Monday, February 22, 2010

Projection Update: 129 CPC, 99 LPC, 51 BQ, 29 NDP

A new projection update puts the Conservatives down two seats, the Liberals up two, the Bloc up one, and the NDP down one. It also puts the Liberals in front of the Conservatives in Ontario.The Conservatives drop 0.4 points nationally, and are now at 33.8%. The Liberals gain 0.2 points and are now at 29.3%. The NDP gain 0.1 points, and are now at 16.2%. The Bloc and Greens are steady at 9.4% and 9.9%, respectively.

With one small exception, this was a uniformly bad 10 days for the Conservatives. They lost a seat in Alberta, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, though they did gain one in British Columbia. They lost 0.7 points in Quebec (down to 17.5%), 0.6 in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, 0.4 points in Alberta, 0.3 points in the Prairies and Ontario, and 0.1 points in the North.

The Liberals, on the other hand, had a uniformly good, if modest, period. They gained a seat in Alberta and Atlantic Canada. They're up 0.4 points in Atlantic Canada, 0.3 points in British Columbia, 0.2 points in Alberta and Quebec, and 0.1 points in the Prairies, Ontario, and the North. That small gain in Ontario puts them at 36.2%, a tiny bit ahead of the Conservatives.

The NDP, as usual, are relatively stable. They did lose a seat, however, in British Columbia. They gained 0.1 points in Quebec (11.2%), the North, and BC, were stable in the Prairies and Ontario, lost 0.1 points in Alberta, and 0.2 points in Atlantic Canada.

The Bloc lost 0.1 points in Quebec, but nevertheless gained a seat thanks to the large Tory drop. They now stand at 51 seats and 38%.

The Greens were stable in the West and North, but gained 0.4 points in Quebec, 0.3 points in Atlantic Canada, and 0.1 points in Ontario.

With 129 seats, the Conservatives would need the support of one of the other parties to get legislation passed. A combination of Liberal and NDP seats is still one short of a plurality, but that means if the trend continues the classification will fall to an Unstable Minority.


  1. "The Liberals, on the other hand, had a uniformly good, if modest, period. They gained a seat in Alberta..."

    Not only is that a sign of a "modest" period of growth, it makes me absolutely giddy.

    But, I suspect this will be the last poll with a major swing like this for any party, at least for awhile. But, its a nice ender, ain't it?

  2. Ouch.

    The CPC member for Kootenay – Columbia is retiring at dissolution! Pre '93 the seat was held by a Dipper.

    With the Tory numbers down so far in BC and the NDP doing so well (especially their recent by-election win) this seems like something they could make a run at!

  3. Shadow,

    Good. Jim Abbott isn't one of my favourite MPs.

    And to note, Shadow, provincially his riding is covered mostly with NDP members. It's a very Dipper-leaning seat, if they have enough GOTV capabilities and a good candidate.

  4. Here is my question to all. Do you think that with all the filabustering and supposed anger that we will be at the polls in about 6 weeks?

    I tend to think that we won't. I think that there will be enough members to support the governments throne speech and budget, but as per usual there will be all sorts of big threats but no one will actually pull the trigger.

    What do you think?


  5. @Rocky

    The only way we'll be at the polls in the next few weeks is if Harper wants us to go the polls in the next few weeks. The Liberals aren't looking for a fight at the moment, though they'll do everything to be a thorn in the Conservative's side. I don't know about the NDP or Bloc per se, but my guess is that the Bloc won't care, and the NDP will be the ones left to prop up the government.

    I don't see the Liberals propping them up this time around, unless there are measures in the budget and throne speech which came out of them. If its just another partisan speech, then the Liberals won't bother.

  6. Hey Rocky there's been talk about Day cracking down on public pensions and benefits.

    The NDP would never support such a move.

    I'm guessing that nobody wants an election but because of events outside of each party's control we're going to have one anyways.

  7. Hey Volkov you know as well as I do the provincial comparisons are rather useless.

    Turnout was pretty much the same between the '08 federal and '09 BC provincial at about 58%.

    Federally the NDP got 8,892 votes.

    Provincially the NDP got 34,451 votes.

