Thursday, June 17, 2010

New EKOS Poll: 4.2-pt Conservative Lead

EKOS's newest poll shows the Conservatives at a historic low - but still the Liberals are stagnant. Compared to EKOS's poll last week, 30.5% marks a drop of 0.9 points for the Tories. This is the lowest EKOS has ever had the Conservatives since they've formed government. But the Liberals are still down: 0.5 points to 26.3%. Despite the government's weakness, the Liberals still are unable to make any gains.

The New Democrats, however, are up 0.8 points to 17.4%. That's a good result for them, particularly in an EKOS poll.

The Greens are down 0.3 to 12.3% and the Bloc Québécois is up 1.6 points to 10.5%. "Other" is at 3.0%.

In Ontario, the Liberals have the lead with 35.4% (down one). The Conservatives are also down one, to 31.2%. The NDP is down one to 16.1%. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 40.7%, while the Conservatives lead in Ottawa with 45.9%.

In Quebec, the Bloc is up six points to 41.9%. The Liberals are up one to 20.3%, while the Conservatives are down two to 14.6%. The NDP is up one to 12.9%. The Bloc leads in Montreal with 38.6%.

In British Columbia, the NDP is up four points to 30.2%, and leads. The Conservatives are down one to 29.9%, while the Liberals are steady at 18.9%. The Greens are down three points to 16.7%. The NDP leads in Vancouver with 33.0%.

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada with 37.1%, the Conservatives in the Prairies with 49.2%, and also in Alberta with 57% (up five). The Liberals are down 10 to 13.4% in Alberta.

The Conservatives win 64 seats in West, 33 in Ontario, 5 in Quebec, and 8 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 110.

The Liberals win 11 seats in the West and North, 55 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec, and 20 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 100.

The Bloc wins 54 seats in Quebec, matching their best.

The NDP make a best-ever result, with 20 seats in the West and North, 18 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 4 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 44.

In such a situation, it is impossible to imagine that the Conservatives would be able to form a viable government.

But if the opposition wants to form the next government, they have to do more than count on Conservative weakness. No matter how low the Tories are, the Liberals can't be happy with 26.3%. But this poll shows that the G8/20 spending could be taking its toll, as the Conservatives are down to 29.2% in Toronto and are slipping in Ontario as a whole.

103 comments:

  1. The oddity is the Liberals aren't gaining strength while the Tories are bleeding support.

    Wonder how much of this is to do with the G8/G20 summit cost fiasco ??

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess it is time for Stephen Harper, to go back to the old tried and true.

    Me thinks, we are going to be seeing a lot of blue sweaters, and pianos this summer from Stephen Harper.

    Maybe we will even see that famous Calgary Stampede "cowboy outfit"

    Harper, always uses the same plays over, and over, and over again.

    I think Canadians. are finally starting to wise up to him, and his charades.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you look at the daily tracking the Conservatives actually did worse but whatever way Ekos figures out the end number they were ended at 30.5. The NDP's numbers also saw a big dip over the last two days maybe because of Libby Davies comments.

    Daily tracking from June 9/10 - 15

    Cons Libs NDP
    29.2% 27.3% 19.5%
    27.2% 28.0% 17.9%
    30.8% 25.8% 14.9%
    29.7% 28.1% 15.3%
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/voteintention-datatables.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The oddity is the Liberals aren't gaining strength while the Tories are bleeding support."


    I don't remember seeing alot of liberal policies out in the forefront the last couple weeks. Just more of the smear the tories tactic.

    Given that I don't see why you would expect an increase for the liberals.

    And if that is why the liberals aren't rising while the tories are sliding.... then it is all about the G8/G20 and other smears. Once summer starts, and the house session ends, polling will see the tories rise (as governments do in their off season) again without those smears.

    The wildcard... could be something big happening at the G8. But don't expect the liberals to move above their new ceiling without telling people why they are better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And still the country is going in the right direction and the Govt is going in the wrong direction.

    By substantial margins as well.

    Is the "love affair" with the Tories over.

    The differences in direction seem to signal that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Red Tory,

    I asked that same question a couple weeks ago when it was the other way around.

    I don't understand where and how ekos presents their data, but Eric assures me that they have their methods.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Direction of country (MoE 3.09)
    Right: 48.9 (+0.8)
    Wrong: 38.6 (-0.8)
    Skipped: 12.5; (+0.1)

    Direction of government (MoE 3.09)
    Right: 36.6 (-1.8)
    Wrong: 51.5 (+2.9)
    Skipped: 11.9 (-1.1)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Actually if you take out Alberta the Tories trail the Libs in the RoC it seems, Eric?"

    Unless, Peter, you count BC and Saskatchewan....

    And 20% in Quebec hardly sounds like a victory for the liberals....

    Beyond that they lead (again) by 4 points in Ontario (their bedrock of strength) So maybe things are looking up.

    Bad poll for the tories to be sure... but the only real victory that I see for the liberals is Atlantic Canada

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's interesting actually.

    On direction of country you have a positive swing of 1.6, about 50% of MOE

    On direction of Govt though there is a negative swing of 4.7 which is about 150% of MOE.

    which seems to say the public is reasonably happy with the direction of the country but distinctly unhappy with the direction of Govt???

    ReplyDelete
  10. It would seem that the Liberals do not believe in this poll at all.

    Only 4.2% behind the CPC.... closing the gap from 11.4% last election.

    This poll shows that Ignatieff has rallied the troops and they should easily expect to close the gap in an election campaign.

    The Liberal actions do not reflect this "reality". He closed the gap last summer by going to France and now they want him full on display?

    The 50 - 30 split in the Country in the right direction and the government in the wrong direction.... what's up with that? It would seem that it is an internal validity check that is built into private polls and shows that this poll might not be credible.. If it was a private poll the pollster would ask to be allowed to do it again.

    The Green Party is at 12% and on the cusp of a break through and the deputy leader quits to join the BLOC??

    There is 3% of the people in Canada voting for the Rhinos, Social Credit and/or communists.... or maybe the Liberal-Democrats?


    3% of 2000 is 60 people not voting for the 5 major parties and not being undecided.

    You have to wonder if there is been a anti-EKOS conspiracy to mess with their polls since Graves was outted as a Liberal/CBC party hack?

    His poll results are getting weirder and weirder.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter said...
    The oddity is the Liberals aren't gaining strength while the Tories are bleeding support.

    Wonder how much of this is to do with the G8/G20 summit cost fiasco ??
    =================================

    Maybe it has to do with Ignatieff's accepting Harper's foreign policy as his own.... with a more hawkish position on Afganistan.

    Ignatieff is out-flanking Harper on the Right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For the anti-government poll it could be that the casual observer is saying a pox on government in general.

    The government: Harper, Layton Ignatieff, Rae, Chretien, Guergis, Gordon Campbell, Charest, Baird, McGuinty, Stelmach and Davies might all be getting spanked.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe it has to do with Ignatieff's accepting Harper's foreign policy as his own.

