Monday, March 15, 2010

New Léger Poll: 37% BQ, 25% LPC

Léger Marketing has a new poll out on the voting intentions of Quebecers.Compared to Léger's last poll a month ago, this is not very different. The Bloc Quebecois has dropped one to 37%, the Liberals have dropped two to 25%, the Conservatives are up one to 17%, and the NDP is up two to 14%. But the margin of error is 3.1, so really statistically insignificant movement.

Among francophones, the Bloc dominates with 45%, followed by the Liberals at 21%. The NDP and Conservatives are tied at 14%.

Among non-francophones, the Liberals dominate with 41%. The Conservatives follow with 28% and the NDP is third with 15%. Remembering that this is a smaller sample size, this is a loss of 12 points for the Liberals and a gain of 10 for the Conservatives among this demographic. Could the Tories be ready to break into English Quebec, or is it just a statistical mirage?

Imagine how different the Quebec political landscape would be if the Conservatives and Liberals were vying for the anglophone vote.

In Montreal, the Bloc is at 36%, followed closely by the Liberals at 29%. The NDP is well behind at 14%.

Around Quebec City, the Bloc has gained five points to take the lead at 34% - a very good result for them. The Conservatives are down to 28% and the Liberals are up to 23%.

Finally, in the "Rest of Quebec", the Bloc has 39% to the Liberals' 20% and the Conservatives' 18%. This puts the Bloc in a good position to sweep the non-Montreal and non-Quebec City seats.

The Bloc wins 50 seats and the Liberals win 16. The Conservatives are reduced to seven seats, and the NDP wins two.

Nothing much new in this poll, though it does confirm the stagnation of the Liberals and Conservatives at levels which mean little growth.

53 comments:

  1. There are some interesting other findings in that poll - for example it shows that Quebecers massive disapprove of the Jaffer/Guergis (oops i meant to Harper) government and that they massively object to prorogation and that they are totally underwhelmed by the federal budget.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah its CPC strategy to give up on Quebec for now.

    Charest was being a jerk, that horrible press conference with Harper and then the big fight with Jim Prentice.

    Until we have something substantial Quebec is going to be more or less ignored to focus on governance. Maybe they'll be on the BBQ circuit for the summer though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For a while I thought that the Quebec Green numbers were a bit high, but the trend has been consistent. Éric's pollster leanings page puts Léger seventh of eight pollsters for Green Party rankings in Quebec. The "real" number is now probably 8-9%. That's a definite increase from a few months ago.

    So why are Green polls up in the province? I'll speculate that it's nothing regional. Quebec Green numbers have been a bit below the national average for some time. Party support has been climbing everywhere, so it's been climbing in Quebec as well. This is just part of a country-wide trend. I certainly can't point to any special provincial initiative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah they are climbing all right - 2% of the vote in each of the byelections in Hochelaga and Montmagny-Riviere du loup.

    ReplyDelete
  5. By-elections don't mean much, particularly for parties without a hope of winning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Liberals in the 40% range for non-francophones is a HUGE drop from the Chretien era (and the Turner, Trudeau, Pearson, St-Laurent, Mackenzie King and Laurier eras, for that matter).
    The Liberals still easily win seats in western Montreal, but nothing like by the majorities they used to. Clifford Lincoln in 1997 got over 42,000 votes (69%)in his West Island riding. In 2008, they got 23,000 votes in the same riding (46%).
    The loss of non-francophone votes adds up to a loss of money on the $-per-vote subsidy, and it hurts them in competitive ridings on the South Shore.

    I'm not sure it's all due to the Conservatives. Certainly, the NDP and Greens are also doing much better in western Montreal ridings than they used to. Just like everyone else in this country, Quebec non-francophones are less loyal to any one party than they used to be. Also, sovereignty/constitutional/identity issues are much lower priority than they were in the 70s through 90s, so there is much less incentive for non-francophones to vote as a block.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "By-elections don't mean much, particularly for parties without a hope of winning."

