Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail has updated its Election Forecast:

Conservatives take the lead after new polls; Liberals close in on NDP

Our election forecast, based on recent polls and historical data, projects the likelihood that a given party would win the most seats, if an election were held today. Our algorithm was designed in consultation with political scientist Paul Fairie (read more about how it works). This page will be updated frequently with new polls. Scroll down to explore the data.

    50% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

    29% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

    23% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And:

    24% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

    17% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

      1% chance that any party gets a majority.

LATEST ANALYSIS

Conservatives take the lead after new polls; Liberals pulling up to NDP

Paul Fairie
Special to The Globe and Mail

UPDATE SEPT. 25: The Conservatives have re-taken the lead in the Globe Election Forecast for two reasons. First, a strong performance in an EKOS poll gave the party 35 per cent of the national vote, compared to just 26 per cent for the Liberals and 25 for the NDP. If these results are repeated by other firms in the next few days, this is very good news for the government; if the poll is an outlier, this will become clear in short order, and its effect in the Forecast will wash out. Second, the NDP have polled somewhat weaker than usual in Quebec, most notably in the most recent Léger poll. While still in first, and down compared to earlier polls in the range of eight percentage points, losing grip on even 10 seats in a three-way race reduces any party's chances of winning the most seats.

Sept. 22: Public opinion data has been streaming in since the federal leaders' debate last Thursday, and all evidence suggests that voters remain as divided as ever.

Winning a debate isn't the same thing as winning an election. A better measure of who won can be seen by looking at who moved the most votes. Here, too, signals are mixed. While the Nanos 3-day tracking poll showed its usual three-way race, Ipsos had the Liberals taking a small lead. The last time they had the Liberals in first was back in late May when they were tied at 31 per cent with the Conservatives. Similarly, the Liberals continue their gradual improvement in the Globe Election Forecast.

Sept. 14: As the polls draw even to a three-way split in the popular vote, so do the odds of each party winning the most seats. While the NDP and Conservatives remain ahead, the Liberals continue to improve their chances of winning the largest parliamentary caucus primarily as a result of their recent strong polling performances in Ontario.

Friday, Sept. 8: The close three-way race in the federal election has become even tighter in the last week. A diminished Conservative vote coupled with growing Liberal support now gives all three parties with a realistic shot of winning the most seats in October. A consequence of this three-way race is seen in the Election Forecast's estimate of the likelihood of a majority government: just 2.2 per cent.

Wednesday, Sept. 2: The Globe’s forecast now predicts that the NDP are the most likely party to win the largest number of seats, with the party leading in 53 per cent of the simulations. This follows a string of seven consecutive national polls each showing a lead of between 1 and 10 percentage points for the New Democrats.

The seven poll lead was reported by seven different pollsters, using three different methods: traditional telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and online surveys. The New Democrats have only had such a string of good polling on two separate occasions during this parliament: earlier this year in June, and in the May-June period of 2012.

In good news for the Liberals, three recent polls, by Nanos, Ipsos Reid and Forum, have showed the party in second place, ahead of the Conservatives. Furthermore, polls consistently suggest the gap between first and third place is under 5 percentage points.

This all reinforces how unusual this election is: the best a third-place party has ever done in terms of vote share was in 1988, when the Ed Broadbent-led NDP won 20.4 per cent of the vote. Currently, we’re in a situation where whatever party is polling in third is earning 25 per cent popular support.

Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Hmmmm, I may be looking for some Crow to be on my dinner table on the 20th.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe the "evil Stephen Harper, we're better" narrative is running thin among voters who want actual substance to their election promises. Still a long time to go, but I don't think Trudeau's ever polled this low.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For those who wonder why defence and foreign policy are not campaign issues, Jeffrey Simpson says, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail  that it's because we, Canadians, are a smug, self satisfied, inward looking bunch of freeloaders, and we like it that way, and, therefore, we're not about to discuss the policies that give us our unearned sense of moral superiority:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/were-a-country-comforted-by-untruths/article26504246/
I don't often agree with Mr Simpson, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so he, too, must be right from time to time ... this is one of those times.

