Friday, November 7, 2014

October 2014 federal polling averages

It was an eventful month in Ottawa, with the vote on the Iraq mission and the shootings on Parliament Hill both taking place. Four national polls and two regional surveys (one in Alberta, the other in Quebec) interviewed a total of just over 7,600 Canadians, finding that the Liberal lead has slipped a little. Nevertheless, that lead has now held for 19 consecutive months.

The Liberals averaged 35.6% support in October, down 2.4 points from their standing in September. That represents three consecutive months of softening support, though they still remain above where they were in the spring.

The Conservatives were down 0.4 points to 29.5%, while the New Democrats were up 0.3 points to 22.5%. That is their best result since June.

The Greens increased by 1.7 points to 6.4%, while the Bloc Québécois was at 4.2% and support for other parties averaged 1.8%.

The Liberals picked up 2.4 points in British Columbia to move into a narrow lead with 31.8%, followed by the Conservatives. They were up 2.2 points to 31.5%. The New Democrats fell to their lowest level of support since March, slipping seven points to 23.1%. The Greens, meanwhile, were at their best since May with a gain of 0.8 points to 11.2%.

In Alberta, the Conservatives were down 4.7 points to 50.1%, their worst performance since May. The Liberals were down 2.5 points to 24.7%, while the New Democrats were up one point to 11.6%. At 9.9%, a gain of 5.1 points, the Greens put up their best results since December 2013.

Monthly averages, all regions
The Conservatives hardly budged in the Prairies, where they were down 0.1 point to 39.3%. The Liberals have also been very steady, registering between 29% and 33% support over the last 11 months. They were down 1.2 points in October to 31.2%. The NDP was up 0.2 points to 24.2%, while the Greens increased by 1.2 points to 4.2%.

In Ontario, the Liberals dropped 2.7 points to 40.4%, their lowest level of support since June. The Conservatives were up 1.1 points to 34.2%, while the NDP was also up, by 1.4 points to 19.6%. The Greens increased by 0.6 points to 4.9% support.

The Liberals slid 3.7 points in Quebec to 32.9%, putting them just ahead of the New Democrats. The NDP has gained for three consecutive months now, up 1.1 points since September to 31.1%. The Bloc Québécois was up 0.3 points to 15.8% (they have been around 16% for the last three months), while the Conservatives were also up 0.3 points to 14.3%. The Tories have been at 14% in seven of the last eight months. The Greens were up 1.2 points to 4.3%. Support for other parties, which is unlikely to include Forces et Démocratie as only one of the five polls conducted in Quebec were done after its launch, increased from 0.8% to 1.5%.

And in Atlantic Canada, the Liberals dropped 0.4 points to 48.7%, followed by the Conservatives at 22% (+0.2), the New Democrats at 21.5% (-1.2), and the Greens at 7.1% (+2.0).

With these levels of support, the Liberals would likely win about 136 seats, a drop of seven since September's projection. The Conservatives were up 10 seats to 122, while the NDP was down four seats to 77.

The Liberals gained three seats in British Columbia, but were down one in the north, three in Quebec, and six in Ontario.

The Conservatives were up five seats each in British Columbia and Ontario. They held steady everywhere else.

The New Democrats were down eight seats in B.C. but were up one each in the north and Ontario, and two in Quebec.

The Greens remained at two seats in British Columbia, while the Bloc moved from being shutout in Quebec to holding one single seat.

Overall, it was a relatively stable month with most shifts at the regional level being below 2.5 points. Even the Liberal drop nationwide could be anomalous. The decrease recorded by Abacus Data in October has already been mostly erased in a November survey, and EKOS's shift in Liberal support might have been due to a change in methodology. But Forum also showed a slip, so perhaps it was something real that may, or may not, be made good in November. We'll have to see what other surveys turn up in the coming weeks. As yet, though, no one party seems to have taken particular advantage.


  1. My gut feeling as that come election time these numbers will change. Either they buy into the Trudeau message and he gets more seats than the current prediction or he falls flat and he gets less seats than the current prediction. It is useful to know where parties start from when the writ comes down, but still leaves the field quite a bit open, anywhere between a Harper majority, to a Trudeau majority, with stop overs at both Harper and Trudeau's minorities.

