Canadian Political Polls

[Molly]

LOL The only reason he backed off is because it was a non-starter from the getgo.

I do fully understand that in politics, what's popular is more important than what's true.... but smirking, bald-faced liars, moral derelicts with a 'holier than-thou' attitude and a dirty mean streak have never been any too popular with me.

.....hence my unwillingness to vote Conservative any time soon.

[punked]

EKOS poll out today shows the Liberals dipping again as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/ekos-poll.html

[jdobbin]

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.

Six or seven minorities and your perception might change.

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.

Since the public wants parliament to work, the idea of a coalition shouldn't face a backlash.

The Tories couldn't rule without Liberal support. Period.

If you don't believe in coalitions, stop thinking the Liberals should support the Tories.

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.)

The Tories made out that it was undemocratic. That obviously is incorrect. I'm sure you can get any poll to support a lynch mob if you inflame people enough.

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.

Yes, now the Liberals have said that they can't continue to support the Tories since Harper doesn't believe in making Parliament work.

Your view of no coalitions means parties should not work together, it seems.

[jdobbin]

Latest Ekos poll:

http://www2.macleans.ca/author/kadyomalley/

Well, compared to last week’s down-to-the-decimal-point photo finish:

Conservatives: 34.2 (+1.6)

Liberals: 30.8 (-1.8)

NDP: 14.8 (-1.7)

Bloc Quebecois 39.8 (+7.5)

Green: 10.1 (+0.2)

Undecided/Ineligible: 14.9 (-0.3)

The Bloc is way up. However, I don't know if anyone knows why. Since the Bloc supports an election, maybe their support is just firming up as it always does.

Edited September 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

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.

Anyone who watching the Commons knows Jack can be a thorn in ones side, especially for the Tories and the personal attacks he's had to endure from them. I'm glad they are there, they ask very good questions of the government, even though they get the run away for answers.

[punked]

Latest Ekos poll:

http://www2.macleans.ca/author/kadyomalley/

The Bloc is way up. However, I don't know if anyone knows why. Since the Bloc supports an election, maybe their support is just firming up as it always does.

They don't like Iggy it is pretty clear to me.

[Wild Bill]

Yes, now the Liberals have said that they can't continue to support the Tories since Harper doesn't believe in making Parliament work.

Your view of no coalitions means parties should not work together, it seems.

Who said that? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! A segue into a veiled jibe at Harper is hardly an answer to my premises.

For the record, of course I believe that parties should work together in a minority government. However, there are limits. I have always resented those situations in our history where a minority government allows the party with the LEAST amount of popular support to call some major shots, just to keep the minority party in power. In effect, a political plank with the least amount of public support gets hammered into the floor of Canada, for the benefit of a party and NOT for Canadians!

I'm tempted to put this in capitals but I'll give it one more try. My beef is solely and only with the idea of a coalition being formed by Opposition parties AFTER they've lost an election, in order to prevent the party that DID receive the most votes from taking power, WITHOUT ALLOWING CANADIANS FROM VOTING ON THE IDEA!

I'm getting really tired of being hit with all these legalisms about why these is allowed by the rules of our system instead of considering whether or not this is a smart political move to keep people voting for you. Or insinuations that I would find it perfectly acceptable if Harper did the same thing.

Again, as I've posted many times, I support the Tories only by default. If I must wear a label it would be Classic Liberal, or perhaps Libertarian. I really don't have any political choice of a party that fits my values and has any chance of becoming an effective force in our government.

So a pretty please to some posters. Don't waste my time arguing about Harper's faults. Often I would help you! It's just that I see the faults in the Liberal and NDP choices as well. Being Canadian means we never get to chose a party or Leader that closely matches our own values. At least for me, not since Reform died and Manning retired.

The best we can hope for is to make a choice for who smells the least!

[Keepitsimple]

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!

The difference is a big one. The Opposition's letter, initiated by Harper, simply told the GG - "before you do anything, talk to us - we might be able to form a government". No deals were made with the Bloc or the NDP.......there would only have been discussions AFTER the GG replied and Liberals always say that Harper operates like "it's my way or the highway" - so any concessions that he might have been willing to make would have been pretty small. The Liberal coalition on the other hand had already made their deals before they even asked the GG - the NDP were going to get 5 cabinet seats and the Bloc would support money bills as long as they were good for Quebec - and who knows what that is other than "show me the money". These guys had it all planned out and were ready to go. Harper simply sent a letter.

[jdobbin]

Who said that? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth! A segue into a veiled jibe at Harper is hardly an answer to my premises.

You don't regard what is there now as an anti-democratic coalition?

For the record, of course I believe that parties should work together in a minority government. However, there are limits. I have always resented those situations in our history where a minority government allows the party with the LEAST amount of popular support to call some major shots, just to keep the minority party in power. In effect, a political plank with the least amount of public support gets hammered into the floor of Canada, for the benefit of a party and NOT for Canadians!