There is a long, complex and, with some justification, critical article, here, in the Globe and Mail which is offered in preparation for the Munk Debate (three major party leaders on foreign policy) on 28 Sep. It has several useful infographics embedded in it.

I agree, wholly, with Gen (Ret'd) John de Chastelain when he says, “You’re supposed to talk softly and carry a big stick. But it seems to me that we have been talking loudly and increasingly carrying only a twig. I think we need to stand up for what we think is right, and for what our allies think is right, but we must have the resources commensurate with our wish to be involved.” In other words we need the means (money) to give real, enduring, positive effect to the government's principles.

Equally, I disagree wholly with Madame Justice Louise Arbour when she says, “Canada, to everybody’s surprise, became the sole dissenter. … That in itself is completely bizarre. Canada can’t play alone. The U.S. can do that, China can do that, maybe Russia. But not Canada, and not Sweden for that matter ... At the time, I thought it was inexperience. But it became clear that it was a way of doing business, that Canada was unwilling to yield on certain things to create a consensus.” We can have principles and we can stand up for them, even if we must, sometimes, stand alone.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Conservative insider Andrew MacDpougall, Senior Executive Consultant at MSLGROUP London and is a former director of communications to Stephen Harper, speculates, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, on why Prime Minister Harper will not do the right thing and collapse and leave the field to either M Mulcair or M Trudeau:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/macdougall-is-stephen-harper-a-honey-badger-or-black-knight

Is Stephen Harper a honey badger, or Black Knight?

ANDREW MACDOUGALL

Published on: September 25, 2015

There are four more weeks until we find out whether Stephen Harper is a political honey badger, able to repel blows that habitually fell others, or the Black Knight of Monty Python fame, defeated by the “flesh wounds” of ten years of government.

That we’re even asking this question seven weeks into this marathon campaign is proof of Harper’s nous. The last Conservative government that hung around this long went with a bang, not a tight three-way dogfight.

To date, the Prime Minister has been Duffied, refugeed, and caught low by a scruffy economy. He’s had little to no traction with positive messages in the national press. And yet, here he is, in contention as we come to the stretch of the campaign that takes us to the stretch that leads to the homestretch.

At this point the NDP and Liberal campaigns must be wondering what it will take to see him off; they’ve stabbed the Prime Minister with their steely knives but they just can’t kill the beast.

What’s kept Harper in the game? I reckon it’s a combination of apathy, experience, and the lack of a break out alternative.

By calling the election so early, the Prime Minister encouraged a lot of us to tune out. Of course, most normal people have Ottawa tuned out by default; we can’t remember what happened last week, let alone what happened on the hustings four fortnights ago.

The Prime Minister has also harnessed his significant campaigning and government experience to weather some heavy turbulence. A national campaign is a fevered pitch, especially when things take a turn for the worse, which they inevitably do. By keeping calm and Harpering on in his safe campaign environment, the Prime Minister has kept himself competitive.

Harper has also trusted his gut. One of the hardest lessons to absorb in government is not to panic in response to events. Canadians can tell when a policy had been drawn up on a cocktail napkin, and lord knows the current government has done its share of late night scribbling. But if tactics overtake strategy on a campaign it becomes clear to Canadians there’s no leader at the wheel of the bus.

To wit, the poor(ish) GDP numbers could have prompted a Trudeau-like flop to deficit spending but Harper held firm to his long-term plan, judging that his voters want balanced budgets. The outrage prompted by Alan Kurdi’s death could have prompted a U-turn in Canada’s refugee policy, but Harper made tweaks and kept his policy close to the wishes of a plurality of Canadians.

But the biggest single thing keeping Stephen Harper competitive is the stalemate in the race between Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair to claim the anti-Harper crown.

