Election 2011

[Sythen]

‘Wow. We need a government here. We need people who can get the deficit out of control, who can make promises they can keep.’

yea like we need a hole in the head. Freudian slip or misquote from journalist?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is PM Harper's response to the Layton surge:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laytons-surge-clarifies-the-choice-for-voters-harper-says/article2000718/

Layton's surge ‘clarifies the choice’ for voters, Harper says

STEVEN CHASE
KITCHENER, ONT.— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Stephen Harper says the surge of the left-leaning NDP to second place in national polls gives Canadians a starker choice at the ballot box.

He rejects suggestions the uplift for the New Democrats represents a repudiation of his core campaign strategy: warning voters the opposition parties will destabilize Canada if he doesn’t win a majority.

The Conservative Leader has been asking Canadian for a majority government since the campaign began, saying without this he will be pulled down by an alliance of opposition parties.

But the unexpected growth in support for rival Jack Layton’s party has clouded the chances that Mr. Harper will win his majority given the Tories and NDP compete for the same seats in many ridings across Canada.

As of Wednesday, the Conservative Leader is now trying to “wedge” the vote, or split it between himself and the NDP as the two options in this campaign.

“The fact the NDP may be the leading opposition party actually clarifies the choice,” he told reporters at a campaign stop in Kitchener, Ont. Wednesday.

The latest figures from Nanos Research show the Tories at 37.8 per cent, 10 points ahead of the NDP at 27.8 per cent, with the Liberals in third at 22.3 per cent.

The Conservative Leader continues to insist the opposition parties will form a coalition to oust him from power if he only wins a minority government.

Now, he says, the polls suggest Mr. Layton would be in the driver’s seat among his rivals.

He said the prospect of the New Democrats as the primary alternative should increase the appeal of the Conservative’s low-tax strategy.

“It makes it very clear the choice is between on the one hand somehow dealing with economic challenges through vastly higher levels of public spending and raising taxes – and also a diversion into constitutional negotiations,” he said.

The Conservative Leader was referring to the NDP platform and its proposed tax hikes as well as Mr. Layton’s desire to settle outstanding constitutional questions with Quebec.

“We actually challenge Canadians to vote for a strong economy and a government with a strong record,” Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Harper beat back questions about whether Mr. Layton's meteoric rise represented a failure of Canadians to trust the Tories with a majority. “I don't accept the preamble of your question,” he told a reporter.

He also went after Mr. Layton on Quebec, where the NDP is leading in voter opinion according to a string of polls. “I remain very optimistic. We’ve won seats every election there,” Mr. Harper said of the province.

He tried to tie the NDP’s tax-hike agenda with Quebec’s existing high-tax regime, predicting voters there don’t want more of the same.

“Quebeckers are one of the most overtaxed peoples in North America. I am confident they will want to be part of a government finally that will not raise taxes, that will focus from the economy and create jobs and stay away from reopening the constitution,” the Conservative Leader said.

He suggested the province is leery of anything that could bring back the Quebec separation debate, “more referendums, more battles over national unity – all things Quebeckers more than anyone else want to avoid.”

The Tory Leader began Wednesday in the Kitchener-Waterloo area where the Tories are fighting to keep two seats, Kitchener Centre and Kitchener Conestoga. In both cases the Liberals lost these seats last time by relatively slim margins. It’s his second visit to the twin cities this campaign.

Later Wednesday will Mr. Harper to tape an interview with CTV’s Lloyd Robertson.

Finally, the Conservative Leader heads to the Niagara region riding of Welland an evening rally. The Tories are trying to unseat NDP incumbent Malcolm Allen, using the fact he flip-flopped on dismantling the long-gun registry.

I think what Harper is saying is the best strategy to get the Conservative base – and some undecideds – out to vote: “it doesn't matter if it's Tweedledum or Tweedledummer – do you really want us facing either or both of them without a majority?” He also needs to hammer that “Layton will raise your taxes even more” over and over again in Québec and Atlantic Canada.

