Monday, April 19, 2010

Projection: 126 CPC, 101 LPC, 51 BQ, 30 NDP

The Conservatives have dropped two seats, with one each going to the Liberals and the New Democrats. Perhaps more importantly, the Liberals and NDP now have 131 seats to the Conservatives' 126.However, it isn't all roses for Michael Ignatieff's party. The Liberals have nevertheless dropped 0.2 points to 29.2%. The Conservatives are also down 0.2, to 33.2%.

The NDP are this update's winners, gaining 0.2 points nationally to reach 16.4%. The Greens are up 0.1 points to 10.2%.

The Conservatives have moved up and down depending on the region. Their seats losses come in Ontario and the North. In Ontario, the party is down one seat and 0.3 points to 35.5%. In the North, they are down 0.1 points to 30.0% and zero seats. Their biggest gain comes in Alberta, where that have gained 0.4 points to reach 58.8%. They are also up 0.2 points in Atlantic Canada (31.3%) and 0.1 points in British Columbia (35.8%). They are down 0.1 points in the Prairies (46.8%).

The Liberals were also up and down. They gained 0.4 points in the Prairies (21.7%) but were steady or down everywhere else. They were stable (36.4%) in Ontario, where they picked up a seat, and in Atlantic Canada (36.9%). They dropped 0.1 points in the North (33.4%) but nevertheless gained a seat. They were down 0.3 points in British Columbia (24.6%), 0.5 points and one seat in Quebec (24.3%), and 0.7 points (17.2%) in Alberta.

The NDP gained 0.4 points in Quebec (11.7%) as well as a seat. They were up 0.4 points in British Columbia (25.8%) and 0.3 points in Ontario (16.3%). They gained 0.1 points in the North (27.1%) and were stable in Alberta (10.8%) and Atlantic Canada (23.9%). They dropped 0.3 points in the Prairies (22.8%).

The Bloc Québécois made a small 0.1 point gain in Quebec, where they have a large lead at 38.0%.

The Greens were up 0.2 points in Alberta (10.2%) and 0.1 points in the North (8.5%). They were stable in Ontario (10.3%) and dropped 0.1 points in the Prairies (7.2%) and Quebec (7.5%). They dropped 0.2 points in Atlantic Canada (6.2%) and British Columbia (11.8%).

The New Democrats should be all smiles with this update, as they have picked up a seat and made important gains in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. Their only worry should be in the Prairies, where they could be doing much better.

The Bloc can also be happy with their steady-as-she-goes performance, and the Greens were relatively stable.

It's more of a mixed result for the Liberals. Yes, they gained a seat in the North and in Ontario, but lost one in Quebec. They made a gain in the Prairies and are stable, and leading, in Ontario, but the drops in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec are significant.

For the Conservatives, this was not a good 24 days. Their only large gain was in Alberta, where they are completely safe anyway. The loss in Ontario, and the inability to claw back up in Quebec, are troublesome. And the loss of two seats is certainly bad news.

There are two major stories in Canadian politics today. The first involves the problems the Conservatives are having with their ousted cabinet minister and the turmoil over Afghan detainees. The other involves Jean Charest and allegations of corruption in Quebec. The former has the potential to drag the Conservatives down nationally, while the latter has the potential to boost the Bloc and hurt both the federal Liberals and the Conservatives.

But whether this potential turns into anything concrete remains to be seen.

53 comments:

  1. That's interesting as it mirrors closely the EKOS results.

    Now how well any of this would holdup in an actual election is a different question.

    So we wait and wonder. But if that prediction held then it would be a Lib-NDP alliance Govt. So much for Harper's dream majority

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Their only large gain was in Alberta, where they are completely sage anyway."

    I think that's a typo, "safe" is what I think you were going for.

    But what about the one NDP seat ?

    What do Alberta numbers need to look like before you project a Tory sweep of the province ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the correction.

    They need to be at around 65% for an outright sweep, though if the Liberals are below about 17% and the NDP is below about 12% they also manage to sweep.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Volkov do you think this is smart for the Liberals?

    Ignatieff just said he would take the unusual step of whipping votes on a private member's bill to kill the gun registry (standard convention amongst all parties is for these to be free votes).

