NDP was at 19% according to that chart in April of this year.

12% in an election to 18% in a poll when the number goes up and down -- is a nice bump but hardly a surge-- I want to see a surge so I won't call this it. 25% or more -- that would be a surge -- In Broadbent's time the NDP did surge-- up to 40% at one point in Quebec.

Ken-- that is a very important point-- although I'll take it further. I don't accept the Liberal/Con friendly nature of pollsters as being that much of an issue. Pollsters are biased to their clients. Now let's think about what that means because we don't talk about it much. On the one hand some clients want to bias the response in favour of one party or another, this we have discussed. That means if the pollster has two clients polling at present they will give each what they want in the poll they pay for as much as possible within the broad grounds of professionalism.

Many of those clients in polling want to keep the results secret so those client biased polls we don't see often. Then there is the other kind of client: the media client. Have we even discussed what they want? They want news. They want a poll that can go on the front page. Someone has to be up, or someone down. The same as last month does not go on page one. The client wants fluctuation and a rationale to explain it so there is news. Luckily the crappy accuracy of polling already delivers enough fluctuation so all you need is some crafty interpretation and then -- voila -- news. that's why useless polls are purchased because they create news-- many people want to see them -- even if they are BS. Everyone wants a good story to explain them. The bias is to create news. So why are we surprised when for all that money (polling is extremely expensive) the client newspaper gets what they most want a news story and fluctuating numbers.

I like a horse race and enjoy looking. But I certainly get that the thing is 90% entertainment not news. But if it makes you buy a paper or go to a web site, they will have it.

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

I see your point Sean and i agree that going from 17% to 18% hardly qualifies as a "surge". BUT, 18% is a "surge" compared to the 12% the NDP got in Quebec in the last election - and while just looking at the numbers from 2008 - its hard to see any additional seats once you get past Gatineau - I can almost guarantee that if the NDP vote across Quebec actually did increase 50% from 12% to 18% - there would be some other pick-ups - though i cannot name the ridings.

I think that some of us are also crowing about these numbers because they fly in the face of the "conventional wisdom" that letting hjalf a dozen NDP backbencher vote to get rid of the gun registry was supposed to harm the NDP in Quebec more than anywhere else. This poll and others show that there is no evidence of this - so pardon me while i sip some champagne.

1.  How can you "almost guarantee" that the NDP will pick up more than 2 seats in Quebec if you aren't going to name the ridings?  Remember last year when I predicted that the Liberals would pick up new seats in Quebec in the next election and I was told I had to make a list of specific ridings?  Please make a list of which ridings the NDP would pick up in Quebec.

2.  And while these numbers may "fly in the face" of the gun registry aftermath predictions, the other polls do show a drop in support in Quebec, so as Sean says above, it's important to take all the polls into account, even the national ones.

Sean in Ottawa

Cross-posted with you Debater. I think we have agreed before. I am a strong advocate for the NDP but I don't consider it benefits the NDP to selectively interpret polling results in the NDP's favour. I think that is a pointless exercise since inaccurate polls will go up and down and you have to eat whatever crow you crowed before. That said:

I don't think there are that many marginals in Quebec-- certainly there are 7-8 close ones and on a big night for the Liberals maybe 10 but dozen's I don't think so. As well the BQ has a lot of media and influential support in Quebec and usually gains during an election.The BQ could show up again on election day and leave the Liberals with nothing but unfulfilled dreams.

Still, if the Liberals picked up an extra 6 seats in Quebec, I think they would be happy especially if they grabbed a half-dozen marginal Con seats from Ontario which they could and one from NB. I can see the Liberals doing that in the next election if things go well for them -- or more accurately poorly for Harper. As well I think there is a real chance the NDP could gain perhaps as many seats from the Cons themselves-- mostly in the West.

I also think the Liberals could be in trouble in a couple places even in a pretty good campaign. St. John's South could shock them (NDP only 3 points behind) -- if the NDP holds and some vote goes back from the Liberals to the Cons, Coady is unemployed. Beaches East York, could also cause some Liberal tears... The NDP also are vulnerable in some places.

In any case the next election campaign will matter and all these polls -- even to the extent that they are accurate --  will be history.

The Liberals will need to convince people that they can run the country, that they have a team and a plan and they will need to beat back Harper's attack dogs. They will need to overcome somehow the negative impressions of Ignatieff as an elitist even when more contact with him seems to underline the perception. That said what successful politician was not an elitist?

