Canadian Political Polls

madmax · January 2, 2010

There aren't any polls for 2010 yet. But within a week we will see some.

I have created this thread for the new polls.

madmax · January 7, 2010

First Poll of the New year that I have found.

Its Ekos, and I don't put alot of faith in the methodology. But here it is.

Conservatives: 33.1 (-2.8)

Liberals: 27.8 (+1.1)

NDP: 16.0 (-1.0)

Green: 13.4 (+2.2)

Bloc Quebecois*: 9.8 (+0.6)

Undecided: 14.7

British Columbia (MoE 7.32)

Conservatives: 34.2 (-0.8)

NDP: 25.9 (-2.9)

Liberals: 21.4 (-2.2)

Green: 18.5 (+6.2)

Alberta (MoE 8.95)

Conservatives: 61.7 (+1.0)

Liberals: 15.0 (+1.1)

Green: 13.2 (-1.9)

NDP: 10.0 (-0.4)

Saskatchewan/Manitoba (MoE 11.55)

Conservatives: 48.6 (-4.5)

NDP: 27.3 (+6.8)

Liberals: 12.4 (-5.2)

Green: 11.7 (+2.9)

Ontario (MoE 3.91)

Liberals: 36.0 (+2.5)

Conservatives: 35.4 (-3.6)

Green: 14.3 (+1.6)

NDP: 14.2 (-0.6)

Quebec (MoE 4.85)

Bloc Quebecois: 38.2 (+1.4)

Liberals: 27.5 (+2.9)

Conservatives: 14.6 (-2.7)

Green: 10.2 (+1.5)

NDP: 9.6 (-3.2)

Atlantic Canada (10.82)

Conservatives: 32.6 (-2.6)

Liberals: 28.4 (-2.8)

NDP: 27.2 (+0.3)

Green: 11.8 (+5.1)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/orders-ekos-of-the-day-010709-33127816013498.html

Jerry J. Fortin · January 7, 2010

First Poll of the New year that I have found.

Its Ekos, and I don't put alot of faith in the methodology. But here it is.

Conservatives: 33.1 (-2.8)

Liberals: 27.8 (+1.1)

NDP: 16.0 (-1.0)

Green: 13.4 (+2.2)

Bloc Quebecois*: 9.8 (+0.6)

Undecided: 14.7

British Columbia (MoE 7.32)

Conservatives: 34.2 (-0.8)

NDP: 25.9 (-2.9)

Liberals: 21.4 (-2.2)

Green: 18.5 (+6.2)

Alberta (MoE 8.95)

Conservatives: 61.7 (+1.0)

Liberals: 15.0 (+1.1)

Green: 13.2 (-1.9)

NDP: 10.0 (-0.4)

Saskatchewan/Manitoba (MoE 11.55)

Conservatives: 48.6 (-4.5)

NDP: 27.3 (+6.8)

Liberals: 12.4 (-5.2)

Green: 11.7 (+2.9)

Ontario (MoE 3.91)

Liberals: 36.0 (+2.5)

Conservatives: 35.4 (-3.6)

Green: 14.3 (+1.6)

NDP: 14.2 (-0.6)

Quebec (MoE 4.85)

Bloc Quebecois: 38.2 (+1.4)

Liberals: 27.5 (+2.9)

Conservatives: 14.6 (-2.7)

Green: 10.2 (+1.5)

NDP: 9.6 (-3.2)

Atlantic Canada (10.82)

Conservatives: 32.6 (-2.6)

Liberals: 28.4 (-2.8)

NDP: 27.2 (+0.3)

Green: 11.8 (+5.1)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/orders-ekos-of-the-day-010709-33127816013498.html

Isn't that interesting. It seems their fortunes (CPC) are fading.

madmax · January 7, 2010

Isn't that interesting. It seems their fortunes (CPC) are fading.

I disagree.

The change is within the margin of error for the Ekos poll. Ekos rarely has the CPC near majority territory unlike other polsters.

When Nanos and some others come in then there will be a clearer indication. I am more interested in teh polls that will come in a few weeks after the proroguement sinks in.

If that effects the CPC numbers then I expect an attitude adjustment from the Party and the loyal diehard CPC punters.

daniel · January 7, 2010

First Poll of the New year that I have found.

...

Alberta (MoE 8.95)

Conservatives: 61.7 (+1.0)

Liberals: 15.0 (+1.1)

Green: 13.2 (-1.9)

NDP: 10.0 (-0.4)...

Conservatives down every except...you guessed it - and majority too!!

So why do Albertans vote like sheep?

Edited January 7, 2010 by daniel

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

Conservatives down every except...you guessed it - and up too!!

