Friday, February 19, 2010

Léger Quebec Poll: 3-pt PQ Lead

Léger Marketing released a poll earlier this week on Quebec provincial politics.The Parti Québécois and Liberals remain neck-and-neck, but the PQ retains the edge. The ADQ is actually up a few points, but still at a very low 9%.

Among francophones, the PQ leads the PLQ 48% to 29%. Among non-francophones, the PLQ leads with 68%. The PQ and ADQ are tied at 9%.

In and around Montreal, the PLQ leads with 42% to the PQ's 37%. In and around Quebec City, the PLQ also leads with 38% to the PQ's 27%. The ADQ has a strong showing here, however, with 20%.

In the rest of Quebec, the PQ is well ahead with 46% to the PLQ's 31%.

Jean Charest is the favourite for premier with 28%, though Pauline Marois is not far behind with 24%. Amir Khadir (one of the leaders of Québec Solidaire) and Gérard Deltell (leader of the ADQ) are tied with 7%.

The provincial political landscape is still very tight, and the ADQ is still out of it. I project that with this poll the PQ would form a majority government of 66 seats. The PLQ would win 55 and the ADQ and QS would win two seats each.

Léger also has another poll concerning sovereignty and Lucien Bouchard's recent comments. While it isn't surprising that a majority are more concerned with the economy than sovereignty right now, the support for independence is actually quite high.

Though Léger lists support for independence at 42%, I believe the actual result is 44%. Everywhere in the report they list the OUI respondents as 231 out of 522 total respondents, which corresponds to 44%. I'm not sure why they have it at 42%.

For the federal scene, the only thing we can take from this is that the PQ and the BQ are running equal to one another, which has not always been the case. And compared to Léger's federal poll, we can extrapolate that the Bloc does still have some room for growth.

50 comments:

  1. It will be interesting to see if Lucien Bouchard's comments will have much of an effect on the PQ's support and sovereignty in general.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is just my own opinion.

    The lack of French at the opening ceremonies at the olympics did not do much to help the federalist cause.

    Even Liza Frulla, was on TV yesterday saying that it angered her. She is a federalist

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw some commentary in the blogosphere about Bouchard coming back to head a new right wing party.

    Sounds a little far fetched, especially with the ADQ eating up 9%.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric

    Completely off topic

    WTF with team Canada

    Shootout with the Swiss???

    Russia losing to Slovakia???

    ReplyDelete
  5. No way Bouchard would ever re-enter politics. Remember his resignation speech? I've never heard a politician admit so much frustration. He basically said he could get nothing done, since his own colleagues didn't support him. Politics wrecked his family life, and generally made him unhappy.

    Plus, he's spent the last ten years basically telling Quebecers that they will only be ready for sovereignty when they start working hard enough to have a propserous state. Nobody likes being told they're not working hard enough.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bouchard is 71, so I don't see him launching a new political party.

    As to the hockey, the Swiss are actually decent players, and Jonas Hiller is a good NHL goaltender. As for the Slovaks, their team is made up mostly of NHLers - and good ones too.

    We're getting a lot more parity internationally. The Slovaks are still good, the Swiss are strong, and when the Germans get their NHLers on their roster, they're good too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why would anyone need to start a new right of centre party in Quebec. Isn't that a good description of the Quebec Liberal party under former federal Tory leader Jean Charest??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Charest's liberals... bear about as much resemblance to a right wing government as Harper does to an NDP'er.

    Compare the amount of social spending in Quebec, the number of crowns, the number of just government employees to Alberta... where they are asking for a rightwing alternative to the left of the liberals-liberal government of Ed Stelmach.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Exactly what Barcs said.

    Charest's government is about as right-wing as Mike Harris was a communist agent. His government might be to the right of the PQ and QS, but that's not saying much.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi, Volkov

    Mike Harris was a communist agent?

    Seriously, I find the situation in Alberta, interesting.

    The Wild Rose Alliance being founded because the Alberta progressive conservatives are not right wing enough.

