Thursday, November 18, 2010

Liberals gain in new projection

Though the top line numbers show only a little movement, there actually has been some large shifts in support at the regional and provincial levels. For the most part, the Liberal Party has been the beneficiary.Nationally, the Conservatives still hold the lead with 33.8%, a drop of 0.2 points from the November 2 projection. The Liberals have gained 0.2 points and now trail with 29.2%, followed by the New Democrats at 16.1% (up 0.5).

The Bloc Québécois is at 9.7% support nationally, while the Greens have dropped 0.2 points to 8.6%.

The Conservatives are now projected to win 127 seats, down two from the last projection and 15 from their current standing in the House of Commons. The Liberals have picked up three seats and are now projected to win 98, 22 more than they currently hold. The NDP has dropped one seat to 30, six fewer than they now have, while the Bloc remains steady at 53 seats.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have gained 0.3 points and lead with 37%, but the Liberals have gained 0.7 points and now trail with 36%. This has caused one seat to shift from the Conservatives over to the Liberals, who are now projected to 46 seats to the Tories' 47. The NDP would win 13, and are up 0.1 points to 16.3%. The Greens are down 1.1 points to 9%.

The Bloc has dropped 1.3 points in Quebec but has maintained the lead with 38%. The Liberals are up 0.1 points to 23.5%, while the Conservatives are up 0.5 points to 16.7%. The NDP has gained 1.3 points and is now at 13.2%, one of their high watermarks of late, while the Greens are down 1.3 points to 6.1%. This would result in 53 seats for the Bloc, 15 for the Liberals, six for the Conservatives, and one for the New Democrats.

The Conservatives have lost 1.3 points and a seat in British Columbia, and are now at 33.9%. The NDP is also down a seat and 1.4 points, and now stands at 25.5%. The Liberals have gained 1.8 points and two seats, and is now projected to have 25.2% support in the province. The Greens are down 0.2 points to 12%. The Conservatives would win 17 seats, the Liberals 10, and the New Democrats nine.

There are no seat changes in Atlantic Canada, but the Liberals have dropped 0.7 points to 38.4%. The Conservatives have gained 0.2 points and trail with 31.2%, while the NDP is up 0.6 to 22.2%. The Greens are up slightly by 0.1 points to 6.5%.

In Alberta, the Conservatives have dropped 0.1 points to 59.5%, while the Liberals are up 1.7 points to 19.4%. The NDP is down 0.9 to 9.9%, while the Greens are down 0.5 to 8.5%. The Conservatives would win 27 seats and the Liberals would win one, unchanged from November 2.

Finally, in the Prairies there have been no seat changes. The Conservatives have dropped 1.3 points to 46% there, while the Liberals are up 0.8 to 22.8%. The NDP is down 0.2 to 21.8% while the Greens are down 0.3 points to 7%.

In terms of net gains and losses in the six regions, the Greens did worst with a net loss of 3.3 points. Their drop of only 0.2 points in British Columbia is the best piece of news, while the drop of 1.1 points in Ontario is the worst.

Next would be the Conservatives, with a net loss of 1.7 points. They dropped in Alberta and the Prairies, which does not matter much, but also in British Columbia, which does. A small gain in Quebec, however, is not bad at all.

Middle-of-the-pack would be the Bloc Québécois, which lost 1.3 points in Quebec. However, they remain at 53 seats.

The New Democrats had a net loss of 0.5 points, but with gains in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada this isn't a bad projection for the NDP. But a loss of 1.4 points in British Columbia is troublesome. The party is on the verge of losing second place to the Liberals.

And it is they who come out on top in this projection, with a net gain of 4.4 points and three seats. The best performance for the party was in British Columbia, and a good showing in Ontario is also a positive sign for Michael Ignatieff.

With a combined total of 128 seats, the Liberals and New Democrats outnumber the Conservatives. That is the most significant change in this projection update. However, as the two parties are at odds on several issues, most notably Afghanistan, one wonders whether their combined totals mean anything.


  1. Even if the Liberals and NDP could be expected to cooperate consistently, that would still leave the balance of power sitting in the hands of the Bloc.