    1. Yep. I'm working on getting the official projection model ready, which will have the usual high/low ranges. I'm interested to see what they'll be.

    2. I'm not sure what the "Trudeau message" is at this point. And his fumbling of Iraq suggests that he doesn't, either.

      The Liberals have yet to answer the question posed by their decline through 4 consecutive elections. "Why do they exist?" Maybe there's a good answer, but I think Canadians need to hear it from them.

    3. The Trudeau message right now is "I'm not Harper" and it seems to be selling rather well so far.

      As to why Liberals exist, the answer is to provide the balance middle between the statist NDP policies and the conservative let-them-eat-cake policies of the CPC. They have done rather well with that position for the last hundred years and would have already been back in power had it not been for an internecine battle and really bad choices of leadership (Martin, Ignatieff, and who knows, we might have to add JT to that list).


    4. "The Trudeau message right now is "I'm not Harper" and it seems to be selling rather well so far. "

      I don't think it's the Trudeau message alone though.

      Remember how many years we had of the Chretien-Martin era. Why did Martin lose?? You might ask Chretien?? Plus the advent of the way out Right Reform with it's insane anti-govt message.

      But that is now showing itself to be just as bad as possible. Do remember that unlike the USA this country has always been held together and sort of directed/managed by Govt.

      Think of the things that Govt has done to sort of weld the country together, of which possibly the biggest was the Canadian Pacific Railway. So whether Liberal or PC Govt has a specific agenda. But under Reform that has been scrapped in favour of maximising profits and slashing Govt existence.

      We need a national govt back and JT has the best potential.

    5. The "I'm not Harper message" is not working. Trudeau is in a minority government position when he should be in majority government territiry. If Liberals think the NDP or Tories will just roll over and allow them to be government they are delussional.


      Reform's message was not anti-government it was a message of fairer government (I never supported Reform or the Canadian Alliance). The fact 3% of Alberta GDP is siphoned off and given to Quebec is a problem but, until recently a problem Quebeckers have been unwilling to address.
      The Senate is badly skewed toward Eastern elites and the Liberals' through their constitution were so biased toward protecting their own power they couldn't be bothered to reform the Upper House. As for profits it is the Liberal party that has a history of cozying up with business and is known as the party of bay St.-not the Tories. Harper has not slashed government as dramatically as Martin-Chretien.

      Don't forget Peter, it was the Tories who constructed the CPR-if it was up to the Liberal party it would have stopped some distance short of the Manitoba-Ontario border!

    6. Just to correct a point: the main contributor for the federation by far, was, until recently, Ontario. The 3% of GDP from Alberta was sent to all the have-nots provinces, which again until rather recently consisted of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.

    7. It seems that some on here cannot or will not understand that there have been significant differences in the country since its inception.

      Firstly there have been TWO progressive parties since the beginning until quite recently. Neither of which is the Harper Reform Cons !!

      Progressive Conservatives and Liberals. Each with different views on where or how the country should advance but agreed that the people come ahead of business.

      So things and actions that advanced the people where embraced and things which only helped big business were not. Ths tying the country together with the CPR was so important and Big Oils profits really weren't !!

      So let's cut the silliness and accept that this country represents the efforts of its two major parties.

    8. The Liberal Party is a small "c" Conservative party. They are in favour, on paper at least, of fiscal conservative policies such as a balanced budget. When last in office they dramatically cut social programs and the CHSTransfer as it then was. They have made no attempt to reform Canada's political institutions and the 1982 constitution arguably increased the difficulty to enact political and constitutional reforms. So the Liberals are in favour of the status quo and that is a conservative policy and politics!

      Secondly, the Progressive Conservative party was not founded until 1942 so the statement: "Firstly there have been TWO (my emphasis) progressive parties since the beginning until quite recently". Is factually incorrect. The second half of the paragraph is also incorrect since the Conservative Party of Canada is the successor to the PCs and therefore under your "logic" may be considered progressive or at least partially so. They have called for an elected Senate, a progressive political reform. They reduced the GST a regressive tax on the poor since a higher than average percentage of their disoposable income go toward consumption.