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100419/gun_registry_100419/20100419?hub=QPeriod

    Which of these yeas switching to nays is put in danger from this:

    Mr. Larry Bagnell
    (Yukon)

    Mr. Wayne Easter
    (Malpeque)

    Mr. Anthony Rota
    (Nipissing—Timiskaming)

    Mr. Scott Simms
    (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)

    Mr. Todd Russell
    (Labrador)

    Mr. Scott Andrews
    (Avalon)

    Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours
    (Madawaska—Restigouche)

    Mr. Keith Martin
    (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shadow,

    Actually, Ignatieff isn't so much "whipping" them, as he has gotten their votes. The new registry proposal put forward by Ignatieff had the very words, "... we’ve worked with those [Liberal] MPs to create the reform package I’ve just announced—sensible changes that address legitimate concerns, while upholding the integrity of the gun registry."

    Ignatieff has done what he should have done on the maternal health bill - consulted the caucus more wisely, especially those that either voted the other war or abstained. This way, Ignatieff is getting his entire caucus' concerns addressed, while maintaining unity with the vote.

    This has been planned way in advance. I wouldn't call it "whipped" if the Liberal MPs are doing so of their own accord. If Iggy can't get all votes on this, then come back to me, but I think we'll be pleasantly surprised.

    The question is, then, how many Dippers will vote?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Volkov putting aside the procedural issue (we can certainly discuss that after the vote, especially who shows up or stays home) what about the electoral implications ?

    I have a feeling voters in some of these ridings aren't interested in "upholding the integrity of the gun registry".

    I have a feeling they want the thing dismantled and destroyed.

    These MPs are going to have to switch from saying "i'm going to dismantle the long gun registry" to "i'm going to fix some of your legitimate concerns but we're going to keep the registry".

    Spin it any way you like but that's a pretty huge shift.

    Somebody like Larry Bagnel could be taken down by this issue. People in the Yukon don't want the feds involved in their rifles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Éric: The Bloc can also be happy with their steady-as-she-goes performance, and the Greens were relatively stable.

    At the national level, this is indeed steady-as-she-goes for the Greens: the party inches up with almost every projection revision. The change in any single update--including this one--is too small to put much credence in, but over time the trend is clear.

    At the regional level this is not the movement the Green Party needs. Green breakthroughs will come with significant climbs in Ontario and BC. It's amusing to occasionally poll second in Alberta, but it's unlikely that the first elected Green MP will come from there. Ontario didn't grow in Éric's calculations and BC actually dropped, so the monthly changes aren't helpful.

    So is this projection cause for Green concern? Not at all; there's a lot of noise in that signal. If one month of national data should be taken with a grain of salt, reach for the shaker when evaluating one month of regional data. Also, the granularity that really matters to Greens at this point isn't the region: it's the riding, for small numbers of ridings. Unfortunately, threehundredeight.com is not the place to go for answers to Greens' key questions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shadow,

    I doubt it will be a big issue in more than three of the ridings (Yukon, Avalon, Malpeque), and even then, it won't be an overriding issue, especially given the state of the economy and the strength of the candidates there, especially one of Larry Bagnell or Wayne Easter's character, two MPs whom the voters could have turfed out years before if they thought the long gun registry was really that big of an issue. And really, given the fact that Yukon hasn't been Conservative since before 1988 (and even then was represented by a member who put the P in PC) and has consistently elected left-leaning politicians with membership in parties which supported/introduced the gun registry... yeah, your speculation doesn't go anywhere fast.

    The rest of the ridings are so safe for the Liberals that the candidate could declare war on Mars and still win handily.

    The members wouldn't be putting themselves on the line like this if they didn't think they were safe or weren't prepared to fight to the end. This isn't the US where every self-serving congressperson betrays their party in an instant, no matter how much you want it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The gun registry has been around for quite a while at this point. I doubt any of the voters were under any illusions about which party was going to kill it nor have they likely changed how much they value that position.

    I don't expect much to result from the Liberal's position on it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe this is completely off topic.

    Never mind the gun registry.

    How many conservatives are going to vote against Rod Bruinooge's idiotic bill?

    His goal is, and always has been to get abortion outlawed in Canada.

    That is his over riding concern, and what he spends most of his time in the HOC, doing.

    He is the head of the secretive pro life group.

    Is this exactly wise politics for the conservatives?