    They mean at least as much as a poll of 1,000 people. the NDP had no chance of winning in Hochelaga but still got 20% of the vote. I think that when the federal Liberals came in 3rd in all four byelections last November - it confirmed what the polls seemed to be showing.

    A byelection OUGHT to be a golden opportunity for a party with no chance of winning like the Greens. Since nothing is at stake there is no reason to vote "strategically" and people can happily register a "protest vote" without the slightest chance it will alter the makeup of the next government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On Oct 14, 2008 LPC won 14 seats with 23.5%, the NDP won 1 seat with 12.2%, Green at 3.5% zero seats, Bloc 38.1% 49 seats, the CPC won 10 seats with 21.7%.

    In Quebec November 9, 2009 the Bloc lost one of their seats to the CPC.

    The popular vote for both ridings 13.6% for LPC, 10.4% NDP, Green 2.3%, Bloc 42.8%, CPC 30.2%

    GOTV was successful for the CPC, Bloc and NDP.

    If Michael Ignatieff was to deliever Quebec how did his popular vote fall when an actual test took place?

    C. Parrish admitted years ago the most difficult voter to bring out is the Liberal.

    Any thoughts why the large gap in polling support levels from Leger to the results in November 2009?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Those by-elections took place at around the same time as that Coderre-Cauchon spat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric,

    That is an interesting idea why the GOTV failed.

    The Polls just before the Nov 2009 did they reflect the spat?

    ReplyDelete
  11. LOOK! Helena Guergis is back in the news and its more damning than ever!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC8G4tRmArI

    Let's how where support is at for the Guergis/Jaffer party in the next Ekos!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Guergis' goose looks to be cooked...

    by her own hand, or her lawyers bad advice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Guergis has gone completely off the rails, if she is "Musing"
    about suing.

    I have a question then.

    Shadow say's there is no security footage left from the PEI airport.

    If poor Helena decides to sue, is it at all possible that there is some footage.

    I would love to see how poor Helena was victimized.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Andrew Coyne, on why Parliament's a bunch of pussies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You gotta love how Harper the "master tactician" has allowed Helena Guergis and her dead-beat husband to totally dominate the news for what? three weeks now?? According to Robert Fife it is even causing donations to the Tory from their base to dry up!!

    I think we need an election this spring and it should be all about "do you approve of Guergis and her dead-beat husband - or not?"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi AJR79 I wouldn't call it bad advice.

    From a political standpoint its horrible but from a legal standpoint she might have a case.

    I mean none of the staff followed official procedure in filing a complaint.

    Instead they sent a letter to Liberal MP Wayne Easter alleging misconduct on her part but again failing to officially report anything.


    If she does wish to pursue this my advice would be that she step down from cabinet until the matter is resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 49 steps what was on the tapes is irrelevent.

    The victimization occured when the airport employee wrote the letter to Wayne Easter.

    The employee slandered her and breached her right to privacy.

    Frankly the employee should be fired.

    Either for:

    A) Lying about Geurgis

    or

    B) Failing to officially report a serious incident.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shadow,

    If I were her, and looking to pursue this, I wouldn't count on winning my next election.

    It's her call.

    I think she shoud be put out, or "resign" from cabinet, if there is any truth, that she is even looking into a court case.
    (which seems so)

    This is not how ministers, or MPs for that matter, should behave.

    I don't think she'll win in court either... but time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AJR79 please explain this line:

    "This is not how ministers, or MPs for that matter, should behave."

    I believe threatening to sue or suing is a tried and true policy of a great many politicians.

    There's nothing unusual or improper about it.

    In fact its often the only reason newspapers will retract stories they can't prove like Harper's wafer incident.


    Geurgis acted improperly when she was bitchy in PEI. Her apology was limp.

    That was the improper action.

    Pursuing this legal option is NOT an improper action but it is a political liability.

    For that reason she should leave cabinet.

    But let's not pretend its for any other reason than political optics.

    She has every right to defend her character and her privacy through legal means.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shadow,

    She had that "Meltdown" in a very public place.

