Canadian Political Polls

[eyeball]

That's exactly what it's about. On one side you have the government, and on the other side, all of the experts. Usually, they're at least evenly split, but here, they're all against the government. I would think that the public is smart enough to figure this out.

I guess there's a reason why we call experts experts.

Perhaps we could put the Senate in charge of passing legislation that experts from the civil service and others propose and leave Parliament to argue about the ideological implications. We should still leave it up to Parliament to appoint Senators, and leave political parties to debate and argue and campaign on why we should accept their appointees over others.

Incrementalists should appreciate the stability this would give us and hard-boiled partisans could still bring as much polarized acrimony to the public domain as they like and constitutionalists would still have something to turn purple over.

Win win win.

Edited August 5, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

I guess there's a reason why we call experts experts.

Perhaps we could put the Senate in charge of passing legislation that experts from the civil service and others propose and leave Parliament to argue about the ideological implications. We should still leave it up to Parliament to appoint Senators, and leave political parties to debate and argue and campaign on why we should accept their appointees over others.

Incrementalists should appreciate the stability this would give us and hard-boiled partisans could still bring as much polarized acrimony to the public domain as they like and constitutionalists would still have something to turn purple over.

Win win win.

You really do dislike democracy.

[nicky10013]

Well, it may still have some play, but I think the British Coalition has seriously damaged the Tories' ability to argue that such things can't work. Not that I was ever a supporter of the Liberal-NDP-Block coalition, not because of idiotic and invalid arguments about coupes or evil separatists seizing power (Harper had no problem trying to make a pact with them when he was gunning to shoot down the Martin government, and certainly the Bloc has had considerable input in legislation during the Tory minority), but rather because I think it would be a Frankenstein's monster. But the fact that the mother of all Westminster Parliaments has a formal coalition that, so far, has actually done pretty impressively and managed to keep a good deal of public support really does undermine the Tory talking points. So yes, we'll get a lot of anti-coalition talk as the Tories become more vulnerable.

I really do think this is part of a trend. The Tories damaged themselves with the second prorogation, and in the end, it did nothing to solve the core problem of the Afghan prison issue. It was an idiotic waste of political capital, and they're just not getting the bumps they expected. As I often say, Harper is too much the tactician, and is demonstrating how you can, in the process of beating your opponents, outwit yourself. The only thing that's keeping the Tories in government right now is Iggy, and if he ever gets a brain, or if the Liberals finally tire of him and put someone in who can take on Harper, the Tories are out. Of course, it's not as if there is a lot of people in the Liberal ranks that seem to fill that bill. The Tories are safe only because the Liberals are still a disaster area.

At this stage there seems to be two possible outcomes. A weakened Tory minority or a Liberal minority. Certainly Harper can't survive an election loss, but the interesting question will be if he can hold on if he wins an election but loses seats. If he can, so be it. If he can't, either scenario would lead to a really messy leadership debate. Despite what people may say about the lack of talent in the Liberal Party, the same exists in the CPC caucus as well. Their only real choice is Mackay but quite honestly, he's not far to the right enough for most of the base. That and he's been tainted by how he's run DND and the scandal over Afghan documents.

[ToadBrother]

At this stage there seems to be two possible outcomes. A weakened Tory minority or a Liberal minority. Certainly Harper can't survive an election loss, but the interesting question will be if he can hold on if he wins an election but loses seats. If he can, so be it. If he can't, either scenario would lead to a really messy leadership debate. Despite what people may say about the lack of talent in the Liberal Party, the same exists in the CPC caucus as well. Their only real choice is Mackay but quite honestly, he's not far to the right enough for most of the base. That and he's been tainted by how he's run DND and the scandal over Afghan documents.

There are probably more people in the Tory caucus waiting for a chance than on the Liberal side. Quite frankly, these polling numbers shouldn't bring much joy to the Liberals either. It's almost a statistical dead heat, and if it persists until autumn, calling or forcing an election on either side would be a game of Russian roulette.

My prediction is this, that the Liberals will continue to prop the Tories up, because at least it's the devil they know. There will be no Fall election, just more jockeying in the House with neither party gaining enough ground to dare the polls. I'm thinking we're at least six or seven months from a potential election, which, when you look at the polling figures since the 2008 election has pretty much been the story. Canadians obviously don't want an election, they obviously don't approve of either of the two main parties in sufficient numbers to deliver a majority, and the whole long-term trend since the Martin government is to keep the governing party heavily restrained.

