babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Ipsos-Reid poll June 1-3

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ipsos-Reid poll June 1-3
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 June 2004 12:37 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CTV News. (Report not yet there on the Ipsos-Reid site).

Canada:

32% Lib
31% Con
17% NDP
11% BQ
06% Grn


Ontario:

35% Con (!!!)
32% Lib
23% NDP (!!!)

The Conservatives lead in Ontario for the first time in recent memory. The good Ontario numbers for the NDP likely mean bad news somewhere else.

The sample is only 1000 voters, so the margin of error is 3.1, 19/20.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 12:40 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy shit. At least we did not get squeezed. The Liberals are now officially on deathwatch.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 12:52 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is good news in this:

1. During a week where we have been deluged with horror stories about the hidden agenda of Stephen Harper and the CPC, the NDP vote continues to inch up - no sign of any "strategic voting" for the Liberals.

2. Layton has the most positive momentum of any leader. When you take the % of people who say their opinion has gone up and subtract the % of people who say their opinion has gone down, Jack is doing best. So much for the media attempts to dismiss him as a loose cannon etc...

3. Those Ontario numbers are amazing. If the gap between the Liberals and the NDP is down to 9 points, i don't have to tell you how many seats would fall into our lap. If the NDP is down anywhere hopefully it is in rural Alberta!

At this stage we should start going for overtaking the Liberals as official opposition!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 12:54 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As someone with some training in market research and surveys, the Liberal negative momentum is unprecedented. All bets are worthless from here on in. Notice it's not the Cons gaining so much as the Grits crashing.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 12:55 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Paul Martin = John Turner
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 05 June 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
notice the ndp and liberal seat numbers still dont add up to 155
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Paul Martin = John Turner

It could equally be
Paul Martin = Louis St Laurent
Paul Martin = John Major

The real story is in the momentum figures.

Layton: +15 points
Harper: +14 points
Martin: -35 points
Duceppe: +16 points in Quebec

Paul Martin's momentum is like a freight train being dropped off the Eiffel Tower.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 05 June 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the NDP numbers stay high in Ontario it should mean that almost all NDP hopeful seats eg. Ottawa Centre, Hamilton Centre, Oshawa, Sault Ste Marie, Toronto Danforth, Trinity Spadina, Hamilton East, etc. are acheivable.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 June 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rubberband man:
notice the ndp and liberal seat numbers still dont add up to 155
Don't forget, the Ipsos seat projections are ridiculous, at least when it comes to the NDP. They project 5-9 seats for the NDP in Ontario with 23% of the vote. That is a complete joke. The provincial NDP won 7 seats with 14%, and more than a 30% spread between them and the Liberals. With a 32-23% Lib-NDP spread in Ontario, I think the NDP would take about 15 seats, or more. Overall in Canada, Ipsos projects 17-21 seats with 17% support. Remember, in 1997 the NDP won 21 seats with only 11% support. The Ipsos-Reid seat model always underestimates the NDP, either on purpose or just because it sucks.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, I hate to gloat and say "I told you so", BUT. back in the fall when the media was going gaga over the GREAT PAUL MARTIN, I was a lonely voice in the wilderness pointing out that he was actually quite blah and uncharismatic. I told people that there was a difference between being a good bean counter and being a leader and that expectations of him were so high that I could easily see him becoming a big flop. Everyone told me I was crazy.

Just like how in 2000 everyone told me I was crazy when I said that i thought that Stockwell Day doing his wetsuit thing was not such a good idea.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 05 June 2004 01:11 AM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yay, the NDP gets a few more seats. Meanwhile, the country is run by what, a coalition of the CPC and the bloc?

Are you people barking mad???


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 05 June 2004 01:13 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I said that i thought that Stockwell Day doing his wetsuit thing was not such a good idea.

The wetsuit is just not as romantic an image as wearing a rose or paddling in a canoe is it?


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 01:13 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There will be no "coalition" between the Cons and the BQ. Both have ruled that out. There are so few issues where there is any agreements between them that a minority Conservative government wouold be literlaly paralyzed from doing anything. and that is not even counting the Senate blocking anything really outrageous.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 01:14 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
You know, I hate to gloat and say "I told you so", BUT. back in the fall when the media was going gaga over the GREAT PAUL MARTIN, I was a lonely voice in the wilderness pointing out that he was actually quite blah and uncharismatic. I told people that there was a difference between being a good bean counter and being a leader and that expectations of him were so high that I could easily see him becoming a big flop. Everyone told me I was crazy.

Just like how in 2000 everyone told me I was crazy when I said that i thought that Stockwell Day doing his wetsuit thing was not such a good idea.


Ed was well on the case on this one.
From January -
http://www.edbroadbent.ca/en/abouted/news/freelance_012604.htm

As he gathers up his coat and briefcase, he leaves an interesting thought on the table. "Martin," he says, "has never been tested."


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 01:15 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Yay, the NDP gets a few more seats. Meanwhile, the country is run by what, a coalition of the CPC and the bloc?

Are you people barking mad???


You can quote me on this. I don't care about the other parties, I care about the NDP succeeding. Anything else is secondary.
That argument is a little too close to the typical arrogant Liberal attitude that a vote for anyone else other than the Grits is somehow treacherous and will damage Canada. That pisses me off. OK, what I said above is clearly hyperbole, I was angry about the 'barking mad' bit, but why blame the NDP for the Liberal disaster? This is a made in Earnscliff debacle. They are the people responsible for raising the spectre of a CPC administration. Not us. Don't put that guilt trip on the NDP.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 June 2004 01:20 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I DO care about other things. But the only way that the Conservatives can seriously harm Canada is with a majority, and that is almost impossible. I'd be thrilled with a minority parliament that includes a strong NDP. Even if the Cons are first in seats, they can't do the damage that they would with a majority.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
Well I DO care about other things. But the only way that the Conservatives can seriously harm Canada is with a majority, and that is almost impossible. I'd be thrilled with a minority parliament that includes a strong NDP. Even if the Cons are first in seats, they can't do the damage that they would with a majority.


Obviously I care about other matters too, but I'm getting tired of people buying into the fear. That's the Liberals' best weapon. From my perspective, there is not enough difference between the two corporate parties for me to worry enough about one winning to vote for the lesser of two evils. I do not go for the lesser of two evils, I go for the good.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 05 June 2004 01:23 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This could be really good for us. The Liberals are going to have to go heavy and hard after Harper including mudslinging that probably hasn't been seen before in Canadian politics. This will force Harper out of his bubble and he will have to deal with the social issues. Voters might say a pox on both their houses.
From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 June 2004 01:28 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I care about the country more than the party. The Liberal numbers will climb back up as election day gets closer. The real thing to watch is Liberal voters. They are angry enough to stay home but will probably come out to vote if they think Harper has a real chance of winning.

The truth is, despite CTV spin, Harper is stalling while the NDP is just picking up momentum. As people begin to ask Harper the hard questions about those things he would prefer not to talk about such as reproductive rights, the death penalty, private health care, deep integration. missile defence, etc ..., his numbers wil start to fall.

It is why Harper is pretending to lean left in this election. It is why Martin always campaigns left. Because Canada leans left socially. But they can't be trusted.

In any event, in a Con minority government, harper will be hog tied on social issues by the Bloc which must maintain its own left constituency. But, if there were such a minority government, they could do terrible things to confederation.

I am surprised there is not much discussion on this story: Harper would re-open constitution.

It shows how naive he really is. He thinks he can re-open the constitution for tinkering. That's like opening Pandora's Box just a little bit.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
candle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3103

posted 05 June 2004 01:40 AM      Profile for candle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Julie Van Dusen and Robert Fife were on CBC radio today and Van Dusen said that selling a free vote on abortion and Harper being non-commital on whether he would or wouldn't use the notwithstanding cause isn't going to play well to women and moderate Canadians. Fife acknowledged Harper made a mistake by being drawn into this but said that Harper and Martin's position don't differ (as Martin would allow a free vote) except that Martin would not use the notwithstanding clause. However, this is a key difference as without the use of the notwithstanding clause a free vote is irrelevant.

BTW, Fife is horrible on the radio. He stumbled and stammeered so much that host Brent Bambury had to finish his thoughts for him. The other interesting thing is that Van Dusen said she doesn't vote because she has to deal with the politicians on a regular basis and honestly likes some of them. It was a pretty weak defence of not voting. Van Dusen was also critical of Martin. The NDP was barely metioned at all in the segment.


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 05 June 2004 01:46 AM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not scared for the country yet. There appears to be no chance of a Conservative majority... And there is no way they would get the support of any of the other parties on their right-wing social agenda...

I'm also tired of having the Liberals lie and lie and get away with it... Time for the NDP to gain in strength... And prevent that from happening in the future if at all possible..


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 05 June 2004 01:50 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't forget, the Ipsos seat projections are ridiculous, at least when it comes to the NDP. They project 5-9 seats for the NDP in Ontario with 23% of the vote. That is a complete joke.

Why are they so ridiculous? In 1993 the Tories got 20% of the vote and 2 seats, the NDP got 6% and 9 seats.

There is no point in getting into the seat guessing game right now. There really isn't.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aric H
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5815

posted 05 June 2004 02:00 AM      Profile for Aric H     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:

Why are they so ridiculous? In 1993 the Tories got 20% of the vote and 2 seats, the NDP got 6% and 9 seats.

There is no point in getting into the seat guessing game right now. There really isn't.


You're right that it is too early to know the exact number of seats right now, BUT any political analyst who pays attention to the individual ridings like we do should be able to see that some of the NDP seat projections, especially for Ontario, are too low. With the NDP up and Libs down, it is obvious the NDP will take seats it only lost by a small margin in the past. It is obvious that the seat count for Ontario should be higher.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 05 June 2004 02:25 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
You know, I hate to gloat and say "I told you so", BUT. back in the fall when the media was going gaga over the GREAT PAUL MARTIN, I was a lonely voice in the wilderness pointing out that he was actually quite blah and uncharismatic. I told people that there was a difference between being a good bean counter and being a leader and that expectations of him were so high that I could easily see him becoming a big flop. Everyone told me I was crazy.

