Federal Election Polls

[Dave_ON]

I see perhaps more clearly than YOU do, Dave! First off, who said anything about not abiding by the constitution? If a coalition of the losers is formed, I will not disagree with you that it would be constitutional. So what? Many voters may STILL not like it!

You and I have no skin in the game. We can sit back, pop open a beer and watch the entertainment!

No my main contention is the constitution is not an "at a whim rule book" as you seem to imply. The constitution is the foundation of our democracy and should be regarded with a modicum of respect. Something that Mr. Harper appears to ignore whenever it is convenient.

People may vote any which way they choose, but I honestly don't think it will be nearly as big a deal here as most of the CPC supporters are making it. I don't like Mr. Harper, that's not a secret, my reasons are manifold, not the least of which is his flagrant disregard for our entire system of government. Be that as it may, it appears his lack of cooperation and unwillingness to work within the confines of a minority parliament will cost him seats.

My issue is misleading statements like "coalition of the losers" this is utterly inaccurate. Any MP that holds a seat is a winner in their riding. Even if you didn't vote for them, guess what, they're still your MP. Now our vote begins and ends with our MP, we entrust them from election day on to handle the day to day business of Parliament. That includes who forms the government, we have utterly no say in the matter, beyond election day. If we don't like it we don't vote THAT MP back in. Now it has been customary to vote for a party in Canada, however that doesn't change the constitutional reality that we are in fact voting for an MP candidate and nothing more. That MP may be a CPC today, get elected and cross the floor to the NDP tomorrow. He's still our MP regardless of what party he is a member of. That is precisely why when floor crossing occurs we do not hold a bi-election, the seat is not vacant, the MP remains, only his allegiance has changed, we don't vote a party in we vote an MP in.

This I suppose is the fundamental rift that you and I are experiencing, and perhaps we're getting lost in terminology. Suffice it to say I do not vote for a candidate because of his party, I vote for the person themselves. Joe Fontana, now mayor of London, was the LPC MP for years, and I voted against him every single election. Then Glen Pearson comes along who has been a real part of my community and has done an amazing job thus far, he happens to be affiliated to the LPC. I would vote for him even if he was a member of the CPC, or the Green party because candidates he is currently running against are either unknown in my riding or party hacks.

In short vote for who you wish and how you wish. But don't get upset if something happens you don't like, because you vote based on a party. This is not the way our system works nor will it ever work that way unless we re-write the constitution.

[August1991]

And now let's get ready for the ripple effect across the rest of the country.

Andre Pratte asks a similar question in today's editorial:

Deux: ailleurs au pays, les électeurs anti-Harper vont se demander sil ne vaut pas mieux, pour bloquer les conservateurs, voter NPD plutôt que libéral, compte tenu de la déconfiture du PLC au Québec (11% selon CROP…) Un tel scénario ferait très mal aux libéraux et à Michael Ignatieff.

La Presse

As to why Quebecers (mostly ex-Bloc) are switching to the NDP, I suggest that you flip through the comments to Pratte's editorial.

No one really knows who Jack Layton is (except that he's jovial), they don't know who their NDP candidate is and they don't even know the NDP's programme. They are certainly fed up of the Bloc and Duceppe, though. (IOW, people are tired of the same old federalist/sovereigntist divide and the NDP is a way out.)

----

Another poll now confirms the NDP position in Quebec:

Jack Laytons New Democratic Party has surged past the Gilles Duceppes faltering Bloc Québécois and is now in first place in Quebec, according to a poll conducted by Ekos Research and iPolitics.

The poll, conducted earlier this week, found the New Democrats have jumped 10 percentage points since the eve of the leaders debate to 31.1 per cent while the Bloc has dropped like a rock by 7.4 percentage points to 23.7 per cent.

The Liberals are steady at 20.6 per cent while the Conservatives have dropped slightly to 16.9 per cent.

While the margin of error is higher at the city level due to the smaller sample size, in Montreal the NDP is at 32.9 per cent while the Bloc is at 29.7 per cent.

ipolitics Edited April 21, 2011 by August1991

[nittanylionstorm07]

That forum poll is crazy! I think it is now safe to say that the Libs are going to be dumped to third place.

[Harry]

I love crazy!

[nittanylionstorm07]

I love crazy!

If I was Canadian, I'd be super proud right now to be a member of the NDP.

[Evening Star]

Which term and which other democracies? There is no rational yes/no answer. The question is better phrased as "Has Canada been ...etc.".

I kind of agree. I was just asking because I thought you were describing the LPC as being an essentially right-wing party.