    As long as the Bloc is a major force in Parliament, these minority governments are bad for the country.

  2. Ira said...
    "these minority governments are bad for the country."

    Why exactly?

  3. Ira said...
    As long as the Bloc is a major force in Parliament, these minority governments are bad for the country.

    So what's your position if the Conservative Party depends on the Bloc to remain in power?

  4. I'm curious - what riding do you expect the Liberals to win in Alberta? They were soundly defeated even in their previous two Edmonton ridings in the last election. I would think it's more likely that Linda Duncan (NDP) would hold her seat in Edmonton Strathcona than a Liberal winning any riding in Alberta.

  5. I don't have one riding in particular, the model is currently not set for individual riding projections.

    But at this level of support, the Liberals are at almost double their 2008 election result. That puts them into play in several ridings, both in Calgary and Edmonton.

  6. I don't vote for the Bloc, but I can't think of anything specifically that they have done that is "bad for the country".

    You may not agree with Quebec sovereigntists, but they are a major political option in Quebec.

    Your choices are: (1) that
    sovereigntists have no representation in the federal government, and so reinforce their belief that they have not place in the federation (i.e., the Trudeau era), or (2) force them to join a federalist party they don't really support, causing massive instability in that party (i.e., the Mulroney era), or (3) have them be represented in Parliament the way every other political option is, never in government but able to get a few things they want now and then when there is a minority government. The third option has proven by far the most stable.

  7. DC & GI

    What Ira really means is anything that prevents the Tories from getting a majority is bad for the country.

    And the Bloc is certainly playing its part in that

  8. "So what's your position if the Conservative Party depends on the Bloc to remain in power?"

    That's an unfortunate circumstance.

    I think the governance we're getting from the CPC minority is measurably worse than the governance we got from the Chrétien majority. Majorities work better.

    But what I was actually saying was that having minorities that are forced to pander to the Bloc - a regional party that has no national interest - then those minority governments will do even less well.

  9. Yes, I would prefer a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority, and a Conservative minority to a Liberal minority, but I'd take a Liberal majority over a Conservative minority if those were the available options.

  10. "I'd take a Liberal majority over a Conservative minority if those were the available options."

    I wouldn't.

    The party of Chretien-Martin is gone. Liberals today have moved firmly to the left.

    They're also far less western than the class of '93.

    In '93 the Liberals had 27 seats west of Ontario compared to their dismal 7 today.

    A strong and united CPC party means that the right wing of the Liberal party is gone.

    Any Liberal majority is likely to come mostly from marginal CPC seats in Ontario and BC, as well as gains from the NDP and BQ.

    It would be left wing in nature.

    Dion with a majority ?

    Really ? This isn't 1993 anymore Ira.

  11. Liberals today have moved firmly to the left.

    Have they? Do they have any policies that would indicate that? Do they have any policies at all? And even if they do, would they actually enact them, or is it just posturing?

    Much as I don't think we can judge the CPC on their performance with a minority (the villain is the minority, not the parties involved), I don't think we can judge the Liberals based on their policy proposals from opposition, particularly outside an election campaign.

    Even if it were leftist, a majority government offers a more predictable policy environment, and predictable regulations are good for the economy.

  12. Ira rasing corporate taxes certainly isn't good for the economy. Nor is messing with EI or pensions.

    Barack Obama's sweeping mandate and absolute power certainly didn't provide a stable regulatory and bussiness environment.

    Activist left wing governments by defintion can NOT supply such a thing.

    Once agan, this isn't the Liberals of 1993.

    Key example ?

    Ignatieff abandoning the corporate tax cuts.

    He's now at war with John Manley, leader of bay street.

    If that doesn't highlight the key difference between the '93 Liberals the New Liberals I don't know what does.

  13. Ignatieff is the most rightwing Liberal leader ever. He makes Chretien look like a socialist.

  14. "Ignatieff is the most rightwing Liberal leader ever."

    Ignatieff is the guy who opposed the sale of potash corp after over a decade of the Liberals NEVER opposing any foreign sale.

    Why is he right wing because he supports military trainers ?

    Compared to the old Liberals who took us into Afghastan in the first place and then who took us to Kandahar ?