Just like how in 2000 everyone told me I was crazy when I said that i thought that Stockwell Day doing his wetsuit thing was not such a good idea.


At the risk of counting our chickens before they are hatched...

Back on Dec. 7, I wrote:

quote:
My sense so far is that Paul Martin, Liberal party leader, will prove far less formidable than many people expect. In a comfortable environment, when he is among friends and unlikely to be challenged on anything at all, he is easy-going, charming, self-effacing, and funny. Speaking on TV to a broader audience, he is a piece of cardboard. There's no substance to him. Warmed-over corporate cliches may work in fundraiser dinners, where everyone is invested in not thinking too critically about much. But on TV, during an election campaign, or sitting in government, Paul Martin will not do so well.

Another weakness of his is that he has a temper. He gets defensive when challenged, and can't seem to control it. In situations of overt conflict, like his first leadership race, he doesn't perform well. He's not personally strong the way Jean Chretien was.

The question is whether the media will go after him or not. My feeling is, they will give him a free ride. But if he starts to suffer damage, they'll be like a pack of dogs smelling blood.

From the NDP's point of view, I think his key weaknesses are:

*his corporate cronyism & history with CSL. His response to the jet-ride question shows he's pretty out of touch. The more this general issue gets aired publicly, the worse it is for Martin.

*his pro-US leanings.

*his completely flat personality on TV, his lack of spunk and energy. His lack of apparent depth and empathy. Compared to Martin (except for the height thing), Jack should come off quite well.


On Nov. 16, I said

quote:
I think the Liberals have done themselves a great disservice. The fact is, Martin won this by a kind of slow, steady organizing within the party that bears little relation to the dynamic of a political campaign. A leadership race should also be a trial of many of the abilities a leader will need to show in an election campaign. Because of the Martinites' iron grip on the party apparatus, there was never any chance of this happening. It made for a boring leadership race, a boring convention, and no debate within the Liberal party (to the extent that there are ideas within the party at all).

Why people think there will be some translation from the Martin team's ability to sew up the Liberal party to any kind of flair for elections is really not clear to me. Of course, the Liberals have many advantages in strategic terms. I just don't really think Paul Martin is one of them.



On November 15:
quote:
He seems to have hit the nail right on the head there -- glad it's not just me. Martin does play well to a boardroom crowd, just not to the ordinary public, or on TV. He speaks the corporate world's language of modish platitudes quite well. It's just that most Canadians couldn't give a shit about that.

Martin's face is not his ally. The corners of his mouth turn down, making him look perpetually weary or sad, an effect emphasized by the lines in his face, his upturned eyebrows, and his boring demeanour overall.


and on Nov. 14:

quote:
posted 14 November 2003 09:28 PM                      

The media is infatuated with Paul Martin for some unfathomable reason. Do people here really think he will play well to the Canadian public? In person he can be charming, but frankly, this does not come across on TV. On TV, he fatigues me. Plus, sorry for the agism, he looks old and tired. We have been seeing him for the last 10-15 years. It's not as if he's a fresh face. I'm trying not to be the victim of wishful thinking. But I do wonder if Paul Martin will be as easy a sell to the Canadian public as he has been to the media.


If you can find yourself in an earlier reference on Babble, I'll owe you a Bill Blaikie propeller beanie. (During the leadership race, I had proposed having a bunch made up and handing them out at party events -- of course I was supporting Layton.)

When I first saw Martin, back in November, it was when he was speaking to a large but friendly corporate crowd, mostly white men. He was charming and degagé. In person, or in small meetings, he is supposed to be extremely engaging. However, when I saw his acceptance speech at the Liberal leadership convention, I completely changed my mind, and I knew he was going down -- although I couldn't quite be optimistic enough that it would be this election.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 June 2004 02:43 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:
Why are they so ridiculous? In 1993 the Tories got 20% of the vote and 2 seats, the NDP got 6% and 9 seats.
The Tory vote was spread so thin and wide that they only got up to a winning margin in 2 ridings. The NDP vote in Ontario is concentrated mainly in urban centres and the North. Whole areas of the province, like rural and small-town areas throughout central and Eastern Ontario, are a wasteland for the NDP. I guarantee that if the NDP got 23% in Ontario in this election, it would win more than a dozen seats, and perhaps more than 15.

I would add that this is one poll with a relatively small sample, and I am not convinced that the NDP is at 23% in Ontario. Not yet, anyway.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 05 June 2004 04:15 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Liberals aren't able to form a minority government how long will it be before Martin resigns as Liberal leader and who would replace him? Allan Rock? McKenna? John Manley? I can't think of anyone in the current caucus who is a prospective leader let alone a prospective PM.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 05 June 2004 04:30 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm back, baby!

From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Pagan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3106

posted 05 June 2004 04:56 AM      Profile for Ronald Pagan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
If the Liberals aren't able to form a minority government how long will it be before Martin resigns as Liberal leader and who would replace him? Allan Rock? McKenna? John Manley? I can't think of anyone in the current caucus who is a prospective leader let alone a prospective PM.

I believe Stockholm provided the best answer to your question.

quote:
Paul Martin = John Turner

Much like Turner's first humiliating loss, Martin will remain leader of the party until the next election where he will likely lose again. By that time there will a clear leader in the making probably by the name Tobin. One thing I look forward to is a real leadership race which always seems to invigorate and make the Liberal party passionate again.


From: Guantanamo Bay | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 05 June 2004 07:22 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If there's a Harper majority, Martin won't stick around.

Turner was given a chance because of the deep unpopularity of the Trudeau government. Martin inherited a government that as far as I can remember, never dipped under 40% in the polls in its third term.

It's true the sponsorship happened under Chretien, but it won't count. They can't punish Chretien for losing them power, but they CAN punish Martin. He made far too many enemies by pushing Chretien out (something Turner was far more restrained about), and his followers aren't going to be in office anymore, especially in Quebec.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 05 June 2004 08:23 AM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Martin should have sensed that the media was pissed off at him. That's the REAL reason his party in now plunging in the polls.

That so called "anger" at the Liberals wasn't there just 2 weeks ago. The media created it.


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 05 June 2004 08:48 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given the Liberal meltdown we should be doing way better.
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 05 June 2004 09:46 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Provincial breakdown

British Columbia

Conservatives: 31%
Liberals: 32%
NDP: 23%
Green Party: 13% (whatever)

Ontario

Conservatives: 35%
Liberals: 32%
NDP: 23%
Green Party: 6%

Alberta

Conservatives: 50%
Liberals: 27%
NDP: 15% (this could mean seats)
Green Party: 8% (whatever)

Quebec

Conservatives: 13%
Liberals: 28%
NDP: 6% (oh well)
Bloc Québécois: 45%
Green Party: 4%

Sask./Man.

Conservatives: 45%
Liberals: 38%
NDP: 13% (simply wrong)
Green Party: 2%

Atlantic

Conservatives: 31%
Liberals: 46%
NDP: 21% (good enough)
Green Party: 0%

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: Privateer ]


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 05 June 2004 09:58 AM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're going to have to turn our guns on Harper. The SK/Man results are freakishly low for this poll, but it has been a while since I cheered any results from that area. The voters are that volatile right now that we should be talking about winning government, and reminding voters about the scarier aspects of a Conservative government (eg. going to war) - usually this helps the Liberals, but I'm not convinced it would now.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 05 June 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Tory vote was spread so thin and wide that they only got up to a winning margin in 2 ridings. The NDP vote in Ontario is concentrated mainly in urban centres and the North. Whole areas of the province, like rural and small-town areas throughout central and Eastern Ontario, are a wasteland for the NDP.

My point exactly - seat projections are funny things, HENCE THE POINT OF NOT LOOKING AT THEM!

Geez you guys, maybe we should take a page out of Stephen Harper's books....let people underestimate us, then surpass those expectations royally.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noelle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5479

posted 05 June 2004 10:16 AM      Profile for Noelle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi everyone;
I'm new here and thought that I'd post my thoughts about this poll. I'm not sure that I'm convinced that it's accurate, or should I say reflects the reality of a potential Harper victory.
For the better part of the week, while he toured Ontario Harper got some pretty good press coverage, until Thursday that is.
On Thursday things changed, but it really didn't make the newspapers until the Friday editions. The Abortion, SS marriage and Cons bashing gays (complete with disgusting pictures) were covered on the evening newscasts, while everyone was watching hockey, or getting on with life. His very expensive platform has not yet been released, only political junkies like us seem to be paying attention to it.
I'm hoping that I'm right about this, and that Ontario is just mad at all Liberals, and not sending their vote Harper's way because they actually agree with his bizarre policies. Now if the SES tracking polls don’t detect a downturn in the Cons numbers by the middle of next week, the left may actually be in some trouble on June 28th.
There is anther potential problem looming for the Cons in Ontario, namely Buzz Hargrove. Let’s face it, a potential, albeit small Con majority would be devasting to the potential GM expansion in Ottawa .Buzz already said this last week. No matter how people feel about Buzz in the NDP, his first loyalty must be to his members. He will protect those jobs IMO, and I would expect that he’d begin spreading that message, and hitting the media hard.
Anyway that I look at this, Harper’s numbers are not good for Canada, and he must be shut down before gaining anymore traction. Someone once told me that politics is perception. If Harper is perceived to be a winner, people may not look too closely at him, and cast their vote his way.
So, right now I’m hoping for the best, because honestly I’m afraid to think of the worst.