 

[GAP]

Nik on the Numbers

As the campaign race is coming to a close, the NDP is outpacing the Liberals as the second party in terms of support. Nationally, the Tories have 37.8% support, followed by the NDP at 27.8%, the Grits at 22.9%, the BQ at 5.8% and the Greens at 4.7%.

Asked to share their most important national issue of concern, Canadians cited healthcare at 30.0% followed by jobs and the economy at 23.4%.

As you know, the Nanos Leadership Index caught the improved perceptions of Jack Layton in advance of the NDP climb in the polls. During the second half of the election Layton enjoyed an advantage over Ignatieff and the Layton numbers have climbed more in the past week. It will be important to monitor whether Layton sustains his very positive score yesterday in the face of increasing attacks from the other party leaders.

In terms of context, yesterday was the first day since the start of the Nanos Leadership Index back in February 2008 that any party leader has seriously challenged Harper in terms of leadership.

A look at the Nanos Leadership Index for Tuesday April 26 indicates that Layton has numerically surpassed Harper on the index but that it was still a very tight fight for first in terms of the personal brands for Layton and Harper. Layton scored a 86.2 on the index compared to an 82.7 for Harper and 40.1 for Ignatieff. Layton's numbers are primarily driven by perceptions that he is the most trustworthy leader with a 9 point advantage over Harper, while Layton and Harper are tied on vision for Canada. Harper is first on competence but his advantage somewhat dissipated yesterday. Ignatieff's scores remain flat in the close of the campaign.

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on www.nanosresearch.com where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.

  Methodology
The research on national issue of concern is based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews conducted on April 23rd, April 24th and April 26th. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20.

The leadership index score is a summation of the three leadership indicators (trust, competence, vision). It is tracked daily with updated results from the previous night of polling. The margin of error for a survey of 400 Canadians is ±5.0%, 19 times out of 20.


  Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking conducted between April 21st and April 24th (n=1,200).

Healthcare 30.0% (-0.4)
Jobs/economy 23.4% (+1.0)
Education 7.5% (-0.2)
The environment 6.9% (+1.1)
High taxes 5.2% (-0.8)
Unsure 8.6% (+0.3)


Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos Nightly Tracking completed on April 24th (n=400).

Leadership Index Scores:
Jack Layton 86.2 (+13.0)
Stephen Harper 82.7 (-23.0)
Michael Ignatieff 40.1 (-0.4)
Elizabeth May 12.0 (+1.7)
Gilles Duceppe 10.6 (+5.3)


The Most Trustworthy Leader:
Jack Layton 33.2% (+2.1)
Stephen Harper 24.5% (-5.7)
Michael Ignatieff 11.3% (+1.5)
Elizabeth May 3.8% (-0.4)
Gilles Duceppe 3.4% (+0.2)
None of them 14.5% (+1.4)
Undecided 9.3% (+0.9)


The Most Competent Leader:
Stephen Harper 30.7% (-10.3)
Jack Layton 23.9% (+5.0)
Michael Ignatieff 14.1% (-1.0)
Gilles Duceppe 4.6% (+3.1)
Elizabeth May 4.0% (+1.4)
None of them 9.6% (+0.2)
Undecided 13.0% (+1.6)


The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future:
Jack Layton 29.1% (+5.2)
Stephen Harper 27.5% (-7.0)
Michael Ignatieff 14.7% (-0.9)
Elizabeth May 4.2% (+0.7)
Gilles Duceppe 2.6% (+2.0)
None of them 6.8% (-3.5)
Undecided 15.0% (+2.7)

 

[Edward Campbell]

Layton is riding a wave. I suspect (but it may just be hope) that the wave has crested just a few days too soon. Despite the media's friendship towards Layton - and I think a pro-NDP bias is more evident in most of the working level journalists than is a pro-Liberal bias - they have to ask him the hard questions, and some of them are doing it right now.

