Monday, October 1, 2012

NDP leads in Environics poll

Last week, Environics released a new survey showing the New Democrats holding a four-point lead over the Conservatives. The numbers in the poll were particularly striking in Ontario, where the NDP was also pegged with the advantage.
Environics was last in the field Jun. 12-23, and since then the New Democrats held steady with 35% support. The Conservatives were down two points to 31% while the Liberals were up one point to 20% in the poll.

The Bloc Québécois was up two points to 9% while the Greens were down one to 5%.

It is worth noting that shortly after the Environics poll was released another poll emerged from Forum Research that gave the Tories a four-point advantage. I will take a closer look at that poll tomorrow, but it is already included in the weighted federal poll averages at the top of this page.

None of the shifts in support since the June Environics poll are outside the margin of error, while the NDP's lead is equal to the margin of error on this sort of gap between the two parties.

The most significant shifts took place in Ontario, where the NDP gained six points to top the table at 36%. The Conservatives fell eight points to 32%, while the Liberals were at 26%. This is a rather spectacular result for the New Democrats, who have struggled in Ontario of late. This result from Environics could be a bit of an outlier in that regard. But with the provincial scene in flux, it could very well be that the federal one is as well.

In Quebec, the New Democrats fell seven points to 37% while the Bloc was up by that amount to close to within four points with 33%. This sort of result has been replicated in several recent polls, suggesting that the PQ's provincial victory may be rubbing off on the Bloc. If that is the case, we should probably expect the Bloc's support to dip in coming weeks.

The Conservatives led in Alberta with 55%, while the New Democrats trailed at 23%. The Liberals gained seven points to hit 15% in the province.

The New Democrats led in Atlantic Canada with 44%, while the Conservatives were given the advantage in the Prairies with 49% and British Columbia with 42%.
Despite the four-point NDP lead, the Conservatives still would win a plurality of seats with 132 on the proposed boundaries of the new 338-seat map. The New Democrats win 119, the Liberals 61, the Bloc Québécois 25, and the Greens one.

The reason is simple: the NDP's vote in Ontario is not efficient enough to make up for the loss of (potential) gains in British Columbia and the Prairies, where the NDP has usually been doing better in the polls. And losing out on so many seats in Quebec to the Bloc makes a huge difference. The new boundaries also disadvantage the NDP somewhat (particularly due to the extra seats in B.C. and Alberta) - on the current boundaries the Tories would take 121 seats to the NDP's 114.

But with the NDP and Liberals being able to combine for 180 seats on the expanded map (and 169 on the current one), the Conservatives would be unlikely to hold on to power for much longer.

Despite a less-than-advantageous regional breakdown, this is a good poll for the New Democrats. They need to make inroads in Ontario in order to win the next election, but they also need to hold on to their vote in Quebec and make small (but seemingly easier) gains in the West. If the Tories are losing support in Ontario but re-gaining the advantage in B.C. and the Prairies, the party could be returning to its traditional base, one that is good enough to win an election but not enough to win a majority.

53 comments:

  1. Eric, where was the Forum poll published? On their site, the only poll listed with a date after September 27 is a poll about the Northern Gateway, which doesn't have political party numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forum had some standard numbers in their Trudeau poll that came out last week. They haven't put the report online yet, but I have it.

      Delete
    2. Were both polls conducted during the same period? I'll be very interested to see how much support Trudeau brings from each party.

      Delete
  2. I know that the oft-repeated conventional wisdom is that the NDP vote in Ontario is "inefficient", but the fact is we really don't know how efficient or inefficient the NDP would be at turning votes into seats if its province-wide support went into the uncharted waters of the mid to high-30s.

    I am old enough to remember the 1990 Ontario election. In the 1987 election the Ontario NDP took 19 seats with 26% of the vote...when they surged into the lead at the end of the 1990 election, the "experts" all intoned that the NDP vote was "inefficient" and could never be turned into seats and blah blah balh...well lo and behold when the votes were counted, the NDP took just over 37% of the province-wide popular vote (in other words just what Environics has the NDP at in ON right now), and the Liberals had 32% and the PCs 25% - in seats the NDP swet to a majority with 74 seats out of 125, leaving the Liberals with just 36 and the PCs with 20-odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's possible. It is also possible that the vote would be even more inefficient, rising in ridings where they have little chance and not in ridings where they are close.

      We only know what we know, and this is the most likely outcome. While you can point to the 1990 election, the NDP vote was even more inefficient than expected in the 2011 Ontario election.