    Shades of a reform party comeback on the federal scene?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Charest actually tried to bring in a lot of rightwing policies in his first term - and that was what caused his popularity to nosedive and caused conflicts with people like Mulcair. After he got relegated to a minority he moved back to the centre and then regained his majority. I guess the lesson was not lost on him that when he tried to govern like a rightwing ideologue he quickly became the most hated man in Quebec.

    Still, while not everyone in the Quebec Liberal Party is rightwing - just about all the pro-business "conseil de patronat" types are Quebec Liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DL,

    Just remember that in 2007, the ADQ, the true right-wing party in Quebec, nearly gained power. There were very, very close. So, to say that right-wing politics is suicide in Quebec is to deny the results of the 39th general election.

    Charest has always waffled between a centre-left and center government. I've yet to see him go completely over to the centre-right side. He isn't Gordon Campbell. He's a Mulroney Tory, for goodness sakes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 49 Steps,

    Its great to be alive when one of the rarest things in the world may occur - a political shift in Alberta.

    However, I think that maybe Stelmach and the Tories have something left in them. They are moderates by Albertan standards, as are most Albertan's, despite some assertions against.

    Smith, a libertarian wannabe, and her merry band of neoconservatives and Christian/Mormon evangelicals from southern Alberta, are empowered mostly by the perceived feeling that the Tories have been in power too long and have failed to keep themselves in line because of it. It happened before with Don Getty, when the Decore Liberals nearly came to power. The Tories listened and they ousted Getty and put in Ralph Klein.

    They haven't ousted Stelmach, but maybe Stelmach has something left yet. I wouldn't put all my chips on the Wildrosers yet.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The 2007 Quebec election was a bit of an anomaly. People were very, very unhappy with Jean Charest but they didn't like André Boisclair.

    At the time, Mario Dumont didn't look so bad. But remember, they still only had about 31% of the vote.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Volkov,

    The Wildrose Alliance, seems to be hiiting a chord right now.

    Your'e right things can change in politics very rapidly.

    You do realize with "Neo Con"

    "Libertarian wannabe", Christian/Mormon Evangelicals, you have probably bought yourself some grief on this board with some folks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 49 Steps,

    Why would I bring grief to myself? That is what the Wildrosers are. If they take it the wrong way, that is their problem - I was only describing their political ideology as I've seen it so far. And they are a bunch of neoconservative, pseudo-libertarian, Christian and Mormon evangelicals. 'Tis just the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Volkov the WRA actually took a serious step towards being a real party as opposed to an ideological movement with the release of an alternative provincial budget.

    Not everything in it was a good idea such as defering capital investments (seriously when is construction going to get any cheaper ? Certainly not when full employment returns.).

    But it was a serious policy document none the less.

    If they can build a party infrastructure, keep true to their direct democracy promises, and bring forth some fresh ideas I see no reason why they can't win a healthy share of seats next election.

    Maybe Stelmach minority with a large WRA and a small handful of Liberals/NDP seats ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Volkov,

    I. agree that's what they are.
    A lot of the conservative party members could be described the same way.

    I hate it when religion and politics mix. In my opinion they should be completed separated at all times.

    That's just my opinion mind you

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shadow,

    I think they're a real party organization, Shadow, I have no doubts, and you're especially right with the "alternative budget" they presented, because even though it wasn't necessarily fantastic, it showed they're willing to do battle with the Tories on a serious front.

    I don't know if there will be a minority. If you follow the historical record, there won't. There has never been a minority government in Alberta. But, it isn't impossible. But I feel that if there is going to be a shift, it won't be a reluctant one of minorities - it will be an all-out movement. I don't know if I see that happening yet in Alberta. The Tories still seem like a safe bet, ya know? And if they're still a safe bet, I doubt Albertans will move enough to the WRA to propel them into government, or end up in a minority legislature.


    49 Steps,

    I agree with you completely, though I'm not adverse to government co-operation with religious authorities. There is always a need for healthy respect among both spheres.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eric, in the '90s, the PQ won two huge (28-30 seat) majorities while essentially tying the Liberals in popular vote. So I'm curious how your prejection translates a 3% PQ lead in the popular vote into only an 11-seat lead over the Liberals. What's the difference between then and now? I guess three seats that would otherwise go to the PQ would go to ADQ/QS, but what about the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it might be fair to classify Charest as 'center right' in the sense that his government was right of center by Quebec standards, or when one considers it is pro-business and once had an anti-tax/regulation agenda, or when once considers that it only temporarily had a genuine opponent to it's right but has at least one to it's left.

