Canadian Politics Thread

ya, i think the NDP could def pick up seats the way things are going. but there's no way they will do as well as that article implies they might.

I thought salsa shark was referring to the Planned Parenthood story, which, as of now, seems to reflect the comments of a backbencher MP and not Harper's government per se?

I was basically linking the Hill Times for the Forum poll, which does show the NDP ahead of the Liberals. So official opposition is not inconceivable to me. (Fantasy scenario that seems a little less out-there than it used to: CPC minority, NDP Official Opposition; Ignatieff resigns and is replaced by Rae or someone else who hasn't themselves ruled out a coalition; CPC falls on the Throne Speech or budget and is replaced by an NDP-Liberal coalition. There's a very real possibility that the LPC would actually back the CPC instead though.)

i don't think there is any feasible way the NDP could form the opposition. they would need to literally double their seat total from 2008 - which was 5 or 6 away from their highest total ever. and they would also need to take about half of those seats from the Libs in the process.

A breakthrough in Quebec would be the way to do that. It's still a bit of a longshot but it's not unimaginable to me.

Yeah sorry, I was referring to my own post. Largely cos yeah, the Planned Parenthood thing does come only from one party member's comments. It's an easy thing to make a big story out of, esp during election time.

I hope the NDP pick up some more seats but I don't think they'll do as well as implied in that article either. Kind of reminds me of last year's UK election with all the post-debate 'Cleggmania' that didn't translate into a vast gain in seats for the Lib Dems.

a breakthrough in Quebec would be the way to start it. they have a base in Ontario and most urban centers - but not what they would need to reach the 70 or so seats they'd need this time around. who knows what may happen between May 2nd and the next, inevitable election. but right now the NDP ceiling would be to beat their high water mark from the 80's (in and about 43 seats iirc).
i could even see them getting close to 50. holding onto that would be another matter too.

i would find it sort of ironic. given that Harper's stated goal in life is to destroy the liberal party - if he was successful enough at smearing, attacking and undermining them that he actually gave rise to a strong enough NDP movement to knock him out of power!
next-to-impossible - but how great would that be: way to vanquish the liberals and empower the socialists!

Ekos Regionals fwiw:

EKOS Regionals

BC

C - 36.5%
N - 26.9%
L - 20.8%
G - 12.5%

AB

C - 53.3%
N - 18.9%
L - 14.2%
G - 12.5%

SK/MA

C - 37.5%
N - 34.7%
L - 17.9%

ON

C - 38.1%
L - 34%
N - 19.5%

QC

N - 31.4%
B - 27.2%
C - 18.4%
L - 15.5%

AT

C - 33.5%
L - 32.8%
N - 26.3%

EKOS always seems to favour the Libs for some reason. all the other pollsters have the Cons doing much better in ON.

... but wow - Libs last in Quebec!!!

xposts Yeah, I thought the NDP numbers out West were interesting though.

MB, not MA, sorry. Copied that from somewhere else. The whole EKOS Report is interesting though: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2011/04/ndp-breakout-continues-as-everyone-else-spins-wheels-april-21-2011/

Tbh, I think Conservatives would love to have Canadian politics polarized between one right-wing or centre-right party and one left/labour/socialist party, as UK politics used to be. It would make the CPC one of the big two parties instead of the most right-wing party out of four parties. They'd probably win elections half the time. The Liberals were able to dominate 20th century Canada since they were the centrist party in a multi-party system.

They'd probably win elections half the time.

At least half. Seems like a business party might have financial advantages over a labour party.

and today's scandal je jour is Haper's top aid influence peddlin' and appointment meddlin' in Montreal. i think the Conservatives are going to be in trouble in Quebec along with the Bloc.

I've heard more than one right-winger advocate for a two-party system in Canada, actually, just as lefties love to advocate for PR.

that's so retarded i don't know where to begin. they should just move to the states if that's what they want.
so fucking stupid.