Spectrum-wise, we all know that the LPC tends to the social left and the economic right in Canada.

They did in the 90s... but there was a strong neoliberal trend in the Western world. So I don't know if the LPC was necessarily right-wing compared to New Labour or even Australian/NZ Labour parties (and certainly compared to the Democrats) or even compared to some NDP governments, such as Romanow's. In the WW2/postwar era, the Liberals created many Crown corporations and expanded social programmes. In the 60s, they implemented universal health care, pensions, and student loans. In the 70s, they created a nationalized oil corporation...

[Molly]

It's over 40 years ago that my politically interested fellows figured out that all of the parties would be trying to solve the same problems, using the same resources, under the same conditions.

The steps any might follow in order to reach a conclusion varied mightily, but in the end the conclusions they drew were remarkably similar. (There might be lots of ways to skin a cat, but in the end, a skinned cat remains the goal.)

[Dave_ON]

So what you're saying is that:

1. When JFK met with Diefenbaker he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Saskatchewan?
   
2. When Pearson met with LBJ he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Ontario?
   
3. When Trudeau met with Nixon and Reagan (not sure if he met with Carter) he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Montreal?
   
4. When Mulroney met with Reagan he was meeting with him in his capacity as an MP from a riding in Beau Comeau (sp)?
   
5. When Clinton golfed with Chretien it was a private affair?
   

Your point is facially appealing but in practice ridiculous.

These are rather immaterial examples, the PM is still an MP, the first among equals and he still answers to Parliament and is appointed, and serves at parliaments pleasure. He represents parliament as a whole and speaks on their behalf, he still only has one vote like the rest of the MP's, he has no veto power nor executive power. Are you truly suggesting that the PMO is equivelent to the office of the President in the US?

He may meet with foreign leaders, but he's still not the head of state regardless of how many examples you offer. In fact the PM doesn't even have to be an MP at all, you or I could just as easily be invited to be PM. Convention and tradition extends this offer to the party leader with the most seats first, but this is by no means a legal obligation that the GG must abide by.

No, you don't understand clearly the tradition that the party with the most ridings is asked to form a government.

I understand full well this is a "tradition" not a law, requirement or even the least bit obligatory. The only thing that this tradition does is give the leader with the most seats first kick at the can, if he can't hack it, ie. obtain and maintain the confidence of the house that he serves, he loses that position. The GG will then either have another election or ask the next party in line with the second highest number of seats to try and form the government. The only reason the tradition came about is, the party with the most seats offers the most stable government as presumably the party would never vote no confidence against one of it's own members.

Minority governments do not have the luxuries that a firm majority government enjoys. As such they must tread lightly or risk losing the confidence of the house. This is what you apparently fail to understand, being PM is not a right, it is a privilege. It's is not the LEGAL or constitutional RIGHT of the party with the most seats to form the government, it's a pragmatic convention that was created and works well most of the time. We cannot pretend that it will work in all situations, minority governments are a prime example of when this convention does not work as designed. This is why over the years the Westminster parliamentary system has allowed remedies for such situations.

[Evening Star]

Well put.

It's over 40 years ago that my politically interested fellows figured out that all of the parties would be trying to solve the same problems, using the same resources, under the same conditions.

The steps any might follow in order to reach a conclusion varied mightily, but in the end the conclusions they drew were remarkably similar. (There might be lots of ways to skin a cat, but in the end, a skinned cat remains the goal.)

[Harry]

Let's see what EKOS says.

C - 34.7%

N - 24.7%

L - 24.7%

G - 7.8%

B - 6.5%

NDP BREAKOUT CONTINUES AS EVERYONE ELSE SPINS WHEELS

JUST WHAT COLOUR(S) OF MINORITY GOVERNMENT ARE WE HEADING FOR?

As Election 41 grinds it way to an uncertain conclusion, we are seeing some truly surprising developments in the past week or so. Building on a solid if unspectacular rise from the outset of the campaign, Jack Layton’s NDP party is scaling heights not seen since the NDP’s salad days under Ed Broadbent. Moreover, the NDP may be closer to the political elixir of real federal power than they have been since their inception on the federal scene some half century ago. This new dynamic will undoubtedly tax the imagination of pundits and the algorithms of seat forecast models as they try to plot what implications this might have for the next parliament, if these trends were to stabilise, let alone continue to burgeon.