    If one-time fed PC member Bouchard had wanted to start a pro-business party, (He isn't of course) wouldn't it have looked a lot like one-time fed PC leader Charest's original agenda?

    I guess I wouldn't conlude that Charest is right wing by the North American standard, but I agree with DL in that Quebec already has a party like Bouchard would want, albeit with different voters.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yup, Bouchard just seems to want to reinvent the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Volkov with such a small sample set I find the whole historical shift thing interesting but not predictive.

    The PCs are taking on water and didn't help themselves with their budget. But I agree with you the WRA just doesn't feel like its there yet.

    Remember the predictions of 10-15 floor crossers ? And yet only 2 materialized.

    Stelmach seems stubborn and wants to hang on to power. Its going to be a dog fight.

    But as I said, I don't see why they can't fight to a draw with the seats split along some kind of geographical fault line.

    Its too soon to tell but i'd say a minority PC, Stelmach steps down, leadership race distracts the party and drains it of money, new leader goes to the polls and is wiped out, and a WRA majority follows.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The Wild Rose Alliance being founded because the Alberta progressive conservatives are not right wing enough.

    Shades of a reform party comeback on the federal scene?"

    In fact it is the Reform Party in disguise with heavy direction/interference from Preston Manning. Saw a piece on TV with Manning and the Wild Rose leader all friendly and plotting together. It's obvious that Harper has shifted way to far left for Manning, if you've read any of his stuff on the G & M you would know. This is all about getting control back.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Peter writes;

    In fact it is the Reform Party in disguise with heavy direction/interference from Preston Manning. Saw a piece on TV with Manning and the Wild Rose leader all friendly and plotting together. It's obvious that Harper has shifted way to far left for Manning, if you've read any of his stuff on the G & M you would know. This is all about getting control back.

    Hi Peter,

    Agreed on that one. Harper is indeed far left of what the right-fringe wants him to be. The problem for Harper and the cons is that Canadians are, in general, well left of what these people want.

    Harper goes back to his 'roots' and he will be out of office. It's only a matter of time that the cons split and start another reform party.

    Don't kid yourselves, a united right cannot last long... just look at what's happening in the US right now. The tea-party is demanding the GOP put far-right candidates up.

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just a video clip for anyone who is interested go to:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUCugE8ZZQ

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry for the second post, couldn't resist.

    Notice when Nancy Greene says "our strong leader"

    Way to go Kim Jong Harper

    Notice how the conservative party logo is front and centre

    I guess it means party before country

    Gotta love these conservatives

    ReplyDelete
  28. A split on the right?

    No. Alberta is different then Canada, when the right splits federally we get over a decade of Liberal rule and fellows like Chretien and Martin.

    Nobody forgets that. And uniting the right is one of Harper's most celebrated achievements in the right wing community.

    Its possible you could see jockeying WITHIN the party. Like Bernier's 0% spending growth speech.

    However, that's healthy and normal. Any big tent party is going to have splits.

    Like Gerard Kennedy wanting to raise taxes and getting push back from some Liberal MPs.

    Or Ignatieff wanting to fund foriegn abortions and getting push back from pro-life Liberal MPs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Somehow, the hockey loss is the Liberals' fault.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The last time Canada won a gold medal in hockey in 2002 wasn't that Chretien fellow our Prime Minister.

    Didn't win in 2006

    Who was Prime Minister?

    Not going to win in 2010

    Who is Prime Minister?

    Just a coincidence

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hockey is probably the sport with the LEAST connection to politics at the Olympics.

    While other sports are affected by funding decisions around programs like "Own the Podium" the hockey team is NHLers, which is a self sustaining industry.

    Compared to Australia/Britain/US we spend very little on our athletes. It probably makes a big difference in other sports and a lot of people want a big funding increase. A lot of people don't.