So why do Albertans vote like sheep?

As with any group that paints itself into an ideological corner, when the sh*t hits the fan, where are you going to go? I mean, who are they going to vote for? The Heritage Party?

While I wouldn't have believed even a few weeks ago, I think maybe those predicting a potential break in the Right again may be on to something. We're watching the Wild Rose party taking on the Provincial Tories over there, and if the momentum is with these guys, well, it doesn't take a lot of work to turn a provincial political machine into a Federal political machine (Reform did it in the late 1980s and early 1990s starting in Alberta and the PQ managed to do it with the Bloc in the dying days of the Tory government of the day).

At some point the Tories just have to realize how extraordinarily incautious Harper and his advisers are, that at some point the gamesmanship no long matches the game being played. I realize the Tories, in a minority situation, probably feel like the proverbial wagons with the enemy circling, but sometimes there are far worse things than losing.

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

As with any group that paints itself into an ideological corner, when the sh*t hits the fan, where are you going to go? I mean, who are they going to vote for? The Heritage Party?

While I wouldn't have believed even a few weeks ago, I think maybe those predicting a potential break in the Right again may be on to something. We're watching the Wild Rose party taking on the Provincial Tories over there, and if the momentum is with these guys, well, it doesn't take a lot of work to turn a provincial political machine into a Federal political machine (Reform did it in the late 1980s and early 1990s starting in Alberta and the PQ managed to do it with the Bloc in the dying days of the Tory government of the day).

At some point the Tories just have to realize how extraordinarily incautious Harper and his advisers are, that at some point the gamesmanship no long matches the game being played. I realize the Tories, in a minority situation, probably feel like the proverbial wagons with the enemy circling, but sometimes there are far worse things than losing.

Bingo, just yesterday I think, I said wildrose would be the saviour of the Canadian left. Harper is being incautious and it could lead to him losing. However, the real test is when he's replaced. Harper united the right and is the only thing holding it together. Who has the dictatorial nature to replace him? Baird is about the only person in that caucus with the ability to get that job done but he's not a leader. He's an attack dog.

madmax · January 7, 2010

Conservatives down every except...you guessed it - and majority too!!

So why do Albertans vote like sheep?

I don't believe Albertans vote like sheep. Albertans appear to be very consistent and then create new parties for overall change. Origins of Progressives, United Farmers, CCF, Social Credit, Reform and WIldrose to name but a few successful creations.

If there was another Federal Alternative not listed in the above poll, that had a Centre Right leaning, such as a Social Credit, Reform, Wild Rose (to early to tell) vision, then you might see the CPC numbers come down across the Province. Instead, the Province sees a concentration in a riding that chooses one of the above parties to oust and sub performing MP if the riding association didn't do it for them.

Thus the handful or Finger of opposition such as the NDP MP in Alberta.

Given a choice that is reflective of the ALB values and the CPC numbers would drop. But the other choices are not viewed as palatable and the people plug their noses.

Given what is happening Provincially it is demonstratable that the people of Alberta are not sheep. Parking your vote with a party with no platform is as risky as it gets.

As of right now considering that the other governing party hadn't hit it off with Alb in 25 years, this is ALbertans only choice and only choice for a government they feel serves their interests, regardless of whether they like the leader or the tactics. For Albertans it is the policy.

When I think of Sheep, I think of many the Toronto Area ridings which vote Liberal without question and the 905 regions that vote Conservative without question.

There are clear alternatives for these ridings and the federal government regardless of Brand pays attention to Ontario because it is the largest PRovince. Yet these "Sheep" never take a chance on the other parties.

I prefer voters who swing from party to party. It keeps us honest. I wish more ridings were in play during elections.

However, Alberta, ironically, has fewer choices then Quebec, yet there is a similar Isolation in the two Provinces yet there visions are very different.

Your thoughts?

Alta4ever · January 7, 2010

I don't believe Albertans vote like sheep. Albertans appear to be very consistent and then create new parties for overall change. Origins of Progressives, United Farmers, CCF, Social Credit, Reform and WIldrose to name but a few successful creations.

If there was another Federal Alternative not listed in the above poll, that had a Centre Right leaning, such as a Social Credit, Reform, Wild Rose (to early to tell) vision, then you might see the CPC numbers come down across the Province. Instead, the Province sees a concentration in a riding that chooses one of the above parties to oust and sub performing MP if the riding association didn't do it for them.

Thus the handful or Finger of opposition such as the NDP MP in Alberta.

Given a choice that is reflective of the ALB values and the CPC numbers would drop. But the other choices are not viewed as palatable and the people plug their noses.