From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 10:44 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
British Columbia

Conservatives: 31%
Liberals: 32%
NDP: 23%
Green Party: 13% (whatever)


Since last time Ipsos went on about the NDP "collapse" in BC dropping to 14%, where is their analysis ytrumpeting the NDP SURGE from 14% to 23%?? I suspect we are actually at 30% anyways which is what all the other polls say.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 05 June 2004 10:53 AM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the regional numbers mean much given the small sample size. If the Man/Sask numbers are correct, we have virtully zero support outside of Winnipeg and Regina...don't believe it.

I think the poster who noted that the NDP are holding steady nationally despite the Liberal free-fall made the most important observation.

If the numbers hold till election day (which they won't) the result will be a very weak Liberal government that is utterly dependent on the two progressive parties, the NDP and Bloc. This would the BEST of all reasonably likely outcomes! Rejoice!


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 05 June 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My sense is that there should be a fresh attempt by the NDP to go after Liberal voters. The Liberals are going down and we should seize the moment.

I actually felt sorry for the kid who canvassed my house on behalf of the Liberals yesterday (after he hit the third house in a row with an NDP sign!). He sounded very discouraged...a big contrast with previous campaigns. (I always try to tie my opponents up at the door as long as possible.)

The momentum is against the Liberals. Harpoon is grabbing all of the more "conservative" Liberals...and we should grab as much of the "progressive" Liberal vote as we can.

Let's pick this carcass clean


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 05 June 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
This poll is interesting. I think that Harper clearly has the momentum and will get a majority government. He still has a couple weeks left to build steam. Second, the MB/SK numbers are disastrous for the NDP. This could actually help the Liberals hold on to a couple really close races in Winnipeg and in Goodale's riding from the conservatives. The third interesting thing is the Green party is skyrocketting, especially in BC. The Green can reallistically elect an MP or two from the west coast this time (according to the Globe and Mail this morning). What effect would another left of centre option in the House have for both the Libs and the NDP???
From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
dapopster
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4711

posted 05 June 2004 11:27 AM      Profile for dapopster        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyway that I look at this, Harper’s numbers are not good for Canada, and he must be shut down before gaining anymore traction. Someone once told me that politics is perception. If Harper is perceived to be a winner, people may not look too closely at him, and cast their vote his way.

Harper is saying all the right things to attract the centre vote, which he need to win, and he knows it.

If he wins with a minority, he will do all the right things to hold that support. The problem only arises if and when he wins a majority.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW: The sample size in Man/Sask. on Ipsos is only about 60 decided voters. The margin of error on that is literally about + or - 12%!!! (meaning the NDP could be as high as 25% or as low as 1%) etc... Frankly, I don't even know why they even publish regional results based on such ludicrously small sample sizes.

When it comes to Ipsos, I am willing to consider their overall national numbers as having some meaning and i am also willing to consider their Ontario and Quebec numbers as having some meaning. But when they get into the smaller regions and their loopy "seat projection" models, they are out to lunch. I have played around with some seat projection models myself and i never get numbers remotely like theirs.

If you want regional analysis, the only recent poll that has any real merit is the Leger poll of two days ago that had a sample size of 3,100 across Canada.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 05 June 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
My sense is that there should be a fresh attempt by the NDP to go after Liberal voters. The Liberals are going down and we should seize the moment.

I actually felt sorry for the kid who canvassed my house on behalf of the Liberals yesterday (after he hit the third house in a row with an NDP sign!). He sounded very discouraged...a big contrast with previous campaigns. (I always try to tie my opponents up at the door as long as possible.)

The momentum is against the Liberals. Harpoon is grabbing all of the more "conservative" Liberals...and we should grab as much of the "progressive" Liberal vote as we can.

Let's pick this carcass clean



oh yeah, let the NDP win 10 more seats, and the Cons win 60 more seats and 100% of power. That'll be really good for Canada. I really hope that people in Lib-Con swing riding don’t vote NDP.

The outcome of this election depends entirely on the media. So far the media has been giving Harper an easy ride, while Martin was getting a hard time. The media generated all the "anger" at the Liberals. In fact, the Liberals aren't doing that bad, considering all the biased negative coverage they get. So much for democracy in this country.


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 05 June 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
BTW: The sample size in Man/Sask. on Ipsos is only about 60 decided voters. The margin of error on that is literally about + or - 12%!!! (meaning the NDP could be as high as 25% or as low as 1%) etc... Frankly, I don't even know why they even publish regional results based on such ludicrously small sample sizes.

The MOE is about 12 percentage points only for a sample percentage of 50. For a sample percentage of 13 and a sample size of 60, the MOE is more like +/- 8.5 percentage points. But yes, still highly uninformative. It would be good if they published the margin of error for the regional breakdowns.

quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
When it comes to Ipsos, I am willing to consider their overall national numbers as having some meaning and i am also willing to consider their Ontario and Quebec numbers as having some meaning. But when they get into the smaller regions and their loopy "seat projection" models, they are out to lunch. I have played around with some seat projection models myself and i never get numbers remotely like theirs.

If you want regional analysis, the only recent poll that has any real merit is the Leger poll of two days ago that had a sample size of 3,100 across Canada.


Yes. What wasn't true, as some people believed, is that their national numbers were vastly more accurate than Ipsos. Tripling the national sample size to 3000 only lowers the MOE by about a percentage point for a sample percentage of 30.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 12:20 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sometimes i wonder if Maxx, Noroma, Stan Knowles and Ruminate are all the same person playing some kind of mind game with us.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 05 June 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not having much of an effect on me, if they are.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 05 June 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one is going to form government without a coalition - so don't worry.

As far as I can figure out, the only party that would be half willing to form a coalition with the neo Conservatives would be the Liberals and I don't think that that is likely.

BTW - when Ipsos Reid was known as Angus Reid wasn't it then considered to be a Liberal friendly firm?

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 05 June 2004 12:35 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maxx has a point. Given a choice between a Liberal majority with the NDP at 20 seats, and a Con majority with the NDP as official opposition, give me the Liberal majority any day.

A Conservative minority might be tolerable, especially if the experience of governing causes their coalition to collapse.

In the long term, the NDP's success depends on becoming the 2nd largest party, the so-called national alternative. I'd prefer that we be the alternative to the Liberals, not the Cons.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not true. You don't need a formal coalition to form a minority government. You can just govern with shifting majorities and get support from different parties on different issues. That is what the Liberals did during the 1963-1968 period.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 05 June 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the Neos to "govern with shifting majorities" they will need someone to agree with them on a specific issue. On which issues do the Bloc and NDP side with the Neos?

And if it is the Liberals who are always propping up the Neos, then what does that tell you about how they would govern in power under the most right leaning Liberal leader in recent history.

I mean Federally.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:

Why are they so ridiculous? In 1993 the Tories got 20% of the vote and 2 seats, the NDP got 6% and 9 seats.

There is no point in getting into the seat guessing game right now. There really isn't.


The tories got 16% in 1993, we got 7%.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 05 June 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have taken statistics courses... To have that many bad samples (ones that don't match other regional polling data), IPSOS must be doing something wonky... I'm thinking maybe they are making sure that their sample population includes people from all parts of the provinces... NDP vote is concentrated in the cities in Man/Sask...

I hear the election isn't going well in Sask outside of Regina... but it can't be that bad


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 05 June 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The people on this forum should avoid the temptation to assume that all unpopular views are the same person or don't exist.

1) The view to dump Liberals hard putting in if necessary Cons regardless of the cost and try to replace the Liberals with NDPers later is not uncommon or complete crap. Usually the NDP comes up when the politics are polarized. It is more conceivable that the NDP would replace the Liberals than the Conservatives. This is the short term pain for long term gain vision. I don't agree with it because I think the cost and risks of having a Harper government would be too great. However, I am not convinced that all babblers who promote it are the same person with multiple disguises. There are real reasons why some NDPers hate Liberals more than Cons. It is because the Liberals lack all principle, the occupy the same part of the political spectrum we hope to and steal our support by lying to them about programs they never deliver on. The Cons usually, don't go after our support directly and are more likely to present soemthing closer to what they actually might do.

2) Polls. Yes they carry bad news some times. I am a little tired of hearing people here discard all bad news from the west as wrong. I think we are having difficulty in some areas. Perhaps it is not all wrong. Maybe the NDP's urban agenda is turning some people off. Maybe the Clarity Act stuff is hurting in places. Maybe we are not addressing concerns that we need to. Maybe the Liberals are actually a bit stronger in these places and have taken some of our support. I think we need to consider that soem of these polls might have some substance. I suspect that BC is actually quite volatile and that our support in Sask and Manitoba is lower than we would like. Something needs to be done about it.

There is no point choosing to believe whatever we want.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maxx,(and the other people willing to drop the NDP to prop up the Liberals) are you willing to perpetually prop up the Liberals because you perceive the Cons as the only opposition? That seems pretty undemocratic to me. Take a risk and work to make the NDP a viable governing party, otherwise you might as well join the Liberal party, as all you're doing is ensuring perpetual Liberal hegemony. That's bad for Canada, and its bad for Democracy. Do not let fear dictate your vote to you.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 05 June 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SeaninOttawa yes yes yes on #2.

Cheerleading is one thing, but we need some critical capacity.

Everything is not fine. Lets fix it while we still have 23 days left.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Radioactive Westerner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4432

posted 05 June 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Radioactive Westerner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wish the NDP would attack The Government rather than the opposition. It makes them look like they are happy being the opposition to the opposition instead of trying to govern.

The Liberals are tanking badly folks. Better off trying to capture the dissaffected Liberals then see them go to the Conservatives.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 05 June 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But RW, if we want the disaffected Liberals to come to us instead of the Conservatives, shouldn't that mean attacking the Conservatives?
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 05 June 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is it your impression the campaign is targeting the Conservatives more than the Liberals? I haven't got that sense so far. But perhaps I'm not paying attention. If it's true, I would agree with you. In most situations, it is a mistake to focus too much attention on the other opposition parties. To my mind, that was a serious mistake the Ontario NDP made, and one that I pointed out at least six months before the campaign was liable to be a losing strategy.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 05 June 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's a lot of good news for the NDP in this poll. We are the least disliked party in the country, with 28% having a favourable impression, and only 13% negative. The cons are at 32% favourable and 18% negative.

