Canadian Political Polls

[punked]

He is going to run on give me a majority and you wont have to vote again for 4 years. That is what is going to run on and it might work too.

[August1991]

If Harper intends to attack the BQ as separatists as the Globe and Mail states today, he could see support in Quebec plummet.

Harper can refer to the Bloc as separatists and it won't hurt Conservative votes in Quebec. That's not the issue. Very few (if any) Quebecers who want a country will vote for the Conservatives.

[punked]

Confirmation that the Liberal numbers are dipping. My problem is their numbers are going to the conservatives not the NDP. Come numbers bleed the way I want you too.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey also suggests Liberal fortunes have dipped, with the Conservatives taking a slight lead nationally — 34% to 31%.

The NDP was at 15%, the Greens at 10%, and the Bloc Quebecois at 8%.

According to the poll, respondents with a negative impression of Ignatieff jumped 15 points from March, to 41%.

Thirty-nine per cent had a favourable impression, down six points.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/CanadaWor...9/10805041.html

[LastViking]

This week's seat projection update at TrendLines Research gives the Liberals a 123-112 lead (as of June 30).

[M.Dancer]

Confirmation that the Liberal numbers are dipping. My problem is their numbers are going to the conservatives not the NDP. Come numbers bleed the way I want you too.

The issues that would drive reasonable voters to the NDP aren't there. People are concerned about continuing the economic recovery and private sector job creation, two issues that the NDP have no credibility with.

For all intents and purposes, the NDP will remain the after thought of Canadian voters until they stop being socialist pro-union, anti corporate sloganeers.

[jdobbin]

Harper can refer to the Bloc as separatists and it won't hurt Conservative votes in Quebec. That's not the issue. Very few (if any) Quebecers who want a country will vote for the Conservatives.

It seems that a lot of Quebecers felt they were under attack a few months back, not just ones who want their own country.

If Harper tries the same strategy, I doubt it will win them votes in that province.

[jdobbin]

No - I don't. I think this is just a clever strategy to dupe reporters into reminding Canadians that the Liberals might still consider a coalition - no matter what the results of the election are.

I don't see how it can work as a whisper campaign and not be challenged. Harper himself can't keep his mouth shut. This could really backfire in Quebec.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't see how it can work as a whisper campaign and not be challenged. Harper himself can't keep his mouth shut. This could really backfire in Quebec.

Challenged by who? I'm just saying.....that's what I would do....very careful talking points and only in response to reporters' questions:

1) Canadians are not going to the polls to vote for a coalition - unless Mr. Ignatieff wants to declare otherwise.

2) Liberals have done it once......and Mr. Ignatieff says it's still an option - so I suppose Canadians should expect that it could happen again.

I think that's all that has to be said. Low-keyed but continuous.

[jdobbin]

Challenged by who? I'm just saying.....that's what I would do....very careful talking points and only in response to reporters' questions:

I think the media would challenge that by asking for more specifics.

And what the Tories won't say can be filled in by columnists, especially in Quebec.

1) Canadians are not going to the polls to vote for a coalition - unless Mr. Ignatieff wants to declare otherwise.

2) Liberals have done it once......and Mr. Ignatieff says it's still an option - so I suppose Canadians should expect that it could happen again.

I think that's all that has to be said. Low-keyed but continuous.

And Harper tried the coalition route.... twice.

[Wild Bill]

I think the media would challenge that by asking for more specifics.

And what the Tories won't say can be filled in by columnists, especially in Quebec.

And Harper tried the coalition route.... twice.

There's coalitions and there's coalitions, jdobbin!

Last time around, the furor was not over having a coalition bring down a government. That's essentially what happens whenever a minority government falls.

No, what drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers was the idea of a coalition seizing power AFTER an election, seizing power from whoever got the most seats, albeit still in a minority situation, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

If the Opposition parties formed their coalition BEFORE the next election that would be much more fair! Voters would know exactly how things stood and would have the chance to give one party a decisive majority or by default allow a coalition to happen.