    Compare his position on the war and on fighter jets to someone like Liberal senator Colin Kenny.

    Ignatieff is clearly out ot step with the defence policies of the Liberals circa 2001-2006.

    Without a doubt he's further to the left on foreign policy matters.

    On economic policy we've already established him as further to the left than the old Liberal party which used to rely on big money from the corporate donor.

    With the new $1000 donation caps the Liberals have stopped working for Bay Street.

    To be honest the Liberal party may as well merge with the NDP.

    Columnist Paul Wells has concluded there is little difference between the parties now, except for Afghanistan.

  15. Shadow

    "Activist left wing governments by definition can NOT supply such a thing.

    Once again, this isn't the Liberals of 1993.

    Key example ?

    Ignatieff abandoning the corporate tax cuts.

    He's now at war with John Manley, leader of bay street."

    That's where you make your big mistake. Ira is correct, a majority is better for the country.

    But the Liberals have a solid track record and serving MP's from that record.

    Whereas the CPC has a record of left wing financial performance and right wing social performance.

    We've had the argument about the deficit before and I stand by what I said. The CPC could simply have said NO. They didn't. Thus they are fiscally worse than the NDP. Socially they have been ridiculous but since they didn't have a majority gay marriage, abortion on demand etc have been left behind.

    They tried on the gay marriage issue but the House said NO.

    The Liberals have been far more consistent but to you that's irrelevant!!

    Lose the scales on your eyes, no party represents the people!! The Liberals are closer but not perfect, the CPC is way further back !

  16. The two parties in Canada that are most similar are the Conservatives and Liberals.

  17. Peter you're simply incorrect.

    "the Liberals have a solid track record and serving MP's from that record."

    There aren't actually that many Liberal MPs from '93 to '00 left who are heavy hitters in any way, other than Ralph Goodale and Irwin Cotler.

    Most of the big players have long since resigned or were defeated.

    And the "solid track record" of the Liberals is meaningless because this IS NOT the same Liberal party !

    "We've had the argument about the deficit before and I stand by what I said. The CPC could simply have said NO. They didn't. Thus they are fiscally worse than the NDP."

    This makes zero sense.

    The opposition was calling for stimulus sooner, faster, and bigger.

    Once again proving that this NOT the same Liberal party that existed in 1993.

    "The Liberals have been far more consistent but to you that's irrelevant!!"

    Examples? Ignatieff has a reputation as flip flopping on virtually everything.

    "Lose the scales on your eyes, no party represents the people!! The Liberals are closer but not perfect, the CPC is way further back !"

    Totally irrelevent to the point at hand.

    We're discussing whether today's Liberals are to the left of the '93 Liberals.

    I think that's pretty obvious.

  18. "Once again, this isn't the Liberals of 1993."

    You're right. The Liberals of 1993 were talking about tearing up NAFTA, opposing any new trade agreements, getting rid of the GST etc...

    Of course then they won the election and did the exact opposite. Its ridiculous to talk about which Liberal leaders are more right or left than others when you have to look at who was in power and who was not. In opposition Liberals try to sound like New Democrats. In Government, they are identical to Conservatives.

  19. DL that's right because everyone remembers Trudeau being such a conservative in government, lol.

    Look at EKOS second choice polling, the largest number for Liberals is NDP.

    The Liberals used to be a big tent with right and left leaning members.

    The Conservatives have wiped out their right flank by winning seats, especially in the west, while giving up old PC seats in the maritimes and Quebec.

    Liberals purged themselves over ssm and abortion.

    Corporate donations are now worthless so the Liberals are freed from their former task masters.

    There's been any number of factors behind their leftward shift.

    Before now would anyone have imagined talk about a Liberal-NDP merger being taken seriously by media pundits ??

  20. Trudeau was very conservative in government. The welfare state did all its expanding during the Pearson years - Trudeau actually cut social programs to ribbons - brought in very restrictive abortion laws and spent all his time dicking around with the constitution because he thought economic issues were "boring".

  21. DL the guy known for the just society, NEP, partial nationalization of petro, being a friend of Castro, and wage and price controls is NOT considered a conservative by any reasonable observer.