      Delete
  3. In the Globe and Mail today the title is "NDP slips nationally as Quebec support weakens' and here it's "NDP leads in Environics poll".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that article in the Globe is mine. The Globe article is the weighted average of all polls, including this one Environics poll.

      Delete
  4. The liberals after Ignatieff was crowned leader was up around 40% before falling all the way down to 3rd place come election time. Methinks Que just had 1 Ndp MP, its was the collapse of the Liberals and Quebec loving Jack mainly that gave NDP so many MPS. If anyone thinks the political landscape has change is naive. A bar worker who never campaigned and went to Las Vegas was elected, methinks that. is a protest vote. This protest vote happened all across Quebec. Quebec voters loyalty is an a inch thin and a mile wide. 2015 is an eternity in politics. But the NDP like socialist nations of the Euro zone who think debt is not to be concerned with, are now trapped in their own debt quick sand of doom. This demise of debt doomed socialist Euro zone should be a good lookinglass to mirror the image of what methinks a Mulcair NDP socialist government could be to Canadians and avoid it like the plague.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 11:18: Methinks you might be a CPC troll. If that is the case, methinks the CPC is getting nervous and fighting back not with logic but with the very old, tried and true Red Scare tactics. We see it all the time here in BC. But then again, that's only what methinks.

      Delete
    2. Except that NDP governments across Canada, provincially, have been the most fiscally responsible... moreso than both the Liberals and PCs. So try again... and lay off the Star Wars.

      Delete
    3. Adam looks to me more and more that the CPC is starting to run scared. Anon here is just an example of what's being brought out on all sorts of other forums and is so obvious because they haven't changed their "lines" at all !!

      Delete
    4. Hold the presses there Adam! The NDP governments have been terrible across Canada. In BC they ran 8 deficits during a period of economic expansion and saw BC go from a "have" to a "have not" province. I know because I was there the whole time. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba they governed mostly stagnant economies that relied on or in the case of Manitoba still rely on equalization payments. The Ontario debacle saw the provincial economy fall apart long after the recession was over, the debt rose, and employment fell. Finally in Nova Scotia you have an NDP government that taxes and spends and an economy that isn't anything you'd want to mimic. Conversely the Liberals in BC actually lowered taxes and balanced the budget for several years until the recession. In Alberta even before the run in oil prices the Tories got that economy in shape. The Saskatchewan Party has gotten Saskatchewan's economy off the ground and growing around the province. Say what you want about Mike Harris in Ontario but he got the economy moving again and investment did increase. The Tories in Newfoundland haven't been spectacular either but they have slowly made very positive economic reforms. Call me crazy but I'll take just about anyone, including McGuinty over the NDP led by anyone!

      Delete
    5. And the European governments that contributed to the current economic crisis were all not socialist - even in name. So, Mr/Ms Anonymous, a re-reading of current events might be in order.

      Delete
    6. In BC not only were the NDP under Glen Clark irresponsible they lied about it. Fudgeit budgets we called 'em. Ontario nearly went bankrupt under Bob Rae (admittedly not wholly his own doing). However, Rae did little to improve confidence or the Province's books.

      In BC the last NDP governments were not completely incompetent but, they were unnecessarily partisan. The fast ferries were built not based on economic costs or value for money but, due to their uninosed workers in marginal ridings. One could over look this as a one-off if it were not for the millenium line; a needed piece of transportation infrastructure built in the wrong place but, through marginal NDP ridings. The end result is the need to build yet another transit line from Port Moody to downtown.

      I agree with the original post that the NDP vote in Quebec was a protest vote coupled with Laytonmania. As the ADQ experienced two elections ago Quebec voters are fickle. The seat projections demonstrate even with a four point lead the Tories win a plurality of seats-so now is not the time to fret about a potential NDP victory.

      Delete
    7. chimurenga,

      Tony Blair and Labour are socialists, Gerhard Schroeder led Germany 1998-2005, a socialist, Mitterand, Socialist and Francois Holland (who is doing untold damage to France at present)socialist. The list goes on. Certainly the socialist parties of Europe have "blood" on their hands in regards to the Eurozone crisis. So to say all the governments "were all not socialist" is a misreading of history or a very narrow reading.

      Delete
    8. In 1993, the PC party was marginized after winning only 2 seats in the election, but the Conservative movement wasn't dead yet because the Reform Party made a lot of gains. Now the PC party and Reform party has merged into the Conservative Party. In 2015, the whole Conservative movement in Canada will die out, and there will be no Reform Party to save you this time!