    There were quite a few witnesses to her hissy fit.

    I know she is complaining about her privacy being breached.

    I would still love to see those tapes.

    She claims to be a victim of staff in the PEI airport.

    I would like to see how much of a victim she really was.

    If she wants to sue for a privacy breach I say go ahead it's her funeral.

    Im sure the CPC would like the whole thing to go away.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If she was "slandered" then what was it that she apologized for???

    Its not enough to dump her from caucus, she needs to expelled from the Tory caucus and she should be censured by the house of commons and a by-election held in Grey-Simcoe where she can try to clear her name by running as an Independent. If she loses I'm sure she can make a good living as a judge at beauty pageants.

    Meanwhile day after day after goes by where no matter what Harper and his flunkies try to do change the channel it all comes back to Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer. At this rate, we will get all the way to election day with the conduct of Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis as the dominant ballot question in Canadian politics.

    I think the brave security personnel at the Charlottetown airport should get the order of Canada for exposing this latest example of elitist, snobby culture of entitlement that so permeates the Conservative party.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good to see that, as a nation, we're focusing on the most relevant and important issues facing this country.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Éric: Good to see that, as a nation, we're focusing on the most relevant and important issues facing this country.

    One could almost see this as a Stephen Harper diabolical master plan to divert us from the critical issues of the day.

    Don't worry, I don't. Coca-Cola was accused of bringing out New Coke with the deliberate intention of dropping it after the masses affirmed their loyalty to Old Coke. As a senior Coca-Cola executive said at the time, "We're not that smart and we're not that stupid." He nailed it and I'd say the same of Stephen Harper. (And that applies in spades to the anthem flap.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Shadow,

    You know I was willing to give Guergis a second chance, and as you state this is incredibly poor political judgement, for her and the party.

    Let her go fight her petty battle, many conservatives want to move on, to more important issues.

    Guergis is dead to me now, as in, not a minister.

    Don't worry Eric and John, I think this will be mostly over when Guergis steps down.

    Probably today or tommorow, but by Friday at the latest, IMO.

    A little housekeeping at the CPC, is all this really amounts to.

    I'm sure it won't be the ballot question to most voters, just the crazy/shallow people.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eric,

    I don't know what is more funnier to read/see in MSM/political blogs what is now a priority.

    a) Opposition Day over 10% mailers costing $ 10 million on an annual basis.(Wasteful practice)
    b) CPC MP hissy fit.
    c) "Super Duper Power" -Parliament Democracy Test.(Accountability)

    being talked about in Parliament from each partisan camp.

    Truly that +19 Billion in the latest budget, EAP year 2 is just not worthy to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We should really get back to serious matters like what Dennis Coderre and his staff or may not think about Iggy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey AJR49 there's going to be pressure on Harper to put Maxime Bernier back into cabinet.

    He's not suited for Status of Women and another shuffle so soon would be not be wise.

    Instead I think Geurgis should ask PM Harper to accept her resignation from cabinet and Shelly Glover should take her place.

    Glover would make a great replacement for Vic Toews as Public Safety Minister the next time there's a cabinet shuffle.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I saw Shelly Glover being interviewed on a panel discussion a few months ago. She seemed like a complete IDIOT.

    The most underutilized woman in the Tory caucus is Diane Ablonczy - but she is persona non grata because she approved a grant to gay pride day and had to summarily fired for that offence.

    Notice the pattern? Verbally assault people and call PEI a "hell hole" and there are no consequences. Decide to be UNhomophobic - get fired and humiliated. That's the Conservative Party of Canada for you!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Quebec has hydro to rely on energy and have been vocal against Nuclear, Oilsands use.

    Ontario has signed a deal worth about $ 7 Billion for Giant Fans.



    ““OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
    First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting comment by DL to make a sexist comment and use Diane as a prop.

    Fortunately for voters our ballots demostrate the idiocy officially is the NDP policies and platform on forming the Federal Government.

