Shorter Globe and Mail:
We consider it important to ensure that Canadian voters lack any left-wing options. Stay tuned for our much-anticipated judgment as to how far right is just right enough!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sunday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- I haven't dealt with the Libs' latest bloviations about the gun registry since it looks to represent just one more attempt to distract from the issues Canadians really care about in an effort to find an elusive wedge against the NDP. But Matt Gurney nicely highlights the anti-democratic nature of the Libs' position:
- Meanwhile, the Libs have been caught on tape with their own attempt to make sure other parties aren't able to get their message to voters.
- Finally, Points of Information leaks some of the ads you can expect as the campaign draws to a close.
- I haven't dealt with the Libs' latest bloviations about the gun registry since it looks to represent just one more attempt to distract from the issues Canadians really care about in an effort to find an elusive wedge against the NDP. But Matt Gurney nicely highlights the anti-democratic nature of the Libs' position:
The long-gun registry vote, held late last September, was a nailbiter. A private member’s bill put forward by a Tory MP was very, very close to dismantling the (registry). The bill had earned the support of several Liberal and NDP MPs, mostly from rural ridings where the registry is deeply unpopular. Ignatieff ordered a whipped vote — he forced his MPs to vote as he wished them to or else face internal discipline. Layton permitted an open vote, and lobbied his MPs aggressively to vote the way he wanted them to. It worked. The registry survived by two votes.- While the top-line results are typically receiving the most attention, perhaps the most telling part of Nanos' latest leadership polling is the utter failure of the Libs' attacks on the competence of Jack Layton and the NDP:
...
Layton has the right...to advocate for what policies he will. In taking a stand and persuading his MPs to vote with him, without threatening punishment for those who disagreed, the NDP leader showed true leadership and honoured Parliamentary tradition, where private member bills are settled by a free vote.
The private members bill was really a government bill by any other name, so the opposition has a fair point when they claimed that the Tories were abusing Parliamentary procedure to achieve partisan aims. But they weren’t alone in their maneuverings. The Liberals, by whipping the vote along party lines, broke with Parliamentary tradition and forced their members to vote against the wishes of their constituents. And yet they accuse Layton of being unprincipled on gun control.
Yet more proof that for the Liberals, the only principled vote is one that returns them to power.
On the issue of competence the leaders' scores on April 23 were: (Change from April 21 in brackets.)- While the Cons' embarrassing effort to shout down any inconvenient questioning surely reflects on the crowd which participated, it's particularly worth highlighting who it was that gave the orders - and who chose not to do anything about it:
* Stephen Harper: 38.7% (+6)
* Jack Layton: 22.3% (+2.7)
* Michael Ignatieff: 11.2% (-5)
* Elizabeth May: 2.4% (-0.5)
* Gilles Duceppe: 4.6% (-0.9)
A reporter tried to press Mr. Harper on, this asking whether he “really believed” that Ms. Young would not know Mr. Malik, who’s been in the public spotlight for decades due to scrutiny on him after the 1985 airplane bombing that claimed 329 lives.Which is to say that the fault lies less with the crowd than if it had simply been a spontaneous outcry. Instead, it was Harper and his staff who went out of their way with an apparent strategy to shout down any tough questions - and that responsibility is particularly clear given Harper's failure to let Milewski do his job.
But the Conservative Leader refused to answer this follow-up query, waiting as the crowd at the Coptic Christian Centre in Mississauga applauded and cheered him for about 60 seconds.
It’s the first time a Conservative crowd has purposely drowned out a reporter’s question of Mr. Harper during the 41st election campaign.
Encouraging were Tory staffers including Marc-André Plouffe, who before the campaign started was a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office.
- Meanwhile, the Libs have been caught on tape with their own attempt to make sure other parties aren't able to get their message to voters.
- Finally, Points of Information leaks some of the ads you can expect as the campaign draws to a close.
On ready responses
Aside from the thoroughly ineffective spin from competing political parties, the other factor that's seen as having any potential to derail the NDP's national surge is the increased scrutiny on the party's platform. But Jack Layton took exactly the questions we'd expect to see on that point from Macleans' editors and writers - and it's hard to see anything in the answers that does anything other than confirm that the NDP is offering a responsible option for change:
Q. Part of the way you say you’d pay for the new spending in your platform is by cracking down on offshore tax avoidance. You say that will eventually net the government $3 billion a year. But Canada and other countries have been trying for years to prevent this sort of illegal tax dodging. What makes you think you can make big progress fast?
A. By being determined and by putting in resources into the Canada Revenue Agency, which is had its resources cut as opposed to increased. If the CRA was a business, any CEO would be saying, look at the rate of return. Why aren’t we exploiting that business opportunity? Well you’re dealing with the rich and powerful, and maybe that’s an issue. That’s not an issue for me. I think that we should be trying to recover those funds and I think if it were done aggressively we could achieve those kind of targets.
We’ve also said, however, that in our platform, spending proposals need to be always analyzed against the fiscal capacity at the moment. That comes from the great traditions of Tommy Douglas administrations, Roy Romanow administrations. We’ve taken the same approach to it, and we’re taken modest steps, I think you probably may agree, compared to some past NDP platforms. We’re talking modest, practical steps when it comes to these different policy areas.
Q. So you’re if you weren’t able to get those revenue streams you wouldn’t do the spending.
A. That is precisely how we constructed our platform.
Q. Do you anticipate any reduction in business investment as a result of raising corporate tax rates?
A. It’s difficult to know. I know there’s predictions of doom and gloom by some, but our view is that we have to keep our tax rate competitive with the US, but it does not make sense to go dramatically go below where the Americans are.
Q. But do you model in any reduction in investment?
A. We anticipate that there could be some protests, maybe that would translate into some changes. But I believe that is counterbalanced by some of our platform, for example, calling an investment on investment in infrastructure in cities. And when you look at decisions to locate head offices, and to locate economic activities, the corporate tax rate is by no means the only economic marker. Quality of life, infrastructure, transportation capacity, all of these kind of things. If you’ve got good and affordable housing, then a place becomes more attractive. It’s getting the right mix really of policies, and I think we don’t have that right mix when it comes to Stephen Harper.
Q. As part of your promise to set up a cap and trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions, you book $3.6 billion in revenues this year, 2011-12, coming from the sale of carbon emission rights. How could you possibly get a cap and trade system up so fast?
A. It would be tough, it would take some real determination, but we haven’t had anything like the determination that’s needed. We saw some real determination in some U.S. states, things were made to happen relatively quickly. In fact, there’s a system up and functioning with some American states that we could hook up to. Those discussions were well under way but we had zero enthusiasm, to put it mildly, from our national government. I think things could be made to happen a lot more quickly.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Easter reading.
- We seem to have officially shifted from having commentators merely pointing out the NDP's surge, to making an effort to explain it. And David Goutor looks to have part of the answer:
- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter is rather more annoyed that the NDP is gaining momentum. But he too offers a plausible explanation as to why it's happening:
- As per usual, there's every reason for caution about reading too much into vote projections based on uncertain inputs and assumptions. But the Project Democracy numbers pointed out by Paul Dechene suggest there's a real chance to paint most of Regina orange next week.
