The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[sgf]

I do agree, the election is anyones to win. Interesting point in that poll is that the liberals are the only one to remain steady, with the other parties losing points. I dont think anyone really wants an election right now, including the Canadian public

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, that indicates the depth of the split within the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=12eeb5e5-f9ac-45fb-895e-79bcc9479934

Former Liberal MP Boivin poised to run in Gatineau riding for NDP

Juliet O'Neill, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Former Liberal MP Françoise Boivin will jump to the New Democratic Party in time to run in the Gatineau riding if an election is triggered in the next couple of weeks.

The feisty 47-year-old lawyer and broadcasting personality all but announced yesterday that the NDP has successfully courted her as she became fed up with her treatment by Liberal party officials, disenchanted with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's leadership and has found Liberal policy on the war in Afghanistan ambivalent.

"It's not the party I joined in 2004," she said yesterday. "It's so different. You claim you're a governing party, but you're supposed to be more solid."

She said Liberal party officials have been stringing her along for two years to run in the Gatineau riding she lost in 2006 to Richard Nadeau of the Bloc Québécois. But she discovered that all the while they were looking for a more prestigious candidate.

"I was good enough from 2004 to 2006 to be sent left, right and centre ... to defend the Liberal brand in English and French, but once the job is done, then ... 'we're looking for somebody else'," she said. "I don't think it's the way you treat people."

She has told NDP colleagues there is one Liberal she will not criticize -- Paul Martin, who was prime minister when she had a seat in Parliament from 2004 to 2006.

"At least he was a democrat, and that I appreciate," she said. She says Mr. Martin has urged her not to jump ship -- to no avail.

Although the NDP came fourth in Gatineau in the 2006 election, with about a quarter of the votes secured by Mr. Nadeau, Ms. Boivin believes she can take many of the thousands of Liberals who supported her over to the NDP.

"I'm not crazy, I'm not going to say we're going to win, but boy, we're going to give them a run for their money if I jump in," she said.

One of the members of the NDP elite who says she can win is Thomas Mulcair, the lawyer and former provincial cabinet minister who beat Mr. Dion's handpicked candidate in the longtime Liberal Montreal stronghold of Outremont in a federal byelection last year.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and current leader Jack Layton also have held talks with Ms. Boivin and she is studying party policy to make sure she is comfortable before formally announcing her decision.

She is no stranger to the NDP agenda. As a Liberal MP, she broke party ranks to support NDP policy on anti-scab legislation and was against Canada participating in the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defence system.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008​

My guesstimate, based upon what I can read/hear from 2,200 km away, is that if there is to be a general election in Spring 2008:

• The most likely outcome is: a strong* Conservative minority – a repeat of the status quo with minor shifts, to-and-fro, between the established parties;

• The next most likely outcome is: a weak** Conservative minority – the Tories lose a few seats to the Grits who, in turn lose a few (but fewer) to the NDP and Greens even as the NDP lose a few to the Greens;

• A somewhat unlikely outcome is: a weak** Liberal minority – that involves a substantial shift of seats from Tory to Grit in Ontario and Québec;

• The highly unlikely outcome is: a strong* Liberal minority; and

• The least likely outcome is: a majority of any kind for anyone.

I also think that Stephen Harper can survive, party leadership intact, if he gets another strong minority; he might even survive a ‘victory’ with a reduced minority. Dion, on the other hand, is toast, I suspect, if he cannot win a strong minority, at least; he’s no Mike Pearson who, despite being a ditherer, had immense public popularity – almost celebrity status thanks to his Nobel and his public tiff with the (thoroughly disliked in Canada) US President LBJ.

----------
* Strong means that the governing party can win a confidence motion with the support of any one other party – the status quo
** Weak means that the governing party need the support of two or more opposition parties to win a confidence motion; the corollary is that the official opposition and one other party can combine to defeat the government 

 

[GAP]

I still am of the opinion that the solid management of the government, abet sporadically, will see Harper more seats once the writ is dropped....for the last 2 years, despite the oppositions biting and stabbing, Harper has been pretty solid..