      Delete
    9. "Tony Blair and Labour are socialists."

      I had to laugh at that. Ask any Briton and none of them would say Blair is a socialist. Blair is a centrist and moved the Labour party to the centre.

      And Francois Holland is not doing untold damage to France. If he is, then why is he so popular? In fact, when the Eurozone crisis started, Sarkozy was the president. Shouldn't he be blamed for it? Merkel of Germany was also the Chancellor when the eurozone crisis started. So I suppose, since the two largest economies in the euro area were governed by conservatives when the eurozone crisis, that conservatives were to blame for the dire economic situation that Europe is now in.

      And did I miss David Cameron, who pulled the UK into a double-dip recession by doing his reckless cuts?

      Yet another Tory who wouldn't look at facts before commenting.

      Delete
    10. In your dreams Anon 15:13:

      Remember there is no more jack to save the NDP. A party he rescued from its deathbed in 1998. Should young Trudeau prove to be the progressive messiah the socialist party of Canada, the NDP will fade away.

      Delete
    11. The policies that created the European economic crisis are not socialist policies, they are neo-liberal policies, regardless of the name of the party that implemented them. That being said, Tony Blair is no socialist (a laughable suggestion, in fact), nor is Schroeder (in any meaningful way). Holland was only just elected, give him a chance to prove he's just as corporatist as he seems to be... Again, regardless of the name of the governing party, the policies that resulted in this economic crisis are precisely not socialist policies, and were enacted overwhelmingly by governments that did not even in name invoke the term socialism.

      Delete
    12. Anon: 16:13

      Labour is a socialist party. There is no debate, Tony Blair as leader of that party was a socialist as is Ed Miliband (whose father was a Marxist). Although Blair revised clause 4 (a very contentious issue) the present clause certainly demonstrates Labour's socialist values:
      "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect".

      Francois Holland is putting France into Depression! Already French exports (admittedly also on Sarko's watch) are down to 13% from 17% of the Eurozone total, Government accounts for 55% of GDP and frankly the only thing that will save them is to break away from EMU. Holland's 75% tax rate will only generate e$200,0000,000 but, how many French business leaders have moved to London or New York? The best and the brightest, the ones with capital to invest in new industry and technology. We even see it in the world of mergers and acquisitions where BAE wants to buy EADS a Franco-German defence conglomerate.

      The fact that you look back only 5 years or 7 years to Sarkozy and Merkel is somewhat perplexing. The causes of the current Eurozone crisis began long ago. The Euro began in 1995! Its roots began with Maastricht! The architects were Mitterand and Helmut, Kohl! I will point out the head of the Bundesbank and ECB a long with political and business leadership accquiessing to EMU also made significant contributions to the euro project.

      David Cameron did the right thing. Look at America 8.1% unemployed Britain 8.1%, the only difference is Britain curtailed its borrowing. The Eurozone average is 11.4% so relatively speaking Britain is doing well and still has a AAA credit rating!

      So what if Britain technically went into a double dip recession? America has been "out" of recession since Spring 2009 yet everyone down there says the economy is terrible and robust growth is not expected until 2014 or 15.

      Delete
    13. Inn addition you can get an idea of how socialist the Labour party rank and file really are by the souvenirs they sell at their annual conference:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/9581544/Must-have-souvenirs-from-the-Labour-Party-Conference-in-Manchester.html

      Delete
    14. Anon 17:22,

      First, I don't dream politics. Politics is not worth dreaming about, and you comments are even less worth dreaming about.

      I'm not an NDP supporter. I am a Liberal supporter. The NDP will not fade away because it has moved more to the centre, entered the mainstream and will be the official opposition to the Liberal government in 2015.

      Anon 16:13,

      Why are you saying there is no debate? You are acting as if only your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong! This is why Conservatives have destroyed democracy in this contry.

      Labour is not a pure socialist party. There isn't a lot of debate, Tony Blair as leader of that party was not as socialist as Ed Miliband. Although Blair revised clause 4 (a very contentious issue) the present clause certainly demonstrates Labour's socialist values but wasn't necessarily follow through by its members.