It's the idea of the losers seizing power, effectively taking the choice away from the voters, that so many Canadians find offensive. It's one thing to choose to be apathetic about your vote. It's quite another to have someone deny it to you.

Ignatieff obviously knows this. The present back room boys of the Liberal Party always did! They are well aware that they could win a battle and later lose the war.

There's no way they will ever allow it to happen.

As a point of interest, Bob Rae was on a talk show the other day. I heard him actually deny that the Liberals had ever even purposed a coalition! That they never signed any such document! As you can imagine, the interviewer was gobsmacked! He kept saying, "Bob, we saw it on TV! It's on video!" Bob just laughed and insisted it never happened!

Down the memory hole, Winston!

[jdobbin]

There's coalitions and there's coalitions, jdobbin!

Yes. One was a coalition of Liberals and NDP and the BQ and the other two were coalitions of the Conservatives and NDP and BQ.

Last time around, the furor was not over having a coalition bring down a government. That's essentially what happens whenever a minority government falls.

No, what drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers was the idea of a coalition seizing power AFTER an election, seizing power from whoever got the most seats, albeit still in a minority situation, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

That didn't stop the Tories from sending a note after the last election asking for the same thing.

If the Opposition parties formed their coalition BEFORE the next election that would be much more fair! Voters would know exactly how things stood and would have the chance to give one party a decisive majority or by default allow a coalition to happen.

Who knows where the parties will stand in seats before an election?

It's the idea of the losers seizing power, effectively taking the choice away from the voters, that so many Canadians find offensive. It's one thing to choose to be apathetic about your vote. It's quite another to have someone deny it to you.

Ignatieff obviously knows this. The present back room boys of the Liberal Party always did! They are well aware that they could win a battle and later lose the war.

There's no way they will ever allow it to happen.

Well, since the majority didn't chose the one party to run the government, the option of a coalition always exists. Afterall, what could be more democratic?

Seriously. How could the majority of the population not be considered democratic?

As a point of interest, Bob Rae was on a talk show the other day. I heard him actually deny that the Liberals had ever even purposed a coalition! That they never signed any such document! As you can imagine, the interviewer was gobsmacked! He kept saying, "Bob, we saw it on TV! It's on video!" Bob just laughed and insisted it never happened!

Down the memory hole, Winston!

Well, as one promiment Tory said, it doesn't have to be true for a party to say it.

[jdobbin]

That's why he won't.

Well, the recent tape from a Harper meeting with the party faithful has him doing just that.

[Wild Bill]

Well, since the majority didn't chose the one party to run the government, the option of a coalition always exists. Afterall, what could be more democratic?

Seriously. How could the majority of the population not be considered democratic?

You and I had the same disconnect when we discussed this back when the coalition idea was first happening.

My position is that this is politics! It doesn't matter if you or I agree that the idea is technically democratic or legal. What matters is the perception of the majority of Canadian voters. Although you've given me the "technically legal" argument many times before I don't recall you ever clearly stating your opinion on the public reaction if the Opposition formed a coalition after an election, seizing power without allowing another election.

As I've stated before, I believe that an unelected coalition would spark an angry backlash from voters, across the political spectrum. Nobody would understand or care about any legal arguments from the parties involved that what they had done was perfectly legal or quite common in Israel or Bangladesh. It would contradict Canadian perception of what is tradition and/or fair.

Polls were taken that support my position but as always, the only poll that would matter would be the public reaction if an unelected coalition actually happened. (Again, please don't give me nitpicking legal arguments that they would indeed have been elected to become MP's in the first place. That's not the context of my argument, as you would well know.)

Obviously, party strategists are well aware of a possible public backlash if they went down that road. Statements from Ignatieff and other Liberal spokesmen after he was crowned party leader would suggest that he and they have no intention of testing the premise.