Can we blame voters for not knowing which anti-Harper pony to back? Justin Trudeau is a deficit-spending, fighter-jet hating pacifist, while Thomas Mulcair is sounding positively blue Liberal in just about everything he says on the stump. Voters are used to a clear line between orange and red, not this rusty mess.

Trudeau tried his damnedest this week to draw a sharper distinction with Mulcair; on jets, deficits, and child benefits, he’s creating separation, but by moving into what has typically been the NDP’s turf. Just whether politically attention deficit disordered Canadians will be able parse this blurring of traditional party lines come voting day is a huge unknown.

For his part, Harper will keep painting the NDP and the Liberals with the same tax-and-spend brush. The Liberals are very famously proposing deficits (with “wiggle room” to do even more spending) and the NDP are casting their lot with higher spending backed by higher taxes. By combining the two offers together into a coalition, which Trudeau refused to rule out this week, Harper will present himself as the responsible option to protect Canadians from an orgy of unaffordable spending.

Will it work? Not as an exclusively negative proposition. Harper’s base is holding, but he needs more voters. Those who have so far been allergic to Harper’s touch need a positive programme that won’t give them hives.

This week’s aspirational job pledge is the start of that effort. By continuing to show voters where he wants to go, Harper might just be able to lure just enough support from people who aren’t excited by Trudeau à l’orange or middle-of-the-road Mulcair.

Of course, there is much that remains out of the Prime Minister’s control. This coming week’s GDP data release and early October’s job numbers will either breathe life into his opponents’ campaigns, or put a significant wind at his back.

Let’s remember it’s the economy that is still the top issue for Canadians. How well it does will determine whether Harper is invincible or a loony with his political legs cut out from underneath him.

I have said, many times, that, in my opinion, M Trudeau's route to power, to 24 Sussex Drive, has to be, first: through the NDP, starting in Quebec, and, only second: through Stephen Harper and the CPC. That's a tough challenge: defeat one enemy and then turn about and defeat another ~ it's the sort of thing that a Rommel or a von Manstein might have accomplished on the military battlefield, it's not the sort of thing that I think Gerald Butts can pull off on the Canadian political battlefield.

The NDP have obvious vulnerabilities, and I think M Trudeau's team have done quite well at hitting them, as I believe they must. But, while the Conservatives have a soft underbelly, the Liberal decision to outflank the NDP on the left has, pretty much, closed that option. The Conservative base is weak in one area: fiscal conservatives. Those fiscal conservatives will not trust the NDP: there is just too much baggage in the NDP base to trust M Mulcair's move to the centre. But, those fiscal conservatives, mainly in Ontario, were, probably, prepared to trust the Liberal Party of Canada, they did, before, in the 1990s ... but they are not prepared to trust the Liberal Party of Ontario and that is what the Trudeau campaign looks like. So, by outflanking the NDP on the left and by aligning himself too closely with Premier Wynne, I think that M Trudeau has forgone the support of the one part of the Conservative base that could have been shaken loose.

 

[Underway]

Thanksgiving weekend is the time where we will see the campaign begin to coalesce.  All those family arguments and discussions over the turkey have a way of prodding Canadians towards making a decision.  Forces us to actually pay attention to the campaign, as there's always one member in every family who brings it up as a topic of conversation.

This three way tie won't be the final result, and we will see that on voting day, similar to the British election.  I think there will be more than one surprise. 

 

[George Wallace]

Do Mulcair and Trudeau have any concept of what is going on in the world?  Their attitude towards our National Security and protection of our society is really beyond calling naive.  They are completely "Out to Lunch".

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-revokes-citizenship-of-toronto-18-ringleader

NDP leader Tom Mulcair has said he would scrap the citizenship revocation law, and on Friday Liberal leader Justin Trudeau repeated his pledge to repeal it. “The bill creates second-class citizens,” he said. “No elected official should ever have the exclusive power to revoke Canadian citizenship. Under a Liberal government there will be no two-tiered citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Seriously?  If we have refugees, migrants, or immigrants coming here and committing criminal acts, or worse, then they should not be Canadian Citizens; and they should be sent back to their native countries.  Imprisonment is not the answer.

