Canadian Political Polls

jdobbin · September 18, 2006

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/18092006/6/n-to...ority-poll.html

Conservatives up as Parliament starts. Concerns about Afghanistan high.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jdobbin

August1991 · September 18, 2006

Despite Harper's failure to consolidate popularity in central Canada and growing concerns about the war in Afghanistan, especially among Quebecers, the Conservatives have the backing of 38.7 per cent of decided voters nationally.
The Liberals, in the midst of a leadership race, trail with 28.8 per cent, followed by the New Democrats with 17 per cent, according to the survey by EKOS Research Associates Inc. for the Toronto Star and La Presse.

....

And in Quebec, Conservative support is stuck at 25.9 per cent, compared to 34.9 per cent for the Bloc. And, among Quebecers, Liberals are showing a bit of improvement and now stand at 19.7 per cent, EKOS says.

Toronto Star

IOW, the Tories are exactly where they were on election day, both in Quebec and across Canada.

This is good news for Harper. In particular, the Quebec support is likely concentrated meaning that it will generate seats.

Afghanistan and Lebanon are not decisive issues. If Harper puts forward intelligent environmental and gun legislation - along with a good budget - then the Tories will be hard to beat.

jdobbin · September 18, 2006

Afghanistan and Lebanon are not decisive issues. If Harper puts forward intelligent environmental and gun legislation - along with a good budget - then the Tories will be hard to beat.

Lebanon might not be an issue but the pollster commented that that support for Afghanistan certainly is going to be a factor. The Van Doos start sending small numbers of troops soon. Could be a big deal.

Remiel · September 18, 2006

Historically, how do leadership races affect the support for a party? Does there tend to be a surge after a major party elects a new leader, or a dip, or does it generally stay the same?

Shakeyhands · September 18, 2006

Once the selection process is done, and people get on board with whoever is chosen (read: Rae at this point) You'll see a bump for the Liberals and a resurgence in general, really depends on how the next few months go in Afghanistan as well.

watching&waiting · September 18, 2006

In the past leaderships there has been a selection of high profile candidates to choose from and the winner then would unite the party and get a boost. But from the selection of candidates for the liberal at this point I can not say that anyone of them is going to be a rainmaker and it will be hard to unite the party for anyone of the leaders. Picking a leader so far would easily be compared to "would you rather be shot in the hand or the foot typwe thing"

jdobbin · September 19, 2006

In the past leaderships there has been a selection of high profile candidates to choose from and the winner then would unite the party and get a boost. But from the selection of candidates for the liberal at this point I can not say that anyone of them is going to be a rainmaker and it will be hard to unite the party for anyone of the leaders. Picking a leader so far would easily be compared to "would you rather be shot in the hand or the foot typwe thing"

This is the argument that people made during the yawner that was the Conservative leadership campaign.

Ricki Bobbi · September 19, 2006

This is the argument that people made during the yawner that was the Conservative leadership campaign.

Goes to show how far the Libeals have fallen. The Conservatives were in *terrible* shape at the time of the leadership campaign.

The Liberals aren't looking that good right now. Incoherent messaging on Afghanistan.

A Conservative Primie Minister mired in an unpopular war with the Official Opposition in the midst of a leadership race shouldn't be so close to a majority.

There's got to be something about the Liberals the public isn't ready to embrace them yet.

jbg · September 29, 2006

This is good news for Harper. In particular, the Quebec support is likely concentrated meaning that it will generate seats.

Would you expect Harper's position to expand from the balloon shaped area of 10 ridings from Quebec City east, or would you expect him to pick up some Jewish ridings in Montreal, or both?

Afghanistan and Lebanon are not decisive issues. If Harper puts forward intelligent environmental and gun legislation - along with a good budget - then the Tories will be hard to beat.