The NDP will have to keep the environmental vote, keep the pressure on the Liberals as a party that does not really oppose Harper and has nothing to offer, demonstrate that it can produce sound economic policy even as the media, the Libs and the Cons lie.

The Cons will need Canadians to do another group stupid.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Debater I want to be clear that I don't think the gun registry caused any fluctuation. To some degree a fleeting impression may have been caused by all the propaganda saying the NDP was damaged by it but that will pass.

The bigger problem for the NDP and for the Liberals is neither have been able to really extend the number of Canadians in a significant way who beleive they should be trusted to run the country. That in spite of all the news and unhappiness none of the 5 parties have been able to make substantial inroads and hold those gains over time is an indication that no party is successful.

I think a majority of Canadians are actually quite fixed in their preferences and the small number who are not have not heard anythign compelling enough to all go the same way. This is sad given the kind of radical government we are enduring.

Sean in Ottawa

Another thought-- it is possible that Harper doesn't want a majority as much as he says he does.

He knows he is far to the right of most Canadians and far to the right of his own government.

If Canadians will vote for him in a majority, that means he did not go right wing enough. If they won't give him a plurality then that means he went too far. We have to remember Harper is not just a power-seeker (he is not a Liberal) he actually has a purpose to the power he seeks.

As well, with a majority it would be much, much harder to control his caucus. I think Harper is stronger in his current position and happier that way. And I don't believe for a moment that he is not aware of this.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cross-posted with you Debater. I think we have agreed before. I am a strong advocate for the NDP but I don't consider it benefits the NDP to selectively interpret polling results in the NDP's favour. I think that is a pointless exercise since inaccurate polls will go up and down and you have to eat whatever crow you crowed before. That said:

I don't think there are that many marginals in Quebec-- certainly there are 7-8 close ones and on a big night for the Liberals maybe 10 but dozen's I don't think so. As well the BQ has a lot of media and influential support in Quebec and usually gains during an election.The BQ could show up again on election day and leave the Liberals with nothing but unfulfilled dreams.

Still, if the Liberals picked up an extra 6 seats in Quebec, I think they would be happy especially if they grabbed a half-dozen marginal Con seats from Ontario which they could and one from NB. I can see the Liberals doing that in the next election if things go well for them -- or more accurately poorly for Harper. As well I think there is a real chance the NDP could gain perhaps as many seats from the Cons themselves-- mostly in the West.

I also think the Liberals could be in trouble in a couple places even in a pretty good campaign. St. John's South could shock them (NDP only 3 points behind) -- if the NDP holds and some vote goes back from the Liberals to the Cons, Coady is unemployed. Beaches East York, could also cause some Liberal tears... The NDP also are vulnerable in some places.

In any case the next election campaign will matter and all these polls -- even to the extent that they are accurate --  will be history.

When I refered to a couple dozen seats in Quebec that could change, I didn't say they would all change to the Liberals - I listed some above that could go Conservative and a couple that could go NDP.

The BQ actually tends to lose support by election day.  Polls tend to overstate BQ support and the BQ often has trouble getting all their vote out.  That is why those ongoing predictions of 60 BQ seats and 50%+ of the vote haven't yet happened and why the BQ tends to end up with several points less on election day than in the polls.

For example, the BQ only got 38% on 2008 election day even though polls were predicting they would get 40% plus.  The underperformance of the BQ on election day has happened in a number of elections, going back to 2000 when the Liberals unexpectedly beat them in the popular vote.  That is why if I were a BQ adviser and saw the BQ in the low 30's I would be worried because the real number is often a couple of points lower.

Anyway, yes, the next election keeps getting put off, and it's hard to know what the vote will be when it finally happens because you are right that polls will change between now and then.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater, our statements about the BQ are not mutually exclusive. The BQ actually increase their support throughout a campaign and then get lower than the last poll. But this is a poll before an election. To follow the same trend the BQ could poll 34%, 36% 38% then 40% over the campaign then only get 37% on e-day.

True, the election get's put off. I am sure we should not discuss why and by whom because then our brief agreement would evaporate.