    Which means that a certain group of people in this area who vote NDP provincially vote CPC federally. Which is not at all unusual in BC outside the island and the lower mainland.

    So any GOTV efforts by the federal NDP based off info from the provincial party will probably just end up turning out CPC voters.

  8. Shadow: I'm guessing that nobody wants an election but because of events outside of each party's control we're going to have one anyways.

    Fortunately, these types of events are always within the control of the parties. There won't be an election this spring. Probably not this fall either, although that's less certain. (To those keeping track, yes, I'm starting to hedge my bets on the fall.)

    Stephen Harper doesn't do strategy (hence his inability to win a majority) but he is a highly pragmatic tactician. He knows that he will be defeated if he brings in highly unpopular legislation, resulting in such a bill not being passed anyway. He will only engineer that situation if he believes he can capitalize on it at the polls.

    So parliamentarians are going to have to work together for a while. Nobody is going to engage in suicidal silliness. Which is a good thing.

  9. Shadow,

    I disagree that the voters are necessarily pro-CPC. I think they're probably more pro-Abbott, for reasons I couldn't begin to understand. If the Conservatives run a dud of a candidate, then the NDP have a good shot at this. And the voters they'll be drawing from I guarantee will be the ones they're drawing from provincially. What else would they have?

  10. "He knows that he will be defeated if he brings in highly unpopular legislation"

    Yes but he could also be defeated if he brings in POPULAR legislation.

    Taking away public subsidies for political parties was actually a POPULAR measure with broad support.

    My guess is moving against the benefits for the public service would also be popular.

    Doing so is popular, it just means the NDP/BQ won't support it.

    Which leaves the Liberals. They desperately don't want to prop up the gov't again. They think its the NDP's turn.

  11. Volkov I wouldn't say they're all nessecarily pro-Abbot voters either.

    Some of them are and the race will be closer then before. A complicating factor might be the LPC and who they put forward.

    Also who's the NDP candidate ? Are they more of a regular guy or is it some fringe activist type ?

    My original post was satire. All in all this race has to be seen as relatively safe.

    I strongly doubt the NDP will put money into it when they have better pick up chances elsewhere.

  12. Taking away public subsidies for political parties was actually a POPULAR measure with broad support.
    I didn't notice that. Do you have a source for that assertion? It got mixed in with the coalition at the time, I don't recall seeing any specific question about party funding based on cash per vote received.

  13. Liberal the source for that assertion is my memory of several polls from the time, all of which went out of there way to ask the question.

    But since you no doubt won't take my word for it I did a quick web search and came up with this article mentioning an Ipsos Reid poll showing per vote subsidies have the support of 36% of the population.

  14. I always get a laugh when anyone predicts/projects the Liberals winning a seat out West before the NDP.

    No riding by Polls are done but magically the 5,000+gap will dissapear, show up in one riding for the LPC at the NDP/CPC/Green expense.

    How long has it been since they have been a credible party West of Ontario?

    Since 2000? 5/88 seat realignment 7/92. (Two of the BC seats were held on by less than 300 votes total?)

  15. LS,
    If you can bother to find the Poll confirming Canadians DON'T want to send money to political parties it MUST not exist!

    Reminds me of the AGW alarmist who called us deniers.

    The Poll exists but I won't do your research for you. Have linked to it several times.

    The funny thing is you actually believe we (voters) want to give politicians more money is hilarious.

  16. The Ipsos poll can be found here.

    The revevant part is as follows:

    "And, just what about that political party taxpayer funded subsidy? A majority (61%) says be done with it…

    In the economic update last week delivered by finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the Conservative government proposed to abolish the system of political financing in which parties receive $1.95 annually for each vote they get in an election. In response to criticism from opposition parties, the government dropped the proposal. Regardless, a majority (61%) does not believe that political parties should receive this taxpayer funded subsidy -- with this most likely to be the perspective in Alberta (75%) followed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba (68%), Ontario (64%), British Columbia (59%), Atlantic Canada (57%) and Quebec (52%).

    This compares with just 36% who believe that this type of taxpayer funded subsidy should continue to exist -- with most support in the province of Québec (48%), followed by Atlantic Canada (39%), British Columbia (39%), Ontario (32%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (26%) and Alberta (22%)."