    The problem with that idea Unreason is that Iggy's foreign policy speech got what has to be the worst coverage of any major speech by anybody in years.

    Quite literally I've rarely seen a major speech so poorly covered. I'm not talking about the substance of the speech but rather the way the major media reported the whole thing. Does "below the radar" mean anything to you ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. If Frank Graves, is a Liberal party hack, what does that make Darrell Bricker???

    A fine upstanding CPC, hack.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another in your series of weekly reality checks.

    This is the rare poll where the Grits and Tories move in the same direction. However, not too much should be read into the small shifts. Step back from the chart and they're both running level, albeit at levels that will bring neither party joy.

    The Green Party also dropped by an insignificant amount and may still be a tenth or even two above its "real" EKOS level of support. However, that 12.3% is happy news for Greens. The overall trend is steadily up and there won't be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Green circles.

    The Bloc is in a strange oscillation mode best explained by statistical variation. At 10.5% they're doing very well. The "real" EKOS number is probably a hair under 10%, but they've shown a glacial climb since the last election. Gilles should be pleased.

    The Dippers get the best news. That 17.4% is a bit high, but not by much; I'd call it 17.0%. They appear to be in a slow, steady climb. The Greens aren't closing the polling gap because both parties are moving in unison. (This can only be good for Green fortunes; under first-past-the-post, Greens need divided support for the older parties to break into the House.)

    In summary, the average of the governing parties has steadily declined since the last election. The average of the smaller parties has steadily grown. Coalition: learn to spell that word because we'll all be using it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So how did Greens fare in this week's EKOS tea leaves?

    Nationally (as noted earlier) the week-over-week number is a hair down and the trend is up. Green faces smile.

    Last week's 20.2% in BC was, as noted, substantially too high. This week's 16.7% might be a shade high but is plausible. This is a great number. That's doubly so because the Tories are trending down in the province. Gary Lunn will be spending a lot of time on the hustings in Saanich--Gulf Islands. Elizabeth May's odds there are looking better and better.

    Alberta: if you ain't blue, you ain't nobody. But the three nobodies are separated by 0.3%. No shame from a Green perspective.

    Saskitoba's 9.4% won't produce seats this fall, but it's a solid level of support.

    Ontario's 14.4% would be delightful if it were true, but it's not. Consider it a harbinger of things to come and knock off a point or two in the interim. This still begets a Green happy.

    The reported 8.4% in Quebec is a whiff low by recent trends. As always, BC and Ontario are the key Green battlegrounds, so this wouldn't be worrisome even if it were real.

    Finally, Green support in Atlantic Canada varies so much that the reported 9.2% there is hard to reality-check. It's middle-of-the-road, though, so let's nod and move on.

    Overall, we're on track to see breakthrough Green MPs after the fall election. And as noted last week, Green participation will be necessary and sufficient to make next Parliament's coalition government legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Frank's hit the nail on the head:

    It is not the "statistical" significance of the modest week to week fluctuations which is interesting; it is the overall trajectory and patterns of the last several weeks which are revealing.

    Yup, somebody's occasionally noted that. What else does Mr. Graves have to offer?

    Some had speculated that heightened chatter of coalitions would throw nervous voters back into Prime Minister Harper's camp. To the contrary, the clear conclusion from the current poll is that no single party now enjoys sufficient public confidence to lead a legitimate government.

    Could it be that Canadians want a coalition government? Perish the thought...

    ReplyDelete
  18. John:
    The Dippers get the best news.

    That poll was before the Libby Davies meltdown and the Layton weasel. Expect that to show up next week?

    ReplyDelete
  19. A blast from the past:

    Given the strong possibility of a fall election, the selection of the expert panel of eminent jurists to determine the form of document release may take a long time. Until November, in fact.

    And right on schedule, the government falls back to the next carefully prepared position:

    8. The Panel of Arbiters will be composed of three eminient jurists, who shall have judicial expertise. Composition of the Panel must be agreed upon by both the Government and the Opposition signatories.

    "Beautiful fall we've been having. I'm glad we could all find a mutually agreeable time to get together. Now, on to the first order of business, which we all understand to be of critical importance. What shape of table should we sit at while negotiating the Panel composition?"

    By that time, of course, the Panel of Arbiters Selection Committee may already have suspended operations while they contest their seats. And when they're done...

    10. This Memorandum of Understanding survives a dissolution of Parliament provided that the leaders of the governing party and each opposition party with recognized status in the House of Commons following a general election sign a Memorandum in the same terms in the next Parliament.

    Yup, that's gonna happen. Sure. Why wouldn't it?

    These documents will never see the light of day while the Tories sit on the Speaker's right.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The true level of Green support is what they get in UNPROMPTED polls - (i.e. 4-7%) - anything else is pure fiction. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that in places like Quebec where the Greens are totally moribund - if you prompt you can get them at 11% but unprompted they are as low as ZERO PERCENT. My hunch is that a lot of people confuse saying they would vote "THE Green party" with "A Green party". Esp. in Quebec you probably have a chunk of people who want to vote for A party that has solid environmental/green policies - but that will rarely translates into voting for THE green party which is totally non-existent on the ground in Quebec and has a leader who speaks French like my ass chews gum!

    ReplyDelete
  21. BC Voice of Reason: There is 3% of the people in Canada voting for the Rhinos, Social Credit and/or communists.... or maybe the Liberal-Democrats?

    Not quite. EKOS reported that 3% of the people of Canada support fringe parties. About 1% will actually head to the polls and vote their hearts as they've done in previous elections.

    No surprises here. Look into fringe party funding and organization. In some ways the surprise is that the GOTV discount isn't higher.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BTW: The daily numbers from Ekos are often quite volatile and I doubt whether Libby Davies comments had any impact - for one thing the "controversy" only got into the news on June 15 - the last day of this poll and the big drop for the NDP was from June 13 to 14 - before any of it was in the news. In any case, how many people among the "great unwashed" actually care as much about the Middle East as a vote determining issue as columnists at the National Post would like us to think.

    btw: I'd still like someone to tell what exactly she said that was so bad. I agreed with about 99% of her comments - and saying that the some people think the occupation of Palestine began in 1948 - to me is no different than saying that the European occupation of the Americas began in 1492 - doesn't mean that Canada and the US have no right exist - its just a recognition of a historical fact - and in fact many respected Israeli historians describe the occupation as having begun in 1948. Once again, the definition of a gaffe is when someone says the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  23. DL: The true level of Green support is what they get in UNPROMPTED polls - (i.e. 4-7%) - anything else is pure fiction.

    This claim would certainly be persuasive if there were unprompted election campaigns and unprompted ballots.

    In this neck of the woods we're planning levels of advertising far beyond anything we've done in past. Voters will have to barricade themselves indoors to avoid Green messages. No wait--that won't work either.

    The assertion will be tested this fall. The post-mortems should be lively.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Peter

    Are you in high school.... Unreason... Zing?

    As the most over the top Liberal fanatic posting on the board...

    1) Do you believe the results of this poll?

    2) Do you think Mr. Ignatieff belives in the results in this poll?