 

[Ostrozac]

Seriously?  If we have refugees, migrants, or immigrants coming here and committing criminal acts, or worse, then they should not be Canadian Citizens; and they should be sent back to their native countries.  Imprisonment is not the answer.

So Russell Williams should have just been deported to the UK, instead of being locked up? The UK wouldn't have convicted him for his murders on Canadian soil, and he'd be walking around right now a free man, living on his pension. Similarly, many of our traditional organized crime figures in Montreal were either born in Sicily or have dual Italian-Canadian citizenship -- should they never go to jail, and simply be deported back to the EU whenever the Mounties catch up with them? That doesn't sound right to me.

If a Canadian citizen, resident or visitor (no matter where they are born) has commited crimes in Canada, I think that imprisonment in a Canadian prison is the right solution. The punishment of banishment (or transportation, as we used to call forced one way trips to Australia) seems to be not exactly where we want to be going.

 

[Underway]

If they are a citizen, they are our problem.  INCLUDING if they commit a crime elsewhere, which is why we should always intervene in cases where their punishment might be considered barbaric.  Or if they are innocent/prosecuted wrongly elsewhere as well (a certain Egyptian pardon comes to mind).  Can't stop someone from being a Canadian just because its inconvenient, costly or distasteful.  If we let them in and accept them as part of the family we take the good with the bad and deal with the family problems IN the family.  I don't agree with that law and I never did.

Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.

 

[GAP]

20 years ago, a friend who ended up in Stoney Mountain Pen had to fight to not be deported back to the UK, even though he came over here at 4 years old. He had never taken out citizenship in Canada, because at that time British citizens had the same implicit  rights as Canadians......

 

[George Wallace]

Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.

Sorry.  In the Forces, it has been the case for decades now; if you are found to be "so bad", you are GONE.  You have a Criminal Charge of any sort; you are GONE.  You have a drug or alcohol problem; you are GONE. 

 

[KJK]

On another note I have to wonder how much Notley cost the federal NDP in support with her bonehead move last week. If you aren't aware she was planning on giving senior government officials a 7.25% raise at the same time as many Albertans are without jobs or are taking pay cuts and/or reduced work weeks so the companies they work for can stay solvent. CNRL for instance has announced that they are looking at an across the board pay cut of 10% to cut costs. All this and what will surely be the biggest budget deficit in the history of the province, pretty bad optics from where I stand. The raise appears to tabled now since the Wildrose were all over her about it but why would you even consider it? She also assured the public sector worker there would be no layoffs. I wonder where all this money is supposed to come from?

KJK

 

[George Wallace]

So Russell Williams should have just been deported to the UK, instead of being locked up? The UK wouldn't have convicted him for his murders on Canadian soil, and he'd be walking around right now a free man, living on his pension. Similarly, many of our traditional organized crime figures in Montreal were either born in Sicily or have dual Italian-Canadian citizenship -- should they never go to jail, and simply be deported back to the EU whenever the Mounties catch up with them? That doesn't sound right to me.

If a Canadian citizen, resident or visitor (no matter where they are born) has commited crimes in Canada, I think that imprisonment in a Canadian prison is the right solution. The punishment of banishment (or transportation, as we used to call forced one way trips to Australia) seems to be not exactly where we want to be going.

We have numerous cases of Jamaicans being deported back to Jamaica for those very reasons; committing crimes in Canada.  There is a case of a Canadian, who is the child of Indian parents who were employees of the Indian Embassy in Ottawa, being deported to India.  There are many such cases, and they go back decades.  It is not something new.  Why do you think we should put a further strain on our Social Systems, our Penal System, and our Legal System to protect guilty parties who do not subscribe to our social, culture, nor Legal systems?  They ARE someone else's problem that we have inherited through lax policies.  Time to ensure that those mistakes are not continued and rules tightened up.  Time to use the "STICK". 