  17. CanadianSense,

    For someone with such a name, I'm surprised you would say the things you do.

    Eric hasn't predicted a Liberal sweep of Alberta. He's predicted one seat going to the Liberals, probably in Edmonton. Is that honesty so hard to believe? The Liberals aren't complete pariahs in all parts of Western Canada. There are some people out there that will vote Liberal. It might be a shocker, but it happens.

    And no, in 2004 there was a pretty "credible" result for the Liberals out West, while the NDP floundered in the Prairies. Do some research, will you? And, shock of all shockers, the Liberals had seats in Alberta then!

  18. Its a given that the CPC will promise to end the per-vote subsidy during the next election.

    Then they'll re-air the "i'm entitled to my entitlements" advert.

    It'll definetly be a big vote getter.

  19. Thank you for posting the link, Shadow. I hadn't seen it, and a brief search did not find it. I didn't think to search for "money for votes", where your link is the third result. I was trying "political party subsidy support" which didn't only found calls to "cut the subsidy" but no polling data.

    If you can bother to find the Poll confirming Canadians DON'T want to send money to political parties it MUST not exist!
    What a silly proposition. I suspect I have forgotten more things than exist in your mind, based on your words here today.

    Reminds me of the AGW alarmist who called us deniers.
    I'm sure everyone who disagrees with your radical views reminds you of that. Or at least you say so in order to try and change the channel.

    The Poll exists but I won't do your research for you. Have linked to it several times.
    Your assertion does not make it so. It didn't seem to be too much trouble for Shadow to find it. Why is it too difficult for you?

    The funny thing is you actually believe we (voters) want to give politicians more money is hilarious.
    The funny thing is your use of the royal "we", and then ridiculing an idea I did not suggest. However, your mirthfulness does reveal a possible flaw in the poll Shadow linked to. If, based on your words here, you interpreted it as asking "should we give politicians more money", then the result is as expected. I wonder what question was actually asked, and what other questions bracketed it?

    An interesting poll though. Thanks, Shadow.

  20. AJR79, were you posting a different link? It only shows as an underline, no link.

  21. I imagine the prospect of removing the tax deduction on party donations would also receive widespread support.

    It all depends on how you ask the question.

    Do you want your taxes to go to parties? No.

    Do you want to create a level playing field so that richer parties with richer supporters aren't unfairly advantaged? Yes.

    Next, are puppies cute? +/- 3.1%

  22. Shadow,

    I have serious doubts about them airing something like that. The fact is that if they do air "I'm entitled to my entitlements," anyone with half a brain will turn around and ask why the CPC takes in the per vote subsidy just the same as the Liberals, Bloc and NDP do. They'll be seen as hypocrites, simple as that. Besides, the Conservatives have lost all credibility on the subject of accountability and honesty. This isn't 2006, you know.

    It's like the Wildroser promise of recall elections whenever someone crosses the floor. Well, they just gained two floor crossers - where are the recall elections? Where are the voluntary resignations and by-elections? People don't like being told one thing, and then have a party/government do another.

  23. Its a given that the CPC will promise to end the per-vote subsidy during the next election.

    Then they'll re-air the "i'm entitled to my entitlements" advert.
    That will backfire, since it is well known the CPC benefits most from this, and is merely trying to expand its own "entitlement".

    If we all agree with the premise of "one adult citizen - one vote" as the cornerstone of democracy, then "one vote - one toonie" makes the most sense as the cornerstone of financing democracy.

    Or perhaps your would prefer the US system where special interest groups are now allowed to spend their money in campaigns?

    It'll definetly be a big vote getter.
    We agree!

  24. Volkov,

    I accept you are anti-Harper: it's cool.

    My only premise is we don't have an election date so if today we went to the Polls is always fun.

    Reminds me of the FB protest less than 10% bothered to demostrate beyond the mouse click.

    Voting means you have do something real, like show and vote.

    What evidence do we have a specific riding will change hands besides those four elections in November 2009. How did that work out for the loyal opposition?

    Your Edmonton riding would need numbers to support our First Past the Post system will magicially favour a single party at the expense of all others.