    If you answer either of 1 or 2 is YES then please explain why all Liberal actions appear to be 100% concillatory to avoid going into an election where they ae almost assuredly going to be voted into office (110 CPC seats to 100 Liberal plus 44 NDP seats) .

    If any Liberal believes this poll then they really are supporting the CPC budget and legislation because they believe it is good, at least as good as what they would come up with.

    Which is it? Good CPC government or fear that Liberals get wiped out in an election?

    ReplyDelete
  25. any ideas on who the 60 people out of the 2000 picking "Other" would be picking?

    Is there another fringe party.... Maybe the WRA? or the SASK party?

    Will they get a seat at the debates?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter

    Other than the lack of coverage (only 4 articles Star (2), NP, G&M ) how do you see Mr. Ignatieff foreign policy speech as being different than the CPC status quo?

    Maybe you are interpreting the lack of a significant policy change as a lack of coverage.

    Foreign affairs is supposedly Mr. Ignatieff's strong suit where he blow the bumpkin Harper out of the water. His policy announcement is closer to a job application for the CPC minister spot than it is a challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DL: My hunch is that a lot of people confuse saying they would vote "THE Green party" with "A Green party".

    This is a very good point. It generalizes.

    A lot of Green support is definitely soft; many voters are demanding green policies and action, but not necessarily Green policies and action. They respond to the brand when polled. A compelling campaign can translate that to Green votes, but those voters won't all carefully study the platform.

    However, the same is true of the other parties. Many people with conservative views transfer this to Conservative support without quite thinking the matter through. "Fiscal responsibility" is one place where thoughts and deeds head into different time zones. Meanwhile, the Grits muse that they don't get no respect.

    The same brush can be applied to Liberals. For starters, their bellicose military stance in recent history would not shame the Tories. The Dippers attract their loyal union core regardless of their policies. Of course, the most egregious Socialist International disconnects happened across the pond under Tony Blair.

    Is all this right, fair or good? Can I have lollipops? And unicorns?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unreason:

    First knock off the personal snark. You don't know how old I am and I see NO reason to tell you.Clear ??

    Good CPC government or fear that Liberals get wiped out in an election?

    The one who should worry is Harper and his crummy Govt. They are the ones threatened by events.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Regarding the 3% 'Other':

    One of the difficulties with the 'Other' number is that fringe parties do not generally run candidates in all ridings. If I had been part of the poll sample, I might well have answered 'Other', as I would like to vote Libertarian.

    But given that the Libertarian Party is likely to run no more than 30-50 candidates in the next election, I won't necessarily be able to vote for a candidate representing that party.

    Because there seems to be considerable dissatisfaction with all of the bigger parties, it wouldn't surprise me if the next election sees an increase in the number of votes cast for 'other' candidates.

    That said, I would be surprised if that higher number winds up being as high as 3%.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Some of the "other" vote could be people voting for Independent MPs like Andre Arthur or (gulp) Helena Guergis or people who are just very contrarian and like to vote for independent candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If the Liberals, had tried to bring down Harper, and force a summer election that Canadians do not want, they would have been crucified at the polls. Michael Ignatieff, knows that and so does Stephen Harper. All parties are holding their fire until parliament resumes in September.

    Jack Layton, knew that the Bloc, and the Liberals, were going to reach a compromise with the government over the detainee documents. He of course then took an opportunity to try and garner some headlines for himself.

    When Jack Layton, is always secure in the knowledge that his irresponsible actions never have any consequences to them ever. He is free to say, and do what he likes.

    The only thing that you have to remember about Layton, is that when push really did come to shove last fall, and he had to take responsibility for the government surviving or falling, he folded like a cheap suit. He used the flimsy pretense that he had wrung some EI, concessions out of Harper, which was false, and a complete joke.

    If Layton knew there was not going to be a deal over the documents, he would have found a way to support Harper, and then claim victory.

    We are in a minority parliament, and the Liberals cannot simply vote non confidence at every turn. That would be irresponsible, and the voters in Canada, would not like them to be always trying to force an elections.

    Jack Layton, is always free to scream from the peanut gallery, because he is irrelevant, and irresponsible. His rhetoric is empty, hollow, and meaningless.

    The one time Layton was put to the test he failed, and he failed miserably. That is Jack Layton.

    If not for Jack Layton, we would have had an election last fall.

    So Jack Layton can boast all he likes about himself and the NDP, standing up to Harper. He can boast that he is the only one standing up to Harper, it means absoulutely nothing.

    We must never ever forget that about Jack Layton, and I am sure when push comes to shove again, and he has to take some responsibility for something he will most assuredly fold.

    If Layton was to actually follow through on his empty rhetoric I guess we would have an election every six months.

    Jack Layton = EPIC FAIL

    ReplyDelete
  32. Unreason:

    First knock off the personal snark. You don't know how old I am and I see NO reason to tell you.Clear ??

    ==================================
    snark is a one-way street?

    Not even in High School? :)

    Leader of a Liberal Youth Org ?

    Following the basic Liberal (ok so all parties do it) strategy of answering a direct question with the answer to the question you hear in your head.

    PS. Sorry to the rest of the posters.. I promise not to engage with Peter further as his rantings add nothing to the forum... but either does my calling him out on it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If the Liberals are SO SURE that the NDP is bluffing and doesn't really want an election - why don't they call the bluff and start challenging the government?

    ReplyDelete
  34. DL,

    When Jack Layton's bluff was finally called HE FOLDED LIKE A CHEAP SUIT!!!!

    He is always secure in the knowledge that his actions have no consequences to them EVER.

    The one time he was put to the test he FAILED, and he failed miserably.

    All Jack Layton, is interested in is himself, and feeding his own massive ego.

    He can carp constantly from the peanut gallery because he is irrelevant.

    The detainee document issue proved it.

    When his bluff is called again, and push does come to shove and he has to take some responsibility for something he will most assuredly fold again.

    If not for Jack Layton, we would have had an election last fall.

    DL, you can huff and puff, and stamp your feet all you like, that is the real Jack Layton, and we must never ever forget that.

    Jack Layton = EPIC FAIL

    ReplyDelete
  35. Given their stable numbers, I'm sure the NDP will be pretty happy to have an election whenever Harper is looking weak. It puts them closer to the driver's seat.

    Regarding the compromise though, I'm hesitant about it because the Bloc also signed on, and they're usually even more reliable on such matters.

    Also, I don't think Davies' gaffe will negatively effect the NDP. It's too minor and not really the kind of thing that their voters, or most Canadians get all riled up about. Layton probably should have demoted her for her blunder though.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That is not true as far as the lowest sinece thye took power
    http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/ekos-cbc-survey-results-apr-162.pdf-check page 10-April/09 and
    http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/0779-report-for-the-cbc-_week-2-revised_.pdf June/09

    ReplyDelete
  37. Speaking of Middle East blunders a few months ago Peter McKay said that "if Israel was at war, Canada was at war". Implying that if Israel invaded Lebanon again, Canada would send an expeditionary force to fight alongside the Israeli army! That strikes me as an infinitely more grave "misstatement" than anything davies said - esp. coming from the Defence Minister. Why didn't he resign for inventing a military treaty between Canada and Israel on the back of a cocktail napkin??