Among Con voters, only 16% have a negative image of us, while 68% are negative towards the Liberals.

But most fascinating of all is that 22% of Liberal voters have a negative impression of the Liberals, while only 18% of them are negative towards us! 27% of them are negative towards the Cons.

For all those insisting that Jack screwed things up with his controversial statements, 28% say their opinion of the NDP led by Jack has improved over the past few weeks while 13% worsened and 44% stayed the same.

For the Cons, it's 33 improved, but 17% worsened.

And among Liberal voters, 22% have an improved impression of the NDP as do 27% of Con voters. 18 of both parties supporters have a worse impression.

21% of Liberal voters have a better impression of the Cons, vs. 27% worsened.

There's room for the NDP to grow.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 05 June 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I decided to run my model on these Ipsos Reid results. I was somewhat optimistic about NDP concentrations. This is what I got:

CANADA
Liberal 111, Con 113, BQ 50, NDP 34

Atlantic Canada:
Lib 16 Con 11 NDP 5
Quebec
Lib25 BQ 50
Ontario
Lib 48 Con 44 NDP 14
Man and Sask
Lib 7 Con 15 NDP 6
Alberta
Lib 2 NDP 1 Con 25
BC
Lib 11 Con 18 NDP 7
North
Lib 2 NDP 1

I also think the media has been playing a role in determining this election. I think that the Liberals and the NDP have been hurt to help Conservatives. I suspect that this is could make the difference in some 5-10 seats -- enough to decide who gets the balance of power the NDP or the Bloc. On the other hand nobody should trust the media and they could turn on Harper at the last moment.

The seat total numbers I have projected are somewhat low in BC and Sask/Man. If the vote picks up there by the election or is simply wrong now then there could be up to 6 more seats. On the other hand we could be 1-3 down in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Alberta.
The NDP now could expect anywhere from 25 to 40 seats. If some traction comes out of the debate another 5 could be added to both the top and bottom numbers.

Note I edited this because I was in a hurry and transposed some numbers incorrectly. The 35 Libs in Quebec was a typo, it should have read 25. There was an Atlantic seat I double counted as well and this is fixed.

[ 06 June 2004: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 05 June 2004 02:33 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Liberals are tanking badly folks. Better off trying to capture the dissaffected Liberals then see them go to the Conservatives.

I agree. I've been phone canvassing for David Turner this week in Victoria (supposedly a strong Liberal riding) and the most common response I am getting from voters is "Definitely NOT LIBERAL." It's such a strong feeling that we need to maximize it and draw as many soft Liberal/NDP voters over to our camp.

As to Harper, Martin and co. will be firing on him with all guns blazing for the rest of the campaign, and the media will start increasing the scrutiny now that the polls show he could win. He's pushing a Harris/Campbell economic agenda; is pro-Bush on the military, terrorism, etc.; and is opening the door to a reactionary social agenda on abortion and gay rights. Most moderate voters, especially in urban areas, will recoil in horror when they learn what Harper stands for. They want to send the Liberals a strong message, but they don't want a CPC government either.

But we don't have to get down in the mud - Jack should keep pushing the positive NDP agenda and be the only viable alternative for centre and centre-left voters once Martin and Harper finish slugging it out.


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 05 June 2004 02:48 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Quebec
Lib35 BQ 50

You do know that these results are impossible, right? There are only 75 seats in Québec, not 85.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 05 June 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
while i think seat progections are entierly pointless...I'm wondering where on earth you figure getting a seat in alberta...seriously
From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Steve_Shutt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2922

posted 05 June 2004 02:53 PM      Profile for Steve_Shutt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sean,

Your predictions are probably a little off - you have predictions for 319 seats in a 308 seat Parliament?!


From: coming in off the left wing | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:
while i think seat progections are entierly pointless...I'm wondering where on earth you figure getting a seat in alberta...seriously

Ottawa's a long way from Edmonton, Guepe. Malcolm Azania is not that much of a long shot.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 05 June 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seat projections on a poll with sampling errors of over 10% in specific regions of the country is not of much use, I agree. The results of two IPSOS polls in Sask/Man for the NDP have been 10%/13% while the polls of the other four pollsters in the country have ranged from 23%-32% during the same time period. The Leger Poll (with a sample size more than triple of IPSOS last week) had the vote pegged at 23%.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 05 June 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Privateer:
But RW, if we want the disaffected Liberals to come to us instead of the Conservatives, shouldn't that mean attacking the Conservatives?


In BC I think the appropriate thing, given our rather weak, third place position in the federal polls is to use our provincial stature to raise our federal presence. That weak federal poll figure is a disappointment and a surprise, at least compare to what I would have expected a few weeks ago. But it started showing up earlier this week that we are trailing behind the Liberals, not as bad as the 14% figure, but adding a wide 10 point margin to that, and looking at today's estimate, somewhere around 23 or 24 percent seems to be the current standing.

As I have said before, much to the annoyance of many people, I attribute this new found weakness in BC to our unwillingness to publicly retaliate in a visible and convincing way against the Three Traitors (4 really, Chan, Dosanjh, Haggard and Miller), plus the difference between BC now and 15 years ago.

There is a larger, more active immigrant vote to which the NDP has little access, the Liberals a great deal, just like Ontario, with the fake bulk memberships and the phoney circus tent nomination meetings, etc. But it does give them a big word-of-mouth network that has now suprassed the NDP's old labour word-of-mouth network, which is still in the dumps psychologically after 10 years of downhill-all-the-way provincial politics.

Part of that disappointing provincial experience can be laid at the feet of Dave Haggard, who had too much influence and used it unwisely, forcing the government, in one NDP insiders terms, into "shredding itself" to meet his demands. Some of can be laid at Ujjal's feet for an election that wasn't going to be a winner, but didn't need to be as bad as it was, but got that way because of his lousy, vainglorious judgements on election strategy. And part of it can be laid at Miller's feet, for the way the cost overuns on the Pacificat project were mishandled and for the never ending bailout of his old workplace, Skeena Cellulose. Now these people are taking shots at us. Neat, eh? And people on this bulletin board are saying we shouldn't place an ad or two denouncing these people. Why not?

In phoning, I emphasize the idea that as between Premier Gordon Campbell and President George Bush, things are headed in the wrong direction, and it's a bumpy ride getting there. Jack Layton offers a positive alternative to this toxic mix, so please think about that on June 28th.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 05 June 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ottawa's a long way from Edmonton, Guepe. Malcolm Azania is not that much of a long shot.

Perhaps, however knowing Rahim and being friends with people very close to him, I don't get the immpression that they plan on losing that seat.

Although true he realises he's the most at risk from his caucus in Alberta - that's only caused (apparently I'm only going on what I've been told) that much more of an effort going into his campaign.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 05 June 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
Don't forget, the Ipsos seat projections are ridiculous, at least when it comes to the NDP. They project 5-9 seats for the NDP in Ontario with 23% of the vote. That is a complete joke. The Ipsos-Reid seat model always underestimates the NDP, either on purpose or just because it sucks.

Umm, the CA won 2 seats in Ontario with 24% of the vote. If anything's ridiculous, it's the FPTP system.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 05 June 2004 04:51 PM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

British Columbia

Green Party: 13% (whatever)


Where are all of these supposed Green voters?

And Ipsos-Reid projects 2 Green seats in BC?

The only sure things that will happen on voting day will be death, taxes, and no Green seats.

So much for these seat projection models.


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cpar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4441

posted 05 June 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Cpar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, when the Reformers are on the short end of the stick, FPTP works pretty good.
From: kelowna, BC | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 05 June 2004 04:58 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Umm, the CA won 2 seats in Ontario with 24% of the vote.

Yeah but the Liberals were at 51% then, not 32%.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Shane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4328

posted 05 June 2004 05:15 PM      Profile for Shane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cpar:
Actually, when the Reformers are on the short end of the stick, FPTP works pretty good.

Well your party doesn't agree.


From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Guêpe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4757

posted 05 June 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for Guêpe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shane:

Well your party doesn't agree.


Actually even when Reform is on the short end of the stick FPTP isn't a good thing, reason why - those Conservative voters in Ontario still need to be represented, just like the Liberal and NDPers out in Alberta - if they are represented proportionally it will go a long way to breaking down the regionalism that exists in this country.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 June 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hate to rain on the parade, but I don't think these poll numbers bode well at all. We're hanging on to the gains we've made in the months prior to the election, but the NDP hasn't gained *any* momentum yet. Any growth in BC or Ontario is offset by losses in Quebec and, more significantly, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Potential bleeding in Maritimes too if Harper expands his lead.

Of all the scenarios I can think of, if the regressive conservatives make government, the NDP stands to gain in only one: We pick up almost *all* the progressive Liberal vote this month, overcoming that 14% gap in polls, make a miracle breakthrough in Quebec (think one seat) and middleclass voters then get so mad at the "tories" that half of them stay at home in 2008.

Sorry for the pessimism, but I really think we have to look more than one step ahead now and attack Harper more strongly. Can always switch back to Martin later in the campaign. I don't believe it's a question of trying to scare left-liberal voters back the Liberals so much as scaring moderate conservatives liberals back to Martin, the ones who'd never vote NDP anyway but just might vote Liberal, just focus on things like Healthcare and Kyoto. Then there's some slack on the left again. Not a straightforward manoeuver perhaps, but looking beyond this election the Liberals will again be seen as *the* alternative to Harper if he's half as bad as feared and then we're back to square one again.