      Thirdly, neither the Progressive Conservative party nor the Liberal party built the CPR (the Liberals were adamantly oppossed to it). The CPR was constructed under the leadership of the Conservative party. So please don't give the Liberal Party credit for which they are not entitled.

      Finally, Polstats is correct that all the "have-not" provinces receive equalization but, Quebec as the largest "have-not" benefits the most. in 2012-13 Quebec received roughly $6 billion more than they contributed to the program out of a roughly $15.5 billion equalization budget. This is up nearly $5 billion from 2005-6 mainly due to the have-not status of Ontario and the recession. Depending on the year, equalization fluctuates with tax revenue, it may be correct to say a majority of or even most of Alberta's equalization payment goes toward Quebec-they are by far the largest reciepient.

      Also when people claim Ontario was the "largest contributor" toward Confederation it is helpful to remember Ontario is also the largest beneficiary. 42% of federal civil servants are in Ontario even though Ontario only has 38.5% of canada's population. In today's world there really is no need to have such centralization of services.

    9. "As to why Liberals exist, the answer is to provide the balance middle between the statist NDP policies and the conservative let-them-eat-cake policies of the CPC".

      The Liberals are statist. in 1969 the budget was roughly $11 billion by 1984 the deficit alone was $31.5 billion. Yes, this is the result of inflation to some degree but, also statist and interventionist policies of the Liberal party. Unfortunately in M. Lalonde's 1984 budget and budget speech I can find no mention of the actual budget. I suspect the reason for this is because the deficit represtnts about half the total budget.

    10. That's quite the revisionist histrionics lesson you're touting there Peter.

      I would like to know your definition of progressive if you are going to hold up the PCs and Liberals parties as progressive. History shows that neither party was much interested in progressiveness, unless forced to by the CCF/NDP or the vast majority of the people (even then not really). Both the PCs and Liberals were and are very much in bed with corporate interests to everyone benefit but the voters, any gains seen by the average voter is at best a happy accident.

      You want to cut the silliness, how about we start by dropping the idea that the two major parties (in what even incarnation they might be) shaped this nation in the current image. I would give that one (the good and the bad) to the people of Canada. We are responsible for the governments we elect.

    11. Ontario is also the largest beneficiary. 42% of federal civil servants are in Ontario even though Ontario only has 38.5% of canada's population.

      This is a good example of abusing statistics to support an ideological point. Of course there are a large number of federal employees in Ontario since the capital happens to be located in that province (duh!).

      Here's another source of faux outrage for you. Maryland and Virginia have 3x the number of federal employees than most other states in the USA.

    12. Another example of faux analysis. Automatically dismissing an argument because it does not correspond to one's own biases.

      In this day and age and for the last quarter century, there has been little need to have the federal bureaucracy centralised in the 'Wa. Of course many deputy ministers offices probably need to be close to the Minister and it probably makes sense for the Finance HQ to be in the Eastern time zone but, does it make any sense for Aboriginal Affairs HQ is to be located in the 'Wa when 58% of Aboriginal people live in the West? Or NRCan? Or the Coast Guard or DFO? When was the last time you saw an Ocean in Ottawa Polstats?

      Of course Ontario doesn't just benefit from the bureaucracy. The NEP, Macdonald's national policy, both resulted in the explotation of peripheral regions for the benefit of Ontario. Chretien's low dollar policy hurt the West and subsidized the Ontario manufacturing sector. Then we have the auto bailout that exclusively helped Ontario. Now thankfully everything worked out but, if GM and Chrysler wen belly up Canada would have been out of pocket some 15 billion dollars. All for Ontario.

      Then we have the crime Ontario commits on the rest of Canada by continuing to buy Maple Laugh tickets year after year forcing the rest of us to watch the Leafs lose on Hockey Night in Canada most Saturday nights (thank you Toronto centric CBC). Here's a hint; money won't buy you a Stanley Cup a team needs skilled players!