I agree that those foreign issues are not likely to be decisive. The casualty level among Canadians is simply not attention-drawing. Of course, the Liberals would like it to be, and that's why they want the flag half-masted for every casualty. Imagine doing that during the World Wars?

geoffrey · September 29, 2006

This is good news for Harper. In particular, the Quebec support is likely concentrated meaning that it will generate seats.

Would you expect Harper's position to expand from the balloon shaped area of 10 ridings from Quebec City east, or would you expect him to pick up some Jewish ridings in Montreal, or both?

Maybe one riding in Montreal, Mount Royal is pretty Jewish no? Maybe one or two rural ridings where Quebec is still somewhat conservative but aren't as hard nationalist. The rest, Quebec City area.

Afghanistan and Lebanon are not decisive issues. If Harper puts forward intelligent environmental and gun legislation - along with a good budget - then the Tories will be hard to beat.

I agree that those foreign issues are not likely to be decisive. The casualty level among Canadians is simply not attention-drawing. Of course, the Liberals would like it to be, and that's why they want the flag half-masted for every casualty. Imagine doing that during the World Wars?

More gun controls is a big risk. It gains vote in Quebec, but hurts him out West. Mulroney tried the do everything for Quebec, it earned him 2 terms, and the party folded thereafter when all his real base drifted away. Alberta funds the CPC, and is the source of 20% of their seats despite being 10% of the population. It's a big deal to lose that support, and a bigger deal to see a resurgance of the Reform concept in any variety. Harper needs to be very careful not to pull a Mulroney... his advantage is he's from Calgary. Though I really have to say, it doesn't show in his governing style or policies.

Harper can't afford to lose a seat in Alberta. All 28 Alberta seats (should be more at next redistribution with this 10% population growth) give them the ability to say the Liberals really are no longer a national party (which is completely true). :lol:

jdobbin · September 29, 2006

Harper can't afford to lose a seat in Alberta. All 28 Alberta seats (should be more at next redistribution with this 10% population growth) give them the ability to say the Liberals really are no longer a national party (which is completely true).

Redistribution gives more seats to Ontario too.

Liberals weren't a coast to coast party back when Trudeau was around.

jbg · September 30, 2006

Harper needs to be very careful not to pull a Mulroney... his advantage is he's from Calgary. Though I really have to say, it doesn't show in his governing style or policies.

No NEP. That's a big one.

Harper can't afford to lose a seat in Alberta. All 28 Alberta seats (should be more at next redistribution with this 10% population growth) give them the ability to say the Liberals really are no longer a national party (which is completely true).

Well, given the landslide Anne won by, anything could happen.

uOttawaMan · September 30, 2006

What do you know.. about the same levels of support across the board as always..

Con and Libs may have switched.. but hey..it's still a crapshoot.

Ricki Bobbi · September 30, 2006

What do you know.. about the same levels of support across the board as always..
Con and Libs may have switched.. but hey..it's still a crapshoot.

Same levels of support?

The Conservatives are in slim majority territory now. Except for that brief blip right after the election they haven't been there for 13 years or so.

gc1765 · September 30, 2006

Harper can't afford to lose a seat in Alberta. All 28 Alberta seats (should be more at next redistribution with this 10% population growth) give them the ability to say the Liberals really are no longer a national party (which is completely true).

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

Ricki Bobbi · September 30, 2006

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

Because ... :huh:

gc1765 · September 30, 2006

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

Because ...

because they didn't get a seat in quebec.

If no seat in alberta = not a national party, then no seat in quebec = not a national party.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

because they didn't get a seat in quebec.
If no seat in alberta = not a national party, then no seat in quebec = not a national party.

Kind of a silly argument to make, isn't it? Given how the population is concentrated in a few provinces, it is possible to win enough seats to beccome government and be totally shut out of some provinces.

geoffrey · September 30, 2006

Redistribution gives more seats to Ontario too.
Liberals weren't a coast to coast party back when Trudeau was around.

And hence why we have Alberta discontent with the Federal arrangement. And rightfully so.

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

Correct.