I dunno. Sometimes I almost think it's a good thing. Canada, despite having a government constantly obsessed with staying in power, has weathered the economic storms to the degree that we're the envy of the industrialized world. Maybe the solution to successfully coming out of a major recession is not having a strong government that can do what it will, but rather a weak government that schizophrenically jumps between consensus and brinkmanship, sometimes at the same time.

[Jack Weber]

There are probably more people in the Tory caucus waiting for a chance than on the Liberal side. Quite frankly, these polling numbers shouldn't bring much joy to the Liberals either. It's almost a statistical dead heat, and if it persists until autumn, calling or forcing an election on either side would be a game of Russian roulette.

My prediction is this, that the Liberals will continue to prop the Tories up, because at least it's the devil they know. There will be no Fall election, just more jockeying in the House with neither party gaining enough ground to dare the polls. I'm thinking we're at least six or seven months from a potential election, which, when you look at the polling figures since the 2008 election has pretty much been the story. Canadians obviously don't want an election, they obviously don't approve of either of the two main parties in sufficient numbers to deliver a majority, and the whole long-term trend since the Martin government is to keep the governing party heavily restrained.

I dunno. Sometimes I almost think it's a good thing. Canada, despite having a government constantly obsessed with staying in power, has weathered the economic storms to the degree that we're the envy of the industrialized world. Maybe the solution to successfully coming out of a major recession is not having a strong government that can do what it will, but rather a weak government that schizophrenically jumps between consensus and brinkmanship, sometimes at the same time.

I think your right...I did'nt a couple of months ago,but if these numbers hold up,nothings going to happen in the Fall...

I suspect the Liberals will wait all the way until the budget is brought down next spring.That's going to be the tought budget,unlike the one we had brought dwon a few months ago.Tactically,the Liberals would be able to hang the Tories on poor fiscal management when that budget gets brought down.However,even if Mr.Harper were to win that election,if he returns with the same minority,or even smaller,I think it'll be curtains for him...

[Bonam]

However,even if Mr.Harper were to win that election,if he returns with the same minority,or even smaller,I think it'll be curtains for him...

Why?

[Jack Weber]

Why?

Why not?

[eyeball]

You really do dislike democracy.

No, I just dislike the way we practice and let our representatives treat it like it was a joke.

[eyeball]

Their only real choice is Mackay but quite honestly, he's not far to the right enough for most of the base.

Most of the fringe you mean?

[capricorn]

Why not?

As with political watchers and pundits, the Conservatives are well aware that the biggest impediment to a majority government is the Bloc Quebecois.

Canada entered a period of potential minority government when the Bloc Québécois won 54 seats in the 1993 election, but the effect was obscured for a decade by the split on the right that allowed Jean Chrétien's Liberals to win three majority governments. Then, as soon as the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives merged, minority government became the norm, starting with the election of 2004 and confirmed in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

This could go on for a long time. With the NDP winning 20 or 30 seats and the Bloc winning 40 or 50, it's almost impossible for either the Liberals or Conservatives to get a majority. Absent some huge scandal or a major internal collapse by one of the big parties, there just aren't enough seats in play for either to win 155.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/

If the Conservatives win another minority, they may decide to dump Harper but it will not be because he failed to secure a majority. It will be for some other reason.

[Smallc]

As with political watchers and pundits, the Conservatives are well aware that the biggest impediment to a majority government is the Bloc Quebecois.

What a lame excuse.

[capricorn]

What a lame excuse.

You mean a lame excuse on my part or on the part of the Conservative party?

[wyly]

What a lame excuse.

accurate I think...the Bloc prevents liberal win and the same for the conservatives...there was time when liberals controlled Quebec, that was their powerbase just as Alberta is the conservatives...now that Quebec is dominated by neither party we seem to have a perpetual stalemate....

I don't buy this talk of liberal misfortune is the fault of their leaders Harper is no better leader than Ignatief, other than Quebec shifting to the Bloc not much has changed...Quebec is the difference, the party that wins Quebec controls Canada and today that factor has been neutralized...

[ToadBrother]

What a lame excuse.

A demographic fact, me'thinks. The Liberals under Chretien were able to win majorities because the Right was fractured. You'll notice the moment the Conservatives reunited, the ability to achieve a majority became significantly more difficult. It's not impossible, but frankly, my honest opinion is that we're stuck with minorities for the foreseeable future. It's possible, if polling trends continue, that it might flip to a Liberal minority, but that, I think is about as much change as you will get, unless Iggy softens his position on a coalition.