After all, how could they fight against a huge negative backlash? Point to some posts on MLW that show they were technically within their legal and democratic rights?

You'd have to be as dumb as Dion to risk something like that! The present leaders of the Liberal party seem to be much too smart for that.

[Dave_ON]

As I've stated before, I believe that an unelected coalition would spark an angry backlash from voters, across the political spectrum. Nobody would understand or care about any legal arguments from the parties involved that what they had done was perfectly legal or quite common in Israel or Bangladesh. It would contradict Canadian perception of what is tradition and/or fair.

Herein lies the issue and problem with the Canadian public's perception, and it would appear you suffer from the same level of ignorance as to the inner workings of our political machine that most Canadians enjoy. The fundamental flaw of your argument, which you borrowed from the CPC themselves, is the word "unelected". Are you stating that members of parliament from those three parties were in fact NOT duly elected by their constituents. We are a first past the post parliamentary democracy and as such we elect, not parties, but individual members of parliament that happen to be members of a given political party; independents notwithstanding of course.

You can dislike the idea of a coalition all you want but please spare us the diatribe that they were unelected. That is flagrant misinformation and if the uninformed masses wish to swallow it hook line and sinker that's fine, but really it has no place in what is supposed to be intelligent discourse.

Polls were taken that support my position but as always, the only poll that would matter would be the public reaction if an unelected coalition actually happened. (Again, please don't give me nitpicking legal arguments that they would indeed have been elected to become MP's in the first place. That's not the context of my argument, as you would well know.)

But again that is the very flaw of your argument to begin with. It is not nitpicking to say that the MP's are elected, that is precisely what they are and that it what is embedded in the constitution. The Party system is a conventional tradition, nothing more. It was created so that like minded individuals could have their agendas pushed forward by working together. They would compromise, and find common ground all the while fundamentally representing their constituents first and foremost.

The nitpicking is arguments such as "the cpc won the last election" while technically that is correct, only by convention mind you, the CPC didn't actually "win" anything. The only thing that could truly be called a "win" is a majority as again by convention and tradition only, party members never vote against the party line. The thing that most Canadians don't understand and so it would seem neither do you, is that a party is at its very core a coalition. It's a coalition of individual MP's, a coalition that technically at any time could break apart, turn on the PM, and vote against the PM. That of course is highly unlikely but it's not impossible. All that a coalition is, is a group of people or several groups of people working together to achieve a common goal.

Finally do I think the LPC, NDP and BLOC coalition of last fall to have been ill conceived, why yes of course I do in this particular instance. Mostly because of who was leading it, as well as a myriad of other reasons? However, that does not mean that coalitions are illegal, unfair, unelected, coups, usurping and seditious rapscallions or a plethora of other inaccurate adjectives one could use. It's the system that our forefathers had the wisdom to put in place and it's served us and the rest of the commonwealth fairly well so far.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If Iggy wants to move into 24 Sussex with a majority he will have to get another 15 points in the polls or form a coalition of the opposition parties. It all depends on what he wants. The thing is, he will likely be moving in 24 Sussex either way.

[madmax]

The issues that would drive reasonable voters to the NDP aren't there. People are concerned about continuing the economic recovery and private sector job creation, two issues that the NDP have no credibility with.

And two things that few believe are occurring. Things are virtually flat, with minute growth, and continual job losses exceeding job growth.

These issues aren't there for the other parties either, which is why the voters aren't there.

For all intents and purposes, the NDP will remain the after thought of Canadian voters until they stop being socialist pro-union, anti corporate sloganeers.

Socialism has been with this country since its foundation. The socialists drove many ideas into the mainstream and our country and the people of this country have benefited from those policies.

The Corporations only need two parties to swing between. A 3rd only adds confusion.