So you think that the Liberals should keep the Tories in power. And what have they got in return for it? That is working together?

I'm tempted to put this in capitals but I'll give it one more try. My beef is solely and only with the idea of a coalition being formed by Opposition parties AFTER they've lost an election, in order to prevent the party that DID receive the most votes from taking power, WITHOUT ALLOWING CANADIANS FROM VOTING ON THE IDEA!

So they party that wins the most seats (which requires some sort of coalition to serve a full term) is okay but the Opposition is not allowed to do the same thing?

I'm getting really tired of being hit with all these legalisms about why these is allowed by the rules of our system instead of considering whether or not this is a smart political move to keep people voting for you. Or insinuations that I would find it perfectly acceptable if Harper did the same thing.

I'm just saying that minorities are all about coalitions or we have elections every week.

Again, as I've posted many times, I support the Tories only by default. If I must wear a label it would be Classic Liberal, or perhaps Libertarian. I really don't have any political choice of a party that fits my values and has any chance of becoming an effective force in our government.

So a pretty please to some posters. Don't waste my time arguing about Harper's faults. Often I would help you! It's just that I see the faults in the Liberal and NDP choices as well. Being Canadian means we never get to chose a party or Leader that closely matches our own values. At least for me, not since Reform died and Manning retired.

The best we can hope for is to make a choice for who smells the least!

Don't think I have said anything about you supporting Harper.

I just said that Harper doesn't seem to want Parliament to work except under his threat of going to an election. He does this despite the fact that he needs a coalition or support of some sort to stay in power. He has counted on Liberal fear to stay in power but the Liberals now fear that continued support in exchange for nothing is bad for them, bad for Parliament.

[jdobbin]

Harper simply sent a letter.

Which told the Governor General that they were prepared to work as a coalition.

[madmax]

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!

That's correct. It is an option in all minority parliments to form a government with the MOST MPs to reach a majority of seats.

Now, Ironically, if you read all of Ignatieffs talking points after he personally rejected the Coalition agreement, they mimick the talking points of the Conservatives.

Which means, that there is no difference in behaviour between these two parties.

[Smallc]

I don't agree max. Ignatieff has said that he doesn't see the coalition as being in Canada's best interests. I think he only says that because of the anger and misunderstanding that surrounded the idea.

[madmax]

So a pretty please to some posters. Don't waste my time arguing about Harper's faults. Often I would help you! It's just that I see the faults in the Liberal and NDP choices as well. Being Canadian means we never get to chose a party or Leader that closely matches our own values. At least for me, not since Reform died and Manning retired.

The best we can hope for is to make a choice for who smells the least!

Edited September 10, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

Which told the Governor General that they were prepared to work as a coalition.

Certainly, it informed the GG of the right to form a government. And this letter was drafted before Harper attempted to defeat the government on the throne speech.

I still think the CPC will use it as a wedge issue. I think it will stabilize their base, and like any strategy it has the potential to backfire.

The LPC will be ready for the cheap attack strategy. But the strategy only has to have the plausibility behind it, not the truth. However, its not unlike the CPC to blow an election by going to the gutter. It has cost the CPC the majority each and everytime.

[madmax]

I don't agree max. Ignatieff has said that he doesn't see the coalition as being in Canada's best interests. I think he only says that because of the anger and misunderstanding that surrounded the idea.

He says both.

You are, after all, looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada, and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Mr. Ignatieff. Canwest News Feb 16, 2009

And on the weekend, Ignatieff said the coalition government would have been unstable, politically illegitimate to many Canadians and divisive - one report quoted him as saying it would have "profoundly, profoundly and durably divided the country." Montreal Gazette May 12, 2009

The coalition, he told a gathering in Montreal last weekend, would have “profoundly and durably divided the country.”

“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me,” he confided. While perfectly legal, it would nonetheless have struck many Canadians, coming so soon after an election in which the Liberals had suffered their worst defeat since Confederation, as if they and their coalition partners had “in some sense or another stolen power.”

Moreover, it would have been very difficult to assure the country of the certainty and stability it needed in a time of crisis “with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said, likening it, CP reports, to a rickety three-legged stool. “That was my first doubt. I couldn’t guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition.”

Especially when, as he told an interviewer back in March, one of the partners was a separatist party. “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but . . . I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.” Macleans, May 21, 2009

[Smallc]

Those aren't the same statements as the ones made by the Conservatives. He doesn't question the legitimacy of the coalition, only the legitimacy in the minds of Canadians.

[LastViking]

Today's riding projection update at TrendLines Research gives the Conservatives a 118-116 lead (as of July 31).

[punked]

Today's riding projection update at TrendLines Research gives the Conservatives a 118-116 lead (as of July 31).

You might think a website that openly states their goal is 184 Liberal MPs by 2012 has a bias eh?

[LastViking]

You might think a website that openly states their goal is 184 Liberal MPs by 2012 has a bias eh?

Please blame Stephen Harper for this "bias". On the Dec 8th graph, the CPC led 161-45 (by 2012).

