Friday, April 16, 2010

PLQ Slips Away, PQ Dominates

Angus-Reid has a new Quebec provincial poll that has some very fascinating results.The Parti Québécois has gained seven points over Angus-Reid's last poll in February, and now stands at 41%. The Liberals have completely fallen apart, dropping 10 points to 23%. The Action Démocratique gains three points to 13%, while the Parti Vert gains four points to 10%. Québec Solidaire is down two to 9%.

These are absolutely disastrous numbers for the PLQ. But we can all remember how much of a lead the PQ had when André Boisclair came to the head of the party.

The high level of support for the PVQ is, in my view, an indication that a lot of anglophone voters are moving to their only other option. In the last election, the PVQ ran a distant second on the West Island, but a second nevertheless.

I'm not sure what their current leader's (Guy Rainville) position is, but their previous leader (Scott McKay) took no position on the National Question. He would've allowed his MNAs to vote freely on any sort of referendum legislation.

I project that with these numbers, the PQ would form a majority government with 81 seats. The PLQ would elect only 33 MNAs, while the ADQ would win 9 seats and QS would win 2.

Pauline Marois is the favourite to be Premier, with 25% (up six). Jean Charest is down six to 15%, while Gérard Deltell (ADQ) is up four to 8% and Amir Khadir (QS) is up three to 8%.

"None of these", however, has a whopping of 34%. One wonders when a leaderless party will be formed.

When it comes to the leaders' approval/disapproval rating, Charest has a woeful 16/70 spread. Marois's is better, 36/43. Deltell's is 25/28, while Khadir is the only one with positive support, 37/23.

As to the issue at hand, 58% of Quebecers believe Marc Bellemare has more credibility than the Charest government, which only 11% believe. However, 20% believe neither has credibility.

When it comes to the inquiry Charest has called to look into the allegations, 75% believe it falls short.

80% believe corruption is generalized in the government, not just in the construction industry.

61% of Quebecers believe that the PLQ's fundraisers impose decisions on the party.

These are wretched, horrible numbers for the government. But the PQ shouldn't jump for joy just yet. There seems to be an incredible lack of faith in the governing class, as 80% of Quebecers believe any party in power would be corrupt. Only 13% believe the corruption is specific to the Liberals.

This is not just a run-of-the-mill poll. These numbers are significant, both for the political support each party has and how Quebecers feel about the PLQ and politicians in general.

56 comments:

  1. Let's remember that in 1976 when the PQ first won, the popular vote in Quebec was PQ 41%, Liberals 34%, Union Nationale 19%. The seat count ended up as PQ 71, Libs 26, UN 11.

    I guess one big elephant in the room is what happens if Charest steps down and the PLQ picks a new leader. Is most of the hostility directed at Charest personally or are we at a point where whoever the Libs pick in Quebec is fated to become their Kim Campbell?

    One thing for sure - I think that all that talk about Charest as a possible successor as federal Tory leader to Harper is now D-E-D dead! On top of that, the PLQ is in such disarray that i think that in the next federal election, they will be able to offer little (if any) help to the federal Liberals or Tories for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There were fewer seats in 1976, if you comment is referring to my projection.

    However, I should point out that I think my Quebec model needs some serious re-working. I definitely will take a close, hard look at it before the next election.

    For now, I think it is good enough, but I wouldn't take it to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DL,

    I don't think the PLQ offers much help to the federal Liberals - they don't really need to, since the LPC powerhouse is on Montreal, and well, you don't need too much of a boost provincially to help out there. I have some serious doubts that even outside of Montreal the LPC relies on the PLQ too much. Even the former PLQ MNA Nancy Charest doesn't seem to have done too much campaigning with the PLQ.

    Anyways, one word for this poll: ouch. As Chantal Herbert said last night, Quebecers are essentially saying they no longer have any faith in Premier Charest. We'll see if this PQ lead lasts, but I dunno...