Not sure what to make of the NDP rise in Quebec. I'm assuming that the BQ's rural base is safe and that Liberal voters in and around Mtl are switching to the NDP. So the net change will be a few Liberal seats going to the NDP but not much more.

Not to mention that mid-campaign Canadian polling is notoriously unreliable in general.

true. but all the same polls showing the NDP moving up are saying the BLOC are the ones haemorrhaging support right now.

Oh, that's right. But the Star's article about the poll seems to agree with what I said:

The NDP is faring well also among francophones. Among this group, the NDP is receiving 34 per cent support compared to the Bloc's 38. In Montreal, the NDP is dominating at 40 per cent, the Bloc is at 28, the Liberals, 17, and the Tories, 12.

Previously, pollsters had the party possibly taking another one or two ridings in the Gatineau region, besides the single riding it currently holds: Montreal's Outremont.

Now, Rivest said the NDP could grab other ridings in Montreal, including Jeanne-Le Ber, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Westmount-Ville-Marie.

The survey of 1,000 Quebecers online took place between April 13 and 20. Due to its non-random character, there is no margin of error.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/978205--ndp-jumps-ahead-of-bloc-in-quebec-poll

Those numbers are inconclusive (and what is a "non-random" poll with no margin of error? Sounds fishy) but it might be that they're gaining Bloc votes in a lot of ridings that were already safely held by the Bloc.

Layton's also using these poll results as an excuse to talk about proportional representation again, which just goes to show that he still doesn't get it and has the math skills of a six year old. Or perhaps he hadn't noticed that the BQ has been holding 1/6 of the seats in parliament despite having 40% of the popular vote in a single province.

Tbh, I think Conservatives would love to have Canadian politics polarized between one right-wing or centre-right party and one left/labour/socialist party, as UK politics used to be. It would make the CPC one of the big two parties instead of the most right-wing party out of four parties. They'd probably win elections half the time. The Liberals were able to dominate 20th century Canada since they were the centrist party in a multi-party system.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

so if the left-of-center parties didn't split voters between them, they would end up with less representation? i do not follow.

perhaps he hadn't noticed that the BQ has been holding 1/6 of the seats in parliament despite having 40% of the popular vote in a single province.

isn't that an argument *for* proportional representation?

in ridiculous canadian election laws news, elections canada warns that it is illegal to tweet about newfoundland election results before polls close in B.C.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/21/keep-election-results-off-twitter-facebook-warns-elections-canada

Jeanne-le-Ber and Gatineau are BQ ridings fwiw.

And I'm also puzzled by what you mean about the BQ's national representation, B4rry. If we went to the extreme of total PR with the election results we've had so far, they would have had about 9% of the seats in Parliament.

so if the left-of-center parties didn't split voters between them, they would end up with less representation? i do not follow.

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely. If we only had two options, it seems more likely that the country would divide itself more evenly between them and we'd switch back and forth. As it is, I'd never vote Conservative, unless they changed pretty profoundly and became more like the old Red Tories. But that's not a problem for me since I can still choose between the Liberals and NDP and might even consider a really good BQ candidate if I were in Quebec. If we only had two major parties and I got sick of the left-wing party, I would be much more likely to switch to the Conservative party, just as Thatcher and Reagan (both of whom were much more extreme than Mulroney) were able to win over Labour or Democrat voters. The Conservative Party's positions would not even seem as extreme anymore to people. Now their positions on most issues are the most right-wing out of three or four distinct parties' positions. (When Power and Politics holds a discussion panel, for example, they always have three panelists, where the Conservative position is the most right-wing.) In a two-party system, their positions would just be one of the two available options. (US Republicans can pretty much come up with any batshit stance they want and get 'equal time' for it in the media.)

In 20th century Canada, at least from the 30s on, the Liberals were able to become dominant because: i) They could posit themselves as the moderate centre party to most voters and ii) They could form alliances with the parties on either side, especially the left party.