What is shocking is how low Ignatieff has fallen: in trust, competence and vision he polls between 10% and 15% while Harper and Layton are in the 20% to 35% range (Harper winning on competence, Layton leading on trust and vision. It's a shame, really, because he is not that bad ... but he has been unable to define himself and to convince Canadians that he is something more than an empty suit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The NDP surge is producing some interesting new speculation re: coalitions:

1. If Ignatieff wins big (i.e. 90+ seats) then he will want to defeat Harper ASAP and govern, with a purely Liberal cabinet, with NDP support based on an agreement to implement some NDP policies;

2. If Ignatieff and Layton are close - say 50 to 70 seats each - then a coalition, with a shared Liberal/NDP cabinet might be negotiated; 

3. If Layton wins big (i.e. 80+ seats) and Ignatieff is down to, say, 50 then the Liberals will not want a coalition because to agree to support a Jack layton government, even if they have seats in the cabinet, would sign the party's death warrant.

 

[a_majoor]

The markets are startig to wake up:

http://www.financialpost.com/news/features/surge+leaves+Street+leery/4680264/story.html

NDP surge leaves Bay Street leery

Tim Shufelt, Financial Post · Apr. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Apr. 27, 2011 8:06 AM ET

TORONTO . So far, the federal election has elicited but a yawn from Bay Street.

Markets, apparently accustomed to an unsteady Parliament, have proven mostly indifferent to the campaign.

But if there's one turn of events that could pique the interest of corporate Canada, it's the prospect of an NDP government.

"It opens up a lot of uncertainty," said Ted Macklin, a fund manager at Torontobased Guardian Capital L.P. "If we end up with an NDP government, it could be a big reality check in Canada."

Amid the NDP's remarkable surge in popularity, that outcome is now at least being considered within the realm of possibilities.

A new EKOS poll places the NDP in second place nationally with 28% support of decided voters, versus 23.7% for the Liberals.

EKOS pollster Frank Graves called the sudden reversal an "astonishing shift" that could deliver the NDP a "breathtaking" 100 seats, raising the possibility of a coalition government led by Jack Layton.

Many stars would have to align for such an extraordinary scenario. But Stephen Harper's opponents have said little to indicate the 41st Parliament would be a harmonious affair.

"That uncertainty could cause at least a little bit of turmoil on the markets," said Doug Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Add to that the NDP's rising fortunes, which could well translate into greater influence in Ottawa, amounting to a combination of instability and NDP clout that might not sit well with Canadian business, said Camilla Sutton, chief currency strategist at Scotia Capital.

Markets could anticipate a deterioration of Canada's fiscal position, with direct implications on the Canadian dollar, Ms. Sutton said.

"We could see some weakness in the dollar, but I don't think it's enough to get us back to parity," she said, noting that the loonie is far more susceptible to U.S. dollar movements and global monetary policy.

Meanwhile, equity markets would likely remain immune to the election drama, Mr. Porter said. "The only time in the last 29 years that I can think the equity market was really affected by Canadian politics was during the '95 referendum," he said.

In terms of election campaigns, it hasn't been since 1988, when the debate revolved around free trade, that stock markets responded to political polls, he explained.

This time, markets have been anticipating the status quo -that next week's election will produce another Conservative minority, Ms. Sutton said.

The only real market concern has been around the prospect of a majority result, which could lead to a tighter fiscal approach and upward pressure on the dollar, she said.

That could soon change if NDP popularity persists.

"We could have a result that's very different from what earlier polls were suggesting," Mr. Porter said. "Now there's the possibility that it at least might land on the market's radar in the next week."

While the dollar has yet to take notice of the shifting tides, concern is rising on Bay Street, where the memory of Bob Rae's provincial NDP rule remains fresh, Mr. Macklin said.

The NDP's platform has promised $70-billion in new spending, to be financed by a cap-and-trade system and a hike in the corporate tax rate to 19.5% from 16.5%.

"Canada is otherwise very well positioned right now from the point of view of taxation," Mr. Macklin said. If Mr. Layton's proposed revisions to the tax regime become more likely, markets would not respond favourably.

"Right now, I'd suggest the markets aren't taking it seriously, but if it becomes more of a possibility, we'll see a lot more analysis in that area," he said.

[email protected]

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The only thing I can think of is that come 03 May and the NDP don't have a bunch of new seats there are going to be a lot of red faces!