    13. I've lived around here most of my life, and I have never heard anyone refer to Ottawa as "the 'Wa".

      Anyway, most nations concentrate the offices of government in the capital. It is not odd that Ottawa is the same. It would actually be quite silly to have offices throughout the country, making it difficult for people to move from one department to the other as they move up the public service. And various public servants are routinely called to committees in the House and the Senate. And then there are the efficiencies to be drawn from Shared Services.

      It just makes good sense to have as many of the apparatuses of the federal government in one place as possible.

    14. Eric

      "Wa" really stands for Waaaaaaaaaah we're not getting the share we feel we should !!

    15. That's right Peter Ottaweigians never think they have enough.


      The 'Wa is a fairly common nickname for Ottawa I am surpriswed you have never heard the reference before. I heard it from a longtime Ottaweigian.

      Eric, the civil service already has offices throughout the country including head offices such as the NEB located in Cowtown. The Public Service's priority should not be to make life easier for public servants. Many public servants incur considerable costs moving to Ottawa. The idea that public servants spend their working lives in the public service is outdated, many public servants transfer in and out of the public and private sectors only to become consultants upon retirement (from my dealings with the federal public service I would estimate the majority of public servants have or will do this). I agree some civil servants are called before parliamentary committees but, how many? 400? most likely 1/10 of 1% of all public servants. Considering over half of federal public servants live outside Ontario location and the rigours of travelling to Ottawa does not appear to be a major hinderance.

      As for cost savings or efficiencies where are they? If such great efficiencies existed why does the federal Government need $300,000,000,000 per annum. Efficiencies could be found by moving offices as well, surely an office in Moncton costs far less to lease than Ottawa where centralising government has created a tight market.

      There are very few shared services among departments with the exception of IT, handled by Shared Services Canada, PWGSC does handle office space for some departments but, this is confined to a regional context. A PWGSC officer may have to travel to Edmonton in order to deal with a lease, how is that efficient?

      In a day and age where every federal office has teleconference equipment, e-mail, the humble telephone, fax machines there is little need to keep so many civil servants and government assets in one place.

    16. There is also the issue of bilingualism, as many positions require some degree of it. Ottawa-Gatineau is an excellent location in that regard.

    17. Bilingualism is a very good point. We should have a bilingual country not a single bilingual city. I don't see how restricting the suppossedly bilingual public service to a single location enhances bilingualism throughout Canada. Surely it would make more sense to have many areas of bilingualism instead of Ottawa, parts of Montreal and a few areas of New Brunswick.

  2. I think Pol may be right but hope says a Liberal minority please !!

    Time for an 11 year old Govt to be replaced IMO.

    1. Harper has only been PM for 8 years! So, if 11 years is your magic number are you infering the Conservatives will win the next election?

    2. I agree with the second sentance.

      Harper got in as PM in 2006. So he wins the next election, serves a couple of years, and then steps down.

  3. Now that the Greens have won a seat in the New Brunswick parliament does that raise their profile and chances of a seat in that area?

    1. I would say so. But New Brunswick has 49 provincial ridings and just 10 federal ones, so a back-of-the-napkin calculation says the provincial riding represents just a fifth of the federal one that overlaps with it. Might not be enough to really give the Greens a chance.

  4. It will be different. As a Green I wonder when debate time comes will we see a 5 person debate or will the media dream up of a new requirement (beyond having an MP) cutting it down to the big 3 again?

    Working up here on getting Bruce Hyer reelected but boy is it hard to plan when you don't know if the election will be March, May, October, or who knows when. A shame it is impossible to trust that the govt will follow a law it made.

    As to seats, I'm assuming a 'star candidate' element will be used for Bruce Hyer up here in Thunder Bay Superior North but I'm sure that any method will have trouble estimating what to expect for him. To make it more confusing the Liberals last time used a very poor candidate and this time have a candidate who looks very NDP who has some good and bad elements. Still waiting to see who the NDP runs, probably a local city councilor who lost provincially. The Conservatives here are irrelevant as provincially they fell below 10% last time and I suspect are pretty much in 'what is the point' mode.

    A big curiosity is how the new ridings will change things too - the Conservatives were trying to adjust borders to help themselves as much as possible, but will it work?