The Globe suggests that the NDP's gains in QC could come at the BQ's expense: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-on-track-to-win-60-seats-poll-projects/article1994856/

xpost The current system rewards parties who have strong support in fewer areas, as opposed to moderate support in a larger number of areas. This might be the NDP's current situation, if you want to believe the polls, so they might fare worse under proportional representation. Of course this is entirely speculative since it's hard to predict the exact riding by riding breakdown of votes and/or believe the polls.

If I were Layton, I'd shut my mouth about election reform and be all "Quebecers have chosen" and "Oui are hope and change" a la Obama from now until May 2 -- basically anything to distract people from the fact that his actual policies are dumb.

The federal NDP's popular vote is usually (always?) proportionally larger than its seat count. Why do you think they love PR so much? In 2008, they won 37 seats (about 12%) with 18% of the vote. In 2006, they won 29 seats (9.4%) with 17% of the vote.

I do agree that if the NDP gets any influence in the next government, they should stay as far away from constitutional reforms as possible.

xpost exactly, when you're the third or fourth place party, you complain that people aren't getting the government they deserve (if you're the NDP), but when you're the first place party, you forget about PR completely. Somehow Layton doesn't understand this.

Oh, I get what you're saying now!

I mean, he could still forget about PR after the election.:P

Also, of course, there are many Liberal or BQ voters who would vote Conservative before they'd vote NDP. (Also, especially out West, Conservatives who'd vote NDP before Liberal and vice versa, for that matter.)

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely. If we only had two options, it seems more likely that the country would divide itself more evenly between them and we'd switch back and forth. As it is, I'd never vote Conservative, unless they changed pretty profoundly and became more like the old Red Tories. But that's not a problem for me since I can still choose between the Liberals and NDP and might even consider a really good BQ candidate if I were in Quebec. If we only had two major parties and I got sick of the left-wing party, I would be much more likely to switch to the Conservative party, just as Thatcher and Reagan (both of whom were much more extreme than Mulroney) were able to win over Labour or Democrat voters. The Conservative Party's positions would not even seem as extreme anymore to people. Now their positions on most issues are the most right-wing out of three or four distinct parties' positions. (When Power and Politics holds a discussion panel, for example, they always have three panelists, where the Conservative position is the most right-wing.) In a two-party system, their positions would just be one of the two available options. (US Republicans can pretty much come up with any batshit stance they want and get 'equal time' for it in the media.)

In 20th century Canada, at least from the 30s on, the Liberals were able to become dominant because: i) They could posit themselves as the moderate centre party to most voters and ii) They could form alliances with the parties on either side, especially the left party.

I think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system. That would lead to endless 'left-wing' victories and an effective one-party state, which seems pretty unlikely.

It would be politically apt for the conservative party to move closer to the center in that case.

I mean, they're getting close to 40% of the vote right now in a four-party system. In the imaginary scenario we described, where the Liberal party collapsed and the NDP became the other main party in a two-party system, it's safe to assume that a significant number of the old Liberal voters would happily move over to the CPC without the party need to moderate its policies any further.

Afaict, the US Republican strategy for the last little while has been to shift the centre by taking increasingly extreme positions so that the other side will try to meet them halfway.:P Seems like that approach could potentially work as well...

(Between 35%-40% anyway... I dunno, I'm just musing.)

my big fear about an idiotic two party system is all reasonable policy consideration would be out the window. it would be two large, entrenched camps battling it out for the middle 10% or simply appealing to their own base to turn out en mass. it's already been turning into that over the last 10 years - where it's nothing but partisan bickering over inflamitory side-issues - where nuanced discussion about the difficult decisions gov't must make from time to time get ignored in favour of jingolistic soundbites and petty mud slinging.

xposts

it's still a little over 20% nationally, sund4r.

sund4r

^ when did that happen?!

(i assume you mean the NDP?)

I meant the CPC.

oh. ok yes.

obviously. sorry.