    ReplyDelete
  38. BC Voice of Reason: any ideas on who the 60 people out of the 2000 picking "Other" would be picking?

    Is there another fringe party.... Maybe the WRA? or the SASK party?


    Well, here are the registered political parties.

    Will they get a seat at the debates?

    Apart from the big five, no. The main parties have comparable support; in the EKOS poll we're discussing (take the bistromathics as read), there's less than a 3:1 ratio between the Tories at the top and the Bloc at the bottom. In between those two the Grit:Dipper ratio is 3:2 and the Grit:Green ratio is a hair over 2:1.

    After that party support falls off a cliff. The fringe party with the most support in the last election (Christian Heritage) drew 0.2% of the vote. Multiply that by three (the ratio between the 1% "Other" vote and the 3% "Other" polled support) and 0.6% is still a first-order approximation of nobody. Vote share goes down from there. Way down.

    In our current political climate the place to draw the line is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well "49 steps" if you REALLY TRULY think the NDP doesn't want an election and will "fold like a cheap suit", then why do the Liberals keep on humiliating themselves over and over and over again propping up the Tories in exchange for nothing. If what you say is true - why don't they call Layton's bluff and make him "fold like a cheap suit" over and over again - it would be a great way to undermine NDP morale and siphon away progressive voters.

    Of course we all know the truth. The NDP is ready willing and able to have an election anytime, anywhere. The Liberals are in disarray and are petrified of one. There is no other explanation for their behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Peter: That poll was before the Libby Davies meltdown and the Layton weasel. Expect that to show up next week?

    Nope. I expect it to be forgotten by Sunday night.

    I'm expressing no judgment either way on Davies' statements. I just don't think the issue has political legs. It's not like Tony Clement's washrooms in Baysville and Port Sydney. They strike at the heart of the "Tories watch your dollars" meme.

    (The made-over Port Sydney washroom looks much nicer now, by the way. Also, the replacement play structure at the Community Centre is... shiny.)

    Fake Lake is an issue with serious legs. It will die out after the G8/G20. The Liberals will resurrect it with bells on after the writ drops. They want to lure the disaffected Tory vote into the Grit camp. Failing that, they'll be quite content to disaffect the Tory vote and have it stay home.

    Ugly. Not the way politics should be. Regrettably, probably effective.

    Rightly or wrongly, nobody will have time to spare for Davies. Her words aren't part of any political narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why is it that Conservatives always have to attack people personally when they disagree with them?

    Harper attacks Ignatieff about working out of the country, posters on the Globe and Mail and the National Post attack people who are not Conservative by calling them "lefties" or "libtards" and now this blog has Conservatives attacking people by calling them names and saying they are ueducated.

    Are Conservatives not able to just agree to disagree or say what is wrong with another party's policy? Why does it need to get personal, are you just unable to defend the government or do you not see anything wrong with policies put out by other parties so the easiest thing to do then is attack someone personally?

    ReplyDelete
  42. DL,

    Yes, which is why the NDP totally didn't fold like a cheap suit last year when both Liberals and the Bloc decided to drop their support. I mean, its totally like you got something useful out of that, stuff which truly went forward and did things for Canadians... ahahahaahha. Yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
  43. John:

    It's not like Tony Clement's washrooms in Baysville and Port Sydney.

    Y'all are referring to the G8 Legacy Pork Barrel !!

    I've hardly ever in a longish life seen such blatant PORK !!

    ReplyDelete
  44. It used to be that the best predictor of Liberal strength was Conservative strength, and vice versa. If ever the Conservatives approached majority territory, the Liberals would gain support. And if ever the Liberals approached victory, the Conservatives would gain support.

    No longer. Canadians have, apparently, figured out they can break this pattern simply by supporting neither of them.

    I don't foresee significant gains for either party without some significant event taking place. Unless something dramatic happens, all of their news - for both of them - will be bad news.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If Canadians are happy with the direction of the country, but unahppy with the direction of the government, that suggests to me that the government is enacting good policies that are producing outcomes Canadians like, but Canadians don't identify government action as the source of those good outcomes.

    Is it just a PR problem?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The one thing this poll, in combination with previous polls (these trends show up really well in a scatterplot) is the steady and continuing growth from the 3 fringe parties. Over the past 9 months, they've each gained about two points. Given their generally low levels of support, 2 points is a big swing (especially for the Bloc).

    More and more I like the idea of a CPC-Bloc coalition based around decentralisation. Dismantle as much of the central government as possible and bring the power closer to the people.

    We're already seeing that with the various healthcare initiatives underway within the provinces. We need it in all policy areas.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Last election there was .51% vote for OTHER . This included 27,000 votes for Bill Casey and 15,000 votes for Andre Arthur. The 3% Other in this poll changes the game if it is in fact a true indication of support. If it is for independent candidates, based on last election it could easily translate into 12 seats. Casey won by a landslide.

    In the 2006 election The Green support was 4.6 %. The other % in this poll is well within the margin of error that the Green was at when they were given a seat at the national debate.

    ReplyDelete
  48. BC Voice of Reason wrote:

    "Last election there was .51% vote for OTHER ."

    By my calculation it was 1.15%.

    159,148 votes for 'other' out of a total 1,383,294.

    That breaks down as 94,844 for independents and 64,304 for candidates representing minor parties.

    ReplyDelete
  49. DL,

    The NDP, is ready, willing, and able to have an election ay any time are they????

    WOW, you must visit planet earth sometime.

    When Jack Layton, could have put his money where his big fat mouth is he FOLDED.

    When he knew that he had to take some responsibility for a change, and it was up to him if Harper, survived or fell, Jack rode to the rescue and saved him.

    The ONE time Jack, was put on the hook, and could have forced an election, HE FOLDED LIKE A CHEAP SUIT.

    He got nothing in exchange, he pretended like he did, he said he was trying to make parliament work, and he declared victory.

    The one time he really was put to the test he failed and he failed miserably.

    He is free to act like the irresponsible twit that he truly is because he is always secure in the knowledge that his actions have no consequences EVER.

    I don't care how you spin it or what you say, that is the bottom line.

    Jack Layton = EPIC FAIL

    ReplyDelete
  50. Red Tory Liberal,

    To be fair, all parties have their clowns.

    If you look through the postings today, it was "Liberal" Peter, who started the argument with BC, voice of Reason.

    He addressed his post to that poster by calling them "unreason"
    BC, Voice of reason just pointed out that was juvenile, and immature. I don't think he/she implied that Peter, was uneducated.

    BC, voice of reason also apologized to the other posters for the dust up today, and said he/she would no longer engage Peter.

    So, all sides have their fools.

    ReplyDelete
  51. How can you say Jack Layton = Epic Fail? His party is polling higher than it ever has before. Corrected for vote-splitting he is returning the greatest election results his party has ever seen.