First the basic numbers. The Conservatives continue to hold on to a significant lead at 34.4 points, short of the last election and down from our last poll where they were 37.4. It is highly likely that this shift is a real decline but the fact is that for both the frontrunners, this campaign has been an inconclusive ebb and flow. What is clear is that this level of Conservative support would not secure a majority and would steer the results perilously close to a parliament where not only the opposition would control more seats than the ruling party, but the NDP and the Liberals would control more seats than the Conservatives.

With the spectre of necessary collusion with the Bloc off the table, it is difficult to imagine that some sort of NDP-Liberal coalition wouldn’t

transpire. If Mr. Harper has been insistent that anything short of a majority would trigger a coalition, it’s difficult to express surprise that an alliance without the “dreaded” Bloc wouldn’t trigger the scenario he has been cautioning against. It is also difficult to imagine what defence he can jerry rig to argue against the legitimacy of a pact would see him with around one third of the popular vote and significantly fewer seats than what he had when he began to appeal for a majority or his parties defeat.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_april_21_2011.pdf

Edited April 21, 2011 by Harry

[cybercoma]

Biggest baffoon in the mainstream press, Harper's lapdog L Ian MacDonald. Constant pathetic nonsensical dribble.

How out of touch can one be?

this

Which tells you everything you need to know about which party the Quebec Liberals are supporting in eastern Quebec.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/decision-canada/Jack+mania+unlikely+lead+seats/4644281/story.html#ixzz1KBPEQUPk

No my dear friend, this tells voters everything they need to know about the relationship between the Liberals and Conservatives. Voters that don't like the Conservative candidates have only 2 other choices, the Bloc and the NDP.

[Evening Star]

Unless you enjoy Harper or Ignatieff (take your pick) being able to blame non-feasance on the failure of another party to agree with him on issues. That's the greatest free pass in the world.

What sort of nonfeasance are you thinking of?

[cybercoma]

I think that arrangement is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

Stability is only as important as the means to achieve it. If your country is stable because you have a single person calling all of the shots in government with no one to oppose him/her (the caucus is whipped into voting how the party tells them to vote. the leader of the party for all intents and purposes decides this for the party. a single person, therefore, control all policy decisions. positions in the upper house are appointed by this person as well.), well that measure of stability is nothing more than tyranny. I would prefer the marginal decrease in stability to have a more co-operative harmonious arrangement in government and a measure of accountability to the rest of the house.

[Keepitsimple]

Although I have not heard it in the media, it's refreshing to see how soft the Bloc vote is. The NDP surge show that there are a great number of supposed sovereignists who have been waiting for a chance to vote for a Federal Party. This is good news for Canada.

The Liberal collapse in Quebec goes beyond the sponsorship scandal. For years, Gilles Duceppe has rightly portrayed the Liberals as an overbearing, centralized government that does not respect Quebec's provincial areas of juristiction - calling it a patronizing "Father Knows Best" attitude. It has worked well. Harper made tremendous inroads for federalism when he recognized "Quebec as a nation within a United Canada". It didn't necessarily translate into a bonanza of seats but it planted a seed in the minds of soft sovereignists - that maybe there was hope that Canadians were starting - or at least trying - to understand Quebec. Quebec is indeed distinct - they are the most socialized of all the provincees, having made decisions on daycare and their delivery of health services, among others, that differ from other provinces. The NDP is Canada's most socialized Federal Party and as such, are a good match for Quebec. If anything, this NDP surge should be a message to Canadians that many Bloc voters do not want to separate.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[capricorn]

If anything, this NDP surge should be a message to Canadians that many Bloc voters do not want to separate.

In addition, it could serve as a message to the Parti Quebecois that beating the drums of sovereignty annoys them. A twofer so to speak.

[Harry]

EKOS Regionals

BC

C - 36.5%

N - 26.9%

L - 20.8%

G - 12.5%

AB

C - 53.3%

N - 18.9%

L - 14.2%

G - 12.5%

SK/MA

C - 37.5%

N - 34.7%

L - 17.9%

ON

C - 38.1%

L - 34%

N - 19.5%

QC

N - 31.4%

B - 27.2%

C - 18.4%

L - 15.5%

AT

C - 33.5%

L - 32.8%

N - 26.3%

Edited April 21, 2011 by Harry

[Evening Star]

Quebec is indeed distinct - they are the most socialized of all the provincees, having made decisions on daycare and their delivery of health services, among others, that differ from other provinces.

I'll be the asshole. Why does this mean QC needs to be recognized as a 'nation' or to have some sort of special status? There are other provinces that also have distinct political or economic leanings.