    ReplyDelete
  4. What has to bothersome for Charest is that people believe the allegations. Even if there is nothing to the allegations the whiff of scandal might not be washed off. Charest may have to go and it is likely that finishes any Federal aspirations he may have harbored.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eric,

    I forgot to say; the Greens make a big point about never saying whether they support sovereignty or not - it's their "schtick," so to speak. This is why they do well in federalist areas - they refuse to take a position and thats acceptable for some, but especially federalists looking for an alternative to Charest.

    I believe Rainville himself is something like a Mario Dumont federalist - sort of but not really. I can't find them now but he's made a couple of statements as such.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If they ever elect an MNA in the West Island, it would likely be a federalist MNA, so it might not matter what the leader thinks. If he allows a free vote, then it will be up to each MNA.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's the nature of scandal. Even if he turns out to be innocent, and even if he can prove it, who's going to change their opinion by that point?

    The Liberals survived last time they were in genuine trouble in large part because Bosclair was facing trouble from the ADQ as well as his own party. I suspect we'll see a PQ government next time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't no very much at all about Quebec politics so I was just wondering about this Éric;

    "The high level of support for the PVQ is, in my view, an indication that a lot of anglophone voters are moving to their only other option."

    Why would this be considered the anglophone voters only other option when the ADQ is around?

    ReplyDelete
  9. A new party or a new ADQ leader seems almost a given when you look at some of these numbers.

    Distrust of politicians comes to mind, something of a protest party would do very well.

    Gérard Deltell has lousy leadership numbers that suggest he is both unknown by half the population and merely tolerated by the other half.

    Bernier, Bouchard, or even a return of Mario Dumont could completely shake up the political scene.

    DL also suggests a new PLQ leader. I doubt it would help, Paul Martin got stuck after sponsorship and was blamed.

    Is Dumont still in television ? What are the terms of his contract I wonder ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. PoscStudent,

    --- Why would [the PVQ] be considered the anglophone voters only other option when the ADQ is around?

    The ADQ is neither federalist nor sovereigntist, so from that stand point it does not reflect the political position of most anglophones.

    The ADQ is also more of a nationalist party in the stripe of the PQ in terms of language and identity and the like, and so from that standpoint is more a product of the values of French Quebecers than anglophone Quebecers.

    It may also be that the ADQ is a right-wing party, and anglophones in Quebec are more supportive of the centre-left policies of the PLQ and LPC.

    Shadow,

    --- A new party or a new ADQ leader seems almost a given when you look at some of these numbers.

    Unlikely, Deltell won't be moved out of the ADQ. A new party, maybe, but it would have to have immediate legitimacy to displace the PLQ.

    --- Gérard Deltell has lousy leadership numbers that suggest he is both unknown by half the population and merely tolerated by the other half.

    Deltell has leadership numbers which show he has about the same level of support as the ADQ does. Expecting him to have Dumont levels is unrealistic, considering he is not that type of leader and is still new. Dumont had the kind of support Layton currently has. People like him, but that doesn't mean they vote for him. The numbers only helped Dumont once, and it turned out to be a disaster for the party.

    --- Bernier, Bouchard, or even a return of Mario Dumont could completely shake up the political scene.

    Bouchard is too old and is unlikely to make such a move. Dumont is no longer a credible leader, and Bernier has no love from people outside of the Beauce.

    --- DL also suggests a new PLQ leader. I doubt it would help, Paul Martin got stuck after sponsorship and was blamed.

    That's probably true. But the PLQ will have a new leader in the next few years, since the consensus view is that Charest won't run again.

    --- Is Dumont still in television ? What are the terms of his contract I wonder ...

    Yes, and I'm sure those terms are better than what he would likely get as leader of the ADQ again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Éric,

    Thanks I kind of figured it probably had to do with them being a right-wing party but I didn't realize that they were a nationalist party.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eric why is Dumont no longer credible as leader ?

    He has overwhelming support within the ADQ ranks. And a single election loss doesn't end someone's prospects. Deltell could step aside for Dumont.

