Friday, January 29, 2010

CROP Quebec Provincial Poll

Earlier this week, I wrote about the federal results of the recent CROP poll. Now it's time to review the provincial results.This is a similar result to the recent Léger poll, with differences within the margin of error. The province is divided between the two major parties.

This poll confirms what Léger first discovered: the ADQ has dropped to fourth or even fifth place among the parties in Quebec. Here, the ADQ is down to 6% while Québec Solidaire and the Greens are up to 8%. That is pretty dramatic.

There are few other details available. The PQ is ahead among francophones, 45% to 33%, and important lead. And the ADQ is at 17% in the Quebec City region, which is low for them.

I project the following seat totals from this poll:

Liberals - 62
Parti Québécois - 61
Québec Solidaire - 2

Divided straight down the middle. The PQ and QS could govern together with the slimmest of coalition majorities.


  1. The Québec Solidaire really hold the power under this seat prediction. Whoever they choose to support is in power and the other parties would need to keep them happy.

  2. I would have thought that with a two point gap and so many wasted Liberal votes among non-francophones that a popular vote result like that would mean a PQ clear majority.

  3. The disappearance of the ADQ kind of throws a wrench in the projection model, as it was developed under a three-party system. I'll have to review it, probably.

    As for Québec Solidaire, they are a left-wing, sovereigntist party. I have trouble seeing them supporting the Liberals.

  4. I don't think there is a party I have more animosity towards than Quebec Solidaire. So them having the balance of power is just... bah.

    However, it would also be almost impossible to get anything done. Think about it; if a speaker is chosen from the "coalition" side, then it drops the numbers down, 62 to 62. Absolute opposition. What could possibly get passed? The speaker has to abide by the status-quo rules of voting, too. Doesn't mean they will, but it will still screw things up.

  5. Hey Volkov one imagines that Charest and a number of Liberals would retire in such a scenario.

    That would at least temporarily give the PQ time to govern.

  6. let harper campaign for the action democratique and they will probably be polling 0 percent.

  7. That's a bizzare assertion Anon.

    Tory support in the Quebec city region is higher than ADQ support at the moment. It could likely give them a boost.

  8. dear shadow do you think the tories will hold all their seats in quebec. do you think lawrence cannon can hold his. do you think tom mulcair is toast interested to know your thoughts thanks

  9. Anon,

    I might not be Shadow (actually, I'm probably the anti-Shadow, get it?), but I can answer. :D

    With current polling as-is, the Tories will not hold all of their seats. They will hold some, like Beauce, Jonquiere-Alma, and two of the three Quebec City seats, probably Louis-Saint-Laurent and Charlesbourg. Sylvie Boucher is probably toast next election.

    Cannon *might* hold his seat, but only because of a split in the vote between, amazingly, the Bloc and the Liberals. The federalist vote in the riding is far from efficient towards one party, though it is definitely very prevalent. The Liberal candidate, Cindy Duncan-Macmillian, is popular as well. It could really go either way.

    And Tom Mulcair, the Laval Liberal turned Outremont Dipper. I don't know what will happen to him, but I hope he's gone. Despite the mess with Coderre, Cauchon is still popular in the riding as far as I can tell, and Muclair, while popular, isn't safe; his vote isn't efficient unless there is a reason to keep him, like being anti-Dion. I mean, to go from a clear victory in the by-election, to one that can be considered marginal, isn't a very good sign. I think he'll be gone, but I also hope it, so I might be biased.

  10. I'm guessing the NDP will have two Quebec seats, Mulcair and that fmr Liberal woman (forget her name).

    I have no idea what will happen to the Tories in Quebec at the end of the next election.

    Nobody does. Look at their surprise by-election win.

    I should note that Michael Ignatieff just ruled out an election in an interview today.

    So the numbers we see now are not going to be the numbers going into the next election.

  11. Oh, and Shadow;

    I don't know if Charest would resign. Dropping from 67 to 62 is probably a better result than losing outright to the Opposition, especially if the ADQ vote disappears outright. You'd have to think that such stability would be in his favour.