 

[Brad Sallows]

I didn't realize Larry Campbell was so poorly informed.  A neo-conservative is essentially a welfare liberal who leans toward fiscally conservative (Paul Martin) and interventionist pro-liberty (eg. Responsibility to Protect - say hello again to Paul Martin) foreign policies - essentially, what Canada's LPC already is.  He think the CPC was formed by a merger of the old PCs with "neo-conservatives".  Wrong.  The merger he muses about - NDP + LPC - is a merger of the NDP with Canada's neo-cons.  Doubtless he thinks the term is a pejorative without realizing he speaks of himself.

I welcome such a merger, because I believe a NDP+LPC merger will produce a not particularly moderated NDP with a new name while losing a substantial defection of centrists looking for a new home - the CPC.  Eventually the immoderate rightmost fraction of the CPC will break off (again), leaving the NDP, a centrist party called the CPC formed of people who would have been recognizable stalwarts in the Liberals and Conservatives of the 70s and 80s, and another party on the right.

 

[Nemo888]

Time for the Conservatives to take a step back to the left if the NDP are gaining ground.

 

[DCRabbit]

I've been crunching the numbers at 308.com.. great site.. and if you average out all the 4 latest polls, it shows that Quebec is REALLY skewing the national numbers.

National with Quebec:

CPC - 36.175
LPC - 23.475
NDP - 27.425

  -A little under 10 point lead for the CPC.

National *without* Quebec:

CPC - 46.101
LPC - 22.556
NDP - 25.12

  - A big difference for the CPC. But.. that also includes the prairies.. which, just like the NDP and Quebec.. artificially inflates the CPC numbers. So this makes me want to break it down further and concentrate on BC and Ont.. when there election will be won and lost simply because outside of Quebec, they are the only two provinces to have enuff seats to shape the outcome. So, those numbers are as follows:

CPC - 41.29
LPC - 26.35
NDP - 25.375

  - This shows the CPCs in majority territory with the LPC and NDP in a heated race for 2nd. It doesn't bear out any scenario of the NDP gaining power or leading a coalition.. or gaining 50 seats.. or even a huge seismic shift in the political landscape. The only party to really gain from these numbers is the CPC with the LPC a few points down but not cratering... and the NDP up but not enuff to gain more than maybe 10 seats if the ridings break their way. It also backs up the CPCs end campaign strategy of just minimizing mistakes rather than going for the jugular... the numbers just look too good for them.

- I also took note of Nano's leadership poll.. and I think Quebec is skewing that as well.


But then.. I could have missed something and be totally wrong.. but it's interesting to talk about.
 

 

[Journeyman]

Time for the Conservatives to take a step back to the left if the NDP are gaining ground.

I'd rather a party stick to it's avowed policies than shift left and right with the prevailing wind of random polls.

But that's just me.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd rather a party stick to it's avowed policies than shift left and right with the prevailing wind of random polls.

But that's just me.

Moi aussi.

 

[a_majoor]

Political humour part 2: What do political parties do for us?

 

[Edward Campbell]

An interesting bit of interactive trivia is at the Globe and Mail.

Let me see:

1953 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Drew). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1957 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1958 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1962 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, won;
1963 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Pearson). They, the Liberals, won;
1965 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Diefenbaker). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1968 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Trudeau). They, the Liberals, won;
1972 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Trudeau). They, the Liberals, won;
1974 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Stanfield). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1979 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Clark). They, the Conservatives, won;
1980 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Clark). They, the Conservatives, lost;
1984 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Mulroney). They, the Conservatives, won;
1988 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Mulroney). They, the Conservatives, won;
1993 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Chrétien). They, the Liberals, won;
1997 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Charest). They, the Conservatives, lost;
2000 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Chrétien). They, the Liberals, won;
2004 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Liberals (Martin). They, the Liberals, won;
2006 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Harper). They, the Conservatives, won; and
2008 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Harper). They, the Conservatives, won.
2011 - the Globe and Mail endorsed the Conservatives (Harper). They, the Conservatives, ___.
Even more trivia; since 1953 the Good Grey Globe has:

1. Endorsed the Conservatives 13 times (out of 19) - the Conservatives won eight of those 19 elections;

2. Endorsed the Liberals six times. The Liberals won 11 of 19 elections; and

3. Backed the winner every single time it endorsed a Liberal.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is the Globe's endorsement of Stephen Harper's Conservatives for the next Government of Canada:

My emphasis added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-globes-election-endorsement-facing-up-to-our-challenges/article2001610/

GLOBE EDITORIAL
The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.