    And it IS reasonable to expect a leader to have better numbers than their party.

    It means the party can grow.

    When a leader, like Ignatieff or Dion, is as popular or less popular than the party it means they're stalled or going backwards.


    A stronger ADQ, back into the double digits, would hurt the PQ wouldn't it ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shadow,

    Remember our discussion of Winnipeg North, Judy W-L, and the Liberal candidate?

    Its not turning around in favour of the Liberals. That candidate, Roland Sevillano, is stepping down to run provincially, while popular Liberal MLA Kevin Lamoureaux is running for Winnipeg North federally.

    We're going to see an excellent match-up next election/by-election.

    ReplyDelete
  14. --- Eric why is Dumont no longer credible as leader ?

    His performance after 2007 and being on TV have hurt his credibility. It doesn't really matter, he considers himself a journalist now.

    --- And it IS reasonable to expect a leader to have better numbers than their party.

    It can be, but not in this example. Deltell is new, the party has gone through turmoil, and no leader is coming close to their party's level of support.

    --- A stronger ADQ, back into the double digits, would hurt the PQ wouldn't it ?

    If the 2007 is any model, it hurts both major parties.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Volkov is the new federal Liberal candidate better than the old one ?

    Judy is safe no matter what, of course, but if she steps down to run for mayor things could get interesting in the riding.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kevin Lamoureaux has been around since 1988, when Sharon Carstairs brought the Manitoba Liberals to official opposition status.

    He has represented Inkster for most of that time with the exception of one provincial loss.

    He ran for federal office once before in Winnipeg Centre, and was defeated by Pat Martin.

    He has stepped down in Inkster to try another federal run.

    I predict he will lose. It is a very strong NDP riding, and even though Kevin is popular I don't think he can overcome that.

    If Judy W-L decides to not run for mayor, kevin will lose anyway.

    If Judy runs for mayor, and the NDP, nominates someone else, Kevin is still in an uphill battle.

    His provincial seat will now probably go NDP.

    If Judy takes the plunge and runs for Mayor, she will be defeated by Sam Katz.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shadow,

    Lamoureaux is a popular provincial MLA within the federal riding's boundaries. I think that yes, if Judy stays, he'll most likely lose; but, despite what 49 says, I think if a by-election occurred, he would put up a good fight against any NDP candidate.

    Either way, the Liberals will put up a good fight. Lamoureaux is a commendable MLA from what I've read, so he'll have his own traction, even if the federal campaign doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is Winnipeg North actually a strong NDP riding though or is a strong Judy W-L riding?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Strong NDP riding. It's been NDP since before the NDP even existed. I think the CCF's first leader, Woodworth, had this seat.

    However, Liberals do have a shot at the seat despite. There used to be a Liberal MP for the riding (or at least half of it, after the '04 distribution) and provincially there is some structure. It'll be a fight, to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry - Winnipeg Centre was JS Woodworth's riding. Still, the Labour/CCF movement has had the riding since about the same time, more or less.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Volkov if there is a by-election you can expect a big CPC push.

    If you check out the financials on the race over at punditsguide you'll see that very little has ever been spent electing a Conservative. Still going from '04 to now results have been 12-17-22.

    Without a doubt the party would max out spending in a byelection. So who knows what an extra $60,000 would do for the Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The CPC could spend $5,000,000 in Winnipeg North and it would have ZERO impact there.

    The riding is solid NDP.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 49 steps that's quite frankly not realistic at all.

    57.2% of the riding didn't vote last election.

    $60,000 of Tory money could easily locate some support amongst those non-voters and GOTV.

    Support has risen from 12-17-22 w/o money. With money a showing of 30% would be a reasonable expectation.


    Nobody is talking about taking the seat away from the NDP. Its all about who comes in second, whether you grew in support or not, and the obvious national implications.