    ReplyDelete
  11. 49 Steps,

    Good question. It doesn't look like the PMO is supporting Bruinooge's bill, so I suspect neither will anyone else, because Lord knows there are few Conservative MPs with a spine.

    I might not agree with Bruinooge's ideals, but like Casey, he's willing to take a stand when he needs to. Too bad it will all be for naught.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 49 steps its a private members bill. Odds are it won't come to a vote before the next election.

    It has no effect on Conservative politics. Its neither wise nor unwise.

    As for Volkov and Kevin Sutton's assertions they had best hope they are right.

    Being seen as independent of the Toronto Liberal HQ is the only thing that gets Liberals in small c conservative areas elected.

    Flip flopping on this, betraying your anti-registry statements for all these years, and now endorsing the registry seems like the type of issue that could lose a campaign for members in these types of ridings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You'd think that all of those statements from the police would be enough to convince people the registry, while flawed, is still a thing worth keeping.

    The people who were most opposed to the registry, and who make it a deciding factor in their voting behaviour, probably were not voting Liberal anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shadow,

    I agree with Volkov, and Kevin Sutton.

    After all do you remember this:

    "A conservative government will never tax income trusts"

    "We will have no deficit and no recession"

    I mean Harper so far has got away with that, hasn't he?

    The gun registry proposal put forward by Ignatieff today will help buffer those MP's in those ridings.

    I mean do you ever stop to think about some of those vulnerable conservative MP's in ridings, where Harper is not exactly an asset?

    ReplyDelete
  15. John, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first elected Green MP came from Alberta. Somewhere like Calgary West where the Conservative incumbent isn't well-liked, and city-folk are prone to the sort of nimby-ism that drives voters to the Green party, plus the general electoral malaise in Alberta that stems from the (wellsupported) expectation that the local results are a foregone conclusion - these make for a real green possibility.

    Keep in mind that I despise the Green party and their anti-human, anti-wealth policies, so take my analysis as you will.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You'd think that all of those statements from the police would be enough to convince people the registry, while flawed, is still a thing worth keeping."

    Except we've seen conflicting statements, both pro and contra.

    BTW police will still know and be able to check if somebody is registered as a gun owner.

    And the parliamentary secretary for public safety (himself a fmr chief of police) just demolished the old Liberal canard on tv today: "shouldn't the police know if somebody has a gun when they enter a home?"

    Except for the past 20 years police have been trained to ALWAYS ASSUME that the person inside is in fact armed.

    Because, obviously, the person could always have an unregistered or illegal gun.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "He is the head of the secretive pro life group."

    49 how many Liberal Mp's does that group include? Guys like McTeague (who I otherwise like) and Sazbo.

    Let's fair here. Harper has said he won't support your MP's motion. I can't spell his name.

    Earl.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eric

    How is Elizabeth May doing in Best PM or Leader categories. From my POV it seems that last election not only was she given a spot at the debate she was taken seriously by the Media and a lot of the electorate.

    It seems that the little time she is in the public focus she is moving further out to the lunatic fringe and has a good chance of not being taken seriously by the electorate, media and even her own party.

    She has lost her special status as Liberal adviser and best friend.

    Last time she seemed bigger than the party. This time I think the Green concept will be stronger than May as leader.


    Would there be any polling numbers to be compared that would support or toss my theory to the dust bin?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Are the NDP trying to distance themselves from the yapping dog opposition?

    If they are able to leave the scandal chasing to the Liberals they should be able to take votes on the Left.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shadow,

    I hope someone will link to recent police officer deaths (RCMP and otherwise). If my memory is correct, most of the recent deaths were the result of using a long-gun.

    Again, that would also apply to the four (4) Mounties in Alberta, killed near Mayerthorpe in March of 2005. A Semi Automatic, Assault Rifle was used in that incident.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Et voilà:

    C O A L I T I O N
    for Gun Control / pour le contrôle des armes www.guncontrol.ca

    Police shootings in Canada

    Officer Deaths from Firearms

    Most police officers shot on duty in Canada have been shot by rifles or shotguns.