  22. Wage and price controls were a conservative idea - Richard Nixon brought them in in the US 1971 and the PCs campaigned on bringing them in 1974 - and lost. It was Diefenbaker who made sure Canada kept on good terms with Castro.

  23. DL now you're confusing small c and large C conservatism.

    Just because a Republican or a PC PM did something doesn't make it "conservative" in the sense of being right wing.

    Price controls are an interventionist policy, they must be considered left wing.

  24. With all the bickering and small-mindedness that goes on in Canadian politics, I feel I should give a shout out to PM Harper, Bob Rae, and Iggy.

    Great job putting the national interest above politics on the Afghanistan extention.

    It's not often that I've seen that level of adulthood in our parliament.

    The Dippers and Bloc can shout into the wind. Canada will do what's right without them.

    Big kudos to the Liberals this week.

  25. You seem to have a definition of the meaning of "rightwing" that is unique to you. I've never heard of anyone defining "rightwing" as being whatever policy is the most "non-interventionist". In fact, most rightwing parties are highly interventionist when it comes to telling individuals whether or not they can choose to have an abortion or watch pornography or smoke marijuana.

    Here is the definition of "rightwing" in wikipedia. maybe that will help you to understand what it actually means:
    "In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church)."

  26. "Price controls are an interventionist policy, they must be considered left wing."

    'Fraid not. They are a necessary thing at certain times. Throughout WW II they were in place. You can neither in that circumstance say L or C.

    No the Libs have not shifted left. They are in the same place they were in 2000. What's happened is the CPC has dragged the centre off to the right away from its traditional place in this country. Which is hardly the fault of the Liberals. You seem to be a graduate of the John Baird school of BS pushing!!

  27. DL in the modern sense non-interventionist, laissez-faire market policies are almost universally considered a mark of a right wing party or small c conservative party.

    Social issues run on a somewhat seperate track but at the time those issues who were all discussed the status quo was that they were illegal.

    Activist forces seeked to change and liberalize the laws.

    Non-intervention in the traditional order of society does indeed describe conservatism.

    Peter the CPC has moved LEFT compared to reform in the 90's.

    What on earth are you talking about them moving right. If you go by the PC party maybe.

    Liberals of today are left of the governing record of the 93-00 liberals.

    Ira and DL suggested that Liberals are all liars. That they're really to the right underneath.

    I think its the other way around, Ignatieff can barely contain his urge to raise taxes in public. If he ever did form government I suspect the Liberals would move EVEN FURTHER LEFT.

  28. Meanwhile Tories talk a lot about balancing budgets and being fiscally responsible - but every time Canada has a Conservative government - the deficit goes through the roof and money gets wasted like crazy (ie: a billion dollars on a fake lake at the G20).

    Rightwing parties do whatever helps the rich and the powerful when it comes to economics - in some cases that means being highly interventionist and protectionist.

  29. DL protectionism doesn't help the rich, its a populist policy typically held by labour movement parties like the NDP.

    Intervention in the economy, like the industrial strategy the NDP calls for every ten seconds, doesn't help the rich either unless you're talking about picking winners and losers based on political connections.

    Corporatism and populism can exist across the spectrum based on who a party is catering to.

    Again though, just because an ostensibly conservative party supports something doesn't make the policy conservative in and of itself.

    RE: Deficits.

    Actually both Mulroney and Harper paid down debt and reduced the size of the deficits before getting engulfed in nasty recessions that caused revenues to drop like a stone.

    Free trade and the GST under Mulroney created the foundation for a balanced budget under the Liberals.

    I see no evidence that left wing parties would have done any better in these circumstances.

    In fact we know that the NDP and Liberals were OPPOSED to Flaherty paying down the debt in the first 3 year of the CPC government.

  30. Of course we also see the supposedly Conservative government in Canada wasting trillions of dollars on useless things like helicopters and submarines and the war in Afghanistan - instead of taking all that money and using it to balance the budget.

    They also did a few highly interventionist things like stopping the potash takeover - because a few oil tycoons objected. The definition of "rightwing" is - whatever policy favours the interests of the rich and powerful. Sometimes that means more government intervention - sometimes it means less.


COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.