    (Assuming its a by-election, in a real election all parties will ignore the riding and hand it over to the NDP.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think that at least half of Lamoureux's provincial seat of Inkster is actually in Kildonan-St. Paul and not Winnipeg North - so while he is better than a total no-name - about 85% of the people in Winnipeg North have never had him as their representative (given that there are 4 or 5 provincial ridings per federal riding in Manitoba).

    I'll be interested to hear some speculation about who might run for the NDP nomination if there is a vacancy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. More Iggy election speculation ?

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100416/ignatieff_loans_100416/20100416?hub=QPeriod

    Key line:

    "The Opposition leader appeared at a health centre in a scenic Nova Scotia community to announce the plan in what had the feel of a campaign-style event."


    The proposal itself is utter nonsense, of course. Iggy wants to spend 30 million to re-direct health care proffesionals from urban Canada to rural Canada to address shortages in service.

    Except there's a shortage in urban Canada too, which would only be made worse by this idea.

    Investments in new spaces at university, which were cut back in the 90's, is key.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Shadow,

    It isn't election speculation - the Liberals are ramping up their platform announcements, which they said would be all done, costed, and printed in a nice easy-to-read booklet by this summer.

    And, Shadow, there are rarely shortages for medical professionals in urban areas. In fact, there have been many, many, many studies saying the exact opposite - that medical professionals prefer to cluster around urban areas for better business, and avoid rural areas for obvious reasons.

    You're right - there needs to be an opening up of spaces in the universities for medical professions. But, you're also ignoring everything else, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In urban Canada you might have a clinic with 4 doctors when it should have 6. A shortage means not enough, and they can compensate by using more nurses and other staff. They can find ways to be more efficient, just like any business that has a shortage of certain skills.

    The rural situation is not one of shortage. It is one of no doctors at all within an hour's drive in many areas. You can't gain *any* efficiencies when you have zero doctors in the local clinic.

    But you are correct that we need more places in the medical schools. Widening the practice of medicine, with nurse practitioners and other professions that are not quite physicians but are qualified to perform many services is also long overdue. Do I really need someone who is qualified to remove my appendix safely to treat my hangnail?

    E-health was supposed to bring about major increases in efficiencies. Are we going to drop that whole idea, like we are dropping gun registries, simply because we got fleeced by some bad consultants?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Volkov your conclusion is off base.

    "there are rarely shortages for medical professionals in urban areas"

    None of the links you've provided say that at all.

    They say the shortage of health proffesionals is WORSE in rural Canada. Nobody is disputing that.

    But if you've seen the waiting lists to sign up with a family doctor in this country, in a rural OR URBAN area, you'd know your above statement is patently ridiculous.

    Nobody is immune from the shortage and there certainly isn't an excess capacity in urban areas to re-direct to rural areas.

    Creating more health professionals over all should be the goal.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think some major spending needs to be spent on med schools to open up more space. At Memorial University for example because of the lack of space it is difficult to get into nusing or medicine, they end up turning away tons of people each year. I have several friends who had been interested in nursing and because they couldn't get in when they wanted to they decided to get a different degree.

    I think the federal government needs to step up with funding to open up more space before this becomes a bigger problem.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If memory serves didn't several provincial premiers a few years back agree to cut the number of places in the medical schools despite being warned that this would cause Doctor shortages ?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I assume you saw these new devastating numbers (if you're a rightwinger) from BC. The NDP is now 18 points ahead of the BC Liberals!

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/surges+biggest+poll+lead+since+Liberals+took+office/2919129/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey Poscdoc the trouble with that is that university spaces are technically education policy, not health care.

    And while health care is a joint area of responsibility, education is the sole domain of the provinces.

    So it would require some stepping on toes to be sure.

    Unfortunately the provinces have followed a strategy of trying to recruit health care workers from each each other by offering incentives. They don't actually want to expand their universities and train them theirselves.

    The problem with that is the same as the problem with Iggy's policy, its simply shuffling around the existing supply without creating more.

    ReplyDelete
  33. On Ignatieff's plan to spend more of my money on getting Doctor's to rural areas.