    Name Date Department Type of Gun Province

    Chief J.G.E. Denis Nadeau 4/28/1995 Police de Sainte-
    Marie-de- Beauce
    Long gun Quebec
    Odette Pinard 11/27/1995 Montreal Police Undetermined Quebec
    André Lalonde 4/29/1996 Montreal Police Undetermined Quebec
    Derek Cameron Burkholder 6/14/1996 RCMP, Lunenburg Long gun Nova
    Scotia
    Thomas P. Coffin 5/31/1997 OPP, Midland Handgun Ontario
    Jurgen S. Seewald 05/03/2001 RCMP Long gun Nunavut
    Dennis D. Strongquill 12/21/2001 RCMP Long gun(s) Manitoba
    Benoit L'Écuyer 2/28/2002 Montreal Police Handgun Quebec
    James W. G. Galloway 2/28/2004 RCMP Edmonton Long gun Alberta
    Peter Christopher Schiemann 03/03/2005 RCMP Long gun Alberta
    Lionide (Leo) Nicholas Johnston 03/03/2005 RCMP Long gun Alberta
    Anthony Fitzgerald Orion Gordon 03/03/2005 RCMP Long gun Alberta
    Brock Warren Myrol 03/03/2005 RCMP Long gun Alberta
    Valerie Gignac 12/14/2005 Laval Police Long gun Quebec
    John Charles Atkinson 05/05/2006 Windsor Police Handgun Ontario
    Robin Cameron 07/16/2006 RCMP Long gun Sask.
    Marc Bourdages 07/16/2006 RCMP Long gun Sask.
    Daniel Tessier 03/02/2007 Laval Police Handgun Quebec
    Christopher John Worden 10/07/2007 RCMP Handgun
    Northwest
    Territories
    Douglas Scott 11/05/2007 RCMP Long gun Nunavut
    Vu Pham 03/08/2010 OPP Huron County Long gun Ontario

    ReplyDelete
  22. Originally, Harper wanted to dismantle the gun registry. Not just the long gun registry, but the entire registry.

    Shadow: Do you support scrapping the entire gun registry? That would include scrapping handgun registration, since that was Mr Harper's original intention.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ira: John, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first elected Green MP came from Alberta. Somewhere like Calgary West where the Conservative incumbent isn't well-liked...

    I would be delighted if this came to pass, but at this time Green candidates have the best chance when the other three (or four) parties are fairly equally matched and split the non-Green vote.

    Rob Anders is certainly not the subject of universal admiration. I'm sure that Randy Weeks will significantly increase his share of the vote in the next election, but he'll face some tough sledding in unseating Anders this year. (Down the road is another matter. Greens aren't don't run on a now-or-never basis.)

    I'm an Easterner. I'll defer to Albertans with a better feel for their ridings.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Éric: You'd think that all of those statements from the police would be enough to convince people the registry, while flawed, is still a thing worth keeping.

    Shadow: BTW police will still know and be able to check if somebody is registered as a gun owner.

    And that's precisely what they do today. The vast majority of the registry checks are whether the owner is licensed, not whether they have registered firearms.

    If somebody has a PAL, the police have to assume that they might have a firearm. After that, one 303 or an arsenal sufficient for a small nation have to be treated in the same way.

    The gun registry is not solving any identifiable problem. It should be done away with. (Obviously access to PAL information will stay.)

    How does this fit into the Green Party line? The party strongly believes in grassroots democracy: listening to constituents and representing them. The message from the farmers in our riding is very clear.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ronald O'Dowd you aware that registered guns are just as lethal as non-registered guns right ?

    Are you arguing that hunting rifles should be banned in Canada ?

    If not then your point seems to be irrelevent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Liberal Supporter my view (and Harper's/Hoepner's/Rural Liberals and Dippers) is the following:

    Everyone who owns a firearm should be required to register (for free and easily) as someone who owns a gun. They should take the required safety course and obey storage requirements.

    People who own non-recreational firearms should provide further information (serial numbers, make and model, quantity).

    What I don't support is rural Canadians who as part of their lifestyle use guns to hunt for food being required to give the federal gov't a detailed report of their activities visa a vis gun registration.

    Its a cultural issue. About freedom and privacy and not being treated like a criminal when you're an upstanding citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. LS: Who is permitted to legally own a hand gun in Canada? "Canada, with a population of 31 million, limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives."