If no seat in alberta = not a national party, then no seat in quebec = not a national party.

Absolutely true.

Kind of a silly argument to make, isn't it? Given how the population is concentrated in a few provinces, it is possible to win enough seats to beccome government and be totally shut out of some provinces.

Not at all silly. If you can't connect with one side of Canada, your not a national party. When Alberta voted 28/28 CPC seats, that was sending a message. The Liberals values don't apply here, therefore, they aren't a national party. The CPC does apply at least in regions of every province in Canada minus PEI (though the Maritimes should really be one whole area, PEI has less people than my quadrant of Calgary). Until you have a Liberal elected in Alberta (10+% of the population and getting close to Ontario in financial contributions despite being 25% the size), they can't say they are a Canadian party, they are an Ontario/Quebec party.

You can win a majority solely from Quebec and the Western provinces, do you think Ontario residents would be happy if they were governed by pot smoking BC'ers, Albertans and Frenchmen? Likely not. Why do you in Ontario expect that we'd be happy be governed by Ontarians without representation? Doesn't work.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 30, 2006

I must disagree. I believe the only reason Alberta elected a solid wall of Conservatives was because of Harper, who was one of the authors of the "Alberta Firewall" letter. Albertans want change in federal politics and that meant deposing the Liberal government, so enmass we did that. Having done that we fully expect to see some changes, if they are not forthcoming I would expect my fellow citizens to vote against Harper and the Conservatives next time around.

To a certain extent Albertans are conservative by nature, however our desire to seek meaningful change in politics outweighs partisan affiliation. Any political faction that supports Senate Reform will get Alberta attention. A political faction that opposes the financial rape of Albertans by means of the equalization formula would get more attention yet. Finally, a political faction that supports tax reforms will find a huge following in Alberta. To some degree, these are policies of the Conservative Party, which therefore earns the support of Albertans, at least as long as they keep their word.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

Not at all silly. If you can't connect with one side of Canada, your not a national party. When Alberta voted 28/28 CPC seats, that was sending a message. The Liberals values don't apply here, therefore, they aren't a national party. The CPC does apply at least in regions of every province in Canada minus PEI (though the Maritimes should really be one whole area, PEI has less people than my quadrant of Calgary). Until you have a Liberal elected in Alberta (10+% of the population and getting close to Ontario in financial contributions despite being 25% the size), they can't say they are a Canadian party, they are an Ontario/Quebec party.
You can win a majority solely from Quebec and the Western provinces, do you think Ontario residents would be happy if they were governed by pot smoking BC'ers, Albertans and Frenchmen? Likely not. Why do you in Ontario expect that we'd be happy be governed by Ontarians without representation? Doesn't work.

That's the system we have. If the Conservatives think it is unfair, they can reform the electoral system.

Saying that a party isn't a national party is more a reflection of how the system is set up. The Green Party is a national party and if they had gotten a proportion of the the vote, they might have had a few seats in provinces they scored well in like B.C. and Alberta.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 30, 2006

Proportional representation is not an answer to the problem. Electoral reforms can only scratch the surface of the political reality. The system of a federal parlimentary form of government is flawed. The system is antiquated and incapable of reforms.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

Proportional representation is not an answer to the problem. Electoral reforms can only scratch the surface of the political reality. The system of a federal parlimentary form of government is flawed. The system is antiquated and incapable of reforms.

Didn't day that proportional representation was the answer. Just debunked the idea that you can't be a national party with no seats in Quebec or Alberta or wherever.

There will never be a perfect system of government. Ever.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 30, 2006

I agree there will never be a perfect system. Having said that, the current system is far from perfect already and too few people choose to view it in that fashion and act against it.

jbg · September 30, 2006

Harper can't afford to lose a seat in Alberta. All 28 Alberta seats (should be more at next redistribution with this 10% population growth) give them the ability to say the Liberals really are no longer a national party (which is completely true).

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

Not bad for an entity that wasn't a party until December 2003.