[ToadBrother]

I don't buy this talk of liberal misfortune is the fault of their leaders Harper is no better leader than Ignatief,

I beg to differ on this one. I don't like Harper, but I think you would have to be blind not to see that, as a political manager, Harper is a profoundly more gifted man than Iggy. I don't have to like or trust the guy to understand that he is a far better leader, in the purely political sense.

[wyly]

A demographic fact, me'thinks. The Liberals under Chretien were able to win majorities because the Right was fractured. You'll notice the moment the Conservatives reunited, the ability to achieve a majority became significantly more difficult. It's not impossible, but frankly, my honest opinion is that we're stuck with minorities for the foreseeable future. It's possible, if polling trends continue, that it might flip to a Liberal minority, but that, I think is about as much change as you will get, unless Iggy softens his position on a coalition.

that's backwards...the liberals lost power because their base split, they lost votes/seats to the Bloc...uniting right wing votes hasn't done a thing, the left of center vote is still the majority in Canada, 70% if the latest poll is correct...

[eyeball]

that's backwards...the liberals lost power because their base split, they lost votes/seats to the Bloc...uniting right wing votes hasn't done a thing, the left of center vote is still the majority in Canada, 70% if the latest poll is correct...

If we had a proper modern democracy our government would better reflect that reality.

[wyly]

I beg to differ on this one. I don't like Harper, but I think you would have to be blind not to see that, as a political manager, Harper is a profoundly more gifted man than Iggy. I don't have to like or trust the guy to understand that he is a far better leader, in the purely political sense.

I see well thanks, there's a difference between being the PM and not, Harper was no wonderboy when he was in opposition...the PM gets to be the center of photo-ops and media attention is entirely superficial...

[wyly]

If we had a proper modern democracy our government would better reflect that reality.

proportional rep?

[Smallc]

You mean a lame excuse on my part or on the part of the Conservative party?

Both.

[Smallc]

A demographic fact, me'thinks. The Liberals under Chretien were able to win majorities because the Right was fractured.

Yes, but, Chretien did manage to win 20 seats in Quebec, even with the Bloc. Harper doesn't excite people...at all. He doesn't make them want to come out and vote for him either. If he did, he'd get a majority, despite the Bloc.

[Smallc]

But yes, the Bloc is certainly a factor....it's simply not the only factor.

[wyly]

Yes, but, Chretien did manage to win 20 seats in Quebec, even with the Bloc. Harper doesn't excite people...at all. He doesn't make them want to come out and vote for him either. If he did, he'd get a majority, despite the Bloc.

harper might have had a chance at majority but his ridiculing of Quebec's cultural establishment was not a stroke of genius by a supposedly gifted politician...

Harper sneaks in because of the fracturing of the left...if this stalemate is to become a permanent feature of our government we might as well make it more democratic with a PR system...

[nicky10013]

A demographic fact, me'thinks. The Liberals under Chretien were able to win majorities because the Right was fractured. You'll notice the moment the Conservatives reunited, the ability to achieve a majority became significantly more difficult. It's not impossible, but frankly, my honest opinion is that we're stuck with minorities for the foreseeable future. It's possible, if polling trends continue, that it might flip to a Liberal minority, but that, I think is about as much change as you will get, unless Iggy softens his position on a coalition.

I don't think the Bloc is the problem, in my opinion, Harper is the obstacle to majorities. He's moderate enough to pick up some right leaning Liberals but no where near moderate enough to pick up a whole bunch.

People are also forgetting that the Conservatives don't need both Ontario and Quebec to win a majority, they need one or the other, so really, Quebec is a lame excuse. The fact that they haven't been able to really break through in either speaks to the fact that just not enough people trust the guy. Once Harper is gone, you'll either get someone more moderate who will move the party more into the centre and you'll see a CPC majority, or a Reformer. Either way, there is going to be a lot of infighting over who is next leader. You may think that there are a lot more candidates in the CPC than in the Liberal Party (I disagree) but what you're not taking into account is that in true Tory fashion, they're going to tear each other to pieces. The blue curse is going to come back with a vengence.

Edited August 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

With Harper naming John Baird as House Leader, I'm not sure that he doesn't want an election.