And since the time the CCF change their name to the NDP, the fact remains, unions will be part of that party. Whether the Unions choose to back the NDP is an altogether different issue that the NDP has to deal with as Unions, particularly in Ontario, left the NDP in the 1990s. Perhaps you miss that the CAW and BUZZ Hargrove have backed the Liberals since the late 90s and Hargrove had his NDP membership revoked, for campaigning in Windsor for the Paul Martin Liberals against the 2 NDP MPs.

[Keepitsimple]

If Iggy wants to move into 24 Sussex with a majority he will have to get another 15 points in the polls or form a coalition of the opposition parties. It all depends on what he wants. The thing is, he will likely be moving in 24 Sussex either way.

Yes, that's it, isn't it? "It depends on what he wants."

Edited September 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Most Canadians will say that we have many social programs but that we are not a socialist nation. I would be one of them. I will also say that we are a nanny state with cradle to grave benefits and a population that believes they have a large number of entitlements that the government is required to deliver. The NDP keep saying it is so.

The NDP needs to take a step back from the edge and start planning how to get Canadians to warm to the idea of labour having a say at the table.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, that's it, isn't it? "It depends on what he wants."

I posted this in another thread but it's relevant here:

http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp

"The latest Nanos poll shows, with election speculation on the rise, a noticeable increase in support for the Harper Conservatives while Liberal support has remained relatively stable."

Perhaps Ignatieff believes with Jerry Fortin that he can grab a big chunk of those undecided voters.

[Molly]

No, what drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers was the idea of a coalition seizing power AFTER an election, seizing power from whoever got the most seats, albeit still in a minority situation, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

Bill.... that is precisely what Harper proposed in his own note to the GG. Not 'something a little bit like it'; not 'something called by the same word, but actually different' . It is PRECISELY the same thing.

He was EXACTLY proposing that the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP join forces to govern, siezing power AFTER an election, from the Liberals who had the most seats, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

No difference, no nuance, no 'yeah but...'! It was 100%, unadulterated, the exact thing that you say 'drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers'.

If you can see a difference, then tell me what that difference is, because from every angle I look at it, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

[Molly]

Whatever else one may think of Harper, he is a master at reversing position, and having folks ignore that he has done so.... a master of vilifying things that he doeseagerly, without a second thought or a backward glance.

[Wild Bill]

Herein lies the issue and problem with the Canadian public's perception, and it would appear you suffer from the same level of ignorance as to the inner workings of our political machine that most Canadians enjoy. The fundamental flaw of your argument, which you borrowed from the CPC themselves, is the word "unelected". Are you stating that members of parliament from those three parties were in fact NOT duly elected by their constituents. We are a first past the post parliamentary democracy and as such we elect, not parties, but individual members of parliament that happen to be members of a given political party; independents notwithstanding of course.

You can dislike the idea of a coalition all you want but please spare us the diatribe that they were unelected. That is flagrant misinformation and if the uninformed masses wish to swallow it hook line and sinker that's fine, but really it has no place in what is supposed to be intelligent discourse.

But again that is the very flaw of your argument to begin with. It is not nitpicking to say that the MP's are elected, that is precisely what they are and that it what is embedded in the constitution. The Party system is a conventional tradition, nothing more. It was created so that like minded individuals could have their agendas pushed forward by working together. They would compromise, and find common ground all the while fundamentally representing their constituents first and foremost.

The nitpicking is arguments such as "the cpc won the last election" while technically that is correct, only by convention mind you, the CPC didn't actually "win" anything. The only thing that could truly be called a "win" is a majority as again by convention and tradition only, party members never vote against the party line. The thing that most Canadians don't understand and so it would seem neither do you, is that a party is at its very core a coalition. It's a coalition of individual MP's, a coalition that technically at any time could break apart, turn on the PM, and vote against the PM. That of course is highly unlikely but it's not impossible. All that a coalition is, is a group of people or several groups of people working together to achieve a common goal.