 

[TCBF]

...A strong voice in the west needn't always be Conservative and Anne McLellan was an excellent voice that benefited all Albertans. ...

- What!!?? By limiting the custodial rights of divorced fathers?  By pushing an anti-white-middle-class gun grabbing agenda?  By allowing the building of unit lines so close to a strategic runway as to limit it's usefullness?

- Want more?

 

[stegner]

- Want more?

Sure-sounds good.  Would you submit she did a good job when she was  Minister of Natural Resources and got very generous federal tax breaks for oil sands development.

I can agree with about limiting the custodial rights of divorced fathers-that is bull.  But I am curious about the

gun grabbing agenda

Just out of curiosity whose guns did they take?

By allowing the building of unit lines so close to a strategic runway as to limit it's usefulness?

But McLellan was never MND or CDS.  She strongly advocated that Edmonton get a Army super base when the the Air Force stopped using Namao, but I seriously doubt she was involved in the re-designing of the base.  I will take your word for it that the building of unit lines might limits it usefulness-but the blame should go to the MND or CDS of the time if what you say is true-they are responsible for defence-not her.  On the plus side at least the runway can be heavily guarded in a flash.         
 

 

[ModlrMike]

Just to keep the speculation rolling:

CTV/Strategic Counsel Poll

I know that CTV is more Conservative friendly than CBC, but this is the same polling firm that had the Liberals ahead two months ago.

 

[RangerRay]

Some of CTV's coverage has been even more anti-Conservative than CBC.  I think Craig Oliver is still upset that he will never become a Senator as long as Harper is the PM!  ;D

I find this interesting considering that it is a Strategic Counsel poll.  SC is not known for overestimating Tory support.

 

[2 Cdo]

Some of CTV's coverage has been even more anti-Conservative than CBC.  I think Craig Oliver is still upset that he will never become a Senator as long as Harper is the PM!  ;D

I find this interesting considering that it is a Strategic Counsel poll.  SC is not known for overestimating Tory support.

Funny you saying that as I am noticing a shift, albeit slight, in the way the CBC and CTV look at the Conservative party and Stephen Harper. Overall, it seems the CBC is taking a less confrontational approach towards the Conservatives while taking a harder stand against the Liberal party. Witness last nights questions to John McCallum where in the span of 2 minutes he said the Liberals were against the Conservatives cororate tax breaks followed by a statement that the tax breaks weren't enough. Confusing to say the least. ???

CTV on the other hand, especially Craig Oliver, seem to be taking a harder line in questioning the Conservatives actions. There is a shining light at CTV and that is Mike Duffy, who asks hard questions of ALL candidates. Nobody gets a free ride on Mikes show. ;D

 

[larry Strong]

Well this should mute Dion a bit. reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080220/poll_story_080221/20080221?hub=TopStories

Conservatives flirting with majority support: poll
Updated Thu. Feb. 21 2008 8:21 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff



Stephen Harper's Conservatives have gained their strongest lead over the Liberals since first taking power in 2006, and have edged ahead in support on almost every key issue, according to a new Strategic Counsel poll.

"It's a cold shower for Liberal election plans," the Strategic Counsel's Peter Donolo told CTV.ca Wednesday.

When respondents were asked which party they would vote for, nearly 40 per cent said they would back the Conservatives (percentage-point change from a Jan. 10-13 poll in brackets):

Conservatives: 39 per cent (+3)
Liberals: 27 per cent (-3)
NDP: 12 per cent (same)
Green Party: 12 per cent (+2)
Bloc Quebecois: 10 per cent (-1)
CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was pushing for an election Tuesday, and was considering voting down the federal budget in March.

"He happens to believe that if Canadians see him in an election campaign, they'll like him and elect him as prime minister," said Fife.

