Federal Election Polls

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

It's not even a misinterpretation. It's just completely and entirely wrong.

I think it's just a Tory partisan realizing the Tories are doomed even if they somehow eek out a plurality.

The King-Byng Affair settled it long ago. A Governor General can place conditions on a minority government's right to advise on Prerogatives, and can even refuse to take a Prime Minister's advice if that advise is contrary to a previous agreement between the Governor General and the Prime Minister.

More recently, former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson stated that if the Martin government were defeated within weeks of an election, she would not have subjected the country to another election so soon. IT is almost certain that, when Michaelle Jean placed conditions on her prorogation of Parliament in 2008 so the Tories could evade defeat that, if they had been defeated upon Parliament's return in 2009 (in other words, the Coalition had remained intact and intent upon replacing the Government), she would have asked the leader of that coalition to form a government.

As I have said before, there seems to be this idea that the Queen and the Governor General are just impotent figureheads. But the Commonwealth Realms, including Canada, are not Japan or Sweden, with monarchs who possess no powers.

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

You need to study history. The GG's "powers" are ceremonial. He will declare whatever the PM advises. The one time the GG ever had the gall to assume his powers were real, it was kind of a big deal.

The King-Byng Affair in Canada and the Australian 1975 Constitutional Crisis show you that Governor Generals, in the Queen's name, hold vast constitutional powers.

And once again, a government that has lost the confidence of Parliament immediately becomes a caretaker government, and can no longer advise the Queen or her Viceroy on prerogatives, save where there is a situation sufficiently dire to require immediate action.

Let me ask, Bryan. What would have happened in 2008 if the Coalition had defeated the Government before Harper could ask for a prorogation?

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

The numbers past two days are not a statistical tie anymore. It is Liberals in the lead for the first time since general election was called .

I'm going to wait for confirmation from some other polls, but if this is the trend, it would appear that the Liberals have become the Anybody But Harper party, and the NDP is shedding progressive votes to them. The Tories have probably regained any voters who were heading to the NDP because of Mulcair's fiscal conservative stance.

Still just over two weeks to go, and lots of things can happen. I'm still not all that comfortable with Nanos' technique, but I guess election day will either vindicate or rubbish it.

eyeball · October 4, 2015

As I have said before, there seems to be this idea that the Queen and the Governor General are just impotent figureheads. But the Commonwealth Realms, including Canada, are not Japan or Sweden, with monarchs who possess no powers.

That said, why can't they do anything about the deterioration and emasculation of Parliament and the ridiculous amount of power that's been concentrated into the PMO? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the Queen is impotent when it comes to where the rubber in our governance actually hits the road.

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

That said, why can't they do anything about the deterioration and emasculation of Parliament and the ridiculous amount of power that's been concentrated into the PMO? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the Queen is impotent when it comes to where the rubber in our governance actually hits the road.

Because fixing Parliament is the voters' job. They are there to assure responsible government, not to run it.

eyeball · October 4, 2015

What about the concentration of power in the PMO?

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

What about the concentration of power in the PMO?

At any time the government caucus could wrest back power if it wanted.

eyeball · October 4, 2015

But they don't because the public isn't doing it's job?

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

But they don't because the public isn't doing it's job?

We insist upon voting in party loyalists.

eyeball · October 4, 2015

Not all of us.

It occurs to me that a lot of us, more all the time are losing our loyalty and faith in the system. Does the Queen just wait until something breaks?

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

Not all of us.

It occurs to me that a lot of us, more all the time are losing our loyalty and faith in the system. Does the Queen just wait until something breaks?

the system has worked for well over two hundred years. Believe it or not, democracy is not the only consideration in government.

Shady · October 4, 2015

This is a bit off topic, but if Justin wins a minority government, which party is he going to get to support his $10 billion dollar deficits each year for at least 3 years? Which of the NDP or Conservatives is going to want to share that policy, and hypothetically have to defend it along with the Liberals in a year or two?