    B) Campaigns matter grassroots, boots to bring out the provincial, municipal "allies"

    C) The Financial health of each party to conduct this National General Election.

  25. CanadianSense,

    I don't know if you realized, but isn't about accurately predicting the future. This is a site about polls, and the polls are showing that there is a seat in Alberta in play for the Liberals based solely on the numbers.

    That's it. I never made a claim otherwise. If you have an issue, take it up with Eric - it's his projection.

    If you wanted predictions based on the whims of "pundits" like yourself, go bug the people at Election Prediction Project. That's apparently more your style.

  26. The question is who is least prepared to risk seats gained in 2008?

    Some believe the Liberals can not fall back 3% again as they did in Oct 2008 and for one month in 2009.

    What did they both have in common? Liberals did NOT show up to cast a ballot in the greatest number.

  27. Sorry guys.

    I'm still pretty new to this hyperlink thing.

    Lets try again.

    Ipsos link here

  28. CanadianSense,

    You're right, Liberals didn't show up in 2008, nor in 2009. However, you're also comparing a general election which covers the entire country, to four by-elections in ridings that the Liberals are only strong in when the government and other opposition parties are hugely unpopular. Is it just me, or is that a pretty unfair comparison?

    If anyone here, Liberal or whatever, expected the Liberals to sweep any of those ridings, full turnout or not, they didn't have their heads screwed on straight.

  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

  30. LS,

    I agree with the Liberals and Bloc relying on the indexed political party subsidy for over 70% of their financing will NOT willing give it up.
    Canadians have decided to not support them as much as they do the NDP, CPC.

    I also look forward to having them tell taxpayers the loss of that toonie will destroy democracy schtick again on the campaign this time!

  31. I left a couple of thoughts in the thread below, for Shadow, and for liberal supporter, as they pretained to the discussion you two were having.


  32. CanadianSense,

    Um, you do of course realize the NDP rely pretty heavily on the subsidy as well, right? The Conservatives are the only ones who can truly afford to get rid of the subsidy and not feel any pain from it.

    Why do I get the feeling CanadianSense thinks the Liberals are some sort of weird fringe party that has never been in government, and in fact the Conservatives have ruled continuously since 1867?

  33. With regard to the issue of the subsidy. If the Tories had wanted to use that to force an election, they could have done that in the Fall when their prospects were much better than they are now.

    Its all a moot point. Back in late November 2008 when Harper was forced to act like a dog with its tail between its legs and withdraw the proposal to strip parties of their funding, he said very clearly that he was withdrawing it and would not reintroduce it - but that it would be part of the Tory platform in the next election. If he now tried to reintroduce it - it would quickly create a firestorm about Harper LYING last year and the media and the opposition parties would quickly frame the issue as "Harper is trying to screw the opposition" - and it would be seen as yet another example of Harper putting partisanship ahead of the country etc.... It would be a total blunder that would make the prorogation firestorm look like a cocktail party

  34. As a designated old crank my guess is that CPC WILL NOT put dropping the political subsidies in their platform for the next election. Political subsidies may not be popular on the surface and the question was asked in a poll about prorogation which meant denying the Coalition power which made prorogation popular. I believe the results of the poll as regards political subsidies is necessarily tainted by the political climate in which it was taken.

    Political subsidies are likely the most popular in Quebec where they are a major source of funding for the Bloc. They might be more popular in ROC too if the fairness issue is raised. I think it is an issue that many voters would see as Harper again being over partisan. The subsidies do not amount to a lot of money. Indeed the tax credits probably cost the treasury more. The CPC might find the opposition raising them one and offering to do away with all subsidies to the political process. Again I'm not sure the CPC would like the outcome if that were to happen.

    Nor do I think it is likely that LPC elects a member in AB in an actual election. Then again I shocked to see the NDP win one in AB last time.

  35. "Do you want your taxes to go to parties? No.

    Do you want to create a level playing field so that richer parties with richer supporters aren't unfairly advantaged? Yes."

    Or do you want the no holds barred kind of election financing currently South of the Border. Where the Big Corporations can buy there representative at any time?

  36. Earl,

    re, that NDP seat in Alberta:

    That is Linda Duncan, she defeated Rahim Jaffer.