"Of course, Liberal MPs have a different view of that. They believe that the party will get slaughtered in an election campaign, so they're telling him to please hold off and wait until it looks advantageous for the Liberal party to actually win......."

 

[stegner]

I have found Nik Nano's SES  to be more accurate than the Strategic Counsel and this was their most recent poll.  So who is to say what is truly going on.  My opinion is that pollsters are roughly like the weather person.  They kind of have a rough estimate of what is going on, their process is scientific (sorta), but yet it still rains on a day they predicted to be sunny and vice versa.   

Nik on the Numbers

Our latest tracking shows a statistical tie between the federal Liberals (33%) and the Conservatives (31%). Support for the Harper Conservatives has marginally slipped in the past 90 days. Conversely, the Layton New Democrats have slowly regained ground over the past three waves of Nanos tracking.

The Liberals lead in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, while the Tories continue to lead in the West. In the province of Quebec the Bloc is ahead of the Liberals and the Conservatives who are locked in a statistical tie.

Of note, Nanos tracking indicates that the intensity of comfort with the idea of a Harper majority, although still solid, has declined compared to a year ago.

You can share your views, rate the opinions of others, and ask me questions about this poll or any other issue. Check it out today at www.nikonthenumbers.com.

Methodology

Polling between February 2nd and February 4th, 2008. (Random Telephone Survey of 1002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). The Nanos Research Survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. The subset of committed voters is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of


Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice)

The numbers in parenthesis denotes the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed in November, 2007.

Canada (N=841, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal Party 33% (-1)
Conservative Party 31% (-4)
NDP 19% (+2)
BQ 10% (+1)
Green Party 8% (+2)

Ontario (N=250, MoE ± 6.4%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal Party 43% (NC)
Conservative Party 31% (-1)
NDP 19% (NC)
Green Party 7% (+1)

Quebec (N=217, MoE ± 6.7%, 19 times out of 20)
BQ 37%(+4)
Conservative Party 23% (-6)
Liberal Party 22% (-1)
NDP 12% (+1)
Green Party 6% (+3)

Question: As you may know, the Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper is a minority government. Based on what you know and have seen about Stephen Harper and the Conservative government's record so far, would you be comfortable, somewhat comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable or uncomfortable with the Stephen Harper-led Conservatives potentially winning the next election and forming a majority government?

The numbers in parenthesis denotes the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed in April, 2007

Comfortable 29% (-4)
Somewhat comfortable 24% (+3)
Somewhat uncomfortable 17% (+2)
Uncomfortable 28% (+1)
Unsure 4% (NC)

The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our website at: http://www.nanosresearch.com.

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll."

Cheers,

n
Nik Nanos, CMRP
President & CEO

http://www.electionprediction.org/  These folks are good to have a look at a couple days before the election. 

 

[2 Cdo]

 My opinion is that pollsters are roughly like the weather person.  They kind of have a rough estimate of what is going on, their process is scientific (sorta), but yet it still rains on a day they predicted to be sunny and vice versa.   

Finally, you have posted something that I can agree with. As others have said, the only poll that matters is election day.

 

[TCBF]

But I am curious about the  Just out of curiosity whose guns did they take?    

- Bill C-68 and C-10A moved several categories of Handguns and Rifles from the Restricted class to the Prohibited class.  As the 'grandfathered' owners die off, these will be destroyed without restitution. We are talking over 500,000.

 

[stegner]

- Bill C-68 and C-10A moved several categories of Handguns and Rifles from the Restricted class to the Prohibited class.  As the 'grandfathered' owners die off, these will be destroyed without restitution. We are talking over 500,000.

Wow that's a lot guns.  I checked the list of prohibited/restricted weapons at http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/r&p_e.asp.

Which weapons do you think should be taken off the list?  Do you know who came up with the list?  Was it the RCMP?