[Edit to add:]

Note:  We are talking about people who have broken their "contract with this nation" after they swore an oath to become citizens. 

 

[ModlrMike]

I think there's middle ground to be had on the issue. I would propose that if you're a dual citizen and you commit a crime, then that should not necessarily result in revocation of your Canadian citizenship. You should be treated like any other Canadian. That being said, if you engage in actions against the Canadian state, such as terrorism or the taking up of arms in support of a declared enemy, then it's quite reasonable that you lose your Canadian citizenship after you've been treated to due process. As detestable as some crimes are, we quite regularly parole native born Canadians and accept that they are going to be living among us. I question whether there's a difference just because the parolee was born in another country. There's just as much chance of re-offending or reintegrating into society, regardless of one's origins.

I don't see what's gained in making those of us who came here from somewhere else generally at risk of losing our citizenship. That being said, I agree that we should be treating our citizenship as a precious gift. I just think there should be narrow, well defined criteria on the subject of revocation. To do otherwise would hold naturalized Canadians to a higher standard than those born here.

 

[George Wallace]

Agreed.  Not necessarily a "Middle" ground, but a little common sense.  We should not be revoking Citizenship of someone for trivial offences; only the most serious offences that are a "Threat to the National Interests" such as acts of terrorism or sedition, or extreme cases that indicate the person is not integrating into Canadian society.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One of the things that's very, very wrong with the Conservatives' law and order agenda is that they want to have one blanket rule for everything. In my opinion ~ which runs counter to almost everything my party proposes ~ broad sentencing guisdelines and absolute respect for judicial discretion are what's required.

I believe that loss of citizenship should be one the books, ditto for loss of the right to vote and, I suppose, a few other "add ons" that one might imagine: judges should be allowed to award such "add ons" to sentences for a selected range of serious crimes when they believe it is appropriate.

I trust the judgment of judges more than I trust the "will of the people," especially when it is filtered through our elected representatives.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest:  blue government = mo' Special Forces (also attached if link doesn't work)....

The Hon. Jason Kenney today announced the Conservative Party’s intent to strengthen Canada’s Special Forces to ensure that Canada is fully prepared to address a growing terrorist threat.

“Our Government has made the rebuilding of the Canadian military a top priority since we took office,” Mr. Kenney said. “A re-elected Conservative government will provide the Canadian Armed Forces with an expanded Special Forces capability to respond to varied, and sometimes multiple, national and international emergencies.”

(....)

To ensure that Canada’s Special Operations Forces are fully able to carry out all of their vital tasks, a re-elected Conservative Government will expand the strength of CANSOFCOM by approximately 35 percent by 2022 – an increase from its current strength of just over 1,900 regular force personnel ....

 

[PuckChaser]

Means nothing if its just a PY shuffle from other trades. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[McG]

Means nothing if its just a PY shuffle from other trades. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It would be interesting to see the authorized PY strength of the CMBGs on 01 Apr of each year from 2010 to present.  It has been the field force that won the tactical fight in Afghanistan which seems to have been raided to stick PYs into all the new HQs and into some communities promised new battalions in past elections.

You are right, I would be much more comfortable with this announcement if it clarified that the growth will not be carved from the existing CF (same of the promised new military university).

 

[PuckChaser]

It would be interesting to see the authorized PY strength of the CMBGs on 01 Apr of each year from 2010 to present.  It has been the field force that won the tactical fight in Afghanistan which seems to have been raided to stick PYs into all the new HQs and into some communities promised new battalions in past elections.

You are right, I would be much more comfortable with this announcement if it clarified that the growth will not be carved from the existing CF (same of the promised new military university).

Completely agree. I think you'll see these positions come right out of the field force again, which is short just like everyone else. They also don't specify whether they are SF Op/Assaulter/CBRN Op positions, or if they are supporters.