    Some of us don't need to resort to gender attacks to criticize political views we don't support.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Shelley Glover didn't know who Tom Flanagan was.

    She said "I Believe he is a Canadian"

    Flanagan is also "Personna Non Grata"

    He told the truth about prorogation.

    If the CPC want's Glover go ahead,

    ReplyDelete
  32. The CBC interview was wonderful because the media were exposed again in seeking out "experts" who have been pre screened opinions.

    Tom Flanagan was not seen on the Hill by Shelly Glover since she has been in Ottawa 1.5 years refuting he is connected to any issues with the party in any official capacity.

    Relevance, influence on issues of Tom Flanagan to the current Party on issues of today?

    ZERO

    The other panelists were unable to refute her point

    She eliminated his opinions as relevant to the issue and future of the party.

    Tom? Tom who? He is entitled to his views, priceless!

    Can't the media find a more current person "active" on The Hill to add to their narrative?

    ReplyDelete
  33. CS

    Mulcair, and Goodale didn't refute her point.

    Well lets see

    Why bother

    She made a fool of herself in that interview.

    ReplyDelete
  34. CS,

    Oh I guess theres no problem with CO2 in the oceans after all...

    Did you look at any other websites, in trying to understand the issue?

    Don't worry, we only have about 50-100 years of fossil fuels left.
    (facepalm)

    Also, if the "West" has energy security, why do the U.S rely so much on foriegn oil?

    Are there any consequences to continuing that policy?

    Shadow,

    Glover has flown under my radar, but at first blush (quick net vet), she looks good to go.

    Let's see if she can handle a file.

    As for Bernier, I believe that he will be given another chance, but I hope they don't give him any portfolio with sensitive information, for a while at least.

    He was turfed with good reason, and has to earn the trust back.

    With his libertarian stances, I'd like to see him in Justice, but I doubt very much that that will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Does anyone have a link to the Glover interview in question?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Here she is in living colour:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG7n_8086cA

    She actually makes Sarah Palin look smart!

    ReplyDelete
  37. If she makes DL so angry that's a pretty good measure that she'd make a damn good cabinet minister.

    Its good to put people out there to polarize the electorate and act as troll bait.

    Successful woman ? Mother ? Traditioanl values ? Kick ass police officer ?

    Yep, that'll annoy the heck out of the so called feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This has nothing to do with feminism. The woman is clearly as dumb as a post!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Of course, we know its opposition strategy to go after high profile Conservative women.

    Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Leona Aglukkaq, and Helena Geurgis spring to mind.

    It should be noted that there seems to be a correlation between the beauty of said member and the intensity of the partisan hatred directed at them.

    Self confidence tends to be the thing that angers sexists the most.

    ReplyDelete
  40. AJR79,

    I don't argue the "sciencism" I just link an article that may refute an earlier post asked of me trying to guilt me about Nemo getting killed.

    We can't even get our Cruise Ships to stop dumping sewage and we are talking about a global tax to do save Nemo!

    Perspective I don't buy the excuse raising my taxes will fix it. Sorry I am too old and have seen too much to buy that snake oil.

    Like I said earlier, the left suggest the right use gutter politics.

    Examine the posts from the left on character, gender, religious, intelligence, smears to discredit their opponents.

    The alternative policy debate inside parliament?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Shadow,

    You are too funny

    Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Helena Guergis.

    I suuggest you find some better CPC poster girls.

    DL is right in his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shadow,

    NO

    I will start to retract my statements when you start to retract some of yours.

    From now on I will point them out to you.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  43. 49 steps if you object to something I say I ask that you please do let me know.

    "poster girls" is beyond the pale though.

    I, of course, don't know your personal situation.

    But perhaps it would be helpful to ask yourself whether these women are more accomplished then yourself.

    Do you speak Spanish, Portuguese, and French in addition to English ?

    Because I know "poster girl" Rona Ambrose does.

    ReplyDelete
  44. CanadianSense: Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”.

    Unfortunately, those statements aren't supported by the data even in a cherry-picking sense. Taking a step back and looking at the graph as a whole, they're tragically wrong.