Oh, what the hell, can't help myself: When a party threatens an election, they go down in the polls. When a party says we are taking a stand on a particular issue of importance to Canadians then they don't. So perhaps nobody should come out and say "Harper your time is up" and instead simply take a stand on something and if it forces an election then so be it. The issue could be EI, pensions... I can understand why people won't say yes to a party that supports the government down the line and then says "oops time for a change" without even having an important issue of difference.

Deep within the preceding paragraph there is some advice for the Liberal party, if you know anyone who would listen, please pass it on.

Debater

I assume Ignatieff has learned that he has to have an election on an issue or a policy that matters to Canadians, rather than just having an election for the sake of it.  If he hasn't, I guess he will suffer the consequences.

Btw, you mentioned a couple of other seats above outside of Quebec.  I'm surprised to see Beaches-East York mentioned as a vulnerable seat for the Liberals since they held onto it easily in the last election.  Since Maria Minna appears to be running again, and will be facing a new and less-skilled opponent than Marilyn Churley next time, I don't see why it would be hard for her to win, although nothing is guaranteed.

I think the most vulnerable Liberal seats in the GTA are probably Brampton-Springdale, Brampton West and Don Valley West.  Those are seats the Libs only won by small margins in 2008.

I do agree that Siobhan Coady only won St. John's South by a small margin in 2008 and that the NDP performed well there.  Since that time however she has a higher profile as a Member of Parliament who has been in the news quite a lot (including taking on John Baird in that blowup at the Committee in June!) and as an incumbent may do better next time.  But I agree she is not guaranteed to be re-elected.

Sean in Ottawa

In Beaches East York the Liberals had a margin of 8%-- and the Cons well back. If the Liberals lose votes to the Cons or the NDP the seat would be in play. Marilyn Churley is not the only good candidat ethe NDP can put up there- the NDP has often had great candidates and has held the seat.

Well, I think the Liberals have a problem with two failed strategies and no indication that they will do anythign different-- calling out the PM without an issue does not work and I see they are not doing that anymore. But caving onevery issue is not great in the longer term either. I am not sure how the Liberals plan on facing the population after their recent stand on EI. (or shall I say lack of a stand)

Wilf Day

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Beaches East York, could also cause some Liberal tears.

Every election pundits suspect that the NDP will win Oshawa and Beaches--East York. And every election they don't. But one of these days, the NDP campaign will finally score in either or both. Davenport? Parkdale-High Park? Why not? Just because Jack has been surprising some folks by doing better in the North than in Toronto doesn't mean he won't finally score a couple more in Toronto.

South Shore-St. Margaret's? Dartmouth-Cole Harbour? St. John's South--Mount Pearl? All possible.

Surprises? No election is free of them. How about Halifax West? Central Nova? Or even Fundy Royal? No more unlikely than Jeanne-Le Ber or Hull-Aylmer. And who can say what will happen in Kingston and the Islands after 22 years of Peter Milliken?

And does anyone really know what's going to happen next in BC? It's far from impossible that the NDP could pick up Surrey North, Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission, Newton-North Delta, Vancouver Island North, and Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo.

Not to mention Saskatchewan.

ottawaobserver

The candidate from Fundy Royal last time is apparently planning to run in Saint John this time (Rob Moir).  It would be a better seat for the NDP I believe.

Sean in Ottawa

Not disagreeing Wilf...

Pogo Pogo's picture

It is really a mugs game talking about ridings that will switch based on applying regional percentage changes.  Particular ridings will make big changes depending on the how the various campaigns resonate locally.  General changes in support will be magnified or diminished at the local level.  It is important to look a deeper into the issues to see what is causing the general moves and how these issues resonate in particular communities.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

In Beaches East York the Liberals had a margin of 8%-- and the Cons well back. If the Liberals lose votes to the Cons or the NDP the seat would be in play. Marilyn Churley is not the only good candidat ethe NDP can put up there- the NDP has often had great candidates and has held the seat.

Well, I think the Liberals have a problem with two failed strategies and no indication that they will do anythign different-- calling out the PM without an issue does not work and I see they are not doing that anymore. But caving onevery issue is not great in the longer term either. I am not sure how the Liberals plan on facing the population after their recent stand on EI. (or shall I say lack of a stand)

1.  Yes, but there's no evidence of that happening yet from what I can tell.  The Libs are up in Ontario from 2008, and the NDP is down.  And yes, there are other NDP candidates, but I don't think they have the name recognition or organization in B-EY that Churley had.  I am aware that the NDP held the seat, but it's been almost 20 years since that time.  So at the moment I would predict a Liberal hold, but if the Liberal vote collapses in Ontario below the 2008 level, then we can start to consider an NDP win.