    From what I can recall, there was a lot of anger toward Jaffer. Many in the riding felt as if he was taking things for granted there.

    Also there was a total collapse of the liberal vote, so I think that is why she won.

    If I am wrong I am sure to be corrected

  37. Earl,

    I agree with you 100%, though maybe I'm more inclined to believe the LPC has a chance at winning a seat in Alberta than you.

    The reason I say is because I've heard on the grapevine that there is some heavy co-operation between the LPC and the ALP in certain ridings, and my guess is that one of those ridings is Edmonton Centre. I think the chance of winning that riding back isn't too slim at all. It's held by a Parliamentary Sec. who doesn't say or do much; it's demographically and geographically a Liberal-ish riding; it's got a pretty strong association with close ties to its provincial counterparts; and it does have a history of electing Liberals that weren't necessarily high profile to begin with.

    I say the chances are good, though maybe not spectacular.

  38. 49 Steps:

    You are correct about Jaffer, still surprised he lost though. Look at Anders. He wins by large margins every time. Must be a good MP.

  39. Earl,

    You may, or may not be a crank. I know I am (not an old one thou)

    But I suspect that you are on target here for the most part. (regarding the nature of the Ipsos poll)

    The only way for it to be effective is to point out the Blocs reliance on it, and how the PQ benefits.

    (Quebecers tend to give their donations to the PQ, as they know the BQ is subsidized)

    That may be playing with fire.

    A better strategy would be to focus on the economy, and tameing the defict, while putting the pressure on regarding a possible NDP/
    Liberal coalition.

  40. DL you're a bit late to this party so I just want to let you know that you just argued against a point nobody had made.

    Nobody has suggested that withdrawing the per vote subsidy will be in the budget.

    What was suggested was that it'll be an issue in the next campaign.

    Instead we were talking about how cracking down on public sector benefits/pensions could be in the budget and how even thought i'll be a popular move it'll ensure the NDP/BQ vote no.

  41. AJR79, if I'm not mistaken, the provincial parties in Quebec are also subsidized in the same way as federally.

    If the PQ gets more donations than the BQ, it is because the PQ is a more implicated party. The BQ is more of an Ottawa watch-dog.

    In any case, sovereigntists should be more inclined to donate to the Bloc, since their party donations are deducted from their federal taxes. I know that is how the BQ grassroots tries to sell it.

  42. Liberal/Peter you guys are offering false choices.

    Its not subsidies OR the America system.

    We have bans on corporate and union contributions. We have caps on the amount an individual can give. We have over all spending limits.

    Nobody has suggested getting rid of that.

    Ending political subsidies will probably just mean less attack ads and more of a focus on grass roots politics in this country.

  43. Of course if the Tories promise to end the subsidy and essentially drive all the opposition parties into bankruptcy court - it will GUARANTEE one thing - that unless Harper wins a majority - the opposition parties will all vote down his first Throne Speech and that will be the end of him as PM. Period.

    The Liberals, NDP and BQ are not going to chug-a-lug a glass of arsenic.

  44. Just to butt in here...

    I'm not against scrapping the per vote subsidy, but I think its only fair that we don't scrap it right away. Not only has it been a tough transition since the 2003 fundraising changes, it's been a long one. The Liberals, the NDP, and even the Bloc should have been ready sooner, but the fact is that we still aren't, and in the interest of fairness, we should keep the subsidy until all parties show they're able to fundraise to a certain amount through grassroots donations and etc. Otherwise you will be gutting the Opposition in its entirety, plus many of the smaller parties we have in his county.

  45. Earl,

    I don't know if Anders is a good MP
    or not. He just represents a very safe conservative riding.

    I believe he is in Stephen Harper's old seat.

    There are just certain ridings that vote a certain way no matter who the representative of the party is.

    Calgary West happens to be one of those ridings.

  46. Volkov,

    Eric has a wonderful site with a wealth of information and we have already discussed the Alberta vote thingy a long time ago.

    Volkov, instead of making personal petty comments directed at a different opinion try refuting it facts.

    The Liberals won 189 seat (103 ON 36 QC) in a perfect storm with a very weak NDP 8.5% Green 0.5% and two right of centre parties. That was 2000. The WEST has not returned the Liberals as a credible party in a decade.