Finally do I think the LPC, NDP and BLOC coalition of last fall to have been ill conceived, why yes of course I do in this particular instance. Mostly because of who was leading it, as well as a myriad of other reasons? However, that does not mean that coalitions are illegal, unfair, unelected, coups, usurping and seditious rapscallions or a plethora of other inaccurate adjectives one could use. It's the system that our forefathers had the wisdom to put in place and it's served us and the rest of the commonwealth fairly well so far.

You absolutely completely missed my main point! I have no quarrel with arguments about an unelected coalition being legal or democratic. Your knee must have jerked!

Again, this is politics! If a coalition took power where none of the partners had received more votes than the Tories (or whoever, it doesn't have to be the Tories!) the PERCEPTION by many of the general public would be that an unelected party had seized power by means of a lawyer's trick!

Politics is ALL about voter perceptions! I say again, if the public became angry do you think that if you stood up and waved a printout from your post here on MLW that they would care? In a pig's eye!

The public wouldn't care if it was legal! The deal with Karla Homolka was legal! Laws against marijuana are legal! The GST was legal!

If you were running a campaign, God help your candidate! A successful politician has to understand this in his very bones.

If you want to argue that I'm wrong about the magnitude of negative public perceptions over 'unelected' coalitions I can accept that. However, you seem to be absolutely unable to even understand that it could happen! If that's your true belief then I sincerely hope that you will always be a campaigner for "the other guys".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, that's it, isn't it? "It depends on what he wants."

To a very real degree it is all about what Iggy wants. He is the one that will ultimately decide whether or not to call the election.

[Dave_ON]

If you want to argue that I'm wrong about the magnitude of negative public perceptions over 'unelected' coalitions I can accept that. However, you seem to be absolutely unable to even understand that it could happen! If that's your true belief then I sincerely hope that you will always be a campaigner for "the other guys".

Well of course I wasn't suggesting someone campaign on the topic, that's simply ludicrous. The point you missed and the issue I take on the matter is the use of the word "unelected". As demonstrated to use the term "unelected" is a bald faced lie. Call it unusual, distasteful, undesirable, unpopular or perhaps even a little sneaky, but never "unelected" as that's simply not the case.

You're simply repeating the same rubbish that Harper himself used when the coalition was suggested by "the other guys" this time rather than by he himself. As Molly pointed out, Harper would not hesitate to do the same if the situation were reversed. The difference is Harper is a master of changing positions and walking out of a pile of crap smelling like a rose.

[Wild Bill]

No, what drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers was the idea of a coalition seizing power AFTER an election, seizing power from whoever got the most seats, albeit still in a minority situation, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

Bill.... that is precisely what Harper proposed in his own note to the GG. Not 'something a little bit like it'; not 'something called by the same word, but actually different' . It is PRECISELY the same thing.

He was EXACTLY proposing that the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP join forces to govern, siezing power AFTER an election, from the Liberals who had the most seats, without the people being allowed to vote on it.

No difference, no nuance, no 'yeah but...'! It was 100%, unadulterated, the exact thing that you say 'drove many folks screaming yellow zonkers'.

If you can see a difference, then tell me what that difference is, because from every angle I look at it, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

No argument, Molly! However, after Harper brought out the idea he promptly dropped it. Dion and the others went on National TV with a signing ceremony!

I believe that if Harper had've pulled off such a coalition he would have paid dearly at the next election too!

The difference is that he shut up about it while the others are still muttering! I remain convinced that Ignatieff wants nothing to do with any such idea. A smart politician is like a professional billiards player. You don't just want to sink the ball in front of your face. You want to also leave yourself in good shape by the position of the NEXT ball you want to sink!

I just can't believe how so many on this board can't seem to grasp the difference between what's legal and what's popular in politics. It reminds me of the term "commie lawyer", which refers to a leftwing lawyer who continually brings up nitpicking legalisms that nobody cares about.

To win in politics you have to get people to WANT to vote for you! You can't spout from a rulebook and DEMAND that they support you!