    That is a regressive policy that assumes that there is unlimited money to be spent on Health. This is the kind of an idea that would be ridiculed at a Thinker's conference. It doesn't address the reality that ALL of the important health delivery is done urban centres.

    I live in a rural area. I really don't give a rat's ass if we have a bunch of GPs and family doctors etc. There is no possible way of bring of bringing 21st century health care to the hinterland. We can't afford to pay millions to train Doctors and then subsidize them to play golf in small rural courses.

    If I need anything more than a annual check up and a reading of my blood work I am off to a specialist in an Urban centre lickety quick. That is reality.

    The trouble with Mr. Ignatieff (and most politicians) is that they deal in theoretical situations that do not reflect reality. Mr. Ignatieff could never visualize himself not having access to excellent health care as he has had Toronto, Cambridge and London.

    I chose to live in a rural area and have to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Éric,

    The Liberals (PLQ) need to move in the direction of a leadership change. FULL DISCLOSURE: Yours truly remains a reluctant member.

    The next election will be in about three years and is only the preliminary for the big showdown to come under the next PQ leader.

    Put another way -- unless Charest vacates in reasonably short order, Premier Pauline wins. She will serve a symbolic one-term and then is likely to be replaced by...wait for it, Régis Labaume. (This last brilliant piece of analysis is courtesy of my friend Léonce, and I concur.)

    And then comes the big danger for Canada as we head into a third never-ending referendum on sovereignty.

    Believe me, if anyone can win it, Régis can.

    ReplyDelete
  35. BC Voice of Reason,

    Well, good for you, I'm glad you are willing to take that trip if you need to.

    But, see... you're not the only person the government, or anyone, has to care about. Other rural areas are more than glad to have initiatives like these. Rural areas where they can't simply take an easy trip down to the nearest urban area. Rural areas which are cut off from convenient transportation. Rural areas which don't have enough access or transportation for the disabled. Rural areas which are only adjacent to rural areas and may have to travel for an entire day to get to the nearest specialist or non-filled-to-the-brink GP office or hospital.

    In other words - people with different and much more pressing situations than yours. People who need it and will utilize it for very good reasons. People outside of your own self-bubble, which you can apparently can't see out of.

    Don't like giving people better access to medical services? Well, don't vote Liberal. Easy as pie.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Volkov i'll thank you to never criticize the GST cuts again on the grounds that they were poor economic policy done to buy votes.

    This shuffling around of health care resources (when in actuality it would be cheaper to move the people you are talking about out of rural areas then to move 21st century medicine to them) is shameless vote buying. I can imagine Iggy now, singing to the tune of Katie Perry:

    "I bought some votes and I liked it"

    ReplyDelete
  37. DL i've noticed that Bill Vander Zalm is unusually active for a 75 year old man.

    That poll you linked to indicates broad support for new parties and lingering disgust for the NDP amongst much of the population.

    I wonder if his cross-province campaign to stop the HST involves other considerations.

    Perhaps bringing forward a new (or old) political vehicle to the provincial scene that he'll endorse and support but not directly lead.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Volkov:
    Volkov I'll thank you to never criticize the GST cuts again on the grounds that they were poor economic policy done to buy votes.

    Again and again we put up with Shadows outright lying. Apparently he can see NO wrong in anything the CPC does yet we see just the opposite. Every major economist in the country said bluntly that the GST cut was plain bad economics, thus the only reason was to placate the base !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Shadow,

    First off, I don't remember ever saying as such, though it was bad economic sense, and for you to call "vote grab!" when mentioning something the GST cut is beyond belief.

    Second of all, it appears you either think all Liberal ideas are for vote grabbing, or that better medical services for rural areas is a bad thing. Which one is it? Choose your next words wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Volkov:
    Second of all, it appears you either think all Liberal ideas are for vote grabbing, or that better medical services for rural areas is a bad thing. Which one is it? Choose your next words wisely.