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

This is a bit off topic, but if Justin wins a minority government, which party is he going to get to support his $10 billion dollar deficits each year for at least 3 years? Which of the NDP or Conservatives is going to want to share that policy, and hypothetically have to defend it along with the Liberals in a year or two?

Pick any of the big commitments by any of the parties and ask how they'll pull those commitments off in a minority situation. If those commitments require a vote in Parliament, either they'll be able to enact it by horsetrading, or they won't.

If Canadians want a party's platform enacted in any significant degree, they'd best give that party a majority of seats, otherwise some things will happen, some things won't, and many of the things that do happen will be heavily modified.

angrypenguin · October 4, 2015

This is a bit off topic, but if Justin wins a minority government, which party is he going to get to support his $10 billion dollar deficits each year for at least 3 years? Which of the NDP or Conservatives is going to want to share that policy, and hypothetically have to defend it along with the Liberals in a year or two?

Exactly what I said when I first came on this board. The NDP/Liberal party cooperation would not last very long.

Edited October 4, 2015 by angrypenguin

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

Exactly what I said when I first came on this board. The NDP/Liberal party cooperation would not last very long.

And if it doesn't then another election. But I suspect it will last at least a couple of years. Both parties will probably be financially exhausted by the 19th, and neither will be able to afford to go to the polls quickly.

That's the real irony of Harper's long campaign, that the breaking of the oppositions' piggy banks will be the thing that will guarantee cooperation between the Liberals and NDP.

Since it appears the Liberals have the upper hand, and if the polls firm out as they are, the Liberals will probably get somewhere around 130-140 seats, so I would imagine if that's the way it falls out on election night, there will be some sort of confidence and supply arrangement that gives both parties a few years to rebuild the coffers.

angrypenguin · October 4, 2015

And if it doesn't then another election. But I suspect it will last at least a couple of years. Both parties will probably be financially exhausted by the 19th, and neither will be able to afford to go to the polls quickly.

That's the real irony of Harper's long campaign, that the breaking of the oppositions' piggy banks will be the thing that will guarantee cooperation between the Liberals and NDP.

Since it appears the Liberals have the upper hand, and if the polls firm out as they are, the Liberals will probably get somewhere around 130-140 seats, so I would imagine if that's the way it falls out on election night, there will be some sort of confidence and supply arrangement that gives both parties a few years to rebuild the coffers.

I asked this last night but did not get an answer. Do we have proof the oppositions' piggy banks are dry? The NDP raised more money for this election than anyone else in the history of Canada. (exceeding the Conservatives # in the 2011 election)

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

I asked this last night but did not get an answer. Do we have proof the oppositions' piggy banks are dry? The NDP raised more money for this election than anyone else in the history of Canada. (exceeding the Conservatives # in the 2011 election)

The Tories started out this election with significantly more money than either of the other parties. The Tories will, so far as I understand it, be much further ahead after this election. The NDP and Liberals certainly have done a lot better over the last few months, but I doubt very much they've come anywhere close to the Tory warchest.

And wasn't that the whole point of this long election campaign, to give the Tories the financial edge?

CITIZEN_2015 · October 4, 2015

Liberals will get NDP on board relatively easy though they may have to slightly modify their plans. Hopefully the move to Liberals will continue and there will be no need for change of promises they are making. They are less than 5% away from forming a majority according to latest NANOS poll and two weeks to go in the campaign. That said it appears to me that EKOS and FORUM favoring the conservatives (flirting with a majority) and NANOS favoring the Liberals (flirting with a majority). In two weeks time we will know which one is right.

Edited October 4, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

angrypenguin · October 4, 2015

The Tories started out this election with significantly more money than either of the other parties. The Tories will, so far as I understand it, be much further ahead after this election. The NDP and Liberals certainly have done a lot better over the last few months, but I doubt very much they've come anywhere close to the Tory warchest.

And wasn't that the whole point of this long election campaign, to give the Tories the financial edge?