Totally agree with this btw:

my big fear about an idiotic two party system is all reasonable policy consideration would be out the window. it would be two large, entrenched camps battling it out for the middle 10% or simply appealing to their own base to turn out en mass. it's already been turning into that over the last 10 years - where it's nothing but partisan bickering over inflamitory side-issues - where nuanced discussion about the difficult decisions gov't must make from time to time get ignored in favour of jingolistic soundbites and petty mud slinging.

It's good to have a centrist party.

To defend the US system a little though, there's a broad range of opinion within each of the two parties, compared to what we typically find within our parties. Individual Congressmen are not whipped to vote the party line on issues.

think it's a fallacy to identify the Liberals, NDP, and BQ all as "left-of-centre" parties and assume that all of their voters would then always vote for a single 'left' party in a two-party system.

At the risk of repeating myself and just to sort out my thoughts, I guess I think this is a fallacy because of two assumptions that seem to be behind it:

i) The Liberals are in fact a left-of-centre party who have more in common with the NDP than with the Conservatives.
ii) People's voting decisions are based on the left-right spectrum.

Whether or not a party is left of centre depends of course on where you think the centre is. I've always thought of the Liberals, at least since the 80s, as a 'middle' party, borrowing ideas from either side as they see fit. The Liberal Party of the 90s was relatively socially liberal but, one could argue, the most fiscally conservative government we've had in decades. (And yes, this was a trend throughout the Western world at the time.) The Fraser Institute, who are as economically right-wing as you can get, recommends their 1995 budget as a model because Harper isn't cutting enough: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=17270 Tom Flanagan, an intellectual pioneer of the Reform/CPC movement, accused the Liberals of stealing Reform economic policies. The corporate taxes we're discussing now were first introduced under the Liberals and, as the CPC never fails to point out, Ignatieff's Liberals voted for them.

The Liberals are currently running on a platform that is much closer in spirit to the NDP (or perhaps the 60s/70s LPC?) than to the CPC but their record in the Commons during the last Parliament showed plenty of support for CPC measures. As Mansbridge pointed out when he interviewed Ignatieff, Ignatieff had voted for the fighter jets and jails he is now running against.

From any polls I've seen and in my experience, there are many Liberal voters who would pick the CPC over the NDP as their second choice.

While the BQ is a genuinely social democratic party, Quebec voters’ choices can be determined by a range of factors beyond a left-right spectrum. Often they will vote for a leader who offers more self-determination to Quebec or, frankly, who offers more money. Mulroney swept Quebec. The BQ’s founder came from Mulroney’s cabinet. They currently seem to be parking with the NDP but there is no reason why a right-wing party – who would probably favour decentralization anyway – could not do well some of the time in Quebec if we had a two-party system.

Likewise, there are e.g. many Prairie or working-class ridings that switched from the NDP to Reform in the 90s. People vote according to a range of factors. Political parties come up with strategies to attract them. If you’re one of two big parties in a two-party system, it seems more likely that, by doing this, you could win half the time than if you’re at one extreme of a three- or four-party system.

at least since the 80s

Maybe as much or more so in the Mackenzie King era, actually!

This is close--but not as close as I wanted, so I've concluded that the Harper picture must look exactly like someone I went to high school with.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IG7nagJCvAU/R-ZUelEcDDI/AAAAAAAAASo/Sx41eZuWiWQ/s400/michael%25252Bsarrazin.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7g7vq7oz8bE/TDH6elA093I/AAAAAAAADY8/IqOVy98T0Uk/s1600/007_harper

I voted today! But I did not get a sticker attesting to that fact : (

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/features/votecompass/map/

This is sort of interesting. Most of the spreads of responses to the various questions are pretty predictable, but #6 surprised me. Why are Quebeckers more strongly in favour of closer economic ties to the US than other parts of the country? Is there something obvious I'm missing here?

I found it interesting (but tbh unsurprising) how Quebec ridings were the furthest left on (most) economic issues and foreign policy but also the most conservative on accommodating religious minorities or on admitting immigrants who don't speak English or French. I don't know the answer to your question though, salsa shark...