 

[geo]

The Harper Gov't has ammended it's stand on Afghanistan (sorta) and Mr Dion, Coderre et all appear to be reconciled with the Gov't on a uniform stand ... that won't cause the Gov't to fall ( probably)

Then Mr Dion has backpedaled about flat out rejecting the new budget - at least not without 1st having seen it.

With polls giving Mr Harper a presumed / ass-u-me-d lead in the intentions of decided voters, there is a good chance that we won't be going to the polls anytime soon.... Let's face it - Paul Martin had waaay more personality than Stephane Dion.

 

[2 Cdo]

Let's face it - Paul Martin had waaay more personality than Stephane Dion.

That's funny geo, but unfortunately true. Paul Martin had all the personality of a dithering carp, and Dion is even less.

 

[a_majoor]

Some information about a prospective Liberal candidate parachuted into a riding by the head office:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=947

Etobicoke North: Can You Judge A Candidate By Her Book Review?

(Hat tip: Canadian Blue Lemons).

I have to think that Stéphane Dion should have done his homework a bit more carefully when he selected Kirsty Duncan as the candidate for Etobicoke North. She has one major opus, a book entitled Hunting the 1918 Flu: One Scientist’s Search for a Killer Virus which is presumably the basis for her selection as a candidate.

It would seem, though, that Dion didn’t bother to read the book review that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. (The official full text is behind a subscriber firewall, but it’s reprinted as an “editorial review” on the amazon.com product page. Let me reproduce a few passages:

    To conduct this work, Duncan had to gain the permission of the Norwegian authorities and recruit a team of virologists and other technical experts. She found that the former task was much less difficult than the latter.

    It is clear that many of the scientists she invited to join what she referred to as “my team” regarded this young Canadian geographer with a mixture of contempt and respect. On the one hand, she was perhaps her own worst enemy, coming across as a vain, self-centered person full of her own importance and sanctimonious to a degree. It is also clear why some of the scientists she invited to join her team found some of her behavior irritating . . .

    . . . At one stage of the work at the exhumation site, Duncan ordered that no one should talk to the media except herself. Imagine, then, her feelings when one of the scientists was caught near the buried bodies, hiding in a ditch, making a tape recording for the press . . .

    [Discussion of a competing project:] Hultin’s success was enormously distressing to Kirsty Duncan. She referred to him as “the Boy Scout” and when they later met refused to talk to him. Her ungracious behavior is understandable. Duncan’s bloated, over-funded, overpublicized expedition, which had taken six years to organize, had failed, whereas someone else, working on his own, quietly and with no publicity and little in the way of funds, had succeeded. . . .

I want to stress that this is an editorial review, not something planted by a partisan. I also want to point out that William Graeme Laver wrote his review based almost entirely on the reading of this work. He concludes:

  Duncan describes in some detail almost every communication between herself and the scientists on her team. I have never met Duncan, but I have known some of the flu virologists for a long time, and I found her descriptions of their individual characters accurate and fascinating. Whether the average reader would feel the same, I have no way of knowing.

Now — if Dr. Duncan is to be credited with one thing, it’s the apparent candidness with which she wrote about her relationships with her team members. At the same time, given how she managed her project, how she got along with the members (who are probably just as qualified as scientists working for Environment Canada), and how the project as a whole compared with an alternative work, potential voters really should ask if they want this sort of person as an MP, let alone a Minister.

 

[stegner]

Now — if Dr. Duncan is to be credited with one thing, it’s the apparent candidness with which she wrote about her relationships with her team members. At the same time, given how she managed her project, how she got along with the members (who are probably just as qualified as scientists working for Environment Canada), and how the project as a whole compared with an alternative work, potential voters really should ask if they want this sort of person as an MP, let alone a Minister.