    ReplyDelete
  28. John:

    Why green doesn't work in a competitive world.

    http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/features/story.html?id=2907330

    We need not only other nations on board but other provinces or we need to find a way to equalize power rates across Canada. No chance the other provinces will agree to that. Who can blame them? They're not embarking on the destructive course that McGuinty is. Hudak looks better all the time. And you have no idea how much that pains me. I was a teacher!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Milliken soon to rule:

    http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/506602--hurricane-helena-clouding-the-deeper-issue

    This issue could be the one that gives the LPOC their election opportunity while Guergis is still in the news, although I think the issue would soon be forgotten as Harper wrapped himself in the flag and fought the campaign against the "coalition" real or imagined.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why the Private Members Bill for Bilingual SOC Judges goes too far:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2926895

    ReplyDelete
  31. The phony Abortion issue, thanks IGGY:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/playing-politics-with-dying-mothers/article1539752/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Shadow,

    Your point is taken but it amounts to a red herring.

    I'm for registration across the board and nothing, not even The Almighty himself, will change my mind.

    That being said, Conservatives are on the defensive what with the Liberals now unified on this issue.

    By the way, I have a few words for the NDP -- time for your rural MPs to discover what guts means.

    They can vote in favour of the long-gun registry and tell their constituents that if they prefer, they are all willing to sit in the Commons as independents. That should settle things nicely with Jack finally sticking to his principles and whipping his caucus.

    That's what you call putting your money where your mouth should be, unless of course, further career advancement is a greater priority for some NDP MPs...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Earl: Why green doesn't work in a competitive world.

    The system described in that article isn't green and it isn't Green. See my comments on earlier postings.

    If you change that to, "why dumb doesn't work in a competitive world", I could only agree wholeheartedly.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Earl: Milliken soon to rule:

    [Lawrence Martin commentary]

    This issue could be the one that gives the LPOC their election opportunity while Guergis is still in the news...


    Guergis is a rapidly-imploding sideshow and an embarrassment to all concerned, not least the PM and the Leader of the Opposition. It will not be election material. It's had far too much coverage already, this blog not excepted.

    Martin's piece lays out the real election issues. The only possible reason for Harper to engineer a snap vote would be to go to the polls before highly incriminating documents see the light of day. If there are no such documents, the point is moot. If they do exist, the PM could still have trouble pulling the fire alarm to get out of the exam. The Governor General might finally wake up to her constitutional responsibilities and refuse a spurious request for dissolution until the documents were released.

    On the St. Jean Baptiste weekend, expect the foreign press to refer to "embattled Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper". You read it here first.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John:

    In our democracy the GG is appointed by the PM. Except in exceptional circumstances such as a PM refusing to accept defeat either at the polls or in an election her role is well defined by both practice and tradition. She is to follow the advice of the sitting PM. It is not her place nor her duty to decide who should govern except in extraordinary circumstances.

    This minority parliament is well past its expiry date. The government and not the opposition decides what is a vote of confidence. If Lee's motion is ruled in order and the government is defeated Harper has the right to designate the motion one of confidence and if he loses the vote to request dissolution. The GG does not have the right to refuse him. Finally Iggy has stated that he is not interested in a coalition. The GG has no senses to come to. She has a duty to preform her obligations.

    Cheers,
    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  36. Earl,

    I'm with you.

    By the way, the election can't come soon enough for me. Someone, please make my week!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Earl:
    has the right to designate the motion one of confidence and if he loses the vote to request dissolution.

    If he loses the vote then he and the Govt are in Contempt Of Parliament and thus, until that contempt is cleansed, cannot request dissolution. In effect all his powers disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Peter that arguement has no basis in convention, the constitution, or the rules of parliament.

    In fact it turns our entire system on its head. The GG chooses her PM, NOT the house.

    Until the GG replaces her PM she is obligated to seek his advice on all matters and consider all the requests he makes.

    The house can NOT constrain her powers or the advice the PM gives her. Only altering the constitution can do so.

    For the same reason that parliament's fixed election date was meaningless, so to is parliament's finding of contempt in relation to the powers of the GG.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Peter are you sure of this? Really? Where could I find this out.

    TIA,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  40. so to is parliament's finding of contempt in relation to the powers of the GG.

    The Govt ceases to have any authority until the Contempt is discharged.