    The merger has ended the splits in 2006 victory. 2.5 years later the CPC gain seats as do the NDP at at 18.2% with the Green tacking left with May-Dion alliance in 2008.

    So Volkov my opinion is based on numbers on how Liberals have been refusing to support the Liberal with money and votes for a much longer time as you WANT to believe.

    Are you suggesting the 3% lift from the worst historical popular vote since confederation is worth bragging?

    Accountability and Credibility
    Have you seen the Auditor General Sheila Fraser issue a series of scathing reports on the current government?

    I remember she did with the Liberals.

    DL calling our PM a dog, interesting debating style. Who lied Jack Layton or Brian Topp about the coalition agreement?
    Seems like the earlier letter was not the same and Jack backed out in defeating Paul Martin.

    JL is against the HST but support Carbon Tax tell me how the poor avoid paying those? Sound like Greenshift (how did that work out for Liberal)

    JL agreed to keep the CPC corp tax cuts with Dion but now demands them cut.

  47. CanadianSense,

    If your opinion is based in numbers, then please tell me where you get 189 seats in 2000 from, since the Liberals only won 172 seats in total.

    And in 2000, the Liberals had 25% of the West's votes, and 14 seats, while the NDP had 14% and 8 seats, PCs 10% and two seats, and the Alliance had 50% and 64 seats. Let me ask you; is 25% of the vote not credible enough for you?

    Or lets go with 2004. Liberals again had 14 seats but 27% of the vote. NDP sat with 20% and 9 seats. The merged Conservatives? 45% and 68 seats. Again - Liberals are seemingly pretty "credible" to me.

    Jump to 2006. Liberals down to 23% of the vote, still with 14 seats. NDP at 22% and 13 seats. Conservatives with 49% and 65 seats. And remember - this was the year the Liberals were kicked out.

    Now, is there not a story developing here? Does it not stand to reason that with the actual numbers, its clear that in recent times, the Liberals, when in power, have gotten some respectable votes out west, namely around 25%? Is not that "credible" enough for you?

    And when did I start bragging about the current projection? Hm? Is this what you do, make up arguments on the other side that don't exist? Please, I have better things to do than deal with some dillusional partisan hack who sees election results that don't exist.

  48. Volkov,

    third time with personal insults. Apparently your partisanship is appropriate.

    You are correct, I made a mistake on that post, it was 172 transposed to 174 in 2003 (NOT 189*) I have a post on the subject matter regarding the WEST being blamed for the Liberals losing power.

    Western Canada 2000
    In BC 34 seats available (63% T.O.) higher than the national average, the Liberals won 5 seats with 27.7%, the NDP won 2 seats with 11.3%, Canadian Alliance won 27 seats with a 49.4%, PC failed to win any seats with 7.3%, and the rest accounted for 2.2% failed to win any seats as well.

    In AB 26 seats available (60.2% T.O.) equal to the national turnout, the Liberals won 2 seats with 20.9%, the NDP failed to win any seats with 5.4%, the Canadian Alliance won 23 seats with 58.9%, the PC won one seat with 13.5%, and the rest accounted for 0.8% without any seats.

    In SK 14 seats available (62.3% T.O.)higher than the national average, the Liberals won 2 seats with 20.7%, the NDP won 2 seats with 26.2%, the Canadian Alliance won 10 seats with 47.7%, the PC failed to win any seats with 4.8%, and the rest failed to win any seats with 0.2%

    In MB 14 seats available (62.3% T.O) higher than the national average, the Liberals won 5 seats with 32.5%, the NDP won 4 seats with 20.9, the Canadian Alliance won 4 seats with 30.4%, the PC won one seat with 14.5%, the rest failed to win any seats with 1.7%.

    It was Ontario and Quebec that dumped the Liberals. The West has not changed since 2000 to affect the Liberals losing power.

    * 189 may be a number with projection on my mind regarding an EKOS Poll with CPC hit 40% from 2009.(Not sure)

  49. Canadian Sense,

    Again.. I don't know what sort of point you're trying to make. I've never made a claim that the West lost the Liberals power. I simply said that the claim the Liberals have never had a credible result in recent years is to deny the last few electoral results.