    You might disagree with how he behaves in parliament, but you cannot reaonably claim he is unsuccessful or ineffective.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ira,

    No, the 80's was when his party was polling its best-ever. I saw a link to 80-era's polling awhile ago, you should see it. Broadbent's NDP kicked ass.

    Layton probably gets second-place in this field. The only way I suspect he'll surpass Broadbent is in popular support, but only because of how big the population has grown.

    ReplyDelete
  53. BC Voice of Reason: In the 2006 election The Green support was 4.6 %. The other % in this poll is well within the margin of error that the Green was at when they were given a seat at the national debate.

    You know, there's some appeal to the thought of one single Other Leader representing all the fringe parties. The Christian Heritage Party. The Communist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), who are not friends. The Animal Alliance. The PC Party. And let's not forget the Neorhinos, the Marijuana Party and the other parties that make the above look mainstream. Standup comedians could have a field day presenting the Other positions on issues.

    Lump all the fringe parties together and they account for 69,761 2008 votes. Pull them apart and that number plummets. Taken in bulk, they're still an order of magnitude below the 2008 Green vote.

    "Margin of error" is a basic concept in polling. It's a bit strained to apply it to an actual vote, though. It's not clear what that phrase is supposed to mean in the quote above. In our system we don't try to infer the intentions of people who don't fulfil their civic duty. Thankfully.

    Again, deciding where to draw the line for the Leaders' Debates is simple. The older parties see obvious tactical advantages in keeping the Greens out, but that exclusion ended in 2008 and it's not happening again.


    The 0.51% "Other" vote quoted above, by the way, doesn't include the Independents who won 89,387 votes. Here's the straight scoop from Elections Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Red Tory Liberal - it would be easier to criticise the opposition's policies if they had any.

    Please, point me to a Liberal policy document. What do the Liberals plan to do should they take power?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ira: [The NDP] is polling higher than it ever has before. Corrected for vote-splitting he is returning the greatest election results his party has ever seen.

    Volkov: No, the 80's was when [the NDP] was polling its best-ever.

    Ira has a good point here. In 1988 the Dippers won 20.38%, or 21.38% of the combined Tory/Grit/Dipper vote.

    In 2008 they were down to 18.18%, but that was 22.15% of the combined Tory/Grit/Dipper vote. The Bloc and Greens chewed into the pool of old party votes.

    Either Broadbent or Layton can claim the crown. It all depends how you want to have fun with figures. Beyond that, both are clearly respected across the political spectrum. Not universally (scroll up), but respected nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ira if the Bloc and the CPC merged, said they would enter a coalition, or made any such arrangement after an election the CPC would be writing its own obituary. Most Canadians including me do not want a more decentralized Canada.

    I would like a more centralized Canada to be honest. Why do we need twelve Ministries of Education doing the same thing in every province and territory. With a standardized curriculum we'd be better off and it would cost less. Britain with a population double ours has a unitary form of government.

    In any event it would be political suicide for any federalist party to align themselves with the BLOC.

    49 agree completely with your analysis of the NDP and Layton.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Broadbent's NDP faced a much less divided electorate, with less competition. And he never got any support in Quebec.

    Éric's context-adjusted election results show that Layton has outperformed Broadbent.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Martin

    I stand corrected. Other was as I stated .51 but independent was .65 in a category of its own.

    So totaled was 1.16. Only a 300% gain in this poll with Mr. Casey's 27,000 votes not in the mix this time.

    This is a remarkable increase of almost in the same magnitude of the Green polling numbers.

    All in all it seems that there is at least a 4% vote parked with Green and 3% parked with other.

    My guess is that these people will not participate and NDP, Liberal and CPC % goes up if the non-voters are dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  59. In the 80s there were only three parties in Canada not the four (arguably five) we have now - so for the NDP to have 20% in a three party race meant less than to have 18% in a 4.5 party race.

    ReplyDelete
  60. DL,

    Not really, because the fourth party is Quebec-only - where the NDP usually have had a negligible influence. In the ROC, where the NDP does the best, there is little to no difference between now and then. You could make an argument over the Greens, but not to any great extent.

    So, yeah, no luck wiggling out of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  61. It depends a bit on whether we are talking about election results or polling data. Its true that at one point in 1987 the NDP was leading the polls nationally and was in the 30s - but that was partly as a result of extremely strong support in Quebec. The BQ didn't exist at that time and for a while NDP was getting virtually all of the support that is now going to the BQ and was getting as much as 40% in Quebec. Its pretty clear that if the BQ vanished tomorrow, the NDP would probably overnight jump into the mid 20s in Quebec and capture at least a dozen seats there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. John said...

    Will they get a seat at the debates?

    "Apart from the big five, no."


    It's actually would be apart from the "big four", the Green Party will not be apart of the next leadership debate unless they having a sitting MP.

    Ira said...
    Red Tory Liberal - it would be easier to criticise the opposition's policies if they had any.

    Please, point me to a Liberal policy document. What do the Liberals plan to do should they take power?


    As far as I know they have a food policy, they have a policy on corporate tax cuts, one on the LGR, as well as a forighn affairs policy.

    So go ahead critisize the polcicies instead of the leader.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Red Tory Liberal: It's actually would be apart from the "big four", the Green Party will not be apart of the next leadership debate unless they having a sitting MP.

    In that case it would be the "big three plus #5, leaving out #4". It's generally understood that the "sitting MP" criterion was brought in as a tactic to exclude Elizabeth May in 2008. It didn't work then and it won't work this fall.

    Sorry but the decision was made in 2008. The Green Party has only grown further since then. The clock isn't moving back.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Regarding the Green Party and Leaders' Debates:

    There never was a "rule" that having one MP was the determining factor in whether a party leader should be included in the debates.

    That claim was a figment of Elizabeth May's imagination. It was a convenient invention for the Greens since they had managed to secure the last-second conversion of Blair Wilson.

    That is, it was convenient at the time; it may turn out to have been a double-edged sword. But since May so loudly claimed that as the "rule", that claimed "rule" may indeed come back to bite them: no MPs, no debate.

    ReplyDelete
  65. For debates there have been an assortment of criteria applied over the years. In 1984 and 1988 it was easy as there were just 3 serious parties. Pre-'84 I'm not sure how they handled Social Credit as they had seats back then but a very low percentage of the vote. 1993 was the big mess though when the Bloc and Reform showed up - Reform had one MP who was elected as a Reform member, the Bloc was all converts from other parties or independents who shifted over. Then it was easy again until after the 2004 election when the Green Party got enough votes to receive federal per-vote funding.

    I personally think the rules should be simple - if you have enough support to receive federal per-vote funds then you participate as long as you are still polling high enough to receive them again (thus preventing 'dead' parties from being included). Mix in a 'newbie' rule that if you have a seat in the HOC and are polling at high enough levels to get funds that you get included too and you've got the bases covered.

    As to it being confusing, take a look at every parties leadership debates. The Liberals had 11 candidates debating one another before picking Dion. The trick is to have more than one debate per language so we can all hear what they have to say. A strong moderator is also vital so it doesn't just become a yelling match. Mix in opening and closing arguments and it is much better than the mess last time.