2.  Why don't we predict for the moment that the Liberals will not win the next election?  The Liberals have not been ahead of the Cons in the polls since August 2009.  The Libs have to at least move ahead of the Cons in support and start doing better on the issue of the economy before they can beat Harper.  However, while the Cons are likely to be the winners in seat count, a failure by Harper to win a majority, or a result with a smaller minority, could end up being a "win" for the Liberals and other opposition parties depending on how it plays out. 

NorthReport

My hunch is that the Ignatieff Liberals are going to crash and burn, down possibly to around 50 seats whenever the next election is called, and that is the real reason why the Liberals are stonewalling about forcing an election,  and this is the real reason why Ignatierff is terrified about having an election. Liberal party support is a mile wide, and 1/4 of an inch deep.

KenS

I guarantee you that the Liberal inner sanctum is not doing their strategy around staring at how to forestall a collapse to 50 seats.

They also arent "stonewalling about forcing an election," and you should give up on that kind of chest thumping. Jack Layton had to eat those kind of words once, and he wont be repeating the mistake. You might learn from his example.

Sean in Ottawa

I think we could imagine a collapse for any party perhaps save the NDP which cannot collapse because it has hardly been inflated enough to allow for much room to collapse in, except for one major problem. The missing ingredient is an alternative.

The storyline for a Liberal collapse would require either the Conservative, NDP or Greens to win those seats. The Conservatives are actually quite unpopular beyond their narrow-casted constituency, the NDP support is unfortunately stalled depending on how optimistic you are somewhere north or south of 18% and the Greens, well, do we need to even go there? There is simply no narrative that leads to the Liberals collapsing beyond where they were under Dion who thanks to an inability to communicate, some bad advice and a bad central platform already presided over a collapse in 2008.

I can imagine a collapse in the enthusiasm of voters except that with the deadlock and polarizing stance of the government, I doubt even that suffrage rates will go down.

I can imagine the Liberals failing to make many inroads, I can imagine voters who vote for them holding their noses at the stench of another failed leadership and I can imagine this having longer-term consequences for that party. However a near-term wipe out is frankly unimaginable in the current circumstances-- or at least not beyond the most wishful of thinking. Of course, nobody should discount the dark cloud here: I also believe that if the Liberals come back again in the same position they are in their future as a viable party in the mid term will be compromised and a huge opportunity for the NDP will open. Then it will be a question of whether the NDP has what it needs to capitalize. At the moment, I remain unfortunately undecided, hopeful yes, but chicken-counting must wait. In other words the Liberals have much more to fear from what will happen after the next election if they remain under 100 seats, or mostly shut out in critical parts of the country, as I think they may.

If after the next election the Liberals gain a reprieve and actually get to govern by coalition, the success or failure of that government is going to hurt. If the government fails, the Liberals will carry much of the blame and the Cons will come back in. If it succeeds with the Liberals having a weak caucus (in numbers as well as impact) the NDP could bury them in the following election. If the Liberals stay out of government and let Harper govern with their tacit support then I think they will be similarly finished. In other words-- even getting the same number of seats sets the Liberals in to a series of impossible no-win choices. It is not a 50 seat blow-out they fear, it is this scenario that I think they are aware of. If they fail to make 100 seats the narrative for their survival is very hard to write. To make matters worse, they do not have the leadership (by this I mean both the leader and senior figures) to even begin to navigate such treacherous waters. So, while I do not subscribe to North Report's immediate prediction, I do agree that the Liberals may be in very serious trouble and that may be why they are putting off the next election which could unleash a chain of events that leads to the party's extinction.

I will end by saying it is very possible things could turn out different than this-- many variables exist. However, the risks are clear and assumptions of survival for the Liberals look like wishful thinking.

NorthReport

As I stated in my previous post, the Ignatieff Liberals might only elect 50 seats in the next federal election. My hunch is that it's a lot worse for them than most people realize.

 

 

The caving of three provincial Grit fortresses

 

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-caving-of-three...