      Francois Holland is putting France into recovery and prosperity! French exports on Sarko's watch are down to 13% from 17% of the Eurozone total. Government accounts for 55% of GDP and frankly the only thing that will destroy them is to break away from EMU. Holland's 75% tax rate will generate a wooping e$200,0000,000 and the generous French business leaders have never moved to London or New York. The best and the brightest, the ones with capital to invest in new industry and technology are all part of a booming economy. We even see it in the world of mergers and acquisitions where BAE wants to buy EADS a Franco-German defence conglomerate which will create so much wealth in the Eurozone.

      The fact that I look back 5 years or 7 years to Sarkozy and Merkel is conclusive proof. The causes of the current Eurozone crisis began a long time ago in 7 years. The Euro began in 1995, and worked well until conservative leaders emerged! Its roots began with Maastricht! Its great architects were Mitterand and Helmut, Kohl! I will point out the head of the Bundesbank and ECB along with political and business leadership accquiessing to EMU also made significant contributions to the euro project, which has been stable under non-conservative governments.

      David Cameron did the wrong thing. Look at America's 8.1% unemployed and falling, Britain's 8.1% and rising, the major difference is Britain made a lot of cuts too fast. The Eurozone average is 11.4% so relatively speaking Britain is doing very badly, near the bottom, and barely holding on to a AAA credit rating!

      Britain is now truly in a double dip recession! America has been out of recession since Spring 2009 and everyone down there prefers their economy to Britain's economy and robust growth is expected very soon at 2014 or 15!


      Anon 12:35,

      In addition you can't get an idea of how non-socialist the Labour party rank and file really are by a Conservative leaning newspaper article trying to portray Labour as the "far-left".


      Final thing I would like to say is, if it takes so much convincing to show your opinion is the right opinion, then your opinion is probably not right at all.

      Delete
    15. There is no debate because Labour was founded upon and still adheres to socialist principles. The fact you are unwilling to admit what is common knowledge and readily available through reading their constitution is disturbing. You try and mask it by saying it is not a "pure socialist party" you say clause four is not indicative of Labour party values but, what is then? It wasn't followed through you intone but, some parts of it were! If none of clause four was put in place what is the point of the Labour party? It will simply demonstrate that Labour's word and values are not to be trusted and that voters should have zero expectation that a Labour manifesto or programme will be acted upon when they are in government.

      Since you seem so enamoured with M. Holland please take a trip to France and speak with the common folk. As demonstrations this spring adequately showed M. Holland is not universally loved even among the left. The export numbers include the last two quarters on Holland's watch so you are wrong to blame Sarkozy for the entire 4% decline.

      E$200,000,000 is hardly a wooping (sic) figure when dealing with a 2.5 trillion dollar economy and a 700 billion dollar budget- it equates to roughly .025% of the total budget. In other words it is almost useless but, does much to scare investment and investors to seek more hospitable climes.

      The fact you don't understand unemployment statistics (the lower the number the more people employed!) puts serious doubts on your competence to continue this or indeed any other conversation- I would hate to be stuck at a party with you! In fact both America and Britain have falling unemployment rates and Britain is in the top quintile of employment in Europe. Yes their AAA rating is in danger but, America has already lost its AAA rating. Britain at least is proactive. We do not have the final numbers to show Britain is in a double dip recession although technically it is likely in one.

      In any case there is not much point arguing since you have plagiarized my original post without citing me or providing new information. You admonish me for being overly wordy but, sadly, you have copied and pasted my words without providing additional evidence or detail to substantiate your philosophies. Clearly I over-judged your literacy skills. I will dumb down my comments in the future to allow you to understand them. If it takes so many of someone else's words to show your opinion "is" (sic)right then your views are probably not right at all!

      In any case I would ask you please delete your post or cite me properly.

      Delete
    16. A BAE-EADS merger will create much wealth for the UK since it is BAE buying EADS.

      Delete
    17. Anon: 17:22

      Only a socialist would call growth of .2% last quarter in France a "booming economy". If that is so it is only because when socialists are in power economic malaise ensues (this has been the history of France where larger protest erupt on socialists presidents watch vis a vis Gaulists or conservatives (whether by coincidence or perseverance is hard to determine).

      Secondly, it is sad you do not dream of politics. Surely this must be a reflection of the dearth of ideas amongst the left throughout the Western world. Where do the big ideas come from if we don't dream them, the great leaps without imagination? Equality without the belief it can happen?

      One day when you're married with kids you will get a better understanding of economics and will to paraphrase Churchill "have a brain".

      Delete
    18. I must append part of my last post. Economic growth in France for the last two quarters was 0! Although technically this does not count as a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) in real terms it is one in all but name. Since, living standards and the economy are not keeping pace with inflation.