    1. I haven't decided how to handle Hyer yet. I have a 'floor-crosser' factor, but it hasn't performed well in the past. One of things I'm tackling as I get the model ready for 2015.

    2. I would think that we will see a 6 person debate. Don't forget FeD.

    3. I'd be anything that both EKOS and Abacus' "changes" were really just noise and reversions to the mean. Honestly, I don't think there's been a real change in voting intentions since the spring or earlier.

    4. Ryan,
      Have you not been paying attention this past month?
      Balanced budget, income sharing, child benefits, lowering unemployment rate, war on ISIS, attack on parliament. There have been significant events that have occurred recently that have swayed (and will continue to sway) voter intention.

    5. John,

      It would be nice if they could set some rules on debate participation.
      Perhaps 10% polling support nationally, plus 10% support in 2 regions in Canada (BC, Prairies, Ont, Que, Atlantic).
      Or maybe having MP's from at least 2 regions and running candidates in at least 75% of federal ridings.
      To make the debates meaningful, they need to weed out the marginal parties. Maybe they could have some minor debates with deputy leaders (or maybe finance minister and finance critics) – one per Region, and then a party that is popular in only one Region could participate.

    6. Ryan,
      Have you not been paying attention this past month?
      Balanced budget, income sharing, child benefits, lowering unemployment rate, war on ISIS, attack on parliament. There have been significant events that have occurred recently that have swayed (and will continue to sway) voter intention.

    7. Yes, a myriad of Harper photo-ops draped in our Canadian flag and still Trudeau is leading in the polls, these latest polls come AFTER the parliament shooting..And for your information, Harper is running a deficit this year, Harper said that in his own words, said that during his income splitting photo-op speech..(just past the 27 minute mark, his answer to the Bloomberg reporter)

      Don`t think for a minute the public is thrilled about giving $2000.00 to the richest in Canada...Income splitting does nothing for 86% of families

    8. Harper is on the record stating the budget will be balanced in 2015 and the most recent forecasts project a deficit of $5, 200,000,000 this year.

      Grant G,

      Income splitting does not equate to a "grant of $2,000” per year as your comment would suggest. This idea that 86% of Canadian taxpayers will not benefit is wrong and demonstrates how little the left understands or cares about the average Canadian family. Maybe for the champagne socialists of the Liberal party or NDP $2,000 is an inconsequential amount that should be given to the state but, most Canadian families deserve a tax cut.

      Income splitting transfers a portion of income from a partner in a higher tax bracket to a partner in a lower bracket. For example; the average family income in Canada is $76,000 according to StatsCan. Everyone is granted an $11,000 tax free allowance per year. That leaves a taxable income of $65,000 assuming only one partner has income. The $65,000 would be subject to 15% tax rate on the first $43,953=$6592.95 and 22% tax on the remaining $21047 for a total income tax bill of $11223.29. [$43,953(.15)= $6592.95]+ [$21,047(.22)=$4630.34]=$11223.29

      Income splitting would allow the partner with the higher income to transfer a portion of his or her income to the partner with lower income. For simplicity’s sake let’s assume we transfer the 21,047 that is subject to 22% tax rate to the partner with zero income. Since, everyone is allotted a $ 11,000 tax free allowance the lower income partner has a taxable income of $10,047 subject to a 15% tax rate for a tax bill of $1507.5 The result is taxable income is reduced from $65,000 to $54,000 and becomes subject to a tax rate of 15% for a total tax bill of $8100.45. [$43,953(.15)= $6592.95]+ [10,047(.15)=1507.5] =$8100.45. This results in $3122.84 in tax savings. Although Harper stated savings would be capped at $2,000.

      The current tax system greatly favours a family where both partners work and who have low incomes, I would remark it is borderline discriminatory. A family where only one person has income of $76,000 has a tax bill of $11223.45. However, if both partners make $38,000 for a total family income of $76,000 the total tax bill is only $8100.

      Finally, Grant G, a family or person with an income of $76,000is not rich and is hardly of the "richest (people) in Canada". Unlike Paul Martin who transferred his shipping company from Canada to save tax.

    9. Chrisberg - none of those change the fundamental calculus that's driving support levels. People like Trudeau and dislike Harper. That's a challenging thing to overcome.