Academia is full with people who are malicious and unpleasant.  Not a big surprise.  I am not supporting this person. I have no idea what she is really like. But, as I rule, I don't take my opinions from academic book reviews, because having spent sometime in academia I know them to be incredibly vindictive at times.  However, if we assume for our purposes that everything in the article is correct and that she is as described, I think she will fit very nicely in the House of Commons with all those folks with similar behaviours.  I think the activities during Question Period support my case.  By the way, do you think Stephen Harper, or any other PM for that matter, got an A+  in school for playing nicely in the sandbox with the other children?  Probably not.  Politics doesn't have many nice guys/gals.  However, I don't mind occasional arrogance if there is some brilliance behind it.   

Note to Stephan Dion: you really got to stop parachuting people. 

 

[geo]

Stegner....  The Liberals don't have exclusive use of the Parachute option.
The Conservatives, NDP and BQ all make err... liberal use of that process.

 

[a_majoor]

Stegner, I am well aware of the childish and stupid behavior on display during question period. If Stephan Dion was to ask a real question of substance with the expectation of a clear and detailed answer, I suspect the Conservative front bench would be gobsmacked. Of course if the Conservatives gave a clear and detailed answer the opposition benches would probably require immediate CPR......

The reason I highlighted the section I did was because it probably spoke most clearly to the character both of the prospective candidate and the nature of Liberal politicians and programs over the last decade or more:

Duncan’s bloated, over-funded, overpublicized expedition, which had taken six years to organize, had failed, whereas someone else, working on his own, quietly and with no publicity and little in the way of funds, had succeeded. . . .

Now, should the Liberal party manage to reincarnate some of their great leaders from the past like Lester B Pearson, Louis St Laurent or Sir Wilfred Laurier I would be more than willing to take a look, but their current "socialist lite" version holds few attractions, even for socialists.

 

[a_majoor]

And now a look farther to the Left. The comments to this post are also illuminating:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/into-abyss-afghanistan-jack-layton-and.html

Into the Abyss: Afghanistan, Jack Layton, and the Fall of the New Democratic Party

The Strategic Counsel poll released this week puts national support for the NDP at what may be its lowest ebb since 2004. It's tied with the Green Party at 12 per cent. The poll also provides some solid statistical insight into how the NDP's position on Afghanistan figures into it.

Canadians rated only health care (17 per cent) higher in importance than Afghanistan (14 per cent) as a national election issue. Afghanistan was identified as being more important than even the economy (13 per cent) or the environment (12 per cent).

Canadians are split on what to do: While a clear majority (61 per cent) opposes simply extending Canada's "combat mission" beyond 2009, we become evenly divided (51 per cent in favour) if other NATO countries pitch in - which is what John Manley's recent independent panel proposes, and what the Conservatives and Liberals say they also want.

But if you think this means that roughly half of Canadian voters favour the NDP's "troops out" politics, you're not even close. Nowhere near it. A mere six per cent of poll respondents said the NDP is the party best able to manage the Afghanistan file. Only five per cent said the NDP has "the best plan for Canada's military and defence."

This may mean that barely half of the NDP's own dwindling brigade of supporters takes party leader Jack Layton seriously when he talks about Afghanistan. As for the Canadians who do, they barely register as statistical background noise above the poll's 3.1-per-cent margin of error. It could be as many as one in a dozen Canadians, or as few as one in fifty.

While Layton persists in the puerile claim that the Afghan mission is "not right for Canada," the Strategic Counsel poll shows that it's Layton's troops-out position that's not right for Canada. It's certainly not right for Afghanistan. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon calls it "a misjudgment of historical proportions," something that's "almost more dismaying" than the opportunism of the Taliban itself.

What these poll numbers show is that it's not even right for the NDP. This should have been obvious from the beginning, because there is nothing left-wing or social-democratic or "progressive" about it. It's incoherent, parochial, and wrong. It's only understandable as a mix of pop and politics, the pseudo-left posture of the fashionably radical.

Like the man says, If no one out there understands, it's time to start your own revolution. Cut out the middleman:

posted by Transmontanus at 9:00 AM
5 Comments:

Blogger Blazing Cat Fur said...