The NDP is Canada's most socialized Federal Party and as such, are a good match for Quebec.

I've felt this way for a long time.

[Dave_ON]

EKOS Regionals

BC

C - 36.5%

N - 26.9%

L - 20.8%

G - 12.5%

AB

C - 53.3%

N - 18.9%

L - 14.2%

G - 12.5%

SK/MA

C - 37.5%

N - 34.7%

L - 17.9%

ON

C - 38.1%

L - 34%

N - 19.5%

QC

N - 31.4%

B - 27.2%

C - 18.4%

L - 15.5%

AT

C - 33.5%

L - 32.8%

N - 26.3%

Wow I can't believe the numbers in AB I don't think I've seen the CPC that close to the wrong side of 50% ever.

I don't see as much momentum for them in Ontario, than again it's still early and who knows what could happen? I'm quite surprised by this turn of events and it will be fascinating to see how it all translates. I'm given to wonder what has sparked this upsurge. I mean no one will deny how well Jack did in both language debates, but I personally have a hard time believing that they had that much impact.

[Harry]

It is very easy to understand what happened. The Cons and the Libs represent big business, the Bloc the Independentistes, and the NDP the working people, and the people are saying we have had enough of the Libs and the Cons ripping the people off on behalf of big business. Quite simple really.

[Dave_ON]

It is very easy to understand what happened. The Cons and the Libs represent big business, the Bloc the Independentistes, and the NDP the working people, and the people are saying we have had enough of the Libs and the Cons ripping the people off on behalf of big business. Quite simple really.

Hmmm you don't feel that that's an oversimplification? LPC and CPC favoring or not favoring big business is debatable. If this were the case why so very late in the election? What other undercurrents are going on that we may not be aware of? Why is it still not really impacting Ontario? How were they able to knock the CPC off their 60+ pedestal in AB? Further what internal polling results did the CPC have that made them so very afraid of an election. How is it the BLOC appear to be so very unprepared and utterly blind sided by the NDP upsurge? Many questions are unanswered I feel, and while the "vive la revolution!" argument is romantic, I'm not so certain it's entirely accurate.

[Evening Star]

I'm guessing that things like the leaked AG report and some of the other scandals might be taking a toll on the CPC. A significant number of people probably do care about contempt for Parliament. Ignatieff is, however, failing to really win people over. Layton is a better speaker and more charismatic leader and is running on a fairly similar platform. Plus, he seems more sincere as he has always been advocating for these policies.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Evening Star

[cybercoma]

He also cornered the Conservatives and Liberals with his "Ottawa is broken; we need to fix it" strategy. The more the Conservatives talk about things like Ignatieff's wife and "he's not here for you" propaganda and the Liberals go on ad nauseum about "Harper's going to destroy healthcare" and other such hyperbole, the better Layton looks. He took the attack out of the other parties. That doesn't stand on its own, though. The majority of Canadians disagree with Elizabeth May being left out of the debates. As soon as the Liberals and Conservatives tried to leave Layton behind with their arrogant, "we're the only two choices" BS, I believe people decided to rally against it. This only served to support Layton's claim that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same problem in a different colour tie. As cliche as it sounds, it really is time for a change and Layton is the only other choice.

[Harry]

Hmmm you don't feel that that's an oversimplification? LPC and CPC favoring or not favoring big business is debatable. If this were the case why so very late in the election? What other undercurrents are going on that we may not be aware of? Why is it still not really impacting Ontario? How were they able to knock the CPC off their 60+ pedestal in AB? Further what internal polling results did the CPC have that made them so very afraid of an election. How is it the BLOC appear to be so very unprepared and utterly blind sided by the NDP upsurge? Many questions are unanswered I feel, and while the "vive la revolution!" argument is romantic, I'm not so certain it's entirely accurate.

There nothing new here except I think Canadians who really don't get much opportunity to bitch and complain about our politicians have their main opportunity right now during the election campaign. Harper who is such a control freak, and who does not allow for any dissent, is now going to be getting it from the voters, 5 years of pent-up frustrations against his dumbass policies - war, jets, tax-cuts games for the rich and powerful, prisons BS, that the vast majority of people in this country don't want.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Harry

[nittanylionstorm07]

I'd like to see another Angus Reid poll since they were most accurate last time. Seems like NDP is on the move quite fast right now.

[punked]

I'd like to see another Angus Reid poll since they were most accurate last time. Seems like NDP is on the move quite fast right now.

The NDP are a break through party it always has been, now it is the job of the other parties to figure out how to stop them or they will shoot threw the roof.