      Also income splitting seems like a net loss vote wise. It's also pretty blatantly urinating all over Jim Flaherty's legacy.

      Capilano - Suppose you have 2 kids with your spouse and you're earning $100,000. Your spouse is a stay at home parent and owns $0. Suppose today your spouse gets run over by a bus and killed. Not only do you have to worry about funeral expenses and finding childcare, but under income splitting you also get hit with a $2,000 tax bill. Seems awfully ghoulish, don't you think?

      "A family where only one person has income of $76,000 has a tax bill of $11223.45. "

      Unless you're a single parent. Then the income splitting proposal hangs you out to try. Or if your children are older than 18, or you don't have children. That's where this whole "fairness" argument really falls apart. If it's about being fair to couples, why does it only apply to couples without children under 18? If it's about helping parents, why doesn't it apply to single parents?

      Also, it assumes that stay of home parents have no monetary value. Which clearly isn't true.

      " Unlike Paul Martin who transferred his shipping company from Canada to save tax."

      If the Conservatives go into the next election talking about Paul Martin, look for them to place 3rd. Lol.

    10. Ryan,

      I don't think you understand or perhaps my writing was not totally clear. If you are single you will not benefit from income splitting since, you need a partner with whom you divide your income.

      Secondly, I assumed one partner had zero income not the policy. Although current income tax law does not assign an income value to "stay at home parenting work". Income splitting should benefit any couple where one partner's income is higher than the other or where it is possible to max out a tax bracket for one partner and reduce the taxable income for the other. I agree it is unfair to couples without children but, you should note pension income splitting already exists.

      Grant G's comment about the "richest" is unfair, I doubt the 86% number. It is unlikely 86% of couples have incomes so similar after deductions they will not benefit unless we assume 86% of Canadian couples are in the highest tax bracket. Don't get me wrong 100% of couples will not benefit from income splitting and it is unlikely 100% of couples with children will benefit but, when StatsCan says the average Canadian family income is $76,000 roughly half the threshold for the top tax rate of 29% ($136,000) it is far more likely a middle ground exists. Many families where one partner goes on maternity leave are likely to benefit for example, or those who must take time off due to illness, or families where one partner is in part time employment.

      Paul Martin lowered the tax rates and raised the thresholds of the tax brackets, income splitting is no different, it lowers the tax rate for families with children. Martin's tax rate cuts benefitted the rich more than the middle class or poor. Where was the outrage from Liberals about their own policies back then? It is basically the exact same policy Liberals implemented when they were in government albeit executed slightly differently.

      If the Liberals can shine up a leader who reminds them of the 70's perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the Martin-Chretien era. The Liberals are not exactly friends of the poor, they are the friends of Bay St. and Howe St and Power Corp. Perhaps it is time to remind voters the Liberal surpluses of the 1990's-earl;y 2000's were derived off the backs of the middle class, poor and the military not through the great genius of the Ministry or Minister of Finance. The Liberals did have a low dollar policy which today has caused the near complete eradication of manufacturing in Ontario.

    11. Ryan,

      I would first suggest you learn about the income tax system. If your spouse died you would not get hit with a $2,000 tax bill. Your idea that a person would be handed a $2000 bill is misguided not to mention strange since, we don't have income splitting at present and no one gets hit with a $2,000 income tax bill at the death of a spouse.( Are you fearmongering or simply have little knowledge of the Canadian income tax system?) Presumably the death of a spouse would return the remaining spouse to the status quo ie. The Canadian income tax system without income splitting.

      The only way a family saves money through income splitting is by completing their taxes. Income splitting is not a grant, people are not given money like a GST cheque. Income splitting only reduces the amount of tax payable. The amount of income transfered from partner A to partner B is still subject to tax!

    12. With the income splitting if a spouse dies (as I experienced recently) it would mean that the person no longer could split income thus would face a higher tax bill the next year. Thus the new system reduces taxes for couples but if the couple breaks up or has one die then the remaining spouse would see their tax bill jump.