    But if we lose the gold in hockey it has nothing to do with politics.

    Its just means we're not the best. Which kind of sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree that whether we win or lose in men's hockey will mean nothing in an election that could be months or even years away. But if we were in the midst of an election campaign it probably could cost the ruling party a few points if Canada lost because it would make people sub-consciously feel bad about Canada.

    In 1970 in the UK when there was a shock upset win by the Tories against the incumbent Labour government - one of the factors was England losing the World Cup to the Netherlands a couple of days before the election.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shadow writes;

    A split on the right?

    No. Alberta is different then Canada, when the right splits federally we get over a decade of Liberal rule and fellows like Chretien and Martin.


    It's happened before. The former incarnation of the conservative party resulted in a split that created both the reform party and the Bloc Quebecois.

    The reform party was created because the cons simply were not right-wing enough for them.

    Considering Harper has ditched most right-wing principles, it's just a question of time.

    I'm not saying in 2010 or possibly 2011 - but don't kid yourself into thinking it won't happen. It has happened before and will happen again. There is a segment of the population in Canada that is power-hungry and want's to impose it's fringe right-wing values on everyone. The conservative party won't be able to keep them quiet forever.

    I am, however, amazed it hasn't already happened though...

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  34. Josh nothing is inevitable in politics.

    The fact that the PC split before probably makes it less likely to see the CPC split.

    Harper and Flanegin have writen about this. A split right can't form gov't in this country.

    Also who are the "fringe" you're talking about ?

    My guess is they're Albertans. The CPC remains popular there.


    The only circumstance i'd see people talking about a split is if someone like Jean Charest became leader after Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Also who are the "fringe" you're talking about ?
    Was he not referring to "fringe right wing values" that some people want to impose on the rest of us? Some examples: Tthe people who complain about the "nanny state", yet would trust the state to execute people and never make mistakes. Usually the same people who complain about the nanny state, yet they want to extend the State's jurisdiction into the wombs of the nation. And often the same people are part of the "anti science" movement, in which science is called religion (such as in the memes against climate change science) while religion is called science (such as demanding creation being taught in school science classes, but insisting that any questioning of said science is infringing religious freedom).

    In other words, it is the social "conservatives". Those who act like victims of oppression due to being in the minority, while wanting to impose their oppressive values on everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Liberal putting your analysis aside i'd refer you to the Christian Heritage Party.

    In 1988 in their first election and under the dreaded PC leadership they got a grand total of .8% of the vote. That's fallen to .2% of the vote in recent years, no doubt moved back to the CPC.

    So if the entire "fringe" left the CPC we'd see a loss of ... wait for it ... .6%!


    No doubt they could pick up support from the pro-life Liberal MPs.

    Or the pro-war crimes Liberal candidate for Dufferin – Caledon.

    Or the pro-torture member for Etobicoke – Lakeshore - Harvard.

    (Glasshouses and all that)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Liberal putting your analysis aside i'd refer you to the Christian Heritage Party.
    I didn't provide an analysis, so no need to put it aside. I was simply answering your question about fringe right wing values, which you stated as "who are the fringe" that josh spoke of".

    Why CHP? They are a fringe party due to their low electoral support. That has little connection to the "fringe right wing values" that are found in many parts of the CPC.

    In 1988 in their first election and under the dreaded PC leadership they got a grand total of .8% of the vote. That's fallen to .2% of the vote in recent years, no doubt moved back to the CPC.
    Their percentage is based on running in around 60 ridings, about 20% of the total today. They also polled at about 1/3 the vote that Reform got in 1988.

    So if the entire "fringe" left the CPC we'd see a loss of ... wait for it ... .6%!
    You have tried to change the original comment by someone else about "fringe right wing values", to talking about fringe parties. I submit that the "fringe right wing values" are not only embodied in CHP, but also in Reform, which today is the senior partner in the CPC. Check the platforms of Reform and CHP, they are both social conservative.

    No doubt they could pick up support from the pro-life Liberal MPs.
    I wouldn't know, and I doubt you know.
    But I do know it is a required dig at Ignatieff for his demand that any initiatives to help women are not subject to gag orders on any agency they would fund. The gag order is the one that refuses funding to any agency that dares to mention the word abortion.