    If the CHP gets enough votes, so be it let them in. If the GPC drops off due to a lack of support next time, so be it cut them out. Just be consistent and provide Canadians with a chance to hear the people they are likely to vote for.

    In truth, I'd love it if the networks (perhaps in a dead time slot) had the non-competitive parties debate as well. I loved the old ads on the CBC back in the 80's for the fringe parties (they had to provide the time to all parties back then) as it gave you a quick idea as to why they formed their parties and what they wanted to say to Canadians. Yeah, I can get that off their websites now but it was interesting to see what they did with those 2 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Henry: There never was a "rule" that having one MP was the determining factor in whether a party leader should be included in the debates.

    Absolutely.

    That claim was a figment of Elizabeth May's imagination.

    It was actually a figment of the networks' imaginations. They set the rules. However, they were driven by political pressure and as Chantal Hébert said at the time, they "no longer have the journalistic backbone to arbitrate the debate over the debates". The "sitting MP" criterion sounded better than "leaders whose last names don't start with M". Or at least it did until Blair Wilson popped up.

    In 2008, the networks moved when Harper and Layton finally accepted the inevitable. The topic may crop up here and in other blogs, but those two have learned their lesson. They won't burn their fingers in the fire of public opinion twice.

    In the end, of course, the furor was the best thing that could have happened for May and the Green Party. That alone is why the older parties aren't going to fight this lost battle.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Elizabeth May fought to be in the debate because she had a sitting MP and it was argued that the Bloc were allowed in the 1993 debate eventhough they also had no MPs ever elected under the party's banner.

    Why should Elizabeth May be allowed in the debate whenthe Progressive Canadian Party isn't involved or the Christian Heritage or the Newfoundland first Party or the Pirate Party or any of the other parties recognized by elections Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Red Tory Liberal: Why should Elizabeth May be allowed in the debate whenthe Progressive Canadian Party isn't involved or the Christian Heritage or the Newfoundland first Party or the Pirate Party or any of the other parties recognized by elections Canada?

    For one thing, the Green Party may well be part of a traffic-light coalition governing this country. Canadians deserve to hear what she and the Green Party would do.

    The Pirate Party is less likely to be in that position.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I still think 5 persons debating becomes unwieldy. I would love to see more debates with fewer persons... combination's of the 5(4) perhaps.

    I don't know if May is going to be in the debates this time around. I am on the fence. Too many people talking sucks for one. The party has shown ability to bring a significant base (6%). But they also have been unable to elect an MP even with inclusion in the debates, and an agreement from another party not to run against the green leader.... she didn't win when handed 1/4 of the peoples votes by the liberals... not good.

    So I am not sure that 7% of the national vote should be enough.

    I know there was a whole bunch of second and third place finishes in alberta. But with 10% or less of the vote in those ridings can you really claim that to be a victory? Margaret Chandler got 2nd with 10.26% of the vote running against Jason Kenney ... is she going to win next election??

    I was able to find (outside alberta) 1 second place other than the leader who ran the agreement..... and 21 3rd place finishes. In 308 seats (280 without Alberta since the race is really for second there).

    Is that really the standard of excellence that gets you into a debate with the political leaders of the country?? Running third or better in less than 10% of the seats??

    Given that, I am not so sure I am on the fence anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "The Pirate Party is less likely to be in that position."

    The pirate party currently has exactly as many seats to contribute to such a coalition..... So shouldn't they have the same amount of influence in such a coalition??

    ReplyDelete
  71. John,

    The party would need to win a seat to be apart of a coalition and I highly doubt the Liberals and NDP would include the Greens in a coalition unless it was absolutly necessary and I don't think it will be.

    André Arthur has a better chance of being re-elected then a Green candidate should he be in apart of the debates?

    ReplyDelete
  72. John wrote:

    [re: the supposed "one MP" rule]

    'It was actually a figment of the networks' imaginations. They set the rules.'

    Would you care to provide any evidence that that was the criterion that the networks were working with?

    Does that mean if, days before this Parliament is dissolved, Andre Arthur were to declare himself a Libertarian MP, that the networks would then invite the Libertarian leader to the debates?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Howsabout this argument... in 2008 937,613 people voted Green. Green was the only party with over 1/4 of 1% of the vote to increase in votes, and it was an increase of 273,545 votes.

    In 1993 the NDP had 939,575 votes but never was removed from debates as their vote was concentrated enough to win 9 seats.

    Looking back at 1993 you sure do see the stupidity of FPTP though. The old PC party had 2,186,422 votes and got only 2 seats. Reform, with 2,559,245 votes, got 52 seats. The Bloc with 1,846,024 got 54 seats. The PC's also had 2.4 million votes in 1997 (20 seats) before falling down in 2000 to just 1.5 million (and 12 seats).

    Kind of scary as a Green to see those figures as it shows that even with double our current support we could end up with only 1 or 2 seats or even none while the Bloc keeps getting tons of seats due to the regional nature of their party.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Barcs: The pirate party currently has exactly as many seats to contribute to such a coalition..... So shouldn't they have the same amount of influence in such a coalition??

    The debate is about the future, not the past.

    Frank Graves is currently predicting two Green seats. (Hey--we're aligned until his polls change.) As discussed last week, Greens are necessary and sufficient to make a coalition legitimate. A Grit/Dipper/Green coalition would represent not just a majority of seats but a majority of the population.

    The Pirate Party will have no seats and a microscopic share of the vote to contribute to a coalition.

    It's interesting that this discussion still enjoys a zombie life in the blogosphere. Stephen Harper and Jack Layton won't be touching it with a bargepole.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Henry: 'It was actually a figment of the networks' imaginations. They set the rules.'

    Would you care to provide any evidence that that was the criterion that the networks were working with?


    I'd love to, but it's not possible. The networks never published their rules for inclusion in the debates; they just do what they do. In any case, the point is moot; the criteria were excuses, not reasons. As you may remember, they were going to keep May out after Blair Wilson joined the Greens because Harper and Layton said they wouldn't show if she did.

    Harper and Layton eventually caved due to the public pressure, although not before providing tremendous publicity to the Green Party. We won't see a repeat this time around. The leaders realize that not fighting is far, far better than fighting and losing.

    The troops may not have got the message yet.

    ReplyDelete
  76. John,

    How do you know the Pirate Party won't win any seats? I'm willing to bet if Frank Graves started promting the Pirate Party they'd get several pecent of the vote and the Green's would decrease. Half of the Green's support is none of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  77. John,

    "the criteria were excuses, not reasons."

    Come on now. The Green Party clearly used to be a fringe party and hence, not worthy of inclusion in the debates.

    More recently they can mount a somewhat stronger, if not overwhelming case, for inclusion. But most people would agree that they are still in a grey area.

    Indeed, contrary to what Elizabeth May and you (earlier) have claimed, there was no set "rule" -- not set by the networks and not set by anyone else.

    The networks try to set up a debate that will be of interest to the general public.