      Delete
    19. Will, you should stop picking on Anonymous posters who simply want to state their opinion on this site. If you really want a deep discussion, then talk to some real bloggers. Look, I only commented here to express my opinion, not to get drawn in an argument and have every word in every sentence studied to such an extent and thrown back at the poster.

      Your disrespectful statements is really worthless to respond to. You think whatever happened to the past will happen again in the future, which is just wrong. The socialists in France have barely been in power for 6 months, so reserve some judgement on them for a few years later before you come to any false conclusions.

      When I said I don't "dream" of politics, I meant dreaming while sleeping. I didn't mean dreaming as in "imagination". Contrary to what you dictate, I do reflect on politics every now and them.

      Picking on the weak, picking on someone who simply expressed his opinion and get used as a means to advance one's partisan goals, putting personal smear on someone's personal life with statements like "have a brain" and "married with kids" (which have nothing to do at all with what we are discussing), these are acts that the right is obsessed with these days, and shows they really have little idea of how to advance the country. No one likes people who act like that. And frankly, these are the traits that you share, Will.

      I'm not even going to read anything else you post, they really are one-sided and lack perspective.

      Delete
    20. You plagiarize my writing and you want an apology from me? As for disrespect I can not imagine a more blatant or callous showing of disrespect to another than copying his work without giving the author credit-that is disrespectful if not outright mean and malignant.

      You are the one that responded to and "laughed" at my comment regarding Tony Blair. In other words you instigated the conversation!If my post is "really worthless to respond to" why have you written a reply?

      You criticize me for paraphrasing Churchill and putting forth possible scenarios yet, you have no qualms insulting me with "frankly, these are traits that (sic) you share, Will" and "Your disrespectful statements is really worthless to respond to".

      Let me give you some advice: if you want to participate in politics you need a thick skin! Perhaps you need to refrain from posting on political boards as it appears you are too easily bruised.

      As for one sided writing I admit I am not perfect but, you are equally partisan.

      Delete
  5. You have the latest Forum federal data, are you going to at some point do an analysis of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quoting from Éric's post : "I will take a closer look at that poll tomorrow, but it is already included in the weighted federal poll averages at the top of this page."

      Delete
  6. In the 1970's when Stephen Lewis won more seats for the NDP with fewer votes than Stuart Smith everyone said "the NDP vote is more efficient". Same thing in BC where Glen Clarke won a gov't with fewer votes than the Liberals. I thought, getting your vote to pile up by class and region is "more efficient". The Liberal vote tends to be the vote that is a mile wide and an inch deep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the opposite of what happened in the recent Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland elections though. I don't think one can make these generalizations one way or the other.

      Delete
    2. When efficient with few votes(like 15-20% ), can translate to inefficiency when hitting 30-35% of the vote. And the opposite can be true. Because if the vote is efficient at 15-20% mark, means that few ridings have high support, while most parts have low to non-existent support. which will translate to inefficiency at the 30-35% range.

      However, if the vote is uniform , it means it is inefficient at 15-20% range, but when it hits 30-35%, a lot of ridings will be won and a sweep will happen, like in quebec. An example of that vote is the Bloc, they got almost wiped out, although they got 22% of the vote

      Delete
  7. I've often wondered if Canada would be well-served by having regional parties instead of national parties. Since the different regions don't tend to agree of what sort of government they want, perhaps an arrangement like Germany's (where Bavaria always votes for the same party, which then forms a coalition with whomever wins the rest of the country) would work for us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we would. IMHO the Bavarian example is a bit of a historical oddity. The CDU and CSU certainly function more or less as one party.

      Belgium is a good case of the disaster that could lie down this road. They had their MPs doing double duty as MLAs until the 1990s, and the tension of the regional interests tore every single national party apart. Without any national political parties, they've had a very hard to creating national governments.

      Delete
    2. That's an interesting suggestion.

      Delete
    3. Canada already tried a quasi version of this when Reform (western/extreme cons), PC (eastern/mod cons), Bloc, Libs (eastern left-wing), and NDP (western left-wing) were all parties with seats.

      Eventually mergers occurred.

      Delete
  8. If you want to talk about an INEFFICIENT vote - look no further than the federal Liberals who took just 11 seats in Ontario last year with 25% of the popular vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That seems like par for the course in Canadian politics doesn't it? The NDP took no seats in Saskatchewan with 30%.