I'm not doubting you at all. I've read the same thing on the internet (Tories have more than the Grits+ NDP combined, as an example). But I cannot find any evidence of this online. (e.g. real evidence, not some newspaper article)

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

I'm not doubting you at all. I've read the same thing on the internet (Tories have more than the Grits+ NDP combined, as an example). But I cannot find any evidence of this online. (e.g. real evidence, not some newspaper article)

I don't think we'll get new numbers before the election, so must of what I've heard is anecdotal. I know the NDP and Liberals really picked up steam, but an election is an expensive thing, and the Tories started with a significant advantage. It's my point that that advantage could play against them if one of the other parties forms a minority government.

If you were the NDP, and say you were in third place, but your coffers were extremely low after a long election, what choice would you have but to support a Liberal minority government?

cybercoma · October 4, 2015

You need to study history. The GG's "powers" are ceremonial. The one time the GG ever had the gall to assume his powers were real, it was kind of a big deal.

Wasting my time arguing with you, would be like wasting my time arguing with someone who says 2 + 2 = 5. I'm not humouring the conversation anymore.

angrypenguin · October 4, 2015

I don't think we'll get new numbers before the election, so must of what I've heard is anecdotal. I know the NDP and Liberals really picked up steam, but an election is an expensive thing, and the Tories started with a significant advantage. It's my point that that advantage could play against them if one of the other parties forms a minority government.

If you were the NDP, and say you were in third place, but your coffers were extremely low after a long election, what choice would you have but to support a Liberal minority government?

Fair point, but if I were running the NDP campaign, and I know that I'm screwed, i'd start to really cut back my spend so that I could fund another election.

Also, I thought that the parties were forced to report their coffer #'s? Perhaps not during an election, but do we have post 2011 numbers?

cybercoma · October 4, 2015

That said, why can't they do anything about the deterioration and emasculation of Parliament and the ridiculous amount of power that's been concentrated into the PMO? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the Queen is impotent when it comes to where the rubber in our governance actually hits the road.

Because they don't involve themselves in partisan politics. ToadBrother is right. Parliament is designed in such a way that the cabinet needs the support of the backbench. If they chose to go against the cabinet, we would have a more accountable PMO. Instead, we elect lap dogs and indeed many people expect lap dogs. So you get what we have now. It's not up to the Queen to fix how MPs do their jobs. It's up to the electorate to choose better MPs or become better MPs themselves.

ToadBrother · October 4, 2015

Fair point, but if I were running the NDP campaign, and I know that I'm screwed, i'd start to really cut back my spend so that I could fund another election.

A party that just a couple of weeks was tasting victory is not going to give up now, even if it makes some sort of rational sense. In fact, I suspect they will spend even more money.

Also, I thought that the parties were forced to report their coffer #'s? Perhaps not during an election, but do we have post 2011 numbers?

They are forced to report, but the last numbers I can find are for June 2015 (Q2), and those appear to have been released at the end of July.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/07/30/ndp-fundraising-up-conservatives-still-ahead/

http://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/PP/SelectParties?act=C23&period=1&returntype=1

So my thinking is that we won't know about Q3 (July-September) until the end of October, and we won't know about Q4 until January. But considering the Tories had a far larger warchest going in, and still were leading at the end of June, I have to imagine their financial position is by far the best.

angrypenguin · October 4, 2015

A party that just a couple of weeks was tasting victory is not going to give up now, even if it makes some sort of rational sense. In fact, I suspect they will spend even more money.

They are forced to report, but the last numbers I can find are for June 2015 (Q2), and those appear to have been released at the end of July.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/07/30/ndp-fundraising-up-conservatives-still-ahead/

http://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/PP/SelectParties?act=C23&period=1&returntype=1

So my thinking is that we won't know about Q3 (July-September) until the end of October, and we won't know about Q4 until January. But considering the Tories had a far larger warchest going in, and still were leading at the end of June, I have to imagine their financial position is by far the best.

Thanks for this. I'm not donating to the Tories anymore, they clearly don't need my money!