    But the debate is voluntary -- you cannot force someone to participate. Any leader is free to decline because they are not comfortable with the format or think the line-up of participants will make the event non-useful to electors. Of course declining can have consequences, especially if everyone else noteworthy participates.

    If you want to, you could organize a debate and invite the "big 4" leaders plus May and both Communist leaders. Go ahead, it's a free country.

    Someone else can go ahead and set up a debate with only the Liberal and Conservative leaders and there would be nothing out-of-line about doing so.

    But my original point stands. Given that May threw a tantrum, claiming that it was the (disgraced, last-minute convert, never sitting as a) Green MP that justified her inclusion, then she'll have to suffer the consequences if the networks exclude her on the basis of the "rule" she herself invented.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The only reason Elizabeth May was included was because of Stephane Dion. Well he's gone now and no one is going to pick up for her.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Henry, I think we largely agree.

    I was sloppy when I said, "They set the rules". I was using language frequently bandied about leading up to the debates, but "rules" implies explicit criteria. Raw political calculation was the order of the day. "No sitting member" was an objection before Blair Wilson, one that Elizabeth May certainly didn't invent. Her "See, we do have a sitting member" was a reaction. Since there are no "rules" per se, though, that won't be a consideration in the next campaign.

    Yes, the networks are hardheaded businesses. They're looking for a product that maximizes their ad revenue. They also want to keep their regulators happy. Somewhere down the list they see the benefit of informing the voting public. The networks were pressured by Harper and Layton, who found themselves pressured in turn by the people. In the end, the public good triumphed.


    Beyond that, we differ on terminology and historical perspective. I'd say that "pressure campaign" is a more apt description of the Green Party's ultimately successful action to "Let Elizabeth Speak". Language sanity check: was Harper's denunciation of the 2008 coalition a "tantrum", irrespective of whether you agree with it?


    Some like to look back at the good old days when there were just three major parties and everyone knew their place. Times have changed. There are five major parties now and the one with no seats is number four in popular support. In the EKOS poll we're discussing, for every two and a half Tories there's a Green. The ratio is approaching two-to-one for the Grits. References to the Pirate Party and the CPC(ML) distract a certain set of party faithful, but not the electorate as a whole.

    We're not going back to the old days. The Grits and Dippers may merge but the Greens are around for the long haul. The country will be better off when we learn how to coexist.

    Ideally, before that possible traffic-light coalition later this year.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Earl - Yes, Britain does have a unitary form of government, but you'll notice that has also produced large nationalist voting blocks in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The SNP, Sinn Fein, and Plaid Cyrmu contribute less to the governance of the UK than the Bloc does in Canada, but they do illustrate that the central government does not serve those regions well.

    I can see why Ontario would like a strong central government - that government caters to Ontario, and uses the nation's resources to do it - but pockets of Canada that differ significantly from the median (Alberta is an excellent example) will then consistently get a government it doesn't like.

    That's a great way to foment unrest.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If I am Harper I only debate Ignatieff one on one and Layton one on one in English and French. And Duceppe one on one in French.

    If there is a coalition (no running Liberals in NDP ridings) then only Layton or Ignatieff get to the debate the PM , whoever would be the coalition PM.

    That stops the gang up that occurred last time.

    Harper clearly lost the last debates as the people watching saw 4 smart people banging on him. Winston Churchill would not have won a debate in the same situation.


    The debate format made absolutely no sense as you had Liberal and Liberal-Green running a a team and the separatist with nothing at stake in the English debates taking pot shots at the front runner.

    Then right after the election you had the secret NDP-Liberal coalition exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. John,

    One can certainly use the term "pressure campaign".

    But given that May claimed to have been (initially) excluded from the debates because Stephen Harper hates women, I think referring to May's behaviour as "tantrum" is quite apt.

    "There are five major parties now ..."

    A debatable claim. The Greens are clearly in a different class than the true "fringe parties" but "major"?

    It's a little like the banks. One usually speaks of the "big 5". But sometimes National Bank is included in the "big 6" despite National being only being one-third the size of the #5 bank.

    National Bank is in an in-between category, a little like the Green party.

    ReplyDelete
  83. (Alberta is an excellent example) will then consistently get a government it doesn't like.

    And which has the greater population

    ReplyDelete
  84. Henry: The Greens are clearly in a different class than the true "fringe parties" but "major"?

    The Grits and Tories are unquestionably "major". After that, the Dippers, Bloc and Greens share the second tier. All command significant public support. None will form a government in the near term.

    Are the second-tier parties "major"? The question only makes sense if the way the answer will be used is specified. For polling and funding the term clearly applies. For identifying the next PM, they fall short. (Sorry, Jack!)

    With respect to the Leaders' Debates, Duceppe will not be part of a governing coalition but has seats and may hold the balance of power in the next Parliament. Layton may not hold the balance of power yet be part of a governing coalition. May could be in the same position as Layton. She could represent somewhat fewer voters than the NDP (yet more than the Bloc) and certainly fewer seats, yet the voters she represents would be critical to the legitimacy of the traffic-light coalition.

    Will this come to pass? We'll know after the next election. Should voters hear from all three second-tier parties so they can make the right choice in that election? I believe an informed electorate is a critical part of our democracy. Other opinions may differ, especially where tactical axes require grinding.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I would not consider the Greens are second-tier party on par with the NDP and the Bloc.

    The NDP has been around for decades. They are closer to the Liberals and Conservatives than they are to the Greens, as the NDP has been around for a long time and has, on occasion, led in the polls nationally (during Broadbent's era). They also elect a good number of MPs in every part of the country, and have a well-oiled organization.

    The Bloc has more electoral success than the NDP, as they have won a majority of seats in Quebec since their first election in 1993. They've been around now for 20 years, and command a lot of support. They have a top-notch organization.

    While the Greens have been polling well, they haven't gotten more than 7% in an election, and really have only been more than a fringe party for the last three elections. They have never elected an MP, do not have a concentration of support anywhere, and have an amateurish organization.

    They are a third tier party, and the only one. The others are fourth tier parties.

    If the Greens elect more than one MP in the next election, and manage to be around for another 10 years, then we can bump them up to the second tier with the Bloc and NDP.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I would not consider the Greens are second-tier party on par with the NDP and the Bloc.

    They are in fact a barely third tier party. If they don't get a seat or two in the next election they should be downgraded to a fourth tier party like the Pirate and others.

    Polls don't actually mean very much, votes do.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Eric:
    They are a third tier party, and the only one. The others are fourth tier parties.

    Actually I would contend they are fourth tier parties. If you want and example of third tier you need to go back to Social Credit which in it's first election gained at least one seat.

    Greens can't even make it into the House after several elections. Sorry that's fourth tier by any standards.

    ReplyDelete
  88. No, they earn a lot of votes, and are on the brink of electing an MP, and they get enough votes to play an important role in deciding local elections.

    None of the fourth tier parties have that level of influence.

    ReplyDelete
  89. None of the fourth tier parties have that level of influence.

    I consider that after this length of time without ANY electoral success the Greens have NO influence at all !