    I ask again; what arguments are you addressing, and who is putting them up? I welcome your analysis with open arms, but only if it makes sense and relates to anything that I'm talking about. You've yet to do that. I don't know if its just because we're on different pages or what - but I can't discuss anything with you unless you actually stick to the topic at hand.

    When did we get into the discussion about Ontario and Quebec dumping the Liberals? When did we even get into the discussion about the results in Western Canada? All I remember objecting to is the idea that the Liberals are completely dead out West and that a seat in Alberta is a nigh impossibility.

  50. Eric,

    I have to plead ignorance at the Quebec political subsidy issue.

    I was speaking in a more general way, about how to make the subsidy issue most effective, in gaining votes in an election
    (outside of Que., obviously in this case).

    Thanks for the very interesting insight into BQ fundraising.
    I can see why they would use that very logical tactic.

    I'm with Earl in the idea that pushing the subsidies removal may be seen as underhanded.

    If it were framed as a reduction by say 50%, until it can be phased out in the future, it might be an easier sell.

  51. Volkov,

    I agree. I don't see anyone forcing an election this spring. I think that there will be one closer to 2012.


    From what I have been reading people are surmising that since Stockwell Day didn't talk about the pension issue. It must be because he is planning on doing something tricky and underhanded.

    I haven't actually seen anything where he has said that he will be touching the pensions.

    It should be some fun time for us political junkies.


  52. Volkov,

    Your "giddy" post@ 12:58 needed a dose of reality.

    My last post outlines how the WEST has been a wasteland for growth of "seats" before the last Liberal majority. Two in BC barely survived. (More than a decade)

    Ontario and Quebec slowly eroded and voters have migrated to other parties. After 2000.

    I refer to the last Liberal Majority as the perfect storm for the LPC.

    I also hear how Liberals will retake Quebec. Since Alliance/PC merger who lost seats in QC?

    In 2013 we expected to add 38 seats with ON, AB,BC making it more difficult for the Liberals to ever regain the government.

    We don't have riding by riding polling and the NDP won and Jaffer sucked from what I have read. The latest candidate has been working the riding since the loss and if he does the job as reported in getting the vote out, AB should be NDP free.
    (Not giddy, being a realist)

  53. For all those who think that the CPC is controlled by the leftovers from the Reform Party:
    (looking at you liberal supporter)

    Here's some insight from Conservatives, and former Reformers, straight from todays NP.

  54. Looks like there will be no pension changes in the up coming budget. I thought they could and should change the contribution rules so that the employee pays 50% of the cost as is done with provincial plans. Currently federal employees pay only a third of the cost of their pensions.

  55. Earl your link got cut off a bit.


    should follow that last slash there for anyone who wants to read the article.


    Wow. Just wow.

    I couldn't have imagined a duller, more do nothing budget.

    Its not going to cut anything so it won't make deficit hawks happy.

    Its not going to spend any additional funds so it won't make the opposition happy.

    Politically it sounds like it might be a disaster.

    What does it contain that an opposition party could point to and say "this is why i'm supporting it" ?

    Then again what does it contain that an opposition party could point to and say "this is why i'm voting against it" ?

    Economically it sounds like a sensible document given the delicate nature of the recovery and fears of a double dip.

  56. Earl,

    Lokks like the home renovation tax credit will not be extended either.

    The government believes it can balance the books, by restraining the growth of federal government spending.

    Apparently health care, education, and pensions will not be touched and allowed to grow at the projected rapid rate.

  57. There is nothing the least bit stable about a Conservative minority where the Liberals and NDP can band together and come within one seat of the government's numbers. The election will have to be fought on this possible outcome--and Canadians will have to weigh the question whether they want Jack Layton to be Minister of Finance and Thomas Mulcair President of the Treasury Board.

  58. Ok revised projection based on the info Earl linked to.

    NDP/BQ say "no" to budget right out of the gate.

    Liberals say no, election looks certain.

    NDP "negotiates" with Harper and says they'll support the budget for a price.

    Harper says no.

    At which point we either have an election or Liberal discipline breaks down and a handful of absent members causes the budget to pass.