    Better medical services don't fit the maximize profits ideas of the Tories. Get used to it or be prepared to put real emphasis on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Volkov

    Are you a non-urban individual?

    Try to imagine yourself as one.

    If you have anything that requires surgery, heart, eye, cancer, MS, even delivering a baby... where would you go? Doctor Welby MD that got bribed to give up his career aspirations to be assigned to the outback?

    And what does he do for you? recommends a specialist. Located where?

    Saskatchewan was littered with small hospitals that no one would use.


    Where would the people not named Danny Williams living in NL go when they have heart surgery.... well they would end up in Montreal, Ottawa or maybe Halifax.

    So do we want to take young Doctors and entice them with cold hard cash to forgo their specialties so they can do triage in Come By Chance?

    Maybe in your world they can pick up their specialties on the farm as money is no object.. or have roving specialists.

    Socialist good intentions killing universal Health care one poor funding decision at a time.

    The government owned auto plants should be broken into small factories and located in the hinterland... not an efficient system, but gives access to cars to small communities as well as jobs to people who don't want to farm, fish or move to the city.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Are you a non-urban individual?

    Try to imagine yourself as one
    .
    I'm rural.

    If you have anything that requires surgery, heart, eye, cancer, MS, even delivering a baby... where would you go? Doctor Welby MD that got bribed to give up his career aspirations to be assigned to the outback?
    I would go to my GP who I visit on a regular basis, with whom I have some familiarity, and who is familiar with me.

    And what does he do for you? recommends a specialist. Located where?
    He knows whether I will need a specialist. He knows my history. He is my gateway into the system.

    But if he doesn't exist, then I still have to find the specialist in a city and they somehow have to get my history from a professional who I don't have.

    Saskatchewan was littered with small hospitals that no one would use.
    Have to take your word for it. However, was there a shortage of physicians, such that said hospitals had no doctors?

    Where would the people not named Danny Williams living in NL go when they have heart surgery.... well they would end up in Montreal, Ottawa or maybe Halifax.
    There are efficiencies in doing heart surgery in a limited number of major centres.

    So do we want to take young Doctors and entice them with cold hard cash to forgo their specialties so they can do triage in Come By Chance?
    Are all doctors now specialists?

    Maybe in your world they can pick up their specialties on the farm as money is no object.. or have roving specialists.
    You learn a specialty by being a resident in a teaching hospital, don't you? It does not appear that every doctor is a specialist. There are plenty who become GPs to practice family medicine.

    Socialist good intentions killing universal Health care one poor funding decision at a time.
    Your premise above does not logically lead to this bumper sticker slogan.

    The government owned auto plants should be broken into small factories and located in the hinterland... not an efficient system, but gives access to cars to small communities as well as jobs to people who don't want to farm, fish or move to the city.
    Why are we allowed to compare car manufacturing with the provision of health care services, but we are not allowed to compare car registration with gun registration?

    Your idea of making car manufacturing a widely distributed cottage industry is intended to look foolish. But why are you comparing with manufacturing? Wouldn't a more apt comparison be with car sales and repairs? It would be to refute your view, since every one horse town does have a garage for repairs and service and usually a dealer too. That local repair place is also part of a very efficient distribution system for parts. In fact it provides a very good model for medicine, with local service and referral to larger centres for more advanced services.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm going to have to side with BC Voice of Reason over Liberal Supporter.

    Reading the above exchange its pretty clear he's providing the better arguements.

    As I already said, there are a shortage of GPS in URBAN areas. So re-locating resources is just brain dead.

    Volkov keeps saying the goal here is better medicine. How is that possible when you're simply shuffling pieces around on the board ?

    "Better rural healthcare" Ok catchy soundbite but its a half truth. Its coming at the expense of urban healthcare

    So the Liberal party wants to go into the next election being the party promising better results for rural Canadians and worse result for urban Canadians.

    Talk about playing one region off another ! Talk about a small minded approach to gov't ! (if you didn't notice i'm using Ignatieff's drivel he always tags Harper with).