And I don't believe for a minute that a minority position would stop a corporate sponsored ideologue like Harper from dismantling Canada. There'll always be enough rightwing Liberals and Bloc MP's to support them, all he has to do is introduce more "free votes" in the House as he's promised. Canwest Global will be in a state of barely restrained joy.

(On more positive note, the BC Greens aren't really gaining any momentum in BC, the 13% is about where their provincial party has been stuck for months now and some of their supporters *are* likely to go NDP come election day. Might help abit)


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 June 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI: Jack is now attacking Harper for having the same corporate agenda as Martin and pointing out that if people want change they better start to think about what KIND of change they want. The NDP represents change in the direction people want and the Conservatives would mean all the things people dislike about the Liberals only exponentially increased.

I think the message for the NDP is very clear and easy to make. 72% of Canadians think its time for a change, we have to make them think twice about what DIRECTION they want that change to be in!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 June 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
FYI: Jack is now attacking Harper for having the same corporate agenda as Martin and pointing out that if people want change they better start to think about what KIND of change they want. The NDP represents change in the direction people want and the Conservatives would mean all the things people dislike about the Liberals only exponentially increased.

I think the message for the NDP is very clear and easy to make. 72% of Canadians think its time for a change, we have to make them think twice about what DIRECTION they want that change to be in!


I have no problem with any of that. Maybe I should rephrase my point again, we should be attacking Martin AND Harper more strongly now, and when I say "we" I mean more than Jack or party websites, I mean members themselves getting out to voice their opinions in letters, callbacks more often...even harrassing too complacent friends and relatives.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 June 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shane:
Umm, the CA won 2 seats in Ontario with 24% of the vote. If anything's ridiculous, it's the FPTP system.
Amazing but true: I agree with you on this, Shane.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mel Skiller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5448

posted 05 June 2004 08:00 PM      Profile for Mel Skiller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just on the subject of who would form a minority remember this.

In 1926 the Conservatives won more seats than the Liberlas but the Liberals formed a government with support from the Progressive Party.

In Ontario in 1985 Frank Millers Conservatives won more seats than David Peterson's Liberals but the Liberals formed a government with support from Bob Rae's NDP.

It doesn't matter who finishes first in a minority, it's who can work with other parties.

I won't panic unless the Cons are so far ahead in English Canada that they can form a majority government with no seats in QUebec. It's almost impossible.


From: toronto | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 05 June 2004 08:07 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guêpe:

Perhaps, however knowing Rahim and being friends with people very close to him, I don't get the immpression that they plan on losing that seat.

Although true he realises he's the most at risk from his caucus in Alberta - that's only caused (apparently I'm only going on what I've been told) that much more of an effort going into his campaign.


I have some inside information myself on the seat, so we shall see. While I'm not predicting Malcolm's victory quite yet, he's going to do very well.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 05 June 2004 09:40 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:
Maxx has a point. Given a choice between a Liberal majority with the NDP at 20 seats, and a Con majority with the NDP as official opposition, give me the Liberal majority any day.

A Conservative minority might be tolerable, especially if the experience of governing causes their coalition to collapse.

In the long term, the NDP's success depends on becoming the 2nd largest party, the so-called national alternative. I'd prefer that we be the alternative to the Liberals, not the Cons.


quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

1) The view to dump Liberals hard putting in if necessary Cons regardless of the cost and try to replace the Liberals with NDPers later is not uncommon or complete crap. Usually the NDP comes up when the politics are polarized. It is more conceivable that the NDP would replace the Liberals than the Conservatives. This is the short term pain for long term gain vision. I don't agree with it because I think the cost and risks of having a Harper government would be too great.


I used to subscribe to this school of thought, and I don't any more. Here's why.

The main thing setting the Cons and Libs apart is that Cons are more likely to be bigots, while Libs are more likely to be crooks. I'm not going to claim as some are wont to on babble that all Cons are bigots or that all Libs are crooks, but those are the traits that make those parties distinctive. Their economic policy, in practise, is likely to be almost identical- and unacceptable. The Constitution will address the wrongs that a Conservative majority might bring about in the social arena, and if we're lucky the criminal courts might help with the Liberal problem (though I'm not betting on the latter). But the right wing economic agenda common to both parties could do irreversible damage to the country, regardless of whether the crooks or the bigots are doing it. I've said it before and I'll say it again- a majority by either party is unacceptable.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 05 June 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:

The main thing setting the Cons and Libs apart is that Cons are more likely to be bigots, while Libs are more likely to be crooks.



Can we have this in a TV spot of some kind? I like the simplicity and I think the public will too.

In the 1980s, when Mulroney came in, the NDP and the PCs had an historic opportunity to displace the Liberals permanently. The once all-powerful Liberals had been run down to less than 30% of the vote, and less than 40 seats.

But the opportunity was lost mainly because the two parties simply could not talk to each other, even in private.

Somthing similar had happened in 1972. As long as Trudeau was strong, the NDP would be weak with its major potential growth audience, urban baby boomers. So, after the photo-finish of the 1972 election, why not dump the Liberals and allow Bob Stanfield a chance to do some tinkering, with old age pensions for example? The thinking at the time was that the PCs were just plain off-limits, largely because they were alleged to have a lousy record in Ontario in terms of labour legislation.

And a similar problem came up in 1979/80 with the Clark Govt.

This was in the good old days of Progressive Conservatives, and Red Tories, like Stanfield and Camp and Flora MacDonald and Joe Clark.

How much harder would it be to cooperate with the Conservatives now that it's guys like Harper? Much harder. So, for past opportunities lost, future chances are somewhat foreclosed.

The only way I see now for the NDP to advance to major party status would be a parliament split three ways:

100 Liberals
100 CPC
55 Bloc
55 NDP

And then the Liberals and Conservatives are forced into merger by Tom D'Aquino and the business media. But with 17% support in the polls, the NDP isn't headed towards the 50 seat mark anytime soon.

We need a good debate perfomance to build support in Ontario and we need a convincing reponse in BC to The Three Traitors, as well as an opening to the immigrant and ethnic votes in both provinces.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
hibachi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 956

posted 05 June 2004 10:56 PM      Profile for hibachi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The strategic voting now seems to be against the Liberals. People are going to vote for the candidate who is most likely to beat the Liberals, whether it is BQ, Green, NDP, or Conservative Alliance. In the Toronto area I see the NDP and the CA picking up at least 10 seats, which will destroy the Liberal majority.

This is going to be a vote against the Liberal government, and against Paul Martin. How the mighty have fallen.

If the electorate wants to hold Harper to a minority, he will probably govern from the centre. If the electorate wants to give Harper carte blanche Canada will be a much different country in a very short time.

What is stunning is the loss of the Liberal grip on Ontario, which they have had for 20 years. If the CA gets very many seats in Ontario they may form a majority government with no seats in Quebec. Yet their numbers are rising in Quebec. The Liberal-Conservative axis is reconfiguring itself into a majority which looks like we are in for a whole bunch of the same excrement but with a different colour.


From: Toronto, Ont. | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 June 2004 01:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Conservatives cannot win a majority with no seats in Quebec. They are still behind in the Atlantic provinces and they are stalled in all four western provinces and will at best hold what they have and probably lose seats in BC to the NDP. To get a majority, they would have to win about 75 seats in Ontario - and I just don't see that happening.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 06 June 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for pointing out the error in my post. I fixed the problem. I had a typo in the Que totals anda double counted seat in Atlantic Canada.

As you can see the NDP does not have the balance of power. However, things may happen following the Con platform. I think the Con seats may go down a little and the NDP and Liberals each go up. This would restore the NDP the balance of power.

Before you cut this up, realize that it is based on this poll. My actual prediction will be a bit different as I do not have a lot of faith in this poll.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 06 June 2004 02:57 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re Con majority:

Lets count the seats the Cons have no chance in:

At lantic Canada: 18
Quebec 75
Ontario 53
Man and Sask 10
BC 8
North 2
166.
There is almost no chance of a Con majority this time.
The very best the Cons could hope for would be every riding they have even a shot at and that is 142. I suspect they will miss a number of those. It actually would be a significant achievement for them to get 100 seats outside Quebec.
However, I looked at historical figures: when the Cons get a majority, they don't always need Quebec: In 1984 and 1958, they did not need Quebec to have a majority. The Liberals usually rely on at least something from Quebec for their majorities but they also have not always needed Quebec.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 06 June 2004 03:58 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the numbers, Sean. I keep saying this but I was too lazy to do the work. The CP cannot win government. Just put it out of your heads, people.

What really irritates me is that the media keep talking about it as if it's possible. Is it intentional manipulation or do they just not know any better? If the latter, what does that say about the people that we are counting on to provide us with analysis (well, not us, but you know what I mean). It's like they have no idea how the system works, and just figure that if the CP surpass the Liberals in the polls, then poof! Conservative majority. The abysmal quality of our news reporting is almost certainly the biggest hurdle our democracy faces.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 07:55 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
The Constitution will address the wrongs that a Conservative majority might bring about in the social arena

The Conservatives will use the notwithstanding clause wherever they feel like it, and stack the Supreme Court with Neanderthals who will make even that unnecessary.

The Conservative promise to do damage to this country and to Canadians that can't be repaired.

They need to be kept out of power, permanently.

We need to replace them, not the Liberals. I don't want to live in a national version of BC, where the NDP alternates with horrific right-wingers in a party of convenience. The Liberal Party, like the NDP, has a history. There are things they just won't do, just like we won't, such as undermining the Charter or Bilingualism. The Cons are actively opposed to these cornerstones of Canadian values.

This is not like the U.S. where we're voting for president. Even those of us in favour of strategic voting are rarely in a position to need to do so. Last time's panicked Liberal vote where it wasn't even needed hurt us badly.

There are several kinds of riding in this country.