    Get used to it. With no authority the PM cannot appeal to the GG for dissolution.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Earl:

    Think about it. What is the point of finding a Govt in Contempt if all they have to do is cry Dissolution to escape. That would make the original motion senseless.

    The Govt must discharge the contempt before it can regain any of its major powers including dissolution.

    Since finding an individual member or a Govt in Contempt is the most powerful tool Parliament has to leave the individual or Govt with all their powers is senseless.

    You will probably have to go to Westminster to find this out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanks for the clarification Shadow! I'd never heard of "Peter's Rule" before.

    And Peter from your response I can see that you are making this up as you go. Did you read this argument somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Earl:

    What is the point of finding a Govt In Contempt if that only means they escape by going to an election???

    That would mean that in fact Parliament has NO powers !!

    Is that what you really want?? Think about it !!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Earl:

    No consequences will have the gravity of those that befell England’s King Charles I. In 1649, he was found to be in contempt of Parliament, among other things, for trying to levy taxes without Parliament’s consent. On January 30, 1649 Charles was beheaded in public in London.

    Read more at Suite101: Contempt of Canadian Parliament Accusation: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives Face Allegations of Obstruction http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/contempt-of-canadian-parliament-accusation-a208872#ixzz0lh7GGXCz

    ReplyDelete
  45. Peter the fact is that the government can go to the people over this. It isn't a matter of what I want or you want it is the way Canada runs. It's the Constitution. And yes I think letting the people decide this issue is quite appropriate but then I'm in favour of referendums as well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. As long as the "government" is found in contempt of Parliament, the monarch (in our case, the Governor General) is not able to simply follow the advice of the "government". Therefore, Harper will be unable to dissolve Parliament, and there will be no election. Any advice Harper gives to the Governor General will mean as much as the advice Joe on the street gives to the Queen.

    The issue is the rule of law, which is designed to be above voters. You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your facts.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Doctor Cynic until you or someone else can provide me with point of reference for your "facts", I will regard them as wishful thinking. No where have I read of this line of thought. Even Derrick Lee recognizes that the government may attach confidence to his motion with the rights that that begets or he would not have gone to the trouble of writing the GG to tell it was not intended as a matter of confidence. Unfortunately it is the government and not the mover of the motion which decides if confidence is attached. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Peter from your source:

    "It usually involves a sharp rebuke and a letter of apology, plus a stain on the reputation of the person cited. However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper could make a vote on the contempt motion a matter of confidence. If he does that, and the government is defeated, Parliament would be dissolved and another general election held.

    Read more at Suite101: Contempt of Canadian Parliament Accusation: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives Face Allegations of Obstruction http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/contempt-of-canadian-parliament-accusation-a208872#ixzz0lhVZGDlp"

    ReplyDelete
  49. Much of the English system of government is unwritten and does not exist in law. It only exists based on customs and precedent. And the precedent we have from 17th Century England is one where the monarch which was declared in contempt of parliament does not have supremacy over the realm. This suggests that the monarch will not be able to follow the advice of a government which has been declared in contempt of parliament. At this stage any advice Harper gives to the Governor General is worth as much as the advice a door to door salesman gave me last week.

    Another question is, what happened to the Master Strategist's cunning plan to tie the elimination of 10-percent-ers to the elimination of $1.95-per-vote party funding?

    ReplyDelete
  50. What happens if 'strategic voting' occurs, mainly to the detriment of the Green Party? This seemed to happen last time, shifting from a stable 9-10% to a final 6.78%. Would that extra 2-3 points help the Liberals move to power or the NDP to a few more seats (depending where it went of course).

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lower-case john: What happens if 'strategic voting' occurs, mainly to the detriment of the Green Party?

    Ain't gonna happen because the Green Party message will be unequivocal next time. That lesson has been learned.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Earl:

    Answers are in here

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/PolitCan/messages/?msg=29.1

    ReplyDelete
  53. One hopes that the GPC has learned (I am a member, used to vote PC and even Reform but Harper is a mess with debt and secrecy). The strategic voting issue is a hot topic there as some still think it makes sense. I did a study and if it did happen last time and those 3 points the GPC dropped went to the 'right' parties in each case then Harper was prevented from having 150+ seats - just shy by one or two seats of a majority. However, if all the GPC votes went to the 'right' party then the CPC would still be in power needing one of the other 3 to support them.

    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.