[Molly]

I'm disappointed that he has ruled it out.

I understand strategically why-- it was extremely unlikely in any event, and there are many, far more important things to be talked about during a campaign-- but as unlikely as it might have been, it's a valid, and very important tool in the chest, now and in the future.

I fear that that this stupid posturing will have long-term influence--that we've just taken another large step toward republic-style governance, and IMO, that's not a good thing.

[M.Dancer]

I fear that that this stupid posturing will have long-term influence--that we've just taken another large step toward republic-style governance, and IMO, that's not a good thing.

Another? What were the others?

And, how so have we become less of a constitutional parliamentary democracy?

[Wild Bill]

I'm disappointed that he has ruled it out.

I understand strategically why-- it was extremely unlikely in any event, and there are many, far more important things to be talked about during a campaign-- but as unlikely as it might have been, it's a valid, and very important tool in the chest, now and in the future.

I fear that that this stupid posturing will have long-term influence--that we've just taken another large step toward republic-style governance, and IMO, that's not a good thing.

It may be 'a valid, and very important tool' Molly, but do you REALLY believe that more Canadians would approve of being handed a coalition of parties that lost an election than would not?

If you do, then you keep such a tool in your tool chest. If you don't, then you treat it like nitroglycerin in an old western movie. You know, something that you don't keep around 'cuz it's so unstable you might blow YOURSELF up!

[Molly]

That's a valid question.

I see a great deal of drift... of folks expecting binding referenda, of attacking the validity of the senate, of committing more and more to party over the principles of those parties... even the growing incivility and mendacity of attack ads, as being representative of 'republic style'. It's more public expectation/ failure of convention, than crap like the laughable term-limits legislation.

When the customs of our parliamentary democracy are (wrongly) vilified to the point of falling out of use, then we have lost something, and when we adopt attitudes that have no great place here, we have lost more.

The presidential-form idolatry of leadership/ failure of party policy binding those leaders/ governance by poll rather than by philosophy is repugnant to me, and I percieve it as un-Canadian. I would say both the GG and the senate are of steadily diminishing authourity, as are individual MPs, since the power of parties is so steadily growing....

Will that do for an answer? Didn't think so.

[Wild Bill]

That's a valid question.

I see a great deal of drift... of folks expecting binding referenda, of attacking the validity of the senate, of committing more and more to party over the principles of those parties... even the growing incivility and mendacity of attack ads, as being representative of 'republic style'. It's more public expectation/ failure of convention, than crap like the laughable term-limits legislation.

When the customs of our parliamentary democracy are (wrongly) vilified to the point of falling out of use, then we have lost something, and when we adopt attitudes that have no great place here, we have lost more.

The presidential-form idolatry of leadership/ failure of party policy binding those leaders/ governance by poll rather than by philosophy is repugnant to me, and I percieve it as un-Canadian. I would say both the GG and the senate are of steadily diminishing authourity, as are individual MPs, since the power of parties is so steadily growing....

Will that do for an answer? Didn't think so.

Nope!

Too intellectual, Molly. The more deeply you follow politics and (not trying to butter you up! ) frankly, the smarter you are the easier it becomes to be too rational and legally precise about politics and what is possible with it.

You can lose the perspective of the common man! He or she is NOT a political junkie but still, he VOTES!

The few of us on MLW who debate how many MP's can dance on the head of a pin are hardly representative of the electorate at large. Too many of us slip and let our own opinions cloud our objectivity. Even the best of us do it occasionally. We both know a few posters here that do it continually!

[M.Dancer]

Will that do for an answer? Didn't think so.

No I don't think so.

The presidential-form idolatry of leadership

None of the present leaders have enough charisma to put together a majority...I don't see that as even being on the radar...if you wanted to see such a thing, go back 40 years and revisit trudeau mania

When the customs of our parliamentary democracy are (wrongly) vilified to the point of falling out of use, then we have lost something, and when we adopt attitudes that have no great place here, we have lost more

Much of our parliamentary rules are based solely on tradition...and when a tradition fall into disuse or when a new tradition arrises it is usually because of utility. For instance the GG has the right to disolve the house or to refuse to sign a law...but traditionally she won't. Likewise it is possible for minority parties to form a coalition, but traditionally they don't (becuase it is political suicide.

I would say both the GG and the senate are of steadily diminishing authourity, as are individual MPs, since the power of parties is so steadily growing....

The Whip has always, always been in effect, it's as you might say, a parliamentary tradition. As far as the GG goes, her authority is undiminished as it has always been purely ceremonial (because of tradition...and the senate has no less power than before but hopefully soon it will eather have more (as an elected chamber) or less (as a discontinued tradition).

I see a great deal of drift... of folks expecting binding referenda, of attacking the validity of the senate, of committing more and more to party over the principles of those parties... even the growing incivility and mendacity of attack ads, as being representative of 'republic style'

None of those things are indicitive of republicanism and more that breakfast is indicative of democracy.