  12. volkov or shadow thanks for info i would like to know your thoughts on ontario. do you think the tory vote will go down there. are some 905 seats in danger. how about layton and chow in the 416 would love to see the back of those 2 i heard diand finley was in really big trouble because of caledonia and her husband any thoughts?

  13. Anon;

    I don't know about the 905 vote going down for the Tories. It might weaken, but I'd bet on the safe side and say they'll keep the majority of their seats there, while losing some of the more Liberal-leaning ones, like Oak Ridges-Markham, Mississauga-Erindale, maybe Thornhill (that's one on a knife's edge), Ancaster-Dundas, maybe Burlington and Oakville (I only say that because I'm from Burlington :D), maybe St. Catherines and Welland, and to thrown the net out there a little more, Kitchener and Waterloo, London West, and I heard something about a star candidate in Perth-Wellington to take on Schellenberger, and yes, there is a pretty efficient Liberal vote there.

    For Haldimand-Norfolk, the question is whether or not Bob Speller coming back is a good thing. The vote last time with now-MPP Eric Hoskins was still pretty close for a rural riding like that, and Hoskins' vote plus an independent that ran simply because of Caledonia would have gotten past Finley easily. However, Speller is just as much embroiled in the Caledonia stuff as well, so that will present a mighty problem for the Liberals. I'd say its a tossup.

  14. volkov or shadow is it possible the ndp could win gatineau. i believe her name is francois boivin a former liberal mp. dont quebecers usually vote more strategically and in their own best interests more so than other canadians. what does the ndp have to offer quebec besides a big mouth like tom mulcair theres a loser if i ever saw one thanks

  15. volkov thanks on the ontario info now please tell me that john baird is beatable i just cant stand him what about pierre polieievre uuuuggghhh to him i mean isnt he considered an embarassement to ottawa and if not cant understand that. what about lisa raitt can she overcome the sexy isotope stuff thanks

  16. Anon,

    Gatineau is winnable for the NDP, but only with Boivin, and only if the Bloc vote collapses. If you look at the last election compared to 2006, the Liberal vote only dropped 5%, while the Bloc vote dropped about 10%, and the NDP vote - with Boivin - went up 15-17%. Now with more confidence in the Bloc, I think the NDP will return to third place, and federalists will return to the Liberals. Besides, Boivin might not even be the Gatineau candidate.

    And, well, Baird might be beatable. Its truly the battle of the Ministers; Baird vs. a very high profile former Liberal MP named David Pratt, who came pretty close in 2008, as close to a popular minister as you can get in Ontario. Pratt is the candidate again, and he might pull it off - might. No guarantees, because I've heard Baird is a ruthless campaigner.

    For Poilievre, whom everyone seems to hate (well, every Liberal), I doubt he is in trouble. I don't know about the candidate there, a guy named Ryan Keon, but I doubt he'll put up enough of a fight.

    Now, for Ms. Raitt, she is in BIG trouble. I live right beside her riding, and she has been hounded by her constituents at every meeting. Not known Liberals either - just random people in her riding. No one I know is a fan of her. The Liberal candidate, Deb Gillis, is a parachute and an appointee, which ticked off some people, so she has had a bumpy ride, but she is getting out there, so we'll see if she'll be the best candidate to defeat Raitt.

  17. Yes francois boivin is the women I was refering to. She wins and Mulcair keeps his seat.

    Her opponent is Steve Mackinnon who seems weak to me. Cons will probably get their usual 16%.

    So the question is whether she can 2 or 3 points from the Liberals. I'd say yes, especially because she's established herself as the federalist alternative by getting 2nd place last go around.

    NDP is doing well in Quebec these days and Layton is the favourite federalist leader.

  18. Shadow, Boivin was not the federalist alternative. She stole votes from the Bloc, not the Liberals - big difference. Coming second doesn't mean much either, otherwise we would be seeing continued Conservative second-placers in ridings like Compton-Stanstead, Shefford, the Gaspe, etc.