    Come for the music, stay for the commentary. Good analysis of the polls Gatekeeper.
    4:24 PM 

Blogger David Leach said...

    I’m a lapsed (reformed?) NDP voter who agrees that Layton is on the wrong side of history with his “troops out” stance, but I don’t think this poll gives any solid evidence to link the NDP position on Afghanistan with the party’s loss of support among voters.

    There are lies, damned lies… and then there are Strategic Counsel opinion polls with 3.1% margins of error. You don’t have to scratch too far beneath the surface of this one to realize how fuzzy the findings are, at least in terms of the NDP’s foreign-policy position hurting them in the polls.

    1) In this poll, the Afghanistan mission is the second most important issue because feelings are especially strong about it in Quebec, where 18% respondents thought it was most important vs. 14% for the next two topics (although that’s still within the whopping 6.3% margin of error for the Quebec part of the survey). In the rest of Canada, Afghanistan ties for third and comes in fourth for Ontario alone (behind health care, the economy and the environment). Quebec voters don’t feel so strongly about the mission because they support it—the opposite in fact: 79% oppose extending Canada’s combat mission beyond 2009, falling to 65% if NATO gets involved. (Compare that to 55% and 38% respectively for the rest of Canada.) Therefore, the second-place ranking for Afghanistan amongst major issues arises in large part from the province where voters least want to extend the mission. Which makes it unlikely that the high ranking of Afghanistan is related to a flight of voters from the NDP. And there’s no meaningful point of comparison because, unlike the other ranked topics, Afghanistan as an issue wasn’t part of the 2005 poll, so it’s hard to know what the relative change has been over the past three years.

    2) Where there is a point of comparison, however, is in the question of which party has the best plan for Canada’s military and defence. Here, the NDP has remained steady, rather than dipped, at 5% nationwide (going up one point in Ontario in fact). Which makes sense: I voted for Jack once…before he went federal, back when I lived in his municipal riding in Toronto. He’s the kind of baby-kissing, gladhanding-at-the-subway, bike-riding, idealistic politico who you’d trust to reform your public transit system… but there’s no way I’d let him go steady with my foreign policy or take my economy for a spin. Ever. And it turns out I’m not the only one.

    3) If I was venturing an opinion about why the decline in the NDP’s fortunes, I’d have to point to the obvious smoking gun in this poll: the clear rise in public support for the Greens. Look at the breakdown on page 13, and you can follow the undulations of NDP’s polling numbers as a reverse negative of the Greens’. For the most recent poll, comparing 2005 and 2008, the Greens have hit the Dippers in areas that the NDP once owned: who has the best new ideas (NDP -8%, Greens +7%) and which party is best able to deal with the environment and climate change (Greens #1 at 30%, Libs at 17%, Tories at 16% and NDP a distant fourth—yes, the New Birkenstock Party off the environmental podium entirely!—at 10%). According to the poll, the environment and climate change ranks second amongst election issues in the West and ties for second in Ontario.

    4) Finally, any analysis may be moot given the margins of error: 3.1% for Canada, 6.3% for Quebec. Which might explain some of the odder anomalies in the “findings”: According to the poll, Quebecers think the Conservatives have the best plan for Canada’s military and defence 34% to 24% over the Liberals, but when asked who is best able to manage Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, they went Liberal 31% to the Tories’ 25%. Huh? And what happened between Jan. 10-13 and Feb. 14-17, to make respondents in Quebec swing (when asked who they would vote for that day) away from the NDP (from 8% to 5%) and toward the Greens (a huge jump from 5% to 14%)? The fickle French? Statistical gremlins? Whatever, but I’m betting it wasn’t Afghanistan.

    Numbers don’t lie. Except when they do.

    The NDP, I’ll agree, are wrong about Afghanistan, but (if you’ll excuse an un-NDP-ishly martial metaphor) I don’t think it’s their electoral Waterloo – not in this poll at least.