The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy. It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity. Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security. Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada's role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country's ethnic and cultural makeup – the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.

Whom should Canadians turn to?

The Liberal Party's Michael Ignatieff has been an honourable opposition leader; he has risen above the personal attacks launched by the Conservatives, he has stood up for Parliament, and he has fought hard in this election. But his campaign failed to show how the Conservative government has failed, and why he and the Liberals are a preferred alternative.

Jack Layton has energized the New Democrats and the electorate, and seems more able than the other leaders to connect with ordinary people. He has succeeded in putting a benign gloss on his party's free-spending policies, but those policies remain unrealistic and unaffordable, at a time when the country needs to better manage public spending, not inflate it. He has shown that a federalist party can make serious inroads in Quebec, but it has come at the cost of an unwelcome promise to impose provisions of Quebec's language law in federal workplaces.

Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.

Mr. Harper could achieve a great deal more if he would relax his grip on Parliament, its independent officers and the flow of information, and instead bring his disciplined approach to bear on the great challenges at hand. That is the great strike against the Conservatives: a disrespect for Parliament, the abuse of prorogation, the repeated attempts (including during this campaign) to stanch debate and free expression. It is a disappointing failing in a leader who previously emerged from a populist movement that fought so valiantly for democratic reforms.

Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have demonstrated principled judgment on the economic file. They are not doctrinaire; with the support of other parties they adopted stimulus spending after the financial crash of 2008, when it was right to do so. They have assiduously pursued a whole range of trade negotiations. They have facilitated the extension of the GST/HST to Ontario and British Columbia, and have persisted in their plan for a national securities regulator. The Conservatives have greater respect, too, for the free market, and for freedom of international investment, in spite of their apparent yielding to political pressure in the proposed takeover of Potash Corp.

Even more determination will be needed to confront the sustainability of publicly funded health care in an aging society. Health care is suffering from chronic spending disease. If left unchecked, it could swallow as much as 31 cents of each new dollar in wealth created in Canada in the next 20 years. In spite of some unwise commitments he has made on subsidy increases to the provinces, Mr. Harper has the toughness and reformist instincts to push the provinces toward greater experimentation (in private delivery, for instance) and change.

The campaign of 2011 – so vicious and often vapid – should not be remembered fondly. But that will soon be behind us. If the result is a confident new Parliament, it could help propel Canada into a fresh period of innovation, government reform and global ambition. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are best positioned to guide Canada there.

With a couple of minor grammatical quibbles (I would, for example, have said ”To whom should Canadians turn?”) I think the Good Grey Globe has it about right: Mr. Harper is not flawless but neither is a he a scary, doctrinaire neo-con (and, by the way, I'm with Brad Sallows on the definition of neo-con). He is a steady, competent hand on the tiller – just what we need in rough economic waters.

Ignatieff and Layton are distinguished men in their own rights and they have demonstrated courage and determination in this campaign but neither is ready or fit to lead Canada. I remind readers that I am a card carrying Conservative and a significant financial contributor to that party so you will forgive me, I hope, for saying that: The best choice, for most Canadians, is Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.


Edit: added the 2010 endorsement to my earlier post

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an insightful article about the perils of polling:

My emphasis added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-polls-differ-pollsters-worry/article2001533/

When polls differ, pollsters worry

STEVE LADURANTAYE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011

When Frank Graves considered recent polling results generated by EKOS Research, he felt the sweat bead on his forehead as he tried to reconcile a report that was guaranteed to change the tone of the election.

The results were very different from what other pollsters had been reporting, and showed the NDP had moved past the Liberals into second place and could take as many as 100 seats nationally.