- Finally, Douglas Bell offers his take on strategic voting in response to a Lib supporter whose actual ideas look to be a far better fit for the NDP:
- We seem to have officially shifted from having commentators merely pointing out the NDP's surge, to making an effort to explain it. And David Goutor looks to have part of the answer:
Another old refrain is that the NDP is benefitting from finally dropping its past socialist rhetoric and adopting more moderate positions. This argument might be credible if there was any sign that voters have stopped seeing the NDP as a left-of-centre party. But the reality is the opposite — Layton and the NDP are in many ways the best known commodities in the election.And one can extend the analysis a few steps further in noting why the other parties haven't done so well. The Cons may be trying to take back the title of the party most opposed to government action, but they've thoroughly muddied up that message by also trying to take credit at the local level for stimulus spending. And the Libs seem to have run as far as they could from their platform and supposed principles under Stephane Dion - ensuring that voters would have little idea what they claim to stand for, and even less reason to believe whatever consistent message they can decipher.
This points to a much more compelling explanation of the NDP’s success: Layton is getting rewarded for being so comfortable with what his party stands for and what he has to offer Canadians.
...
In one sense, the NDP’s rise can hardly be a surprise, as polls have consistently shown that a large chunk of the population supports many of the party’s policies, especially regarding social programs. It is no accident that the NDP’s rise has occurred just as issues like health care gained more public attention.
It’s also logical that Layton’s biggest gains have been in Canada’s most left-leaning province, Quebec. Indeed, if there is one long-term NDP strategy that is paying off, it is Layton’s effort to establish his party as a social democratic alternative to the Bloc for francophone voters in Quebec.
Of course, a new twist in this unpredictable campaign could turn voters in another direction. And a new wave of contrived hysteria about the threat of NDP socialism is likely on the way. But until voting day, and indeed for future elections, there is a valuable lesson from the NDP’s big surge in 2011: falling back on established values is not a bad way to get ahead.
- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter is rather more annoyed that the NDP is gaining momentum. But he too offers a plausible explanation as to why it's happening:
There is no doubt in my mind why the NDP have so far been the big movers in the federal election campaign: Alone among the parties, the New Democrats have offered a positive vision for the country if they were to win the May 2 vote. I may not like their vision (and I don't)...But at least Jack Layton and his crew have managed to raise themselves above the name-calling and mudslinging - no matter how briefly - and give voters a reason to choose their party that doesn't involve only scare tactics about the threat posed by their opponents.- Patrick Brethour points out another area where the Libs' attacks on the NDP make absolutely no sense:
...
(T)he NDP's blend of green (environmental) and red (social-democratic) policies is at least a real vision for the country, whether or not you share that vision. And in an election almost devoid of vision, it's little wonder that the brightest light is attracting the most interest.
The problem for the Liberals (in criticizing the NDP's cap-and-trade plan) is this: They envision having their own cap-and-trade system, functioning long before 2015, not much later than the NDP. Within a year, two years at the most, the Liberal program would be operating, according to Liberal environment critic Gerard Kennedy.Though in fairness to the Libs, they do have ample experience in claiming (however implausibly) that their arbitrary choice of two months' difference in timing makes for the lone explanation as to how programs promised for upwards of a decade were never delivered.
“We’d have a bit of a hurry-up agenda,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview in the opening week of the campaign, adding that a Liberal government would convene a first ministers’ meeting that included climate change issues in this calendar year.
“We do believe that it’s possible to do within a year or two, to have something up and running,” he said.
...
The Liberals seek to split an exceedingly slender hair: The tax-loving, unrealistic NDP would move within 10 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs.
But the fiscally responsible, thrifty Liberals would take 12 to 24 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs. Two months, evidently, is the difference between a fiscal apocalypse, and responsible government.
Perhaps the Liberal war room can divine the difference; it’s doubtful that Canadian voters can manage the feat.
- As per usual, there's every reason for caution about reading too much into vote projections based on uncertain inputs and assumptions. But the Project Democracy numbers pointed out by Paul Dechene suggest there's a real chance to paint most of Regina orange next week.
- Finally, Douglas Bell offers his take on strategic voting in response to a Lib supporter whose actual ideas look to be a far better fit for the NDP:
And while he sat there spinning , I thought “I love this guy.” I thought that because he believes that the Charter actually matters and he believes that the G20 crackdown was bullshit and he believes a guaranteed annual income is the natural outcome of a just society and he believes a lot of the same stuff I believe. Plus he’s not a cynical bastard like a lot of other people in politics.
But this time, as much as I’ve pimped for the coalition and as much as I believe a Tory majority would be a disaster, I want to disagree with my friend. This time I want to vote NDP because it’s the right goddamn thing to do; because they ran the best campaign and because maybe just maybe politics isn’t about this campaign or the next campaign but the one after that.
Harmonic convergence
It's never been much of a secret that the HST has been at the centre of the NDP's message to defeat Harper Cons in British Columbia. But with the party having just released a new ad on the subject, it's worth noting that for all the frustration over the tax itself, the greatest impact of any discussion of the HST may be to turn the tide against the Cons on their choice of ballot question.
Keep in mind that the decision to impose the HST was made after an election campaign where Gordon Campbell ran as a steady-hand economic manager, promising no nasty surprises for the province while trying to portray the alternative as too risky to justify public support. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, it took approximately .5 nanoseconds for Campbell to decide that his majority in the Legislature meant all previous promises - including his commitment not to impose an HST - were inoperative. And so B.C. was plunged into the political chaos and public outrage that's marked the last two years.
Now, Harper is trying to win a majority off of exactly the same message that proved so dishonest and destructive the last time B.C. voters heard and accepted it. And reminding voters about the HST serves two strong purposes in helping to avoid that outcome: not only does it direct anger over the HST itself toward one of the parties responsible, but it also serves as Exhibit A as to why it's dangerous to hand a majority mandate to a government which has proven that it can't be trusted.
Keep in mind that the decision to impose the HST was made after an election campaign where Gordon Campbell ran as a steady-hand economic manager, promising no nasty surprises for the province while trying to portray the alternative as too risky to justify public support. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, it took approximately .5 nanoseconds for Campbell to decide that his majority in the Legislature meant all previous promises - including his commitment not to impose an HST - were inoperative. And so B.C. was plunged into the political chaos and public outrage that's marked the last two years.
Now, Harper is trying to win a majority off of exactly the same message that proved so dishonest and destructive the last time B.C. voters heard and accepted it. And reminding voters about the HST serves two strong purposes in helping to avoid that outcome: not only does it direct anger over the HST itself toward one of the parties responsible, but it also serves as Exhibit A as to why it's dangerous to hand a majority mandate to a government which has proven that it can't be trusted.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Big Movements Beat Petty Politics
At the start of this week, the word from Ottawa's talking heads was that we were in for two more weeks of trench warfare: that none of Canada's political parties had any hope of moving the current polls or seat counts more than a couple of inches, and thus we could expect the campaign to get dirtier and less relevant as everybody struggled for marginal gains.
