Evening Star

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't really see how "opting out of federal programs with full compensation" or "accepting the decision of 50% + 1 in a referendum on Quebec's political future within Canada" could be applied to 'the rest of Canada', even as a thought experiment.

It's not even like there's a provincial NPD. It's a non-issue.

Also when the Sherbrooke Declaration comes up.

I'm aware of that but I don't support that system either.

When they start talking proportional representation, I'm forced to remember that I'm not actually on board with NDP policy in a number of areas.

OK, that's a fair point. I guess it depends on what you consider 'mainstream NDP views' to be by this point. Under Layton's leadership, I thought the party had already become a little less union-dominated and had moved away from traditional left positions on some issues, while moving more towards more modern 'progressive' policies on issues like green energy, LGBT rights, and foreign policy. I see Mulcair as very much in the same line. I consider Doer and Dexter to be mainstream New Democrats, by the way. Edit: On economics, I never really thought of the Layton-led NDP as being further left than the Pearson/Trudeau-era Liberals, a little to their right if anything.

Yeah, I never had much faith that the Liberals would have been willing to support the NDP as the junior partner in a coalition (not least of all because they themselves swore that they had no interest in forming a coalition.) I think it would have just come down to which party could make the more attractive offer. He's mostly spoken about changing the way the party communicates and markets itself, as opposed to changing its principles or policies.

I think his point is that despite that, the CPC hasn't lost too much support.

The two main opposition parties have interim leaders and significant members of the NDP front bench have been foolishly staying out of the House to focus on an uneventful leadership race. I don't know of anyone who thinks that Turmel has been a great leader. I'm actually surprised how stable their support has been, considering that!

New Ekos poll shows NDP and Conservatives tied within the margin of error: http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_march_2_2012.pdf

If you think Paul Dewar is anything close to a radical leftist, you really need to meet a radical leftist.

This seems like a bold claim to me. What makes you sure of this?

In Ontario, junior kindergarten begins for children in the year in which they turn 4, Smallc. Edit: Sorry, I see the information has already been provided.

I'm aware of this (although I do think that Layton managed this trick better than either previous NDP leaders or Ignatieff in 2011). My point was just that the subsequent surge in NDP popularity in QC might have had as much to do with the content of what he was saying on the show as with the personal charm and charisma of a 60-year-old man with a used car salesman moustache who made lame jokes about hashtags.

I never said it was just about policy, just that it seems questionable to attribute all of it to Layton's personal appeal. I actually think the phenomenon was a little mysterious myself and am sceptical of people who are sure they can pin it down, especially to something as simple or shallow as that. Quebecers didn't vote NDP in the 50s because the party was only founded in 1961. NDP policy in the 60s, 70s, and 80s was not at all the same as current NDP policy nor were Quebecers' concerns in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s the same as they are now. Layton did a great deal to promote policies that were attractive to Quebecers so I do think he deserves significant credit for the surge: I just think it might go deeper than just sheer personal charm. I just watched the interview. Some of it is about personal or fluffy material but most of it is concerned with policy. He did an excellent job of presenting NDP policy as being tailored to the values and concerns of Quebecers. He also stressed a desire to create 'winning conditions' to make 'Canada work for Quebec' and emphasized that this was the key difference between the NDP and the BQ (as well as mentioning NDP policies on bilingualism outside Quebec). I can see why saying these things on a popular TV show would make a difference to Quebecers. Previous NDP leaders were generally not saying these things or at least were not saying them in excellent French and addressing them to the values of Quebecers. That doesn't mean that future NDP leaders can't.

(Btw, I get that Layton was more charismatic and comfortable than Harper or Ignatieff but I never found him phenomenally magnetic or anything, which is another reason I'm a little sceptical of this narrative.)

I still just think it's too soon to come to hard conclusions about the reasons why Quebecers voted NDP and whether they will do so again. (If Layton was so irresistibly charming, why didn't English Canadian voters flock to him as well? Are Quebecers really that much more shallow that they would vote for any likeable personality regardless of what he has to say or did the content of his message have some impact as well?) I don't think it's wildly unlikely, for example, that voters in a highly social democratic, union-happy province chose to switch from the BQ (whose policies on most issues other than separatism were very close to the NDP's) to the NDP when separatism lost its appeal, maybe partly because of an appealing leader but also partly because of policy. I don't think it's impossible that another leader could sustain some of that. They might not but it seems really premature to judge.

I do. It would be easier for me to buy that if the surge happened in Layton's first election.

WB, how is this not an emotional position? Definitely seems more like 'heart person' thinking than 'head person' thinking to me.

MPs may not have been elected due to their own appeal or accomplishments but that doesn't necessarily mean it was only Layton's personal appeal that led to their wins, as opposed to e.g. the appeal of NDP policies or fatigue with the other options. (It's a long way from being obvious to me, at least.) Nor does it mean that another NDP leader could not attract the QC vote again.

It's an interesting poll but I don't think olp1fan's conclusion can be drawn from it. We're a ways away from an election and both the Liberals and NDP have interim leaders now. (Rae >>> Turmel and that's making a difference, no doubt.) Liberal support in QC is really interesting, and a little surprising, to me, given their history there. It may well just be that they're the more effective left-of-centre voice right now. (I know they're often not a left-of-centre party in practice but they have been behaving like one.) This is from Valentine's Day: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2012/02/ndp-up-in-bc-down-in-quebec.html#comment-form It also shows the Grits in 1st in QC (NDP second), with the NDP with a solid lead in BC and tied with the CPC in Atlantic Canada. (I believe they're tied or close in MB/SK as well.)

How on earth is the Occupy movement equivalent to interfering with an election? How is it even different from any other protest in a democracy? And cybercoma's right about Anonymous: I find their action completely distasteful but being obnoxious and hassling (at worst harassing) someone over material that is already public is not on par with deliberately misinforming voters.

If he's cold, it's in the same way that PET or the young Mulroney were cold.

(Also, he's been endorsed by UFCW, the largest private-sector union btw.)

I just meant that those are my own preferences in order at the moment. Wasn't placing bets on who is likely to win.