“I didn’t sleep the night before we brought out that bombshell of a poll,” he said. “I’d be in bed thinking about how my method works, worrying about whether the results are repeatable.”
The poll, which was made public Monday, highlighted the growing divide among the handful of pollsters who have been trying to make sense of this election. It’s not just that they’re seeing different levels of support for different parties – that’s normal. Finding that the NDP is unexpectedly rushing toward what could be its best showing in history is another matter, especially if you’re the first out of the gate.

“If you get this wrong then people are going to say that you’ve just really maliciously and stupidly entered into an election debate and provided everyone with crappy advice,” Mr. Graves said. “That’s kind of a career destroyer.”

Because the pollsters all use different methodologies, their results have appeared to conflict at times and have confused voters unsure how to interpret the results.

EKOS uses a method of polling in which an automated system calls random numbers, and relies on whomever answers the phone to punch in their answers on a keypad. Ipsos-Reid’s most recent release was put together by asking questions of an online panel, and the company has also used the telephone. Nanos Research does a nightly poll of 400 people via phone.

While the pollsters generally agree on key trends – the NDP is eating into the Bloc Québécois base, the Liberals have been falling back – the biggest inconsistency is how the Conservatives have been faring. The pollsters are also on different timelines, so even when they agree it can take a few days for the data to catch up.

Nanos Research president Nik Nanos said he’s reconciling the differences by focusing on trends rather than hard numbers. That’s especially true, he said, when you get to regional breakdowns, which can be volatile. “We should be looking more at the direction and trend because it’s more important than the actual number,” he said.

Ipsos president Darrell Bricker said this is the first election he can think of that has seen pollsters use such a wide range of methods. “I’ve stopped looking at the other polls,” he said. “All we can do is be open and transparent, and constantly questioning … and invalidating our own work. If we don’t do that, the election results will humble us all.”

While the NDP surge is undoubtedly real, it’s impossible to say how that will translate into votes. And if the party’s strong showing doesn’t translate into an increased number of seats in the House of Commons, an industry that is already self-conscious about its track record will find it has some explaining to do.

Critics charge that small sample sizes, low response rates and the use of technology render the results all but useless, something the pollsters deny. They are able to target youth by randomly calling cellphone exchanges, for example.

“I hear people say that polling is completely invalid these days,” said Mr. Bricker. “That’s absolute crap – there are more ways to contact people than ever, so many avenues of evidence to pull together.”

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, which represents market research companies in Canada, released a report called “There’s No Margin of Error on the Truth” in an effort to debunk claims that the polling industry “is having a crisis of confidence.”

The report shows that the final-week polling results came very close to actual results in both 2006 and 2008, and suggests that having so many polls through a campaign leads to a better system in which politicians find it harder to spin their messages.

For Mr. Graves, the only thing that matters now is how the seats break down on Monday. “Hopefully on election night I’ll stay in with a glass of wine and a few friends,” he said, “and chuckle about how right I got it once again.”

I agree that the NDP is up and the Liberals are down, but, as DCRabbit pointed out, the Québec numbers may well be skewing the national samples. I remain hopeful that the Conservative vote will turn out and that, over the last week-end of the campaign, voters will see that neither the Liberals nor the NDP is ready or able to govern Canada.

 

[Old Sweat]

This story by Jane Taber from the Globe and Mail's site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. Note how the Quebec figures skew the national results and the differences from the national data for Ontario and BC.


Now within six points of Harper, Layton faces ‘trial by fire’


Jane TaBer

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:22AM EDT


Jack Layton’s unprecedented surge in Quebec is beginning to spill over into the rest of Canada as he and his New Democratic Party close in on Stephen Harper’s front-running Conservatives, according to the latest Nanos Research poll.

Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, meanwhile, are being left in the dust.

The three-day tracking survey conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV shows Conservative support at 36.6 per cent nationally with the NDP just six points behind at 30.4 per cent. The Liberals have 21.9 per cent support, the Bloc is at 6 per cent and the Greens are at 4.1 per cent support.