  59. Shadow: Ok revised projection based on the info Earl linked to...

    At which point we either have an election or Liberal discipline breaks down and a handful of absent members causes the budget to pass.

    You'll note that the title of the referenced article is "Budget cuts with dull scalpel further reduces possibility of government's defeat" (emphasis mine).

    If the leaks are accurate there's nothing objectionable in the budget, even though there's nothing positive either. It allows the opposition to hammer the government for doing nothing (as they've already started to do) without actually voting the budget down.

    Harper divides his time between being a tactical pragmatist and being a pragmatic tactician. (When he shoots himself in the foot it's because he only looked half a move ahead instead of one move.) Believe it or not, this is his way of playing nice across the aisle. There will not be a spring election.

  60. "The election will have to be fought on this possible outcome--and Canadians will have to weigh the question whether they want Jack Layton to be Minister of Finance and Thomas Mulcair President of the Treasury Board."

    ...or imagine a Liberal government where some REALLY scary people like Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh get senior cabinet portfolios. The scariest people ever associated with the NDP are now Liberals - and they can have them - good riddance!

  61. John its not enough for a budget to be unobjectionable.

    They need a YES. It requires a positive affirmation.

    I don't see anything in this budget for the opposition to say YES to.

    A party cannot hammer the gov't for doing nothing and then vote YES on the budget.

    That's totally contradictory.

    This budget was about including no poison pills so that the media would think Harper was playing nice.

    IN the end its meant to be another leadership test for Ignatieff.

    Is he Dion? Can he control his caucus? Will he support this?

  62. "A party cannot hammer the gov't for doing nothing and then vote YES on the budget."

    Sure it can. Back in March 2005 Paul Martin brought in a new do-nothing budget. The NDP and BQ were already committed to voting against it - so Harper simply declared this it was a "good conservative budget" and voted for it - even though there was NOTHING in that budget for him to like - he simply made up talking points to make up for the fact that the Tories didn't want an election at that time.

    This time around, none of the opposition parties have to vote FOR the budget. They can abstain. In fact as you may recall back in October when there was that half-hearted Liberal non-confidence motion that no one in the Liberal party actually wanted to pass - the NDP abstained rather than actually vote confidence.

    I predict that in the upcoming Tory budget - one of the opposition parties will simply say "we think this budget is totally inadequate, but we will abstain in order to avoid throwing the country into an election no one wants" and no one will care.

  63. If this indeed the budget and there was a time when budgets were actually secret, then Harper fears an election and doesn't want to provoke one. With nothing objectionable in it it's unlikely the opposition will force an election over it. To do so would to be accused of doing exactly that and we all saw how Iggy fared when he threatened an election in August. The Liberals don't have the strength, the NDP would lose a third of their caucus and the Tories a few seats. Who wants an election now? Maybe the Bloc but no-one else.

  64. DL the abstention thing doesn't really work that well. Maybe for a minor party like the NDP. But for a gov't in waiting? For the official opposition? Disgraceful.

    If the Liberals do that they'll be tagged as "sitting on their hands" by the media. It'll look weak.

    Plus the obvious question every time the Liberals complain about the budget will be "then why didn't you vote against it?"

    Ignatieff has been trying to do this "i'm tough, i'm a leader, i'm not Dion" thing.

    There is no question that this will be a leadership test for the Liberals and Ignatieff.

    They expect to be able to vote NO and for the NDP to prop up the gov't. They demand it and will accept nothing less.

    I just don't see how Layton does so.

  65. Here's a couple good articles on subsidies by Tom Flanagan. There not going anywhere.

    Cut the subsidy, then make it easier for parties
    to raise their own money.

    Parties dependent on public handouts: study.
    Link 2

  66. Eric,

    I just wanted to let you know, that after Alex Bilodeau won the first gold medal ever on home soil....

    The Ontario (and other?) press went a little over the top about him wearing his toque during the national anthem.

    I smelled the distinct smell of anti-quebecquiosness.

    I am proud that Alex Bilodeau is a Canadian, and I have noticed others on the Oylimpic team (intentional or otherwise), joining in solidarity with young Alex(with thier toques).

    Vive la Canada!

    GSP kicks alotta ass too!


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.