  19. volkov thanks again thoughts on chow and layton i am not from ontario and i just cant understand what people see in those two isnt it true that they lived in subsidized housing thus taking a home away from the very people they purport to represent? with her salary and his so much for representation for the so called little people what a joke

  20. For the love of god, punctuate!

  21. I forgot about Chow and Layton, my apologies.

    I've heard the rumours of them living in subsidized housing - I don't personally believe them. They might have before they became politicians, but Layton came from a pretty well-off family. His father was a cabinet minister, for goodness sake's. I don't put too much stock in them either way.

    Now, politically speaking, Chow can be in trouble. The candidate from 2008 is returning and is the wife of the MP before Chow, and last time in 2008, with the lowest vote in Toronto for the Liberals in years, she came within 5% of Chow. And just because provincially this riding is NDP, doesn't mean it will help. Its marginal NDP.

    Layton will be safe, though. I know the Liberal candidate a little, Andrew Lang, and he is a great guy, but he can't get to Layton. He is the leader of the NDP, and while they might flatline under his leadership, he isn't going to get boosted from Danforth.

  22. volkov how did prorogation play in ontario. where im from (manitoba) didnt play so well. do you think harper really stepped in it this time and are canadians finally starting to wake up to his lack of character. he also is not an economist never held a job doing that wrote papers or books on the subject never lectured on it does ontario know this?

  23. I can't tell you how it played out everywhere in Ontario. In places like the 905, people weren't impressed. Those in Toronto similarly weren't impressed. Same with Ottawa. Once you get outside of there, though, I couldn't tell you. It might have ticked some people off, but it won't start switching ridings like Renfrew to the Liberals (no, there is better reasons for that switch :D). I think what the prorogation did was tick off most people that either were already unimpressed with Harper, or were indifferent. The supporters that like his administration won't be moved in my opinion.

    But, that is only the first step, right? Getting a motivated opposition is important. Prorogation helped. Now its time for the Liberals to get policy out there that will be better than what the Conservatives will offer, and then you'll see bigger, more meaningful shifts.

  24. volkov do you see a shift away from harper in ontario. i mean didn't the liberals hold all the seats there at 1 time (i know divided right) can't understand when people say liberals have no policy for goodness sakes we had them for 13 years balanced budgets respect in the world etc, i mean did you see harper in davos yesterday? pathetic

  25. Hey anon the term "economist" is pretty broad.

    There is no governing body that determines who can practice in the way that there is for dentists or doctors.

    Having a masters degree in economics, like Harper does, means that he did indeed write papers on economics and may have lectured first years depending on the graduate program.

    His early work as an MP and with the NCC seems to draw heavily on his economics schooling.

    All in all I think it is indeed fair to describe him as an economist.

  26. volkov forgot to ask about another favourite of mine dean del mastro. is it even remotely possible that people could re-elect him?

  27. The Liberals *almost* swept Ontario, but there was one Reformer that stuck out like a sore thumb. After that, we hovered around being two or three seats away from a clean sweep.

    And it is pretty easy to claim we have no policy. We have rhetoric, and a lot of it, based on those 13 years in power. Using our record is important, but given some of what happened during those 13 years - sponsorship scandal, GST issues, social program lags, etc. - we can't rely on it. We need new policy.

    The problem with Dion was that he had too much of the old establishment behind him. The carbon tax and the environmental issues simply weren't enough to distinguish the Dion Liberals from the Martin and Chretien Liberals. And when there were things from older administrations that would have helped Dion, like his Clarity Act credentials, he didn't bother. Floundering Liberals is an apt term to describe us in 2008.

    Which is why Ignatieff and DonOLO are trying to get new things out there. Things that matter for now, and that are more original. I know thats a little odd, considering DonOLO is made up of a bunch of Chretien and Martin Liberals, but they know what needs to be distinguished from what. Their old experience will help with new policy. And Liberals definitely have policy - its just going to be different.

  28. Dean Del Mastro is another Ontario Conservative that can be in trouble under the right circumstances. Peterborough has a pretty good riding association for the Liberals, and they also have a good base. Their candidate from 2008 is returning I believe, and will put up a good fight. But, Del Mastro probably has an edge.