 

gadar

While we propagate the con agenda we conveniently forget that BC "liberals" act more as a wing of the Con party and the the Quebec "liberals" are led by a federal Tory. And since when was BC an Ignatieff Liberal (as the federal Liberals are reffered to these days by the PMO in their talking points) stronghold or for that matter Quebec hasnt been a federal liberal stronghold in a long while. In ontario Cons had more seats than the Liberals in the last federal election, some stronghold. And lets say that you are right and they win less than fifty seats lext time. And NDP picks some of their losses and Cons pick some and Bloc picks a couple. And we get a Con majority with maybe NDP as official opposition. I guess NDP gets what they want and the Cons get what they want while people who are not WASPs get screwed over by the pseudo fascists. Somebodies perfect scenario just not mine. Seems like you certainly have at least one thing in common with Harper, visceral hatred for the word liberal.

NorthReport

gadar

 

Wow, might as well throw religion into the mix as well, eh. Jeesh!

I gather you are not a big fan of the NDP or the Cons. Well guess what, that ole Liberal fear about a Con majority tactic doesn't work anymore, as the Liberals don't appear to be any better, otherwise they would have brought this right-wing Harper government crashing down years ago. My hunch is that the Liberals are quite happy with Harper's policies.

And please at least try backing up your statements with facts.

I was a supporter of the Liberal PET. I have no idea what the LPC is today except for one thing, it definitely is not Liberal. 

Unfortunately you appear to be getting suckered in by labels. Try reading between the lines.

 

Worth reading!

The reverse Robin Hoods of EI

 

 

Possibly one of the worst things that Paul Martin did as finance minister was to complete the destruction of this EI model in Canada. Beginning during the previous Liberal government, EI premiums have been diverted from benefits (which were radically cut) and used to help reduce Ottawa's primary deficit. Once the budget was balanced, in net terms the diversion continued - this time to help fund Mr. Martin's tax cuts for profitable corporations and for high income Canadians.

Stephen Harper's government, of course, has continued these priorities and made them worse. As measured by expenditure, the Conservative government's overwhelming priority is to fund further tax cuts to profitable companies and high income individuals - and to pay for new military equipment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/t...

Sean in Ottawa

Great article North Report. I will add one more spending priority that actually gives context to the way the government spent the so-called stimulus money. In my opinion the spending on the Stimulus was not a break or inconsistent with Harper priorities but simply another opportunity. I would express the approach as follows.

The Harper government knows it is far to the right of Canadians. It knows that it wants to do some spending in certain areas but these are fairly affordable. It also knows that the priorities of Canadians are also affordable. It has implemented a tax policy designed to make them less affordable as it understands Canadians will only accept certain reductions if the government can make a case that the money is not there.

Harper is connected to the elites and he does want to spend money on the military but that is not the whole story. The number one spending priority for the Conservatives, in my opinion, is none of the priorities mentioned but to get rid of federal money and remove the capacity of the federal government to play a role in the economy. In short, economic sabotage. Already they reduce taxes as much as they dare and give as much money to the wealthy as they dare. But even with all of this, there is too much money. Health care still looks a bit too affordable. It is essential to flush away more money, to break the budget so badly that nobody anywhere will consider new spending on any public priority, and will question current spending on things that matter the most for Canadians.If you want to break health care you have to first break the bank.

In this context comes the stimulus spending. Properly controlled the government can direct as much of the stimulus as they can away form public goods like public transit (things they do not believe in for ideological reasons) and toward recreation centres and toys for wealthy communities. Then-- this is that much more money that the public can't ask for it to be spent elsewhere.

I believe there is an element to public spending that is not just about where the money goes but also a need to make sure there is nothing left. The Stimulus spending did help in Con ridings but it was designed to do more than that, and this is why we see the overkill. The purpose was also to empty government coffers. Nobody for a long time will talk public infrastructure and this spending has essentially broken the concept that Martin had agreed to when the NDP forced him in to a spending plan to support cities. The potential for that money is now gone.

In any case I always assume the prime directive of neo-cons with the public purse is to empty it so the public does not compete with their private interests. If they can empty a chunk in to their private interests all the better but if they need to flush it away, the prime goal has been met.

 

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I believe you are correct, Sean. Harper and his ilk are members of the cult of the market. They are inspired by the U.S. conservative movement, as exemplified by Grover Norquist, whose stated aim was to starve government until it becomes so small that "it can be drowned in the bathtub." It makes me wonder whether it may not be time for the NDP to call them out on this, openly referring to them as "cultists" and "liars" and "propagandists". I would also submit that your analysis applies almost as much to the Liberal party as to the Cons. After all, it was Chretien and Martin who did most of the heavy lifting, and Harper has merely been following their example.