And with such little time left before the May 2 vote the prospect of a majority government for the Mr. Harper’s Tories is quickly slipping away, pollster Nik Nanos says. “It would take a phenomenally efficient national Conservative campaign to generate a majority at 36.6 per cent.”

All of the momentum now is with Mr. Layton and his New Democrats, who now appear to be firmly in second place and poised to, at least, become the Official Opposition.

This is fuelled by Mr. Layton’s growing strength in Quebec. The Nanos numbers show the NDP with 42.5 per cent support, up from 36.5 per cent the day before. This compares to the Bloc at 25.1 per cent. The Liberals have 15 per cent support and the Conservatives are at 13.5 per cent. The margin of error for the regional sample is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The poll also shows the NDP’s Quebec strength is starting to move the party’s numbers in vote-rich Ontario.

“We’re in a phase now where we’re starting to see a spillover effect with the NDP starting to gain in Ontario,” Mr. Nanos says. “When parties start to gain in the two biggest provinces, Quebec and Ontario, you know the numbers are moving.”

Mr. Nanos points out that the Tories are still comfortably ahead in Ontario – 41.1 per cent support compared to the NDP at 26.1 per cent – but their support has been slipping. In one day, between April 26 and 27, the Tories have dropped nearly six points from 46.9 per cent. The NDP, meanwhile, has seen its support grow five points from 21 per cent.

The Liberals are at 27.9 per cent in Ontario, up from 25.7 per cent the night before. The margin of error in the province is plus or minus 5.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

In British Columbia the Tories are well ahead with 45.3 per cent support. The NDP and Liberals, meanwhile, are in a statistical tie with 26.9 per cent and 23.1 per cent respectively. The margin of error in B.C. is plus or minus 8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Another factor in Mr. Layton’s favour, Mr. Nanos notes, is that the question of “party leader” may be starting to become a factor in the way Canadians vote. Forty-nine per cent of respondents still say policy influences their vote but when asked about the party leader the numbers are moving slightly, from 24 per cent on April 26 to 26 per cent on April 27.

Mr. Nanos says that is good for whoever is ahead right now – and that is Jack Layton. As a result the target is now clearly on Mr. Layton’s back; whether he can survive the onslaught will not be determined until ballots are cast Monday.

“This will be trial by fire for Jack Layton and the New Democrats in the next three days because there will be a full assault on all sides,” Mr. Nanos says. “He has obviously done his damage on the Liberals in terms of their support and the Conservatives have to start looking over their shoulder.”

The poll of 1,012 Canadians was conducted between April 24, 26 and 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com are the latest projections which show a continuing, indeed accelerating Conservative decline:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 28, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011

Conservatives drifting from majority

Three new national polls from EKOS, Nanos, and Forum have been added to the model, along with five new riding polls conducted in Quebec. The result is another gain for the New Democrats, mostly at the expense of the Conservative Party

The Conservatives are now down 0.3 points to 36.9% nationally, and have dropped three seats to only 143. That is where they stood when the election began, but in practice it is even lower as two safe Conservative seats were vacant at the dissolution of the House of Commons.

The Liberals are down 0.4 points to 25.4% and one seat to 74. The New Democrats are up 0.9 points to 22.9% and four seats to 47, moving them into third position in the projection. More seats are on the way for the NDP, though.

The Bloc Québécois is down to 7.5% nationally but is steady at 43 seats, a number they will not hold on to for many more days. The Greens are unchanged at 6%.

The problems facing the Conservatives are clear in the regional breakdown. While they are holding steady in the two westernmost provinces, they are down big in the Prairies and Atlantic Canada, and are losing ground in Ontario and Quebec.

The Liberals are also in trouble, with big drops in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia. They are holding steady in Atlantic Canada but that is little consolation. The party would be losing many seats in Ontario if the Conservatives weren't on the decline in the province as well.

For the Bloc, they are down again to 31.4% and will continue to drop like a stone. They are reaching the point in the projection where they will begin to lose seats in bunches, primarily to the NDP.