Guaranteed Con: in those I recommend people vote their conscience

Guaranteed Lib: in those I recommend people vote their conscience

Guaranteed NDP: in those I recommend people vote their conscience

Toss-up between Liberal/NDP or Liberal/Bloc: in those I recommend people vote their conscience

Toss-up between Con/Liberal or Con/NDP: vote to defeat the Conservative.

I live in a seat that will likely go Liberal, but will go NDP if it doesn't. Therefore, I'll vote NDP and try to make that seat go NDP. If I lived in the 905 belt, I'd vote Liberal.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 June 2004 08:27 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think riding by riding strategic voting makes some sense, depending on how good/bad the Liberal is. Having lived under RepubliCon rule, I don't wish it on anybody.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 09:03 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is though, that most people pay even less attention to things on a riding-by-riding basis than the media do. Lots of people, I'd wager, don't even know who they're voting for until they see the handy Liberal-NDP-Con on the ballot.

I think that if the objective is denying Martin a majority, the NDP and Bloc can take care of that without any help from the Cons getting lots of Ontario seats. I want our seat count to be as close to the Cons and the Bloc's as possible, which translates into more media coverage and committee seats. Say 55 Bloc, 60 Con and 45 NDP -- obviously even better if it's 60 for us.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 June 2004 10:32 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:

The Conservative promise to do damage to this country and to Canadians that can't be repaired.


I agree, but I disagree with your assessment of what that damage is. The so-con agenda is reversible, and almost certainly would be after the Cons get crushed after their first term. The notwithstanding clause has an expiry date, and it's unlikely that the next government would renew it. Not that I want to trivialize the harm that some might suffer in the meantime- particularly for women who might be denied abortions (obviously they wouldn't be in a position to just "wait it out")- but from a societal point of view the damage would be small.

The place where the Cons would do irreversible damage is in the economic sphere. They'd sign all kinds of destructive free trade agreements, etc. But, and this is the point I've been trying to hammer home- the Liberals would too. So what you have is a situation where the Liberals would do maybe 90% as much damage as the Cons, and almost 100% of the most permanent sort of damage. Not a great reason to vote Liberal.

In any case, the likelyhood of the Cons winning a majority is much lower than the Liberals. By voting Liberal in the 905 area, you'd be increasing the likelyhood of a majority government- and one that would do irreversible damage to the country, just as surely as the Cons would. Sounds like a poor strategy to me.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 06 June 2004 10:44 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My bottom line, Mike, is that I would rather have Liberal majorities forever, than a Conservative government, even as a minority, in power once.

I see them, quite frankly, as Nazis as far as gay people are concerned. And I don't want them anywhere near power, ever.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
snowstormcanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4495

posted 06 June 2004 10:57 AM      Profile for snowstormcanuck        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The CP cannot win government.

It is possible to form Government without having a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

Now, let's say the Conservatives win 110 seats, they'll likely still be behind the Liberals. The real shame is that the Conservatives closes ideological allies is the Liberals and their is no chance of forming a coallition with them.

Our (and my our, I mean Conservative Canadians) biggest shot is that the Liberals are reduced to second place, Martin resigns, the party is left in shambles and right wing Liberals either move over to the Conservatives or right wing Liberals form a block of their own, remaining Liberals, but voting as a block to support conservative legislation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 06 June 2004 11:06 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
Re Con majority:

Lets count the seats the Cons have no chance in:

At lantic Canada: 18
Quebec 75
Ontario 53
Man and Sask 10
BC 8
North 2
166.
There is almost no chance of a Con majority this time.


Sean,

I cuation against taking things for granted. I would be willing to bet that one of those 53 Ontario "impossible" seats you tallied is Essex. Yet it now appears, both in the polls and "on the ground" that a Conservative win is more likely than not, and that it will take some real strongarmed "strategic" voting to prevent it.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 06 June 2004 03:28 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
Re Con majority:

Lets count the seats the Cons have no chance in:

BC 8




Sean, can you tell me which seats these 8 are? I can think of only two where the Conservatives have only a poor chance, Vancouver East and Vancouver Kingsway. That's just from memory, I haven't checked all the numbers. But if you really think there's 8 where they are out of the running, please tell me which seats those are.

I have been surprised at how the Conservatives are only at about 35% in the IR polls, ... just as I have been suprised and upset that we are less than 25%, with the Liberals over 30%.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 June 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:
My bottom line, Mike, is that I would rather have Liberal majorities forever, than a Conservative government, even as a minority, in power once.

I see them, quite frankly, as Nazis as far as gay people are concerned. And I don't want them anywhere near power, ever.


In their attitudes, that's probably true. When dealing with politicians, though, I care about what they do more than what they think. And a minority Conservative government is not going to be able to do what they might want to do.

The only danger posed by a minority Conservative government is that if they are forced to govern as moderates (like the first two years of the Filmon government in Manitoba) they might get enough support in the next election to get a majority. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a Conservative minority, it will be especially important to make the PR issue front and centre (and this shouldn't be too hard, since the Cons claim to support it).

I think your distaste for the Cons is perfectly justified. I share it too. But my biggest fear, frankly, is a majority by EITHER the Cons or the Liberals. Either of these will do irreparable damage, and it must be stopped- by any means necessary.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 June 2004 07:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sean, can you tell me which seats these 8 are? I can think of only two where the Conservatives have only a poor chance, Vancouver East and Vancouver Kingsway. That's just from memory, I haven't checked all the numbers. But if you really think there's 8 where they are out of the running, please tell me which seats those are.

I have been surprised at how the Conservatives are only at about 35% in the IR polls, ... just as I have been suprised and upset that we are less than 25%, with the Liberals over 30%.


What most analysts seem to neglect is that almost all the CPC gains have been singularly in Ontario and entirley as a result of thre McGuinty budget and not as a result of the campaign. About 4 major polls were out in BC in the past week and all showed more or less a three way race. One thing all the polls in BC are unanimous aboput is that Conswervative support is way way way down from the 49% that the Alliance won on its own in 2000. They keep wallowing around the 32% mark. At that rate, they will lose a lot of seats and i would say thyat all the seats that are currently either NDP or Liberal held in BC are totally unwinnable for the Conservatives. If they couldn't win a seat with 49% compared to the Liberals at 28% an d the NDP at 11% in 2000, they will definitely not win with 20 points less.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 07 June 2004 02:02 AM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
to answer questions: Nope, I consider Essex a potentially winnable seat for the Cons.

I don't think the Cons have a shot at the following BC ridings:

Victoria
Van South
Van Quadra
Van Kings
Van East
Van Centre
Burnaby
Burnaby NW

And yes, I know they hold some of them, but that was a high-water mark. Based on current polling they are not in these races in my view. I could probably add more.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 07 June 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mel Skiller:
It doesn't matter who finishes first in a minority, it's who can work with other parties.

Moreover, precedent dictates that, when no party wins a majority, the GG (or LG provincially) goes to the party that was in government before dissolution to ask them to attempt forming a government. In any scenario other than a Conservative or NDP majority (both rather unlikely), that means the Liberals.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 07 June 2004 03:39 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Visland tonight with Moe sihota & Norman Spector the opinion on the Liberals is that they only had a chance in 2 ridings - Raymond Chan in Richmond and Ujhal Dosanjh in (?) .
Hety Fry is thought to be in trouble and not likely to keep her seat.
Moe also mentioned 3 island seats he felt were certain to go NDP . I can't remember the proper names but one was around Port Alberni , one in Nanaimo , and the other in Esquimalt ( although I am not positive about the last one)

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422

posted 07 June 2004 04:19 AM      Profile for Centrist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I don't think the Cons have a shot at the following BC ridings:

Victoria
Van South
Van Quadra


Earlier this evening on TV, on a program entitled Right-On on the New VI, Moe Sihota in fact predicted that these 3 seats will actually go Con.

I disagree and, at the end of the day, they likely will remain Lib.


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 June 2004 04:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals may well lose Victoria. But it will be to the NDP, not the Conservatives.

I think that some commentators are assuming that the same trend will be consistent across Canada. BC seems to be the one province where Conservative support is way down from 2000. Any seat that the Alliance could NOT win in 2000 with 49% of the vote, is not going to go Conszervative when their province wide popular vote is only 32-33%.

I know a lot of people keep expectring the Conservatives to rebound in BC and for the Liberal vote to totally collapse, but two weeks into the campaign it just doesn't seem to be happening!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
folker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4731

posted 07 June 2004 04:41 AM      Profile for folker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by faith:
Hety Fry is thought to be in trouble and not likely to keep her seat.

That's news to me. Do you think she'll lose to the Tory candidate or the NDP one? The gay vote is 25% there and the gay community is pretty loyal to her. I just can't see them going for the Tory candidate, even though he's openly gay. So will they go for the gay-friendly hetero New Democrat?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 June 2004 05:06 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't live in Vancouver, but in would think that Vancouver Centre would be a natural NDP target. It is full of exactly the kinds of urban sophisticates that Layton appeals to most. Gay voters know that the NDP is by far the most gay-positive party, the NDP has typically done very well in the provincial ridings that make up Van Centre, the NDP candidate there is excellent and has an active campaign and is being endorsed by Larry Campbell the popular mayor of Vancouver etc...from what I have read the Conservatives are running some pathetic supposedly gay guy who works as a waiter in a restaurant and his campaign is very invisible.

In 1988, the NDP came within 250 votes of winning VancCentre and defeating Kim Campbell (a far more formidable opponent than the Uncle Tom the Alliance Conservatives are running this time)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 07 June 2004 07:39 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re: seats the Conservatives cannot win in BC... pretty much the only seat they *can't* win is Vancouver-East.