    And to correct the hat trick error in the quoted sentence, the expression "climate change" was actually popularized by Republican consultant Frank Luntz. In the words from his memo, “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mark Kingwell must have been following this blog. If you read just one online article in the next week, this should be it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And yes, I recognize the jarring juxtaposition of the two previous comments.

    ReplyDelete
  47. John,

    As stated earlier on a different thread I don't argue the "sciencism" I discuss the politics in raising taxes to "fix it".

    When Banks, Big Energy including Big Oil want to play in a Carbon Market, it only means Ponzi Scheme.

    To date no one has provided me with a good reason to raise my taxes to "fix it" over in Africa or to save Polar Bears and Nemo.

    Can you provide the body who will "fix it" this time and save the planet from ourselves, including their track record.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Climate scientist are NOT economists.

    Even if things are going to warm up a couple degrees SO WHAT ?

    Is it really worth the cost of crazy Kyoto schemes ?

    Both in $$$ and mass starvation in India, China, South America, and Africa ??

    ReplyDelete
  49. --- "Even if things are going to warm up a couple degrees SO WHAT ?"

    Shadow, if things warm up a couple of degrees that is an extremely significant development. Sea levels change, currents change, weather changes.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eric,

    I think what Shadow is getting at is the human costs of cutting CO2 emissions now vs. the costs of adapting to a couple degree rise.

    This is a complex issue, which always treds some tricky moral ground.

    With our current technology, it doesn't seem like we can provide for our growing population without belching large amounts of CO2.

    A countrys CO2 emissions per capita, will give you a good idea about their prosperity, and GDP.

    It's a tough thing to say to India, and China, that they can't burn coal or have cars.

    I am a bit of a fence sitter myself on what policies should be implimented at home, since our emissions are relatively small.

    Raising energy prices, and hurting industry, doesn't make sense when China's building a new coal plant per week (on average)

    I mostly believe in moderate actions on this, and Harper/Prentice haven't disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shadow,

    I believe a piece of the puzzle here that should also be considered is our international reputation, and trade relations (green tariffs)

    Even Preston Manning smells money to be made in the future of green energy.

    It doesn't have to be all bad, we just have to be smart about it.

    I think that it's important that we at least try to do a few things to reduce CO2 emissions.

    We don't want to end up with ZERO crediblity on meeting our targets, like the Libs.

    As far as climate science goes, It's in its infancy, with many problems, and rife with activism...

    But there is some there, there.

    It's not all a socialist plot by scientists.

    And if we burn all the fossil fuels on this planet, it will have bad consequences, unless we can learn to scrub it out somehow...

    ReplyDelete
  52. AJR79 you raise two points to consider.

    Green tarrifs aren't a serious threat. We sell our hydocarbons to the Americans and they're not suicidal.

    The threat of a Pacific pipeline and turning things over to China will keep them from doing something so stupid.


    Now our international reputation is a more serious matter.

    Without a doubt small states love to take pot shots at us. Whether this is to guilt us into signing on to wealth transfer schemes like the one proposed at Coppenhagen or a serious concern about climate change I don't know.

    But small, developing countries are powerless and can't harm us.

    And developed countries have just as bad a record on emmisions reductions as we do.

    So my prefered option on these matters is to simply pretend we are doing something about climate change.

    Public relations, optics, and spin are called for instead of actually dealing with the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hey AJR79, as for making money off green technology - good luck!

    Spain was once touted as a green jobs super power, with the most generous subsidies around.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Spain

    Only problem is that their unemployment rate is 18.8%.

    And those subsidies, they've been slashed.

    Because, obviously, if there was money to be made in green technology the private sector would be making it right now.

    You're starting to sound like the NDP calling for an industrial strategy.

    China has 2.4 trillion in reserves. The middle east has substantial sovereign wealth funds. The US has its share of venture capitalists.

    NOBODY is investing in this area unless there are massive gov't subsidies.

    Its just not a money maker.

    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.