One thing that puzzles me is whether Harper is a cynical liar (as are the real leaders of Corporatism, those 5% of the population who control 85% or so of the wealth) or a true believer/dupe/useful idiot (as are the legions of "libertarians" and Ayn Rand devotees).

 

KenS

Or something in between.

Does it matter?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Not really, but I am a curious monkey.

Sean in Ottawa

I believe Harper is a true believer for what its worth.

Maybe less nasty in some respects but much more dangerous.

As far as the means are concerned he is as nasty as he needs to be so the result is not at all good.

NorthReport

Seriously, do you want these clowns running our Canadian government? Just brilliant, eh!

 

I certainly don't.

 

Butting out? The vanishing Liberal home-care plan cigarette...

  

Sometimes it does pay to just take a second or third or fourth look at a document before printing it out on glossy paper as part of a shiny new policy.

The Liberal home-care plan features the above photo of a happy family. But, look closely at the man on the right. He happens to be holding a cigarette.

The Liberals may not have noticed it, but the Conservatives sure did. The prime minister even questioned whether the Liberals are promoting smoking.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/10/butting-out-the-vanish...

 

Sean in Ottawa

I am more concerned with the substance of the plan--

It is very similar to the Conservative child care plan-- those needing help under the Liberal family plan will get no more than $26/week to assist with their chronic care needs (this is the second part of the plan the first addresses end of life care for no more than 6 months). The Conservative childcare plan came to $23/week.

So since the Liberals in 2006 said that giving $1200 a year for childcare is not going to do anything more than provide popcorn and beer money how would they characterize this plan?

Now in 2006 the Conservative plan was $1200 for childcare per year. Now the Liberal plan is $1350 for chronic care. Maybe the Liberals are thinking popcorn and Beer have gone up a bit over the last 4 years what with the HST they supported and all and now it is $1350/year?

So at $26/week please can anyone tell me if this is going to make any elder care options more affordable for anyone or we still talking about Popcorn and beer?

gadar

NorthReport wrote:

gadar

 

Wow, might as well throw religion into the mix as well, eh. Jeesh!

I gather you are not a big fan of the NDP or the Cons. Well guess what, that ole Liberal fear about a Con majority tactic doesn't work anymore, as the Liberals don't appear to be any better, otherwise they would have brought this right-wing Harper government crashing down years ago. My hunch is that the Liberals are quite happy with Harper's policies.

And please at least try backing up your statements with facts.

I was a supporter of the Liberal PET. I have no idea what the LPC is today except for one thing, it definitely is not Liberal. 

Unfortunately you appear to be getting suckered in by labels. Try reading between the lines.

 

Worth reading!

The reverse Robin Hoods of EI

 

 

Possibly one of the worst things that Paul Martin did as finance minister was to complete the destruction of this EI model in Canada. Beginning during the previous Liberal government, EI premiums have been diverted from benefits (which were radically cut) and used to help reduce Ottawa's primary deficit. Once the budget was balanced, in net terms the diversion continued - this time to help fund Mr. Martin's tax cuts for profitable corporations and for high income Canadians.

Stephen Harper's government, of course, has continued these priorities and made them worse. As measured by expenditure, the Conservative government's overwhelming priority is to fund further tax cuts to profitable companies and high income individuals - and to pay for new military equipment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/t...

So you want me to provide facts about the Campbell Liberals being so creds or Charest being a federal tory or cons winning more seats than liberals in ontario. Or the facts that this govt cancelled court challenges program, is reviewing employment equity, is anti gay rights, spreads islamophobia (since you wanted me to bring in religion). Or the fact that if the federal liberals win less than fifty seats in the next election it will end up in a Con majority. And I know it for a fact that I will not be a very pleased person if and when the Cons get a majority. And thanks for providing the link its a good read altho had nothing to do with what I wrote.

I can confirm that I am not a big fan of the Cons and you gathered that right. As for NDP I have supported them with time and money and I am not saying this to win anybodies approval. And I am not a fan of any political party, some are just better than others and none of them is perfect.

I can understand your obsession with seeing the complete annihilation of the Liberals as I have a smiliar obsession about the Cons.

 

Pages

Topic locked