    Or the pro-war crimes Liberal candidate for Dufferin – Caledon.
    I didn't get the memo, so I don't know who you are talking about. Perhaps you could be more clear who you are referring to, or are there libel considerations?

    Or the pro-torture member for Etobicoke – Lakeshore - Harvard.
    There is no MP for Harvard, which is a city in another country. Perhaps you believe we need a viceroy to govern us from abroad? Are you doing yet another passive aggressive attack on Ignatieff? If so, you are demonstrating either ignorance, inability to read an entire article, or you are engaging in partisan smearing in the hope that something will finally stick. Ignatieff wrote an article with a provocative title in which he states that civilized nations must not torture, mainly because it is ineffective, and plus it lowers us to the level of those who would torture. He thinks we should not descend to the torturer's level, just as he does not believe his party to should descend to the level of his opponents in the sneering smirking frat boy kind of smearing that goes on daily.

    (Glasshouses and all that).
    Indeed. So what did Messrs Harper and MacKay know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? Besides shutting down the inquiry asking that question and defying the will of Parliament of course.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ouch.

    I've been taken apart point by point! My analysis lies in ruins.

    Actually my eyes just glazed over and I skipped that entire comment...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ouch.

    I've been taken apart point by point! My analysis lies in ruins
    .
    That reminds me of a joke:
    How many mothers in law does it take to change a light bulb?
    None, I'll sit in the dark already.

    As you can see, some passive aggressive responses are funny. While others are just a way to avoid taking responsibility for your words.

    Actually my eyes just glazed over and I skipped that entire comment...
    Of course you did. Nice to see you know you are beaten a priori, but I'd rather see you put up some sort of a response.

    For future reference, your summary dismissal of someone else's words now has an official shorthand:

    tl;dr

    ReplyDelete
  40. Liberal my point is that you should choose your arguements more carefully.

    When you disagree with EVERY. SINGLE. THING. a person is saying you're going to get blown off.

    Part of a discussion is being willing to have a good faith approach and accept when you're wrong or acknowledge someone else's good points.

    You don't seem interested in a discussion, more like a slash and burn cage match.

    That's not my style so i'll bid you good day sir.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'd like to respond to this "Ignatieff supports torture" talking point forwarded by Shadow.

    Having actually read the article in question, I'm here to tell you that you are profoundly misrepresenting Ignatieffs position.

    I find it extremely intellectually dishonest.

    I can't recall the name of that paper, but I believe it was for an ivy-league school. If you could provide the link, then I will know you have read it.
    (I can tell you haven't)

    I hope you can appriciate that the morality around torture is a complex issue.

    Ignatieffs view is nuanced, but he ultimately concludes that torture is not effective, and degrades our image around the world.

    He concludes that the harm outways the potential benefits.

    For a collection of "Ignatieff the Academics" writngs look here

    ReplyDelete
  42. liberal supporter,

    It doesn't look like you got the memo, but religious litmus tests went the way of the dino, in the conservative movement, with the fall of Stockwell Day.

    Harper was highly critical of that stategy. He knew that a big tent had to be built.

    I reject your assertion that the Reform Party is "the senior partner" in todays CPC.

    I see you enjoy reading the CHP, and Reform platforms. I don't see the point.

    Why not point to where in the CPC platform the religious right has undue influence?

    Can You?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi AJR79.

    I haven't read the paper in question. However, i've read Ignatieff's book "The Lesser Evil".

    The title implies the question "when is torture the lesser of two evils?" and attempt to define a moral framework around the issue.

    Ignatieff does disavow the popular conception of torture (ie. physical violence until somebody tells you what they want you to know.)

    But he leaves the door open to coervice means that a great many people would be uncomfortable with - stress positions, loud noises, sleep deprivation, endless questioning, temperature extremes, mental manipulation like the false flag scenario (ex. CIA pretends to be Syrians to terrify prisoner into thinking they're about to be tortured).


    In asking whether Ignatieff is pro-torture you obviously need to define "torture".