Given what is happening Provincially it is demonstratable that the people of Alberta are not sheep. Parking your vote with a party with no platform is as risky as it gets.

As of right now considering that the other governing party hadn't hit it off with Alb in 25 years, this is ALbertans only choice and only choice for a government they feel serves their interests, regardless of whether they like the leader or the tactics. For Albertans it is the policy.

When I think of Sheep, I think of many the Toronto Area ridings which vote Liberal without question and the 905 regions that vote Conservative without question.

There are clear alternatives for these ridings and the federal government regardless of Brand pays attention to Ontario because it is the largest PRovince. Yet these "Sheep" never take a chance on the other parties.

I prefer voters who swing from party to party. It keeps us honest. I wish more ridings were in play during elections.

However, Alberta, ironically, has fewer choices then Quebec, yet there is a similar Isolation in the two Provinces yet there visions are very different.

Your thoughts?

Wow that was an incredible post.

msdogfood · January 8, 2010

Wow that was an incredible post.

hmm i bet!

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

hmm i bet!

It was from an NDPer, who seems to understand the political landscape of alberta.

nicky10013 · January 8, 2010

It was from an NDPer, who seems to understand the political landscape of alberta.

It's really not hard to understand the political landscape of Alberta.

"Give me my money or I'm creating a party even more radical than the last. PS, the east is stealing all our money."

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

It's really not hard to understand the political landscape of Alberta.

"Give me my money or I'm creating a party even more radical than the last. PS, the east is stealing all our money."

What have you done to earn a portion of my pay check?

nicky10013 · January 8, 2010

What have you done to earn a portion of my pay check?

I don't take any money from your paycheque. The fact is that it's federal money that belongs to all Canadians. It will go to Canadians who deserve it despite where they reside. If someone needs it in Ontario, it will go to them, in BC the same, in Alberta the same. There's a quite a few more people in Alberta that qualify for EI benefits far quicker than people in Ontario. Now that there are a lot more Albertans on EI because of the temporary halt in oil expansion, there are a lot more Albertans taking that money. It doesn't matter where it's coming from in Canada, just so long as they're getting that help until they can find other work.

Smallc · January 8, 2010

What have you done to earn a portion of my pay check?

Woah woah. You can't quote one part of the Constitution that deals with prorogation and then ignore another part that deals specifically with why he deserves 'part of your pay cheque'.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Smallc

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

Woah woah. You can't quote one part of the Constitution that deals with prorogation and then ignore another part that deals specifically with why he deserves 'part of your pay cheque'.

The reason for the program was entrenched in the constitution as an addition in 1982, the program itself is not.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

nicky10013 · January 8, 2010

The reason for the program was entrenched in the constitution as an addition in 1982, the program itself is not.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

Doesn't change anything.

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

Doesn't change anything.

Sure does, we could change equalization to share 0 and it would still be constitutional.

The equalization formula itself is not part of the constitution.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

nicky10013 · January 8, 2010

Sure does, we could change equalization to share 0 and it would still be constitutional.

You get your pretty little head into power and see if the country, let alone the supreme court, agrees with you. Something tells me that would be a big no, but that's just me.

Smallc · January 8, 2010

Sure does, we could change equalization to share 0 and it would still be constitutional.

Ummm no, that would go against the reason.

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Zero wouldn't fulfill that.

Edit: And yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about it when the first province brought it in front of them.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Smallc

Smallc · January 8, 2010

The equalization formula itself is not part of the constitution.

The formula isn't. The principle and the existence of the program are not up for debate. It has to exist and it has to do what it's designed to do.

Anyway, this thread is about polls.

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

Ummm no, that would go against the reason.

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Zero wouldn't fulfill that.

Edit: And yes, I'm sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about it when the first province brought it in front of them.

The government has the ability to amend the equalization formula. The court cannot dictate legislation.

nicky10013 · January 8, 2010

The government has the ability to amend the equalization formula. The court cannot dictate legislation.

The court can strike it down if deemed unconstitutional.

Smallc · January 8, 2010

The formula can be amended and has been, but never to zero. The Supreme Court very much has the ability interpret and apply the Constitution...and to strike down laws...and to pretty much tell parliament to change laws where necessary to ensure compliance with the Constitution. If legislation goes against the Constitution, not only does the Court have the ability, but it also has the duty to rule against the legislation.

Also, I question whether the governor General could give assent to a law that runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution so clearly.

Alta4ever · January 8, 2010

The court can strike it down if deemed unconstitutional.

Then it would create a constitutional battle requiring the opening of the document. Equalization also requires re negociation with the provinces ever so many years, the court cannot impose an agreement.