The New Democrats, meanwhile, continue to gain everywhere, up about a point in every part of the country except British Columbia. They made another giant leap forward in Quebec and are now trailing the Bloc by only four points.

Six seats changed hands, all in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

The New Democrats picked up Brossard - La Prairie and Saint-Lambert in Quebec, the first from the Liberals and the second from the Bloc. Hoang Mai and Sadia Groguhé are now the respective favourites.

The Bloc has retaken Haute-Gaspésie - La Mitis - Matane - Matapédia from the Liberals, thanks in large part to a riding poll added to the model which had Jean-François Fortin of the Bloc in the lead.

In Nova Scotia, the New Democrats have taken two seats from the Conservatives: Central Nova and South Shore - St. Margaret's. David Parker is the new favourite in Peter MacKay's seat, while former NDP MP Gordon Earle is the favourite in South Shore - St. Margaret's.

The Liberals have also regained a seat themsevles, taking Random - Burin - St. George's back from the Tories in Newfoundland & Labrador.

The New Democrats are still moving forward in the projection and will undoubtedly take second spot in the popular vote projecton before May 2nd. Seats in which the NDP trails by five points or less in the projection include:

Surrey North (CPC), Vancouver Island North (CPC), Saskatoon - Rosetown - Biggar (CPC), Brome - Missisquoi (BQ), Châteauguay - Saint-Constant (BQ), Laurier - Sainte-Marie (BQ), Laval (BQ), Laval - Les Îles (LPC), Notre-Dame-de-Grâce - Lachine (LPC), Dartmouth - Cole Harbour (LPC), St. John's South - Mount Pearl (LPC), Nunavut (CPC).

If the NDP took all of these seats they would have 59 in the projection. All else being equal, the Conservatives would be reduced to 139, the Liberals to 70, and the Bloc Québécois to 39.

Note that of the 11 ridings listed as being within five points for the New Democrats yesterday, the NDP captured four of them, and another five were added to the list today.

For the first time, on ThreeHundredEight.com, the NDP is projected to displace the BQ as the third party.

I think there is still time – that frenetic, almost sleepless long weekend I have mentioned before – for Stephen Harper to show Canadians that he really wants their votes, but he has to work hard for them because the trend is away from him.


Edit: typos

 

[Edward Campbell]

Look at ThreeHundredEight.com's aggregated polling trends:

Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8sNL7YfF_D8/TbiI2UPh3xI/AAAAAAAAE94/Vjvq8Z6NpNs/s1600/Canada+Polls.PNG


The Conservatives have been trending down, gradually but steadily, for the past 17 days. The Liberal decline, now precipitous, started just a few days later. The NDP surge began nearly three weeks ago and accelerated over the past ten days.

But, look at the undecided voters (grey line) - they have, once again, jumped from about 8.5% to 15% in two days - that's potentially good news for everyone and anyone who can exploit that uncertainty.

 

[PuckChaser]

I really think the Conservatives need to seize on what the market is doing because of the NDP surge. Hard facts about the TSX going down because business is scared of the NDP might bring in some of the undecided voters.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I didn't realize Larry Campbell was so poorly informed.  A neo-conservative is essentially a welfare liberal who leans toward fiscally conservative (Paul Martin) and interventionist pro-liberty (eg. Responsibility to Protect - say hello again to Paul Martin) foreign policies - essentially, what Canada's LPC already is.  He think the CPC was formed by a merger of the old PCs with "neo-conservatives".  Wrong.  The merger he muses about - NDP + LPC - is a merger of the NDP with Canada's neo-cons.  Doubtless he thinks the term is a pejorative without realizing he speaks of himself.

Among the progressive left, "neo-conservative" has become a derogatory name used to describe a bunch of right-wing rednecks, who are ruled by big oil/big corporations/big whatever and want to bring about a new world order or some other nonsense. Personally, when I hear the term, it makes me think of the old joke about, "What is the definition of a Conservative? ANS: A Liberal that got mugged. "  To me that is what a neo-con is: A bunch of liberals that realized that their party (originally the Democrats) had shifted to far left and needed to tack to the right if was going to be relevant.