    ReplyDelete
  44. As for why Anglos won't vote for the ADQ, Mario Dumont was a leader of the OUI campaign in '95. Therefore, most anglos think of the ADQ as a separatist party. End of analysis.

    As for the Greens' stand on sovereignty, I participated in the discussions leading to the refounding of the PVQ in 2001. It seemed obvious not to be federalist or sovereignist, for practical and principled reasons. First, those around the table would never have agreed, and there were so few volunteers at first, it would have killed the party before it was born to fight over this (after all, this fight had contributed to the demise of the first Green Party). Second, it seemed like a secondary issue to the ecological agenda, which was the whole point of the party; I mean, no one votes Green because of their ideas about the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So soon:

    http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/historic-04-19-2010

    I notice Craig Oliver has been pushing the meme that a vote of contempt should be considered a vote of nonconfidence for the past week or so.

    Good.

    It undermines Derek Lee's inappropriate letter to the GG and supports Harper's position that voting yes for contempt will indeed lead to an election.

    ReplyDelete
  46. DL your link didn't work for me and I really dislike Campbell so I'd like see the poll. If Eric is going to post it that would be great. If not could you post the results. TIA

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hill Times:
    "It is only among the uninformed and the negligently ignorant that the power to send for persons, papers and records would appear unclear," Mr. Lee told the Commons in his rebuttal to Mr. Nicholson. "Those powers and authorities are all part of Canada's Constitution. How desperately embarrassing it is that the attorney general of Canada could stand in this place and say these things."

    Nowhere in that link does it in the least talk about confidence. As usual Shadow spins his own web out of thin air.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The results of that poll will be posted this week.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Éric,

    Mais oui! Malheureusement...

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Nowhere in that link does it in the least talk about confidence."

    Peter you are aware that Craig Oliver works for CTV news and NOT the Hill Times.

    Right ?

    I was talking about two seperate but related points in the same post.

    If you like you can go watch yesterday's episode of Question Period, journalists segment, to hear the dean of the parliamentary press gallery pronouncing that motion of contempt = nonconfidence.

    Basically the narrative is set in stone. Derek Lee's letter to the GG telling her not to allow for an election after the vote has zero credibility amongst the media at this point.

    So if the oppo does go ahead with this vote be warned that they will be blamed for triggering an election.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shadow: If you like you can go watch yesterday's episode of Question Period, journalists segment, to hear the dean of the parliamentary press gallery pronouncing that motion of contempt = nonconfidence...

    So if the oppo does go ahead with this vote be warned that they will be blamed for triggering an election.


    Our system of government has many strong points. One springs to mind: if neither the governing party nor the opposition believe that a motion is one of non-confidence then it isn't, regardless of what some random journalist may opine.

    The Prime Minister can pull the plug at any time but he won't do so now, especially after all the effort he's put into sprucing up the Town of Huntsville. The Leader of the Opposition is on a very clear election timetable. For September, maybe October.

    Nobody wants an election now, even if one media hack is desperately vying for attention. It's important to distinguish between political analysis and shock jockery.

    ReplyDelete
  52. John those international meetings are towards the end of June.

    Assuming a ruling comes this week and a vote is held next week we could easily fit in a 36 day campaign.

    The G20 and the G8 summits are irrelevent to election speculation at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John:
    The G20 and the G8 summits are irrelevant to election speculation at the moment.

    Notice how Shadow speaks for the PM ?? Could that be because he is ????

    If Harper see's the opportunity he will seize it, if he doesn't see there won't be.

    My suspicion is the latter .

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shadow: Assuming a ruling comes this week and a vote is held next week we could easily fit in a 36 day campaign.

    And without a Tory majority or something close to it, Michael Ignatieff would get the photo ops on the dock. (Tony Clement would be even more miffed, but maybe that would give him enough free time to finish building his new house.) Hosting the G8/G20 is part of the Harper Is A World Leader campaign message.

    A spring election ain't happening.

    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.