      Delete
  9. Polls like this and seat results like this is a great example of our criminal electoral system.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Exactly DL, the Liberal vote below a certain level delivers zip. IMHO it is the most inefficient vote because it is everywhere but no where in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fact of the matter is (this is for you CPC trolls), NDP provincial governments between 1980/81 and 2010/11 ran a balanced budget or surplus 50% of the time, Conservative federal/provincial governments under 40% of the time, and Liberal ones under 30% of the time. These stats are from Finance Canada, RBC, and Statistics Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hurtin:

      That is because NDP governments are rarely in office. they get lucky once and it skews the statistics.

      So Calvert and Romanow managed to keep a have province in the black-wow!! But this was mainly a function of high resources prices as opposed to good planning. Manitoba is a little trickier - I'll give Doer credit he was a fine premier. But look what the NDP did to Ontario and in BC. We were in a time of robust economic expansion and the Harcourt-Clark governments managed to squander the opportunity so that in each and every year of NDP government BC's growth rate was below the national average. Never mind the fudgeit budgets.

      Delete
    2. Gordon Campbell and the Liberal government of the last decade aren't looking too hot right now either. And the Rae premiership in Ontario was a failure because he didn't actually govern like a social democrat...that's the reason he's no longer affiliated with the party. He is to the NDP as a Brian Mulroney is to the Conservatives.

      Also, I guess the "resource rich" argument should discount successful PC governments in Alberta, no? But I don't think anybody would argue that that's appropriate. In the past two decades NDP governments have existed in half the provinces of the confederation, and despite all the horror stories from the right about the Red Scare Dippers and their tax and spend ways, they have still managed to have balanced budgets 50% of the time.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely right about the Alberta PCs. Since Lougheed left they have been a financial disaster. I would not characterise their governing or indeed Alberta as successful. Certainly, they win no awards for good planning of fiscal and financial sustainability, managing or indeed profit maximisation. They have failed on all three counts as well as on the program and services side.

      Delete
    4. Since Lougheed left? That was 30 years ago man...Ralph Klein and Ed Stelmach had many surpluses. Of course with our rapid growth we haven't been able to keep up with demand in terms of services, but we do have the best paid teachers and best education outcomes in the country and we aren't a failure at all, sorry. The PC surplus stats may be skewed by the success of Alberta...

      Delete
    5. Klein and Stelmach only had surpluses because they raided and did not replenish the Heritage Fund. Today the fund stands at almost the exact same amount, $15 billion, as it did when Lougheed left office. In real terms it has declined 50% in value. In lost opportunity costs it is about 1/4-1/8 the size it should be.

      Alberta has one of the highest high school drop out rates in the country. That is not necessarily a bad thing since most drop outs move into the labour force. Alberta is 6 out of 10 provinces for total high school graduates-89% of the population. If one looks at graduation by age group (18-19 years when most people finish high school or secondary school) the rate falls to 73% and 7 out of 10 provinces.

      Delete
  12. Justin campaign slogan:- "YAHOO TO YOU!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 23:30, you may have insulted a lot of Albertans, which includes me. Do you really think that putting such personal attacks on Trudeau will do the Conservative movement any good? No, it only shows how rude and careless conservatives are. And don't give the reason that Alberta will vote for Conservatives anyway, because there are a lot of Liberal Albertans too. Perhaps you want to see Edmonton Centre, Calgary Centre, and Calgary Northeast to become Liberal ridings? I thought so.

      Delete
    2. I think Justin is inexperienced and underqualified enough that nobody needs to bring his dad into this. Though with poll numbers like this, I'm seriously wondering whether people were actually responding positively to Justin himself, or just for the Trudeau name.

      Delete
    3. They're responding to the name, to Justin's apparent charm and good looks, and to the sympathy they felt for him when his father died. I found Justin's eulogy mawkish and phoney, but it seems that many found his performance moving... No one is responding to Justin's actual political deeds, because he has none. On the other hand, neither has anyone mentioned one thing (that as a Montrealer I've heard), and that is clearly to his credit, he is reportedly a genuinely responsive member of parliament to his constituents. As a party leader, I suspect he would be a wipe-out (he's just not that bright) unless his handlers can work wonders around him... which is a possibility.

      Delete
    4. To be fair young Trudeau does have two political accomplishments. 1. He won a "likely" BQ seat in Papineau against a well-known and high ranking BQ member-Vivian Barbot. 2. He was re-elected.

      DP

      Delete

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.