  29. shadow a quote from bill neville (wpg free press) despite his frequent claims to being an economist harper has always lived on the avails of politics and is an archetypal professional politician who has had no significant career outside politics and within which has narrowly focused on idealogy strategy and tactics. ha ha ha

  30. I agree with Bill Neville on that quote: Harper is a politician, not an economist. He hasn't had any significant career outside of politics. He's worked as a strategist and as a spokesperson for most of his life - not an economics major.

    Now, that isn't a fault in some circles, but it is a funny comparison. Ignatieff has had quite a significant career outside of his foray into politics. So did Dion, and Martin. Chretien has always been a politician, but he differs from Harper because Chretien was a street fighter, and Harper is a strategist.

    Most Liberals have world experience - Harper doesn't.

  31. volkov what the liberals need to ask canadians is what ronald reagan asked americans are you any better off now than 4 years ago. I think for the most part the answer is no. Libeals had a pretty good record (with a few exceptions) Trying to be positive and upbeat and present a positive alternative does not work against harper. Expect attack ads any day now.

  32. shadow to finish coming as he does from the 1 party state of alberta he has never shown any sensitivity to nor understanding of a parliamentary system whose functioning depends on recognizing the legiiimacy of opposition,the existence of constitutional conventions and limits, or that there are lines that governments may not cross.

  33. Volkov I disagree. The period between his first and second stint in parliament were spent as a public intellectual.

    Calling him a politician alone does not capture what he did from97-2002.

    He wrote papers and advocated public policy based heavily around his economics training.

    Economist, think tank free marketeer, public intellectual focused on fiscal matters - come up with whatever terminology you like.

    Economist seems as good as any other to describe that five year period. And given his masters degree in the subject a fair one.

  34. The problem with Ronald Reagan's question being lifted here is that Harper hasn't really done much. I mean, for all of our bellicose warnings, Harper has been pretty standard as Prime Minister's go. Hell, he seems more similar to the Liberals than anything, both in economics, in the Senate, and even with corruption, lol.

    Is it an important thing to note? Sure it is, because by doing so you can note how little has been done with Harper and how his promises about transparency and accountability went out the window. But Liberals simply can't say only that, because what difference could we offer if we don't show a fresh face with new policy? How would a Liberal government be different? What would we do to distinguish ourselves from Harper's government? If these are questions we don't ask ourselves and get the answers to, we might as well cede Opposition to the NDP tonight.

    And yes, the attack ads will come. But, I doubt they'll be effective. Harper screwed himself, not the Opposition.

  35. "I should note that Michael Ignatieff just ruled out an election in an interview today."

    No, he didn't. He said he would not "seek" an election. If he decides to vote no confidence in March - all he has to do is say "that was then and this is now". I think he purposely wanted to pour cold water on the idea of an election after the disaster last September where he tipped his hand weeks before Parliament was even sitting and gave the Tories to beat the drums about an "unnecessary election" (what was the 2008 election??). If the Liberals actually were thinking of pulling the plug - it would make sense for them to be coy and not tip their hand at this point. But I think that there have to be contingency plans in the back pocket of the Liberals that if the Tories bring in a budget that is larded with stuff that is unsupportable - they will vote it down.

  36. shadow he demonstrated this ignorance a year ago in precipitating a crisis that almost brought him down, and he is demonstrating it again now over prorogation. he combines the stubborness of the control freak with the ignorance of the know it all. harper in a sense that his sternest critics may never have imagined is a dangerous man.

  37. Shadow, even during '97 to '00 he was still a strategist. That was his significant role in life during that period - being the strategist and the spokesperson for the Reformers. Writing some papers based on Reform policy, and working for the Alliance, and helping push that idea along.. that was what he did. The man is a politician by blood, not an economist.

  38. DL there is nothing stopping Harper from calling a very long election, maybe 60 days.

    In fact the seriousness of these times may demand it.