    ReplyDelete
  90. The Media covers all 3 of the major parties announcements and policies across the country for the whole campaign.

    Duceppe is covered across Quebec.

    Ms. May earns no coverage at all.


    Can anyone tell us about what Ms. May's campaign was about last election other than supporting Dion and forcing her way onto the national debate?

    Was there any policy announcements or any platforms other than carbon tax and I hate Harper and love Dion?

    Why should Harper allow her into the debates which provide 90% of her election coverage last election.

    If the media thinks it is such a good thing they should be asking her the hard questions about the Green policy on pensions, jobs, the role of the public sector, etc that the other real party leaders have to contend with.

    The Green will not ever get someone elected until it can come up with 3-5 coherent policies. There are rumors that the Green are right wing environmentalists. There are rumors that Green are a major portion of the split Left wing vote, more socialist than the NDP.
    I watch politics more carefully than the norm and I don't know.

    My theory on Green is that they are a protest vote for people that know they should vote but don't like what is available.

    I advised my daughters to vote Green so that the Green party could get the 1.95 subsidy and organize and better present their point of view. The Green Party hasn't.

    My daughters are now paying income taxes so they vote CPC.

    What makes Ms. May a Green rather than a Dion Liberal? Why isn't Dion a Green?

    The system is not so broken as to allow pure politic machinations to win a seat.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Reason:
    The Green will not ever get someone elected until it can come up with 3-5 coherent policies. There are rumors that the Green are right wing environmentalists.

    If the Greens here in Canada are anything like those in Europe then that description is pretty accurate.

    Environmentalists but other wise quite, quite conservative on any other policies they promote.

    ReplyDelete
  92. All,

    Highly amusing to see Liberals and NDPers alike trying to tag each other as the ultimate opposition loser -- or worse yet, W-H-I-M-P.

    Well, this Liberal chooses to reserve judgment until all three of them collectively grow a spine (at the same time) and sink this wretched government. Notice how I'm not holding my breath. Notice how I expect one or several of them to come up with a multitude of not even remotely credible excuses not to sink the Harper government when the fall finally rolls around.

    What we have here folks is a soufflé with absolutely NO S-O-U-F-F-L-E...

    ReplyDelete
  93. BC Voice of Reason: The Green will not ever get someone elected until it can come up with 3-5 coherent policies.

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    Vision Green was rolled out as part of the 2008 campaign and has been updated since. The Green Party has to work a lot harder that the other parties to earn media coverage, but we've done our homework.

    This is part of the reason why Green support will shoot up after the first Green MPs are elected. The commenters on ThreeHundredEight are presumably very politically literate, but some appear to be unaware of a policy platform linked from a party's home page. Much--probably most--of the voting population doesn't like to go looking for information; they prefer to have it fed to them by a source they consider reliable. When Greens are in Parliament they will be approached on every issue because that's what the media does, in the name of balance. Greens will get the same free ride to exposure as the other four major parties. Nobody will have to go looking for Green positions, and the media won't drop Green press releases on the floor because they don't fit the scandal du jour.

    We're really looking forward to this.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Peter: I consider that after this length of time without ANY electoral success the Greens have NO influence at all !

    Interestingly, the pile-on-the-Greens by traditional party supporters we're seeing here is encouraging to a Green. (The quote above was chosen to represent several ripe tomatoes.)

    First, it brings to mind Gandhi's quote I've mentioned before: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Choose the comment and you can have step 2 or step 3. Step 4 is hull-up on the horizon.

    Second, it shows a palpable fear of a new sort of political party: one based on steady growth instead of instant gratification. The Green Party has expanded its vote share for five elections in a row, drawing equal support across the country.

    This didn't scare people when the vote share rose from 0.24% to 0.43%. After the Greens climbed to 6.8% in the last election, though, the next jump will upset a number of apple carts. The NDP could envision a day when it's fifth place in seats. The Grits and Dippers can already foresee a country in which a majority is impossible, rule by coalition is the norm, and all the old rules don't apply. The Bloc currently has a hand on the lever of power, but five sitting parties will make that a rare occurance.

    Given that context, fear is a very normal reaction.

    Greens won't form the next government. If the stars misalign badly, Greens may even be shut out again. But Greens will continue to grow.

    The party will win more votes than the Bloc.

    The party will probably win a greater share of the vote than the NDP did in half of the last six elections.

    The party will definitely win a greater share than the NDP did in a third of those half dozen elections.

    There will now be a howl of outrage and a complete denunciation of these statements. Fire away, but I suggest some preparation. I encourage everyone to bookmark these words on this blog entry's permanent page. After the next election everyone can take turns pointing to this comment and alternating between laughter and ridicule. I'll freely admit my errors.

    Unless, of course, I'm right.

    And by the way, don't worry. The fear isn't reciprocated by Greens. We're looking forward to constructively working with the other parties on the Hill.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I've looked at thr Green Party's website several times and still don't no where they stand on corporate tax cuts.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Red Tory Liberal: I've looked at thr Green Party's website several times and still don't no where they stand on corporate tax cuts.

    When I typed "corporate tax cuts" (with quotes) in the Green Party home page search window, the first item found was a press release dated 2010-01-25.

    The Greens also propose to cancel planned corporate tax cuts scheduled to come on stream from 2010-2012, thereby reducing current deficit projections by $3.3 million, $2.8 billion and $5.2 billion in successive years.

    Read the rest of the release to see how that fits into the overall plan. For instance, Greens are very concerned about structural deficits and Green tax proposals address this threat. However, Greens also want to encourage employment, so the party would lower EI and CPP contributions instead of raising them.

    Greens have a broad, coherent vision and platform. One-note politics is ancient Green history. The deep thought is there; the challenge is getting the message out to Canadians.

    Thanks for asking.

    ReplyDelete
  97. so the party would lower EI and CPP contributions instead of raising them.

    Have no problem with lowering EI provided benefits remain unchanged.

    However CPP is a different story as most Canadians have inadequate pension income and this contribution needs to be raised not lowered to ensure on retiring you can survive.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Peter - Who cares which has the larger population? Unless you're defining democracy as some sort of intrinsic good, or you're willing to allow tyranny of the majority, it simply does not matter which group is larger.

    My solution gives both groups the government they want. All it takes away from the larger group is the power to steal from the smaller one.

    ReplyDelete
  99. My solution gives both groups the government they want.

    No it gives one what it thinks it wants at the expense of the larger group. That's neither fair nor democratic.

    (Alberta is an excellent example)

    Rather it's an extremely poor example.

    ReplyDelete
  100. The larger group?

    Fundamentally, the groups don't exist. We're all just individuals.

    If "the larger group" wants to steal wealth from some of its members, I don't think it should be allowed to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  101. --- We're all just individuals.

    I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  102. If "the larger group" wants to steal wealth from some of its members

    'Stewth !! You really don't get it do you ??

    Majority RULES, remember that ???

    But by your thinking it is fine for a few to steal the majority blind !! aka The wealthy shaft everybody and the Big Corps even worse !

    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.