    As a neoconservative i'm perfectly comfortable with Iggy's view on the subject. I'd recomend "The Lesser Evil" to others.

    But the left ?

    Based on their own standards its clear that there is a rift between Ignatieff's views on the subject and the views of the Canadian left.

    So when talking to a lefty I don't think its intellectually dishonest at all to call Ignatieff pro-torture.

    I'm using their language and their standard and holding their leader accountable to that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shadow,

    I don't think that you believe that Ignatieff is pro-torture from the sounds of it.

    So for you to imply that that is the case, because a fringe left person might think so, is not having an honest discussion about what you think of Ignatieffs views.

    It is only trying to sow the seeds of discord, among Liberals.

    It is not having a policy discussion.

    It's setting some strawman leftie arguement up, for Ignatieff to be "pro-torture" against.

    I stand by the intellectually dishonest statement.
    It's not really that harsh anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi AJR79,

    I think you've missed the context of my original statement and the point I was trying to make.

    It was that Liberal Supporter should apply his own standards to the Liberal party because many of the views he doesn't like exist there too and not just in the CPC.

    Hence the reference to glass houses.

    Do I personally think Ignatieff is pro-torture?

    No. I have a different definition of torture. But that's irrelevent to my glass houses point.

    Am I setting up a straw man? Am I avoided an honest policy debate? Am I sowing discord?

    Who knows. Its hard to answer either way because my original statement wasn't a personal judgement on Ignatieff's views.

    Again, I was saying that Liberal Supporter should apply HIS standards to the Liberal party regarding pro-life, pro-war crimes, pro-torture and whatever else he's focused on.

    My own personal standards and judgements were never part of the initial discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I see what you're saying there, but I'm not a big fan of the way you brought that out of almost nowhere.
    (torture wasn't mentioned in what you were responding too)

    It also doesn't really hurt to acknowledge that there is a substantial "fringe element" of religious right in the CPC.

    My sense is that it is quite a bit larger then you let on (they do exist in significant numbers), but a great deal less influential then liberal supporter suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hey AJR79 the war crimes/torture thing has been a pet issue of Liberal's in the past.

    I can see how my remarks weren't clear/could be misunderstood. A lot of satire/sarcasm/irony is in the tone of voice and gets lost on the internet.

    Anyways, the religious right certainly does exist in the CPC.

    But there are also pro-life MPs in the LPC, both past and present. Paul Szabo, John McKay, Paul Zed, Dan McTeague, Paul Steckle, Robert Thibault all jump to mind.

    The ratio isn't even at all, its probably 4 CPC pro-life MPs for every 1 LPC MP.

    But it certainly does muddy the waters and demand a more nuanced understanding then Liberal was putting forward.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Shadow writes;

    Josh nothing is inevitable in politics.

    The fact that the PC split before probably makes it less likely to see the CPC split.

    Harper and Flanegin have writen about this. A split right can't form gov't in this country.

    Also who are the "fringe" you're talking about ?

    My guess is they're Albertans. The CPC remains popular there.


    Inevitable or not, it happened before, and will happen again. If you honestly think the CPC will be the only party that represents the 'right-wing' for the rest of time (or more than 2-5 years from now), keep dreaming.

    As for the fringe right wingers, Liberal Supporter gave a good analysis. These tea-baggers - Ontario Landowners type will not remain silent, oppressed in the 'big-tent' strategy of the CPC for long. Even at the provincial level here in Ontario we can see it coming to a head.

    There is a reason the federal cons are worried about what is happening in Alberta. Analysis from the likes of yourself last year said the idea of another party to the right of the cons was unthinkable. It was 'never going to happen'. If an election were held today, the provincial cons would be swept out of office.

    It's just a matter of time before the right splits. That you can take to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Josh,

    You are forgetting about one important thing that may keep the Conservative united after Harper is gone.

    Most of us still have living memory of what constant Liberal majority rule looks like, and we are united in preventing a repeat.

    If the Liberal strategy involves waiting for the CPC to split, then you may be waiting a long, long time.

    Take that one to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Josh I frankly think its far more likely that there will be a "unite the left" effort long before there is a "split the right" effort.

    ReplyDelete

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.