    That's plenty of time for anti-election sentiment to bubble up.

  39. Volkov politicans consume policy, intellectuals develop it.

    Its always been clear that Harper sees electoral politics as a vehicle to further his ideological agenda.

    That makes him a public intellectual first and a politician/strategist second.

    Since his work as an intellectual falls into the field of economics I still maintain he is an economist.

    Go read his wiki. Its clear he's interested in ideas rather than politics as such.

    He's left too many parties to call him a committed politician/partisan.

    His convictions are what are stable, not his affiliation.

  40. Shadow,

    There is no reason for Harper to call a two-month long election. This isn't like Martin's election call, which went right over Christmas. That, mind you, only lasted 55 days. it was also one of the things that miffed some people. If Harper does it for 60 days, say goodbye.

  41. Yeah, really Shadow? His convictions, eh? Gotta ask him about that huge stimulus package he passed, then, because if that was apart of his "convictions," then he's been lying to us.

  42. Volkov what was the alternative ?

    Liberals/NDP were calling for a much larger stimulus. Getting run out of office on principle is stupid and sets your agenda back.

    Also a 60 day election is not at all unusual. They've only been 36 days recently because of spending restrictions and worries about the parties running out of advertising money.

    Having some time for a discussion without all the ads might be helpful.

  43. shadow you do a pretty good job of defending harper but come on what is his record a 2% gst cut that not 1 major economist said was good policy. we now have a structural deficit which i may add we were in before the recession hit. harper has no respect from other world leaders witness davos yesterday. our standing in the world has gone down with him

  44. "Volkov what was the alternative?
    Liberals/NDP were calling for a much larger stimulus. Getting run out of office on principle is stupid and sets your agenda back."

    Well there was an alternative. Harper could have stood his ground and refused to make any changes to the budget. He could have dared Ignatieff to follow through with his threats and vote him down and if it happened he could have tried to get the GG to dissolve parliament and have an election in February 2009.

    "Also a 60 day election is not at all unusual. They've only been 36 days recently because of spending restrictions and worries about the parties running out of advertising money."

    That has nothing to do with it. Up until the 1980s, the Canada Elections Act mandated that election campaigns had to be at least 60 days long - then in the 80s the act was amended to shorten the campaign to be a minimum 35 days. The consensus was that 60 day campaigns were a holdover from another era when politicians traveled by rail and there was no mass media etc...

    The campaign length was shortened long before the campaign finance reforms. Incumbent governments usually try to make election campaigns be as short as possible because invariably, the longer a campaign goes on, the more the opposition heaps scorn on the government. Outside of a formal election campaign, the government gets about 10 times as much publicity as do any of the opposition parties. During an election campaign, all of a sudden there are strict laws about all parties getting equal time and the governing party's advantage evaporates.

    The LAST thing Harper would want would be 60 days of news coverage of opposition parties raking him over the coals. Also, during a formal campaign, there are strict limits on spending by all parties so all of a sudden the Tories are left with surplus money that they cannot legally spend and the playing field is further levelled.

  45. DL you're in error with this:

    "That has nothing to do with it."

    '80 election was 66 days, '84 was 57 days, '88 was 51, '93 was 47.

    Only until 1997, 2000, 2004 did they drop until 36 days.

    06 was 55 days and 08 was back to 37.

    Seems to me a longer election period should be something we should all support.

    In America their conventions must end by labour day giving a 60 day campaign period.

  46. Campaign finance reform came in in 2003 - campaigns were being shortened ten years before that. I'd be happy to have a longer campaign - the longer the campaign the more Conservative support erodes! In 2008 Harper could have had a longer campaign but he opted for the usual 35 day campaign. Too bad another week and he would have lost another dozen seats.

    In the UK election campaigns are only about three weeks long.

    There is a lot about how Parliament operates that we might want to emulate - like wayyyy more free votes and wayyyy more of MPs breaking ranks with their parties and parliament only ever being prorogued after government and opposition arrive at a CONSENSUS (I wonder whether Harper cold even bear to utter the word CONSENSUS)

  47. "Volkov what was the alternative?"