      That is even before touching the silly 'fairness' argument. When both spouses work then the family has much higher expenses than a family with one working and one at home - as one has to take time off work to get kids to appointments, you have to arrange day care or something for days the kids have off from school, you need to spend money on cleaning/food prep that you wouldn't need to for a single income two parent family, etc. To say that a dual income family vs a single income has the same costs pre-taxes (as income splitting would have to assume to be 'fair') is just silly.

    13. John,

      Under the current income tax system one may gain tax credits for a whole host of reasons including various expenses. There is no reason to think a single parent family could not derive as many tax credits as a two parent family especially if you own your own business. Also there is no reason to assume two working parents have more expenses than a single parent working family. Everyone needs to spend money on food and cleaning, those expenses are essentially sunk costs whether a parent works or not.

    14. Actually there is every reason to believe a family where one person has no outside job and the other has an outside job has far lower expenses. The one with one person who stays at home can avoid child care, can avoid the headaches of one needing to take time off work for appointments/PA days/etc, can deal with March Break and Christmas Break and Summer Break without needing to send kids to camps (expensive) or other options.

      To claim a family where you have 2 people working 80+ hours a week will have the same costs as a family where you have 1 working 40 hours and 1 not only makes sense in cases where the one at home is not doing anything (be it due to disability or laziness depending on situation).

    15. John,

      You are making assumptions. A parent may stay at home or may not, they have a choice. One can not assume a family with two parents will pay for a nanny or childcare. Other options exist such as grandparents, extended family or sharing the duties with a nneighbour or perhaps kids are active in after school activities. it's completely subjective. If you work for the public sector you are given suick days and accommodation for sick children, in effect that person is paid to take their child to the doctor.

      Every family is different you can not simply assume one type of family has higher costs than another. By your logic I could claim single parent families have lower costs simply because there are less people in the family. It is far more complicated than that as I suspect you know.

    16. Liberals should note that Trudeau's claim that 85% of Canadian families would not benefit is based on "estimates" not evidence as the C. D. Howe Institute readily admits. The study was also based on assumptions and derived data: "households" as the authors state may include: "two or more census families may share the same dwelling ". The 85% number is an estimate!

      I have found a discrepency with 85% number. According to the 2011 census there were 7,861,855 couples in Canada of these 3,402,735 had children yet the C.D. Howe institute states only 2% of couples have a child under 18. Now I may be misreading what constitute a child, so I am not going to jump to any conclusions but, I think those who pontificate the 85% number should read the study to see if it backs their claim!

    17. Personally, I stand to benefit tremendously from income splitting. So I'm a big fan.

      Those household-based metrics that are popular now with think-tanks (particularly on the right) are chosen because they're so vague. If you tweak your definition of household a little, you can produce wildly different conclusions. While I'm generally a free market guy, if CD Howe or the Fraser Institute starts talking about anything on a per household basis, I stop listening.

  5. @Ryan

    May was allowed into the debates of 2008 because Blair Wilson was a Green M.P. from West Vancouver. May was excluded from the 2011 debates as the Greens were without an M.P. throughout the 40th Parliament. If the Consortium follows their past precedent FetD will be represented.

    Floor crossers are an interesting problem. The only floor crosser I can remember who was re-elected with a different party was Dave Kilgour in Edmonton.

    1. What about Belinda Stronach?

    2. How soon do we forget... How about the entire Bloc Quebecois????

      Forty-five people have crossed the floor in Canada, 22 of which were re-elected (not all of the 45 ran for re-election).

      In recent memory we have Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison.

    3. Good call. 3 BQ M.Ps didn't seek re-election in 1993 and one was defeated, Gilles Rocheleau.

  6. Out of curiosity, what seat does the Bloc win in this projection? Also, while I strongly suspect this is going to be a no, I'll ask anyway: is there any way to project what kind of impact the FeD might have? Will that be something that will just have to wait until pollsters start including them?

    1. They retain Plamondon's seat.

      Yes, until pollsters start including FeD it will not be possible to gauge their impact - apart from in Fortin's and Larose's seats. The model will make an estimate for them there.

  7. Good to see EKOS come back to the pack with their recent CPC numbers.

    I hope they're not herding.


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.