Re: The New VI with Norman Spector, Pia Shandel, and Moe Sihota: I've said it before, and I'll say it again - they are a bunch of overly partisan morons! Norman Spector is a Conservative partisan and spends all of his time promoting the CPC; Moe Sihota is an NDPer but probably not privy to any inside information...whatever he is spinning, there is probably an ulterior motive behind it; and Pia Shandel is a racist and was denied the Liberal nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands, so she is also very bitter towards the Liberals. So don't expect any untainted "political updates" from this crew.

All polling numbers point to a three way race between the major parties. I can tell you now that the Greens are invisible in pretty much every riding I have been in. They also lack the funds for advertising and lack the media attention required to possibly get more than 5 or 6 percent of the popular vote. Thus it is very hard to predict the party-by-party seat projections in BC right now. I do know, though, that Vancouver Island is likely the NDP's strongest area in BC. The NDP could possibly sweep all of the Vancouver Island ridings. I haven't done any polling in Victoria, obviously but I doubt the Conservative candidate there has a chance.

Re: Hedy Fry et al in Vancouver Centre. Working on the Vancouver Centre NDP campaign I can tell you that the NDP is better organized in the riding. The Hedy Fry campaign lacks the volunteer support to keep the office open on weekend evenings, for example. I walked by the office just after 7pm on Saturday and it was already closed for the day. Their office is dead and near empty every time I've walked past. The CPC candidate is just opening his office now. Our office is packed all afternoon and evening with volunteers and is open until 9pm seven days a week.

The NDP is quite easily winning the sign war in the riding as well, although there are not many campaign signs in this mostly apartment building riding. I have only seen one Hedy Fry sign in an apartment window, erected in a ground level unit, most likely the landlord's unit in this particular building. There is also a large Hedy Fry sign erected by a building owner on another property. I have seen just one CPC sign in an apartment window. This is in contrast to the 20 or so NDP signs I have seen in apartment windows in the west end.

Also, the gay/lesbian population of the riding is closer to 40% of the total population, not 25% as stated by someone earlier. The other major interest groups in the riding are seniors and "urban professionals".

I personally think Hedy Fry is in big trouble, but it is very difficult to gauge the overall mood of the electorate, and a lot can still happen in the next three weeks.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 June 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's difficult to tell of course, but I can see Vancouver Centre going NDP. I'm a former resident of the riding, and I can see Jack getting a fair bit of traction there. Specifically, I lived in the West End, and I could see that whole area being ripe for us, given our (and more specifically, Jack's) sterling record on matters of equality and the environment. As for the rest of the riding, I'm not sure how well we'll go across south of False Creek, so I won't put it in our column yet, but a good campaign could bring it onside.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 07 June 2004 11:50 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's news to me. Do you think she'll lose to the Tory candidate or the NDP one? The gay vote is 25% there and the gay community is pretty loyal to her. I just can't see them going for the Tory candidate, even though he's openly gay. So will they go for the gay-friendly hetero New Democrat?

I really don't know these ridings at all I am just repeating what the commentators had to say on their election predictions.
LV you may be right about all of the pundits on Visland but I disagree. Norman Spector is a Conservative and does spend all of his time in promoting the Conservative party but in a balanced debate I want his opinions because I don't want to listen to the Conservative politicians as they make me all at the same time. Moe Sihota actually has made some excellent points and predictions and judging by the variety of people on his show he has very good connections and has access to information that only a journalist would be able to have. Pia Shandel , agreed.
My riding in Newton/North Delta is doing very well according to their internal polls. I will get a better personal sense of the voters frame of mind when I'm out with Nancy on the street doing the canvassing that I'm scheduled to volunteer for.


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 12:21 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Liberals may well lose Victoria. But it will be to the NDP, not the Conservatives.
...
I know a lot of people keep expectring the Conservatives to rebound in BC and for the Liberal vote to totally collapse, but two weeks into the campaign it just doesn't seem to be happening!

The polls in BC have been a really huge disappointment from the NDP's perspective. The party should be at 30%+, but it's not, it's languishing below the Liberals and Conservatives, somewhere in the low to mid twenties.

The reason, which I should have expected but didn't, is the much greater Liberal mobilization of ethnic voters in Greater Vancouver, importing their Toronto technology, or if you will, Elinor Caplanizing the BC situation. Immigrant precinct captains are the key here, along with the instant bulk memberships, and of course, some immigrant candidates, Dosanjh in Van South and Gulzar Cheema in one of the Surrey ridings, and some others too.

Meantime, tne NDP's old labour networks are still in recovery mode after the exhaustion of 10 years of provincial downhill slide leading to the humiliating rubout of 2001. And adding to the difficulty of reactivating that network we have Haggard and Miller going to the Liberals.

And last, but hardly least in my opinion, I don't think the party has reacted aggressively enough to The Three Traitors, but I have already argued that point and been routed completely by all the really smart people.

In reply to your two points, Victoria was a Conservative seat for many years, and they shouldn't be ruled out there if there is a Liberal meltdown. The immigrant vote in Victoria is very small, as about 85% of immigration to BC is really immigration to Greater Vancouver. I would be happy to see the NDP's David Turner elected there, but I don't rule out the possibility of a CPC win.

Will the Liberal vote in BC collapse? Yes, if the immigrant leadership smells Liberal defeat coming their way and the precinct captains put out the word that it's time to abandon ship for the sake of the community. This is a point that yahoo columnist Colby Cosh in the Post made a month or so ago. Cosh is a typical Post type, but he is an entertaining one and he had this point basically right.

The NDP needs to position itself to get some share of the endorsements from immigrant leaders when they release their voters, kind of like one of those old, multi-ballot, several day conventions the US parties used to have 80 years ago.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 12:30 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LukeVanc:

Re: Hedy Fry et al in Vancouver Centre. ...The CPC candidate is just opening his office now. Our office is packed all afternoon and evening with volunteers and is open until 9pm seven days a week.

The NDP is quite easily winning the sign war in the riding as well, ...

Also, the gay/lesbian population of the riding is closer to 40% of the total population, not 25% as stated by someone earlier. The other major interest groups in the riding are seniors and "urban professionals".



An interesting analysis. The CPC candidate, Gary Mitchell, has been in the West Ender detailing his dispute with Scott Brison, is openly gay, and has some kind of Tory activist type background as well as being some kind of yuppie-business type. IOWs, he would appear to be about the best candidate the CPC could have in that riding, except maybe Gordon Price (if he's still a Tory) who would have more name recognition from all his years as an NPA member on Vancouver City Council.

So, if there is a Liberal meltdown, and the CPC are positioned to take their share of it in Van Centre, would that not help Kennedy Stewart to get to Ottawa?


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 June 2004 12:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The polls in BC have been a really huge disappointment from the NDP's perspective. The party should be at 30%+, but it's not, it's languishing below the Liberals and Conservatives, somewhere in the low to mid twenties.


This is incorrect information. There have been four national polls in the last week with BC rfegional numbers published. If you add up the sample sizes and weight the results you get a sample oif about 1,000 in BC and the overall pictures is approximately Libs. 30, Cons 32, NDP 29. I think that for the NDP to go from 11% to 29% is a huge advance and it will just get better after the debates.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 12:36 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
..from what I have read the Conservatives are running some pathetic supposedly gay guy who works as a waiter in a restaurant and his campaign is very invisible.

In 1988, the NDP came within 250 votes of winning VancCentre and defeating Kim Campbell (a far more formidable opponent than the Uncle Tom the Alliance Conservatives are running this time)



What's all this about? I don't live in Van Centre, but from the most read paper in the area, the West Ender, I get the impression that the CPC candidate, Mitchell, is reasonably presentable and has some kind of political resume. At any rate, your picture of the guy as a "pathetic" joke hasn't come through. And "Uncle Tom"? How so? I think it's good the CPC have a presentable candidate there to help pull down the Liberal totals on the right, so that Stewart can win the riding.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 07 June 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the CPC candidate for Vancouver is the one that Moe interviewed on Visland Voices with the NDP candidate ( I think her last name was Burgis) from the island on SSM, he is definitely gay and definitely not electable IMO.
His answers to the question of SSM were glib and superficial and Norman Spector gave him an easy question that he just didn't pick up on. The question concerned the Conservative retort to SSM in that 'if we change the definition of marriage to include SSM then why not polygamy ?'. The CPC candidate IMO was just handed his argument against SSM by Spector and he missed it completely sitting there with a dumb look on his face going ' duh I don't know Norman'.
Burgis on the other hand turned to Spector and said I came to discuss same sex marriage not polygamy. It was weird to see this small 'school teacher' like woman arguing the SSM debate as a human rights issue and that the rest of Canada should get on board with the 3 provinces that have already passed SSM and the 'gay guy' arguing that we should have civil unions only because the rights of religious groups need to be upheld. It felt like Rod Sterling should have been moderating the discussion because like the twilight zone everything seemed to be sightly wrong.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 June 2004 01:33 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And last, but hardly least in my opinion, I don't think the party has reacted aggressively enough to The Three Traitors, but I have already argued that point and been routed completely by all the really smart people.

Well, the problem is that for all the times that you've repeated your earnest belief that the TT have harmed the party, you still haven't made a real case to that effect. Did the poll numbers start dropping after they became a news item? I haven't seen it. The party has consistently (minus a few blips in samples with large error margins) polled just under 30%, and as Stockholm is fond of pointing out, this does not include the green support that will bleed to us on election day. I doubt all of it will go, but a few percentage points is a near certainty. This appears to be holding regardless of the turncoats.

The BC public is waiting for someone to impress them, and so far their support is mostly soft. It was not impossible that the Liberals could have done it, even despite the scandal, but they have shown so little competence in their campaigning that I find it hard to believe they will suddenly improve. With the trouble they're in now they have little time to invest in BC. They need to hold Ontario and Quebec. So a Liberal meltdown is very likely here.