    Standing your ground, sticking to your convictions, etc. That is kind of the point, aye.

    I also disagree with the feeling of having an elongated election. We aren't the States; we don't have a lot of ground to cover, either population wise or politically. 36 day campaigns are enough for the federal leaders and the candidates themselves to get out their ideas. If you want an extra debate, by all means; if you want more candidate discussions or rallies, go ahead; but don't extend elections to 60 days longs, because it will be political suicide.

  48. Volkov did you follow the '08 American election at all? The amount of policy ground they covered was stunning.

    There is basically zero discussion of the issues in Canada aside from 2 or 3 policy gimmicks.

    Entire topics are ignored.

    We need more debates and the time to digest them properly.

    I'd like a three way Layton, Harper, Ignatieff debate that excludes the Greens and Bloc.

    "Standing your ground, sticking to your convictions"

    Trusting that Jean wouldn't just approve the coalition was a gamble not worth taking.

  49. shadow how can we exclude the bloc from debates. Like it or not they do speak for a large part of the population in Quebec. I think trying to exclude them from debates would cause more trouble than it's worth. I don't agree with the bloc on anything but they are a fact of political life in Canada.

  50. The current all party debate includes the BQ. I'm not saying to stop that or take away from it.

    But then an additional debate between anyone who might one day be PM - Cons, Liberals, NDP - seems fair.

    Asking the BQ or Green leader "what would you do as PM?" seems rather ridiculous.

  51. Shadow, again - there is a big, big difference between here and the United States. Half of the things covered in US debates are things that those leaders cannot even do - its all empty rhetoric.

    I don't mind having extra debates, or more thorough ones, but you have to keep it in the scope of what Canadian politics are - legislature-based. US politics are executive. Big, big difference.

    Having the Bloc and even the Greens in the debate is important because they will/might be apart of the legislature. They will have a lot of say over policy and government as an Opposition, than the opposition in the US does. You can't exclude them on the basis "you'll never be PM," because that isn't how our system works. This Americanization doesn't make sense.

  52. Volkov the executive in Canada has tremendous power such as complete control over foriegn policy and the military (Afghanistan resolution is useless/completely for show), the appointment to various boards/senate/courts, the ability to call referendums and constitutional conventions, and the ability to control the legislative agenda.

    And, of course, the BQ is useless when there is a majority gov't in power. Greens are useless always.

    The added power and responsibility certainly does justify hearing directly from potential PMs in an extra debate.

  53. Shadow and Volkov you 2 really seem to enjoy debating 1 another. I must say i find your debates to be a lot more intelligent and adult than what we do get in a Canadian televised debate. Have either one of you thought of running for office one day. You both defend your parties admirably. Keep up the great work enjoy you both.

  54. volkov do you have any thoughts on how the appointing of 5 new senators is playing. Seems to me to be bad timing on the part of Harper or maybe people don't care.Maybe people will shrug it off and figure it's more of harper's fun and games. The reform of the senate seems to be a red herring.

  55. Hey Anon, last I heard there should be talk of senate reform during the throne speech and a bill will be voted on this year.

    It'll be the 8 year term limits.

    My guess is that it will pass the senate and be blocked in the commons. (Liberals don't support it because it could give a PM 100% of senators after two terms - of course, with elected senators its up to the provinces which party gets the seat.)

    Interesting to see if the BQ or NDP support the term limits.

    Or if some vulnerable Liberals break with their party like on the gun registry.

  56. Shadow: Asking the BQ or Green leader "what would you do as PM?" seems rather ridiculous.

    Absolutely, for now. However, majority governments are likely to be the exception and not the rule for the foreseeable future. Asking the BQ or Green leader, "What would you demand in order to support a minority government?" will interest many voters.

  57. John that can be covered in the all party debates.

    The point is that the PM has an added layer of responsibility and powers completely apart from parliament.

    He can do tremendous things without a vote ever being held.

    So that requires a potential PM only debate.

  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

  59. This comment has been removed by the author.


COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.