Fortunately, they've been proven wrong as to whether or not anything could change meaningfully. And it's well worth noting why.
Take, for example, the news surrounding star NDP candidate Francoise Boivin in Gatineau over the last week.
At the start of the week, Boivin found herself both publicly outed and smeared in the press - presumably the result of an opponent deciding that in what figured to be a close riding race, a misinformation campaign could well be enough to keep the seat in somebody else's hands.
Then, something happened.
The NDP started gaining momentum in Quebec, rising from the low 20s to the mid-20s to 36% in CROP's poll. And with those rising numbers, the situation in Gatineau also figures to have changed radically. One local poll taken some time ago showed Boivin ahead by a relatively small margin, but with the NDP's province-wide gains the seat looks to be on the verge of turning into a lock for Boivin. Which is why she found herself introducing the campaign's most exciting rally yet today - while her opponents have to be close to figuring their chances are evaporating.
And so, the effect of a positive province-wide movement looks to be dwarfing the damage done by dirtiest smear anybody has suffered so far this campaign.
So far, the phenomenon looks to be limited to Quebec. But for those lamenting the state of politics elsewhere in Canada, the answer looks to be much the same: a strong movement behind a party which is genuinely committed to positive change can overwhelm the marginal gains possible in a petty model of politics.
Now, the question is whether the NDP's momentum within Quebec will spread further - at best taking it into government, or offering the possibility a sharply increased seat total and/or official opposition status. Which would result in a radical realignment in Canadian politics on two fronts.
Yes, it would be a major gain for the NDP in the competition among parties. But equally significant would be the takeaway that it's worth a political party's time and effort to work on building mass movements, rather than merely sniping for swing votes on the margins. And the better the NDP is able to do at the polls by going big, the more that lesson figures to resonate in the rest of Canada's political scene.
Fortunately, they've been proven wrong as to whether or not anything could change meaningfully. And it's well worth noting why.
Take, for example, the news surrounding star NDP candidate Francoise Boivin in Gatineau over the last week.
At the start of the week, Boivin found herself both publicly outed and smeared in the press - presumably the result of an opponent deciding that in what figured to be a close riding race, a misinformation campaign could well be enough to keep the seat in somebody else's hands.
Then, something happened.
The NDP started gaining momentum in Quebec, rising from the low 20s to the mid-20s to 36% in CROP's poll. And with those rising numbers, the situation in Gatineau also figures to have changed radically. One local poll taken some time ago showed Boivin ahead by a relatively small margin, but with the NDP's province-wide gains the seat looks to be on the verge of turning into a lock for Boivin. Which is why she found herself introducing the campaign's most exciting rally yet today - while her opponents have to be close to figuring their chances are evaporating.
And so, the effect of a positive province-wide movement looks to be dwarfing the damage done by dirtiest smear anybody has suffered so far this campaign.
So far, the phenomenon looks to be limited to Quebec. But for those lamenting the state of politics elsewhere in Canada, the answer looks to be much the same: a strong movement behind a party which is genuinely committed to positive change can overwhelm the marginal gains possible in a petty model of politics.
Now, the question is whether the NDP's momentum within Quebec will spread further - at best taking it into government, or offering the possibility a sharply increased seat total and/or official opposition status. Which would result in a radical realignment in Canadian politics on two fronts.
Yes, it would be a major gain for the NDP in the competition among parties. But equally significant would be the takeaway that it's worth a political party's time and effort to work on building mass movements, rather than merely sniping for swing votes on the margins. And the better the NDP is able to do at the polls by going big, the more that lesson figures to resonate in the rest of Canada's political scene.
Saturday Morning Links
Plenty of good news for your weekend reading.
- When even Chantal Hebert can't help but to acknowledge the NDP's surge in Quebec, you know something significant is afoot:
- When even Chantal Hebert can't help but to acknowledge the NDP's surge in Quebec, you know something significant is afoot:
By the time the election was called, the NDP had already overtaken the other federalist parties for second place among francophone voters.- Which is just one more indication that the NDP is, in Dr. Dawg's words, smashing the Matrix:
Four weeks later, Layton has cracked the glass ceiling that insulated the Bloc Québécois from the federalist pack. He could not have achieved that without a hand from Gilles Duceppe.
Fatigue with the Bloc has been a recurring trend in Quebec for the best part of a decade. In this campaign, Duceppe’s tired approach has played to that feeling.
The old Gilles Duceppe would not have spent the first week of a campaign talking about how Stephen Harper had made a tentative deal with the Bloc to oust Paul Martin from power in 2004.
He would have realized that, for many Quebec voters, the salient point of his Ottawa insider’s narrative was that the Bloc had actively entertained the notion of accelerating Harper’s rise to government.
Duceppe’s call may have been in the spirit of the times in 2004 but two Conservative mandates later it is Layton’s decision to opt out of Harper’s opposition boat that comes across as prescient to many Quebec voters.
The 2011 French-language election debate will go down as the first that a Bloc leader did not win hands down. Duceppe had to share the honours with Layton and it was an uneven split in the latter’s favour.
The polls are now consistent over time: the NDP is surging, even in second place, and it’s not losing momentum. Prisoners no more, Canadian electors are learning that, even under the antiquated, undemocratic “first past the post” electoral system, their votes may well count after all.- While Murray Mandryk ends up being too generous to Brad Wall, he does ask some rather important questions about Wall's ill-advised posturing on the federal election:
...
The NDP juggernaut is sweeping on, crushing smug assumptions and leaving a trail of bruised pundits’ egos in its wake. Canadians are taking the red pill at last—and there’s not a damned thing the usual media suspects can do about it.
(W)hat service is Wall providing Saskatchewan voters by repeating Harper's talking point that whichever party gets the most seats wins - even if that single party doesn't get a majority of the 308 House of Commons seats?- At least one business expert is working on convincing Canadians that a Harper majority would be the absolute worst possible outcome for our country's economy:
Where in either our constitution or our 1,000-year Parliamentary democracy tradition has Wall found this gem of democratic enlightenment? Why is being governed by a coalition government formed by two parties with 60 per cent of House of Commons seats a worse case of "overturning democracy" than being ruled by a single party with 40 per cent of Parliament's seats? Wasn't Wall's Sask. Party a "coalition" that "overturned democracy" by seizing opposition in 1997? Wasn't that against the rules? How is any government - minority or majority - having unfettered power for a specific period even healthy?
Really, sir, when you reach the point where you're arguing Canadians desperately need the stability of a majority government to deal with the current economic instability driven by the horrors of rising oil prices (I kid you not - this is what a premier of Saskatchewan told reporters Thursday), isn't it time to step back and rethink your position?
Mintzberg’s critique of the Harper government has less to do with specific policy positions than with an attitude that he sees as embodying the same unhealthy values that dominated the presidency of George W. Bush. Some key elements are the glorification of overpaid corporate leaders and short-term profits. That’s tied to the denigration of government’s role in providing a regulatory and socially conscious counterweight to business.- And finally, Tabatha Southey skewers the predictably embarrassing start for Sun News Network:
The U.S. financial crash and its devastating recession were directly related to this skewed view of the world, Mintzberg believes. As a result of Canada’s having followed a different path, with more willingness to let government regulate financial institutions, “we’re doing better than the Americans,” with an economy that suffered far less and unemployment that’s lower.
Sun TV has come unstuck in time. It’s as if, in its first few days, its pundits felt that they had a duty to diligently cover all the events they had missed before it existed. It’s a news network for the recently cryogenically unfrozen, who may be lying in bed and wondering about this Fidel Castro guy or the CBC “Vote Compass” story that was exhausted weeks ago.
...
So far, Sun TV is a network about being a network. It spent most of its first day congratulating itself for being there and most of its second day retelling its nascent creation myth with telethon-esque levels of self-regarding pathos, full of awe at the amazing odds its staff feels it overcame to make it to air.
That’s right: all the triumphalism of pirate radio, with absolutely none of the cool.
...
My son came downstairs while I was watching Sun TV. Fifteen minutes into his oatmeal, not five years from voting age, he laughed and said, “Wow, they’re like little kids who’ve built a cardboard fort, and now they’re pretending dragons are attacking it.”
Exactly.
Epic flail
I can only assume the Libs decided to make their latest ad by recording the first ideas blurted out in an anti-NDP brainstorming session without considering how they (a) fit together, or (b) fit into the broader campaign.
And I won't complain about the contradictory messages and general incoherence. But here's a helpful hint: when the loudest political machine in Canadian history has spent five years using taxes and crime as its main messages against you, you're not going to make gains on anybody suddenly echoing those exact themes in an ad against another party. About all that choice might accomplish is to help out the Harper Cons - which once again seems to be something the Libs are entirely willing to do in order to try to stop the NDP.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
And I won't complain about the contradictory messages and general incoherence. But here's a helpful hint: when the loudest political machine in Canadian history has spent five years using taxes and crime as its main messages against you, you're not going to make gains on anybody suddenly echoing those exact themes in an ad against another party. About all that choice might accomplish is to help out the Harper Cons - which once again seems to be something the Libs are entirely willing to do in order to try to stop the NDP.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Friday, April 22, 2011
Friday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- Steve Rennie surveys a few more responses to the NDP's surge. But for those tempted to pay too much attention to the Cons' bravado, keep in mind that this is the same Harper spin machine that's tried to paint every single scandal, mistake and abuse coming out of the Cons' government as a political plus.
So let's set the record straight: particularly if the NDP can emerge as the focus of a movement for change across Canada, its rise figures to be the absolute worst possible result for both the Cons' current electoral hopes, and their long-term project of shifting Canada to the right.
- In case we hadn't yet seen a definitive enough statement of Stephen Harper's complete lack of plausibility in trying to demonize any coalition or other structure besides "most seats wins", we now have text and video confirmation that he himself once saw cooperative efforts to take down a party which won the most seats as both possible and desirable - at least until they didn't fit his purposes.
- Which nicely complements James Laxer's latest:
- And finally, Democracy Now tells the story of the type of non-democracy the Cons would love to establish - as thanks to a Republican Supreme Court, the Koch brothers at the centre of the well-known right-wing noise machine have started intimidating employees into voting according to their instructions.
[Edit: fixed attribution as per comments.]
- Steve Rennie surveys a few more responses to the NDP's surge. But for those tempted to pay too much attention to the Cons' bravado, keep in mind that this is the same Harper spin machine that's tried to paint every single scandal, mistake and abuse coming out of the Cons' government as a political plus.
So let's set the record straight: particularly if the NDP can emerge as the focus of a movement for change across Canada, its rise figures to be the absolute worst possible result for both the Cons' current electoral hopes, and their long-term project of shifting Canada to the right.
- In case we hadn't yet seen a definitive enough statement of Stephen Harper's complete lack of plausibility in trying to demonize any coalition or other structure besides "most seats wins", we now have text and video confirmation that he himself once saw cooperative efforts to take down a party which won the most seats as both possible and desirable - at least until they didn't fit his purposes.
- Which nicely complements James Laxer's latest:
As the Prime Minister of a long-established, if complacent, democracy, Stephen Harper is supposed to say that for him the will of the people is paramount. He is supposed to declare that whatever House of Commons Canadians establish through their votes, he will accept it and work with it. He is supposed to say that he is the servant of the people.- Meanwhile, the Cons apparently haven't given up hope of fending off their likely loss of seats in Quebec. But they've decided to offer up nothing more than a dose of xenophobia in the effort.
Remarkably, Harper says none of these things. He insists that the only House of Commons he can work with after the election is one in which his party has a majority of seats. Should his party end up with the largest number of seats in a minority Parliament, he has declared that he cannot work with the other parties.
He will not alter a single jot or tittle in the budget he presented in March in a bid to win the support of one or more of the opposition parties. Quite simply, he does not recognize the legitimacy of the members of the other parties in the House of Commons, even though their presence in the House is the result of the expression of the will of the people. He is not required, he is saying, to heed the voices, the wisdom or the ideas of other Parliamentarians.
...
Not only does Stephen Harper refuse to acknowledge the will of the people and the legitimacy of parties that are not his own, he calls into question the essential principle of the Westminster system of parliamentary government. The principle is that a ministry must enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. Furthermore, if one ministry does not enjoy the confidence of the House, it is appropriate for the Governor General to seek to form an alternative ministry that does enjoy the confidence of the House.
...
In the democratic world, Stephen Harper alone wraps himself in the cloak of: “Sans moi, le deluge.”
- And finally, Democracy Now tells the story of the type of non-democracy the Cons would love to establish - as thanks to a Republican Supreme Court, the Koch brothers at the centre of the well-known right-wing noise machine have started intimidating employees into voting according to their instructions.
[Edit: fixed attribution as per comments.]
Today's resolution for debate
Barrie McKenna's commentary on the assumptions behind the economic policies of Canada's political parties could have been a fascinating read if it lived up to its billing. But sadly, he doesn't bother actually answering the question when it comes to the crux of the economic battle between the NDP and the Cons.
Assumption: Targeted payroll tax breaks are a better way to create jobs than across-the-board corporate tax cuts.Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is the most fundamental difference in economic philosophy we're seeing in the federal election campaign. So let's get the discussion going.
On weak responses
We've now seen a couple of days' worth of responses from the other political parties to the NDP's surge in Quebec. And as I'd suspected, there doesn't seem to be much in any of the answers to substantially dent the NDP's momentum.
From the Bloc, the response has been hinted at for some time, as Gilles Duceppe is now doubling down on trying to turn the election into yet another referendum.
But that doesn't figure to hold much appeal for anybody who's voted Bloc in the past based primarily on their apparent social democracy and desire to stop the Harper Cons rather than their preferences on the question of sovereignty. At best, it does at least represent a rational enough "save the furniture" strategy to try to prevent the NDP wave from completely wiping out the Bloc - but I doubt the NDP will complain much about splitting the Bloc's historic vote.
Meanwhile, the Cons look to be trying to pivot to meet the NDP while deviating as little as possible from their core campaign message, launching an ad that targets Layton directly on the possibility of a coalition.
But as I've noted before, there's plenty of reason to doubt that what ultimately amount to an attack on the ideas of planning and cooperation will actually win the day when it's tested in a campaign. And in fact, an assault on a leader who's actually willing to defend the idea of coalition may help Layton as much as it does Harper: for all the commentary about how Harper will happily accept an even split between people supporting and opposing a coalition if he gets one side lined up behind him, it's surely just as much of a plus for both the NDP and the cause of preventing a Con majority if the equal and opposing force coalesces behind Layton.
Finally, the Libs' answer has been to try to highlight experience in federal government as a difference between the two parties. Which looks to be the least effective response of the bunch for two key reasons.
First, by encouraging voters to compare the relative experience of the parties, the Libs are actually helping the NDP to pitch its own star candidates across the country.
Sure, the NDP hasn't governed nationally. But it boasts a leader who's served as part of the governing council of Canada's largest city, former provincial cabinet ministers in three provinces, and former provincial leaders in three more. And if the Libs want to highlight candidates like Marc Garneau and even Ignatieff himself as part of their "experienced" team without any actual time in office, then the NDP will be happy to raise them a Nycole Turmel, a Linda Duncan, a Romeo Saganash, a Lawrence Joseph, and so on.
But then, I'm not sure that would be the NDP's response unless the Libs stick their neck out even further. After all, the Libs' new message plays perfectly into the NDP's narrative about the other parties being stuck in the past while the NDP offers a change from the status quo.
In fact, all of the responses share that weakness to some extent, as they run head-on into NDP messages which have gained traction. The Bloc is looking to push sovereignty against a party whose Quebec appeal is based largely on a desire to move past that as the core question of the province's politics; the Cons are trying to fearmonger about coalitions against a leader whose popularity is centred on his willingness to work with others; and the Libs are arguing for their being part of "more of the same" against the party that's riding a wave of change.
Of course, it may be that one of the responses will end up working, or that something else will come along as the campaign draws to a close. But if the NDP's opponents don't have more of a counter to the Layton surge than they've shown so far, then there's little reason to think the NDP's progress is going to be stopped before election day.
From the Bloc, the response has been hinted at for some time, as Gilles Duceppe is now doubling down on trying to turn the election into yet another referendum.
But that doesn't figure to hold much appeal for anybody who's voted Bloc in the past based primarily on their apparent social democracy and desire to stop the Harper Cons rather than their preferences on the question of sovereignty. At best, it does at least represent a rational enough "save the furniture" strategy to try to prevent the NDP wave from completely wiping out the Bloc - but I doubt the NDP will complain much about splitting the Bloc's historic vote.
Meanwhile, the Cons look to be trying to pivot to meet the NDP while deviating as little as possible from their core campaign message, launching an ad that targets Layton directly on the possibility of a coalition.
But as I've noted before, there's plenty of reason to doubt that what ultimately amount to an attack on the ideas of planning and cooperation will actually win the day when it's tested in a campaign. And in fact, an assault on a leader who's actually willing to defend the idea of coalition may help Layton as much as it does Harper: for all the commentary about how Harper will happily accept an even split between people supporting and opposing a coalition if he gets one side lined up behind him, it's surely just as much of a plus for both the NDP and the cause of preventing a Con majority if the equal and opposing force coalesces behind Layton.
Finally, the Libs' answer has been to try to highlight experience in federal government as a difference between the two parties. Which looks to be the least effective response of the bunch for two key reasons.
First, by encouraging voters to compare the relative experience of the parties, the Libs are actually helping the NDP to pitch its own star candidates across the country.
Sure, the NDP hasn't governed nationally. But it boasts a leader who's served as part of the governing council of Canada's largest city, former provincial cabinet ministers in three provinces, and former provincial leaders in three more. And if the Libs want to highlight candidates like Marc Garneau and even Ignatieff himself as part of their "experienced" team without any actual time in office, then the NDP will be happy to raise them a Nycole Turmel, a Linda Duncan, a Romeo Saganash, a Lawrence Joseph, and so on.
But then, I'm not sure that would be the NDP's response unless the Libs stick their neck out even further. After all, the Libs' new message plays perfectly into the NDP's narrative about the other parties being stuck in the past while the NDP offers a change from the status quo.
In fact, all of the responses share that weakness to some extent, as they run head-on into NDP messages which have gained traction. The Bloc is looking to push sovereignty against a party whose Quebec appeal is based largely on a desire to move past that as the core question of the province's politics; the Cons are trying to fearmonger about coalitions against a leader whose popularity is centred on his willingness to work with others; and the Libs are arguing for their being part of "more of the same" against the party that's riding a wave of change.
Of course, it may be that one of the responses will end up working, or that something else will come along as the campaign draws to a close. But if the NDP's opponents don't have more of a counter to the Layton surge than they've shown so far, then there's little reason to think the NDP's progress is going to be stopped before election day.
On foreseeability
Warren Kinsella asks whether anybody managed to anticipate the NDP's gains in Quebec (which look to create the prospect of a strong ripple across Canada). And the answer is...yes, some of us did.
Not to say that I've made any strong predictions about what might happen. But the signs of a possible NDP surge have been readily visible for some time, even if the odds of a sea change actually coming to pass have never been clear.
Let's start after the 2008 election, when I noted this in discussing the NDP's path forward:
But the factors which have come together to give rise to the NDP's surge have been visible for quite some time for those of us who have looked past the conventional wisdom of perpetual Bloc dominance in Quebec. And there's plenty of reason for optimism that the second part of the overall NDP growth strategy - being a shift from the Libs to an NDP which is finally seen as a contender for government based on its Quebec gains - will similarly change expectations across Canada as election day approaches.
Not to say that I've made any strong predictions about what might happen. But the signs of a possible NDP surge have been readily visible for some time, even if the odds of a sea change actually coming to pass have never been clear.
Let's start after the 2008 election, when I noted this in discussing the NDP's path forward:
(T)he most obvious source of strength for the NDP is...the progressive Libs who for now have hooked onto a party which they see as more likely to take power. But the draw for those people has to be a strengthened NDP from other sources to persuade them that they don't have to accept playing second fiddle to the centre-right in order to win power.And it didn't take long for polling to show the NDP as the second choice of Bloc voters, hinting at the type of shift that's now taking place:
...
Perhaps most intriguing is the question of whether the Bloc could be largely brought on board. If leftish Bloc members have any interest in joining a Canada-wide government in the making in order to boost progressive efforts both inside and outside Quebec, then the balance of risks and rewards would look to be by far the most favourable.
...
In sum, the NDP certainly should be building connections into all of the other "left" parties, and continuing to frame a message of unity similar to the Unite 4 Change concept which received some mention during the most recent campaign. But its efforts are almost certainly better directed toward winning individual supporters one by one, rather than looking to any formal merger as a short cut to the same final goal.
(B)oth the NDP and the Greens would seem to have ample room to make inroads among current Bloc supporters, with the NDP leading the way at 19%. And with so few current Bloc voters having any interest in either the Cons or the Libs, it would stand to reason that the solid second-choice numbers for the NDP might only be amplified if current "no second choice" voters find reason to start looking elsewhere - say, if Gilles Duceppe makes a long-anticipated departure which gets taken as a sign that the Bloc is on the decline.Meanwhile, the talk last year about the Cons and Libs both having reason to abandon any efforts in Quebec opened the door for the NDP to take its shot at winning over a broad swath of support in the province:
Combined with the apparent fluidity between NDP/Lib/Green voters on the nominal left and the Libs' likely move to the right, that figures to open up plenty of opportunities for the NDP to build itself up by focusing its efforts on current Green and Bloc supporters in hopes of building up a 32% minority as a progressive alternative to both the Cons and Libs.
(T)he Libs' standing as the default federalist party in Quebec allowed them to build up both substantial riding-level war chests and incumbency advantages in dozens of seats. So their results from 2006 and 2008 can fairly easily be seen to reflect the most resources the party can possibly expect to put into the province - and the result was to come up somewhat short even at a time when less of the vote was being split with the NDP.And finally, some modeling from earlier this year tested what might happen in the absence of a Bloc, and fits nicely into the projections we're now starting to see:
Which means that one can make a fairly strong argument that the Libs might have better luck directing their resources toward provinces where they might break new ground, rather than re-fighting the same battles they've lost over the past few election cycles.
And the same goes for the Cons, if perhaps to a lesser extent. In the absence of particularly strong riding-level operations, they poured in money from outside the province to support star candidates like Michael Fortier in Vaudreuil-Soulanges - only to see that effort fall flat as soon as the party became the Bloc's main target. And that largely explains their choice to direct efforts toward flipping Lib seats in B.C. and Ontario rather than launching another all-out attack on the Bloc.
All of which leaves the NDP as the only national party that can claim to be within striking distance of gains in Quebec without having yet tested the limits of its ability to win votes.
Again, none of the above is to say that anybody much anticipated the magnitude of the NDP's gains so far in the election campaign - to say nothing of those which may yet develop.(In the absence of the Bloc,) the social democratic NDP would take the place of the social democratic Bloc Québécois in the province, winning 30 per cent of the vote in the next election. The Liberals, at 29 per cent, would not be far behind while the Conservatives would take 24 per cent of the vote. This would result in the NDP winning 34 seats in the province, most of them coming in francophone Quebec outside of the two main cities. The Liberals would win 23 seats, mostly in and around Montreal and in the Gaspé, while the Conservatives would take 17 seats, concentrated around Quebec City and the Saguenay region.Of course, many a commentator has looked silly for predicting the end of the Bloc over the years. But it's worth noting that the Bloc looks to be the one opposition party whose share of votes and seats would lead to an almost certain change in government if distributed along current voting lines - and wondering whether a strong message about the need for progressives to work together inside and outside Quebec (regardless of the party structures involved) might serve to get things moving in that direction.
Using current projections for the rest of the country, this change in Quebec would boost the Tories to 146 seats nationally, still short of a majority government. The Liberals would win 104 seats. With more than half of their caucus from Quebec, the NDP would win 57 seats. It would give the Liberals and New Democrats the possibility of forming a majority coalition.
But the factors which have come together to give rise to the NDP's surge have been visible for quite some time for those of us who have looked past the conventional wisdom of perpetual Bloc dominance in Quebec. And there's plenty of reason for optimism that the second part of the overall NDP growth strategy - being a shift from the Libs to an NDP which is finally seen as a contender for government based on its Quebec gains - will similarly change expectations across Canada as election day approaches.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted material for your long weekend reading.
- Elly Alboim shares some observations on what we can expect out of a surge like the NDP's ascent in Quebec:
- Which is why Michael Hollett is right to trumpet the ability of progressive voters to back what they genuinely want rather than buying the Libs' spin that they don't have a choice:
- Elly Alboim shares some observations on what we can expect out of a surge like the NDP's ascent in Quebec:
More often than not, these sorts of break outs cannot be reversed. They represent a collective decision making process that sometimes builds on mounting evidence or sometimes catches media by surprise after events or debates — although this would represent a very slow reaction to a debate. There are notable exceptions like the PC’s beating back the resurgent Liberals in 1988 but they are rare.- And Josee Legault echoes the view that the first wave may only be the beginning:
Often, the final results overshoot the initial wave. Momentum builds and begins to sweep into ridings that most think are not in play. I’ve been involved in dozens of CBC projection meetings where seasoned political reporters say that it is inconceivable that certain ridings and personalities are (sic) safe. And they weren’t. Canada is littered with former cabinet ministers who never should have lost. Some examples: Roy Romanow fell to a gas station attendant in her 20s. In the same election, the CBC did not put a mobile in Grant Devine’s riding in order to save money because his Tories could not possibly win...
The numbers don’t lie. On today’s numbers (if they hold), the NDP would be competitive in more than 20 ridings, not the two to four people speculate about.
Many say that without a ground game, it will be hard to take the ridings that are within reach. Ground game is important to identify and pull core and/or unmotivated voters. But voters know how to find polling stations and vote. In a wave where they are motivated, they manage to vote without being pulled by GOTV machines. The best example of this was the Rae Ontario win. At the time, the Ontario ballot did not even specify the party, so voters had to know who the candidates were. But NDP candidates won in ridings that had literally no ground game.
While new polls will confirm, contradict or mitigate the NDP's sudden surge, there's another thing Duceppe must be worried about: that the numbers that came out this week, as much as they might be overestimating NDP support, could end up influencing still more Quebecers to give Jack Layton a try.- Sam Norris at the Mace projects possible seat distributions, with predicted results of Con 131, NDP 81, and Lib 73.
- Which is why Michael Hollett is right to trumpet the ability of progressive voters to back what they genuinely want rather than buying the Libs' spin that they don't have a choice:
We’re being told to vote for the Liberals when they haven’t made a compelling case for us to want to do it on their merits. The strategic voting clan only wants us to vote NDP when the Libs are a lock.- Susan Riley touches on a point I'll expand on later in pairing a discussion of the NDP's breakthrough with a comment on our ability to decide the outcome of the election:
I’m just not that cynical, and I don’t believe elections are a math problem. Sometimes results don’t add up, but breakthroughs happen, and real change occasionally takes place.
...
Many Canadians who are newly supporting the NDP this election are energized and galvanizing around the one truly progressive party in this country that they can believe in rather than put up with.
If we spend the last two weeks of this campaign looking for progressive candidates we can trust and not getting hustled into empty choices we might all be surprised to find ourselves waking up to a Canada we can believe in, too, on May 3.
Most startling is news this week that Jack Layton’s NDP is leading the Bloc Québécois in Quebec (or was at press time), in two polls. Whether this surge is sustainable, or concentrated enough to produce new seats for the NDP, it is a head-turning and hard-won breakthrough. If it persists and spreads, it could change everything.- And finally, given Stephen Harper's track record in issuing flat denials, does his response to Dimitri Soudas' alleged political interference in the Montreal Port Authority make it more or less likely that Soudas actually did interfere?
And it is largely to Jack Layton’s credit. Despite being hobbled, literally, by a hip fracture, and still recovering from his recent bout with prostate cancer, the NDP leader has campaigned with increasing vigour and more optimism than any of his rivals.
...
(T)oo much ink, time and breath has been wasted on strategic, or academic, or marginal issues — from coalition speculation, to mini-scandals, to seat projections, to “trust.”
Campaigns and media alike have nimbly avoided more pressing concerns like how we get out of Libya, soaring gasoline prices, the return of inflation, the cost and safety of nuclear energy, or the need for affordable prescription drugs — although these issues come up at rallies.
Maybe the silence is a confession of impotence.
Still, it isn’t too late for voters to take back the election: to ignore the trivial obsessions of the media, the fleeting judgments of polls and those cascading, self-cancelling attack ads.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Yes we can
The NDP's latest, purely positive ad nicely captures the campaign's momentum in the final week and a half before the election:
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Joel-Denis Bellavance notes another noteworthy piece of the latest Quebec polling, as CROP shows the NDP's recently-increased support as being no less solid than that for any other party:
- Craig McInnes asks when compromise became a dirty word. But the more appropriate question seems to me to be where compromise is a dirty word - and the answer seems to be among Kool-Aid-addled Cons, but far less of the general public than they think.
- Finally, Bruce Campbell issues a challenge to Canada's wealthiest 0.1% to stop putting their short-term interests above the long-term health of Canadian society.
- Joel-Denis Bellavance notes another noteworthy piece of the latest Quebec polling, as CROP shows the NDP's recently-increased support as being no less solid than that for any other party:
Mieux encore, les appuis au NPD se solidifient. Pas moins de 77% des personnes sondées qui comptent appuyer les troupes de Jack Layton ont «certainement» l'intention d'aller voter le 2 mai, jour du scrutin. Les électeurs qui comptent appuyer le NPD sont plus mobilisés que ceux du Bloc québécois (75%) et autant que ceux qui comptent donner leur appui au Parti conservateur.- It's probably too late to make the difference I'd hoped for. But the Tyee fact-checks each of Stephen Harper's outraged declarations of "that's simply not true!" from the leader's debates - and finds that Harper flat-out lied about three, while declaring clarity on a muddled issue for the fourth.
Enfin, Jack Layton domine outrageusement tous ses adversaires fédéralistes quand on demande aux répondants d'identifier quel chef de parti ferait le meilleur premier ministre. En effet, 38% des personnes sondées choisissent Jack Layton et seulement 11% optent pour le chef conservateur Stephen Harper et 8% jettent leur dévolu sur le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff.
- Craig McInnes asks when compromise became a dirty word. But the more appropriate question seems to me to be where compromise is a dirty word - and the answer seems to be among Kool-Aid-addled Cons, but far less of the general public than they think.
- Finally, Bruce Campbell issues a challenge to Canada's wealthiest 0.1% to stop putting their short-term interests above the long-term health of Canadian society.
SaskBlogs - Regina Tweetup
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Bryan Breguet crunches the numbers as to how today's Quebec polling projects into seats, coming up with the following results:
NDP: 31 (CROP), 32 (EKOS)
Bloc: 28 (CROP), 22 (EKOS)
Libs: 9 (CROP), 12 (EKOS)
Cons: 7 (CROP), 9 (EKOS)
Which nicely matches my rough estimate of the relative position of the NDP, Bloc and Libs. And will hopefully help the media to stop coupling polls showing the NDP at 36% with analysis suggesting that it's only in contention in six seats.
- David Climenhaga is right to note that the Harper Cons' constant set of attacks on the Libs has worked to the NDP's advantage. But it's worth noting that plenty of other attacks have had a similar effect too.
After all, the Bloc's attacks on Harper for two election cycles have ensured that the Cons couldn't win more than a handful of Quebec seats. And the attacks on the Cons by all parties have played into the NDP's "Ottawa is broken" narrative to help the party appeal to good-government voters.
So the real story is that while the rest of the parties figured the NDP could safely be ignored (allowing Layton to build popularity and the party to build trust on policy issues) only to be marginalized once election day drew closer, the actual campaign is proving otherwise.
- Munir Sheikh is the latest to point out how corporate tax cuts may merely transfer revenue from Canada to the U.S. rather than encouraging investment or economic growth anywhere.
- Michael Byers has apparently converted to the view that strategic voting does more harm than good.
- It isn't particularly news that the Cons relish the opportunity to poke organizations like Planned Parenthood in the eye for having the nerve to try to improve sexual health around the world. But I don't think there's much doubt they'd hoped to avoid having that reality surface during the campaign.
- Finally, Barbara Yaffe notes that both the Cons and Libs are focusing their campaigns mostly on scare tactics which don't seem to be working.
- Bryan Breguet crunches the numbers as to how today's Quebec polling projects into seats, coming up with the following results:
NDP: 31 (CROP), 32 (EKOS)
Bloc: 28 (CROP), 22 (EKOS)
Libs: 9 (CROP), 12 (EKOS)
Cons: 7 (CROP), 9 (EKOS)
Which nicely matches my rough estimate of the relative position of the NDP, Bloc and Libs. And will hopefully help the media to stop coupling polls showing the NDP at 36% with analysis suggesting that it's only in contention in six seats.
- David Climenhaga is right to note that the Harper Cons' constant set of attacks on the Libs has worked to the NDP's advantage. But it's worth noting that plenty of other attacks have had a similar effect too.
After all, the Bloc's attacks on Harper for two election cycles have ensured that the Cons couldn't win more than a handful of Quebec seats. And the attacks on the Cons by all parties have played into the NDP's "Ottawa is broken" narrative to help the party appeal to good-government voters.
So the real story is that while the rest of the parties figured the NDP could safely be ignored (allowing Layton to build popularity and the party to build trust on policy issues) only to be marginalized once election day drew closer, the actual campaign is proving otherwise.
- Munir Sheikh is the latest to point out how corporate tax cuts may merely transfer revenue from Canada to the U.S. rather than encouraging investment or economic growth anywhere.
- Michael Byers has apparently converted to the view that strategic voting does more harm than good.
- It isn't particularly news that the Cons relish the opportunity to poke organizations like Planned Parenthood in the eye for having the nerve to try to improve sexual health around the world. But I don't think there's much doubt they'd hoped to avoid having that reality surface during the campaign.
- Finally, Barbara Yaffe notes that both the Cons and Libs are focusing their campaigns mostly on scare tactics which don't seem to be working.
A growing movement
In case anybody was under the misapprehension that the NDP's growth was limited to Quebec, we now have our first poll showing the NDP alone in second place across Canada - in both voting intentions and seat projections:
The NDP has made its largest gains in Quebec, with an astonishing surge past the Bloc Quebecois in decided and leaning voter support, but the party has also moved up in British Columbia, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where a rise in support can turn into new House of Commons seats for the party.In other words, all previous strategic-voting scaremongering is now becoming as wrong in fact as it is in principle - both because the NDP is finding itself in the strongest position to challenge the Cons across the country, and because it may have a stronger baseline of expected seats to build from. And the prospects for a major change for the better in Ottawa are growing by the day.
...
Nationally, the survey gave the Conservative Party support from 36 per cent of decided and leaning voters, 25 per cent for the NDP, 23 per cent for the Liberal party, and six per cent each for the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. A separate Forum Research analysis, based partly on ridings won and lost in the 2008 election, suggest the survey results would give the Conservatives 149 of the 308 Commons seats if an election were held today, with 71 seats for the NDP, 64 for the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois would have 24 seats.
The endgame
There's still more positive polling news for the NDP, including two polls showing the party in first place in Quebec with up to 36% support. But it's worth taking a closer look at what we can expect as a result of that jump.
In Quebec, I've already noted that the Bloc's main line of defence against the NDP was a strategic voting argument which is now utterly obsolete. And with nowhere near enough time left in the campaign to mount a brand-new set of attacks on a popular party and leader, that means the main question for the balance of the campaign figures to be how many seats the Bloc's election-day machine can save from the NDP's rising tide.
On that front, the most obvious precedent doesn't figure to work in the Bloc's favour.
After all, the 2007 Quebec election saw the ADQ make a jump to 31% on election day, with little ground game to go along with that boost in popular support compared to the province's two historic governing parties. But it doesn't seem to have suffered from any major inefficiency in converting votes to seats, winning 41 seats to the PQ's 36 (with 28% of the vote) and the governing Libs' 48 (with 33%).
Granted, there would figure to be relatively limited overlap between the ADQ's voters and the NDP's. But the example still goes to show that the Bloc/PQ doesn't have any special ability to prevent a third party's popular support from turning into seats.
Which means that the list I posted this weekend now figures to serve only as the first wave of possible NDP wins in Quebec. And barring some major turnaround in the polls based on a last-gasp effort from the Bloc (keeping in mind that the NDP may yet have room to grow now that it's been legitimized as an option), the default expectation looks to be that the NDP will emerge on May 3 as the leading federal political party in Quebec.
And that has ramifications going far beyond Quebec's borders.
To start with, the prospect of the NDP passing the Bloc in Quebec alone sets up a far stronger chance that a post-election government can be formed from two national parties holding a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
But then, the sudden shift in Quebec also changes the relative positioning of Canada's national parties. If the NDP goes from 13 seats behind the Libs in Quebec to (let's say) 20 seats ahead, then there's effectively no difference in the parties' national starting points even if one ignores the NDP's campaign gains so far.
And unlike the parties who are now scrambling to rewrite campaign scripts which relied on strategic voting to make the NDP go away, the NDP's campaign message that voters do have a choice beyond the Cons and Libs is only reinforced by the party's strength. Which means that the surge in Quebec should only encourage voters across the country to vote for what they really want, rather than settling for the lesser of any number of evils.
In sum, the rest of the campaign now looks to come down to two questions arising out of the NDP's gains in Quebec: whether anybody can counter the momentum within Quebec, and whether the NDP can build on it nationally. And there's plenty of reason for optimism that both answers will turn out in the NDP's favour.
Update: Alice has more.
Update II: And for anybody wondering if the NDP still has any upside in Quebec, here's part of Frank Graves' EKOS analysis:
Update III: More from Graves:
[Edit: fixed typos.]
In Quebec, I've already noted that the Bloc's main line of defence against the NDP was a strategic voting argument which is now utterly obsolete. And with nowhere near enough time left in the campaign to mount a brand-new set of attacks on a popular party and leader, that means the main question for the balance of the campaign figures to be how many seats the Bloc's election-day machine can save from the NDP's rising tide.
On that front, the most obvious precedent doesn't figure to work in the Bloc's favour.
After all, the 2007 Quebec election saw the ADQ make a jump to 31% on election day, with little ground game to go along with that boost in popular support compared to the province's two historic governing parties. But it doesn't seem to have suffered from any major inefficiency in converting votes to seats, winning 41 seats to the PQ's 36 (with 28% of the vote) and the governing Libs' 48 (with 33%).
Granted, there would figure to be relatively limited overlap between the ADQ's voters and the NDP's. But the example still goes to show that the Bloc/PQ doesn't have any special ability to prevent a third party's popular support from turning into seats.
Which means that the list I posted this weekend now figures to serve only as the first wave of possible NDP wins in Quebec. And barring some major turnaround in the polls based on a last-gasp effort from the Bloc (keeping in mind that the NDP may yet have room to grow now that it's been legitimized as an option), the default expectation looks to be that the NDP will emerge on May 3 as the leading federal political party in Quebec.
And that has ramifications going far beyond Quebec's borders.
To start with, the prospect of the NDP passing the Bloc in Quebec alone sets up a far stronger chance that a post-election government can be formed from two national parties holding a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
But then, the sudden shift in Quebec also changes the relative positioning of Canada's national parties. If the NDP goes from 13 seats behind the Libs in Quebec to (let's say) 20 seats ahead, then there's effectively no difference in the parties' national starting points even if one ignores the NDP's campaign gains so far.
And unlike the parties who are now scrambling to rewrite campaign scripts which relied on strategic voting to make the NDP go away, the NDP's campaign message that voters do have a choice beyond the Cons and Libs is only reinforced by the party's strength. Which means that the surge in Quebec should only encourage voters across the country to vote for what they really want, rather than settling for the lesser of any number of evils.
In sum, the rest of the campaign now looks to come down to two questions arising out of the NDP's gains in Quebec: whether anybody can counter the momentum within Quebec, and whether the NDP can build on it nationally. And there's plenty of reason for optimism that both answers will turn out in the NDP's favour.
Update: Alice has more.
Update II: And for anybody wondering if the NDP still has any upside in Quebec, here's part of Frank Graves' EKOS analysis:
In a stunning but very real development, the NDP has moved from a curious afterthought to front-runner in Quebec. The patterns are clear. Quebeckers not only pick the NPD as their first preference, but also showing a clear lean to the NDP as their preferred second choice. And this is a direct transfer from the Bloc, where the NDP continues to be the by far preferred second choice and destination of BQ defectors.So even after pulling into first place, the NDP may still have more additional votes within reach than any other party. Stay tuned - there may be another couple of peaks left in NDP support in Quebec.
Update III: More from Graves:
What happens next is uncertain. While the NDP have grown, they have held on to a major advantage on second choice and now lead all parties by a large margin in terms of their theoretical ceiling (around 50 points).Place your bet now as to how many seats the Star will declare to be in play if the NDP does reach 50% in Quebec. The over/under is 12.
The rising fortunes of the NDP have been largely at the expense of the Bloc in Quebec and the Green Party in English Canada.
[Edit: fixed typos.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)