Can the CP win over the BC voters? I find it unlikely. They may have soft-pedaled the social conservatism but they have completely jettisoned the populism, which was how the Alliance pulled in BC votes. What do they have to offer the voters now but tax cuts, and will the 60% or so of BC voters who disapprove of Gordon Campbell's performance see that as an enticing offer? I think they won't, and furthermore, I think that if the Liberals collapse, a certain "stop the CP" mentality will appear amongst that same percentage of anti-Campbell voters.

Which brings us to the NDP. Of course, I do believe that we will step up to the plate and be the most impressive party for the many soft BC voters, and that we are already doing so, although it will take time to make it solid. Even if the party fails to excite, however, it would mean just a holding of the same pattern we keep seeing, the three-way race, which would still mean significant gains for us.

So basically, I haven't been able to understand your grim assessment of the party's fotunes here. There is no indication that people are dropping the party, and, although it's not certain, many conditions exist for us to surge forward. If you were discussing ways of building support then we'd have something to talk about, but you're always talking about damage control and that everyone is ignoring the fact that there's a problem. What damage? What problem? We are in good shape and sending good messages to the electorate. The party will gain support, but it has to lay groundwork and build trust. This is the phase we are in now, but there seems to be no room for this grey area in your thinking. We are either dominating BC or we are in freefall there. Have a little trust that the many positive steps that have been made in BC are bearing fuit, though it will take time to ripen.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Pagan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3106

posted 07 June 2004 03:05 PM      Profile for Ronald Pagan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Am I the only one who's upset and a little disappointed that the loss of liberal support has almost wholly avoided translating into NDP gains? For the most part, this NDP campaign has been an opportunity lost.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Ronald Pagan ]


From: Guantanamo Bay | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 07 June 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Pagan:
Am I the only one who's upset and a little disappointed that the loss of liberal support has almost wholly avoided translating into NDP gains? For the most part, this NDP campaign has been an opportunity lost.

You're not the only one. It's been really bugging me. And the worst is, I really don't see that anything we might have done differently would have made a difference. Sure, some think Layton shouldn't have done the Martin & homeless thing. But I really don't think that's why. The NDP ran an excellent platform, a charismatic leader, grabbed as much media attention as was remotely plausible, and anyone thinking for two minutes should be able to figure out that with the NDP and Liberals both offering an NDP platform which the Liberals have reneged on before, the NDP is more likely to deliver it . . .
Nothing.

I just don't get people sometimes, I really don't.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Pagan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3106

posted 07 June 2004 03:17 PM      Profile for Ronald Pagan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right. Also, I read in the Globe the other day the kind of treatment the NDP is getting in the media. It's almost all bad (except for brief good mentions in the Vancouver Sun) across the country in the major newspapers.

I just can't help but feel that something could have been done differently to make the NDPs showing better. Perhaps more justification to their tax increases to corporations and maybe a little more spiced up rhetoric along how the rich are screwing you instead of "lets get rid of the Clarity Act" stupidity.


From: Guantanamo Bay | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 07 June 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think debates would help. They provide a forum - if properly moderated - to present your platform and criticize the other in an unedited fashion. I'm talking leaders debates as well as debates between the riding candidates.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 June 2004 03:31 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Am I the only one who's upset and a little disappointed that the loss of liberal support has almost wholly avoided translating into NDP gains?

You may be the only one, since most of us disagree that this is what is happening. Though it is hard to tell from the maiunstream press, Steven Harper has not yet achieved the same vote as the two right-wing parties did last time out.

The NDP has doubled its expected vote.

So, who hasn't achieved expectations, and who is doing much better than last time?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MT VIEW
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5402

posted 07 June 2004 03:35 PM      Profile for MT VIEW     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

Well, the problem is that for all the times that you've repeated your earnest belief that the TT have harmed the party, you still haven't made a real case to that effect.


[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]


Jacob, two other posters, Rufus Polson and Ronald Pagan, have discussed how the NDP's showing has been weak so far. I agree with them.

In BC, I think we should be into a two way race with the CPC by now, yet polls still show us in third, behind both Grits and Tories. There is still time to fix it, but we've had a kind of a feeble opening, and I do attribute that to the disunity in our ranks and our inability to deal with it in an aggressive, self-preserving fashion. Remember, this is BC, where politics is kind of like a "spaghetti western", ... shoot or be shot! We needed to make it clear to voters and supporters alike that we aren't vulnerable, this is not still the 1990s, and I don't think we have done that.


From: Maple Ridge, BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 07 June 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well all you guys might be trembling and shakin' in the knees but I have every confidence that Jack has one of the best platform planks yet , announced this morning on the CBc web page - no GST on feminine hygiene products !!!!!!
In my household with 4 women ( and 1 man) that item alone will save me about 50.00 a year in taxes I have to pay on products that are absolutely necessary. good one Mr Layton!
Not that 50.00 will make or break anybody but it is very annoying to have to pay taxes on these products.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 08 June 2004 04:38 AM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re polls... so far Leger's 410 sample from BC is the largest, with a 32%-29%-28% breakdown, a statistical tie. I'm still waiting for the polling companies to conduct other, larger samples.

Re Vancouver Centre... Gary Mitchell is holding his own for a candidate with almost no campaign. They have money so they have mailed pamphlets to riding residents so he is visible in that sense. He'll get enough support to split the right wing vote in the riding to elect Kennedy Stewart, but it will take a lot of work over the next three weeks to get the vote out and aviod the "strategic voting" trap. Many voters feel that if the result is 115 Conservatives and 112 Liberals the Conservatives will automatically form a minority government by default, and thus feel its necessary to re-elect some Liberals in BC.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 09 June 2004 12:05 AM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Moreover, precedent dictates that, when no party wins a majority, the GG (or LG provincially) goes to the party that was in government before dissolution to ask them to attempt forming a government.

Scott, where do you get this from? I might not understand many of the intricacies of our political system, but I had always thought that the GG went to the leader of the party with which won the most seats in the election to form a minority coalition. In the case of the Conservatives getting more seats than the Liberals, that obviously means it will be incumbent upon Stephen Harper to form a coalition.

As a warning: mentioned on CBC News (The National) last week on this issue, all parties who have ever won minorities in Canadian history have gone on to win the next election.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
MonkeyIslanderPolical23
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5758

posted 09 June 2004 12:08 AM      Profile for MonkeyIslanderPolical23        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As a warning: mentioned on CBC News (The National) last week on this issue, all parties who have ever won minorities in Canadian history have gone on to win the next election.


Nope. Joe Clark won a minority in 1979, and then went on to lose the next election in 1980.


From: Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 09 June 2004 12:25 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, the 1925 election is a good precedent. The incumbent Liberals won a dozen fewer seats than the Conservatives but King remained PM because the Liberals were able to maintain the confidence of the House with the support of the Progressives.

I can't find the article on line but a piece by Susan Delacourt in today's Toronto Star quotes Peter Russell of U of T as saying Martin remains PM after the election until he either resigns or fails to prove he can command the confidence of the House, even if he has fewer seats he gets the first crack.

PMs in the position of leading the second largest party often quit rather than try to form a government if they don't see it as possible, for instance Trudeau resigned after the 1979 election because the Tories were only a few seats short of a majority. Don't know why St. Laurent didn't try to form a government (and I don't know how soon after the election he announced his resignation) but given that the CCF and Liberals combined didn't have a majority in the house he probably realised he couldn't govern (perhaps the Social Credit party told him they wouldn't support him?)

In 1963 the Liberals and NDP had a majority of seats between them so Diefenbaker probably realised he couldn't win the confidence of the house.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 09 June 2004 12:57 AM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's what Eugene Forsey's "How Canadians Govern Themselves" has to say about it:
quote:
If no party gets a clear majority, the Cabinet that was in office before and during the election has two choices. It can resign, in which case the Governor General or Lieutenant-Governor will call on the leader of the largest opposition party to form a Cabinet. Or the Cabinet already in office can choose to stay in office and meet the newly elected House - which, however, it must do promptly. In either case, it is the people's representatives in the newly elected House who will decide whether the "minority" Government (one whose own party has fewer than half the seats) shall stay in office or be thrown out.

From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 09 June 2004 04:47 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Jacob, two other posters, Rufus Polson and Ronald Pagan, have discussed how the NDP's showing has been weak so far. I agree with them.


Yeah, I understand that. I just can't get how this is a weak showing, and I can't get how adamantly you perceive it as one.

I think you have unrealistic expectations of the NDP. The average Canadian isn't just going to flock to this party because they dislike another. The trust isn't there. Apart from issues of policy, people in general don't see the party as being capable of governing.

The CP also lack credibility with the public. A wolf in conservative clothing, the right wing swallowing itself and spitting out this untried entity, cobbled together from the most extreme ends of Canada's politics, provided those ends are well connected. But they still have more credibility than we do. Presented as a true collaberation of the Alliance and PC parties, we have a party that has held government in the past, is the official opposition, and has way more seats than we do. It is natural that our fight for disaffected Liberals will be an unhill battle.

If it all stopped right here, with the NDP just under 20%, say 35 seats, and the most popular second choice, then this would still be a good election, leaving lots to build on. I'm expecting us to keep rising, but if we have a real surge, the kind you're obviously expecting, then I would predict that it won't manifest until the very end.

You've got to remember that you're talking about breaking historic levels of support, which has to include people who have never voted for the party before. It will be harder for these people to see the NDP as a credible option, and they will keep a close eye on the NDP campaign, sitting on their intentions, rolling it around in their heads, only deciding just before the election that they will vote NDP for the first time.

The highly positive impression that people are getting of the NDP is real progress, just as much as rising poll numbers, and will come through for us in the end. I think Jack and team are doing a first-rate job and I think the good will that they are building for the party will really pay off if they keep walking this trail.

As for the conservatives, I don't think they'll hang on to what they have. They're doing the right thing by just running a dull, really competent campaign, because that's the kind of government Canadians really want, but inevitably the sticky black ooze that constitutes the party will leak from behind the curtain.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca