Canada 2011 Official Thread

[Foucaulf]

Will the fact that Liberal leader Ignatieff spent more than three decades away from Canada come back to haunt him in this campaign?

Already featured on Tory adverts. Not pleasant, even if it's mildly amusing to see the leader of a nationalist party on the wrong side of a base appeal to nationalism.

Saw one of them when I was in Canada. My group was thoroughly bemused by the idea that the Conservative Party was making those attacks.

Keep in mind that the Ignatieff campaign is more a question of trust than a question of loyalty. Ignatieff could have fought off terrorists in the Congo for thirty years and still be subject to the same claims*. This is why the Conservative slogan for the campaign is "Ignatieff: he didn’t come back for you."
Steven Harper, however, is being portrayed as a diligent patriot, and Ignatieff is the anti-Harper; therefore you see Conservative activists falling into a bonus false equivalency.

*Cf. Romeo Dallaire?


Let's take a look at the battlegrounds of this election.

The 905:  These are the suburbs of Toronto, named for their area code. Less socially liberal and cosmopolitan than their downtown counterparts. The Progressives Conservatives rode into power on these ridings' coattails. The Conservative Party has hanged onto them nicely. But the Liberals crave these ridings, because they're a hell of a lot easier to take than Western Canada. These ridings went for Chretien during his majority years, and swiftly went to Harper in 2006. In the greater context, the Liberals' results in this area will show whether they still maintain their big-tent appeal.
Newfoundland & Labrador:  Results from 2008 can be deceiving. Canada's easternmost province only swept the Liberals into power because Danny Williams--then the most popular premier in Canada--launched a "Anything But Conservative" campaign over equalization payments. But Williams was still leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and after his retirement the Newfies may drop a few seats for the Tories.
Toronto and Vancouver:  Harper wants the immigrants to vote for him. Pundits are quick to note that these immigrants are "socially conservative", but I think the switch is more superficial. Immigrants have lived through Harper for five years, and, not caring to note the subtle nuances, wish to keep a steady hand on the wheel. This can only be good news for the Conservatives, who have seen their MPs settle deeper and deeper into these cities. Vancouver is by far the easier of the two, with one riding - Vancouver South - settled due to a 20-vote margin.
Quebec:  This is not exactly a battleground, for the Conservatives are trying to gain a majority without Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois, however, is hoping to cement their stranglehold on the province by gobbling up some MPs. Liberal Justin Trudeau - Pierre Trudeau's son - is facing stiff competition from the Bloc, as will NDP Thomas Mulcair. Conservative seats in Quebec City will be targeted after money for an Arena there were taken away.

But I suspect all this speculation to be naught, since it's been three days and there has been little buzz. I fear a Germany '09 is in the making.

[Foucaulf]

What's with the focus on human smuggling in the Conservative ads? Is that really an important issue in Canada?

It fits into the Conservative strategy--pleasing the immigrants while appeasing the base. Rural Canadians are much like Americans in their perception of foreigners, but the same foreigners are the potential voters Harper needs to gain urban ridings. Harper therefore pins the tail on illegal migrants instead! It's not as if they have a voice in detention.

A less biased look at the issue would be that it's a continuation of the debate over Canada's open-door policy. Right-wing politicians will say that such a policy leads to more human smuggling and that a more restricted criterion be used. Left-wing politicians will keep the status quo as a means to continue population growth, and to oppose demonizing minority populations.

This issue really heated up after a boat of Tamil migrants landed in BC last year. Google that for the specifics.

[Foucaulf]

What would the popular vote have to look like for the NDP to finish second in terms of seats? What is the reason for this surge btw?

The NDP's ads are very well done and Iggy has been a real disappointment for the Liberals.  In particular, Iggy may have had a Howard Dean moment, repeatedly telling a crowd to "rise up, rise up, rise up!"  He's not coming across as Prime Ministerial.

Plus, Layton supposedly did well in the French-language debate, boosting the NDP's numbers in Quebec.  I didn't watch the French debate, but Iggy stunk in the English-language debate, in my opinion - he came across as entitled, impatient and surly.

That Liberal ad is such a work of absurdity. Ignatieff's voice cracks a little bit when he tries to shout, and he's trying his damndest to rile up a group in which he's the youngest person. Then the audience golf-claps.
That's supposed to be inspiring?

But I watched the French debate, and not only does Ignatieff have an awkward accent, but he embodied the Bloc's "federalist Trudeau-loving Liberal" stereotype. Harper was a broken record and Duceppe was as usual. I would guess that the viewership was surprised by Layton's decent French and policy jabs, which is enough for left-wing voters hanging off the Bloc to jump ship. The Bloc piling on the NDP must keep the publicity going.

I'm seeing a media consensus that, as Liberal and NDP policies start blending together, the conception of the leader becomes all important. Layton has all the momentum in that aspect, which means he keeps siphoning Liberal voters who are far from the party's Toronto base.

I don't see a tipping point for the NDP until they can reach 27%+, though. What is encouraging is that their results have only improved in the past decade.

[Foucaulf]

If there was a turning point in the Liberal campaign, it's probably their decision to run this over-the-top ad.  The subtext of the ad basically states vote Liberal or Harper will kill you... flatline... which simply isn't believable - especially when the Liberals themselves were the last to cut federal health funding.   Not only that, but the original version of the ad claimed Harper said something that he never did - which has added more attention to it.  

It's no wonder that the polls are the way there are.  The Liberal campaign, which never seemed to have much of a coherent message to begin with, is collapsing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is Ignatieff really focusing his NDP attack on the guns issue? I thought the Liberal "soldiers with guns" ad back in 2006 taught them a lesson.

So if the NDP manages to get more votes than the Libs... wtf happens?  I mean, that's gotta hurt.  Does Iggy get the second spot in the Kim Campbell Hall of Party Destruction?

To be fair, Campbell only failed because she could not reverse her party's decline. And Turner's collapse is more numerically spectacular than the recent Liberal debacle.
The worst outcome is that the Liberals will be slowly squeezed out of government, both federal and provincial. It seems evident Ignatieff will not make sufficient gains federally, and it's likely the Ontario Liberal government will be kicked out of office. At that point, the only Liberal party in government will be the Liberal Party of Prince Edward Island, a province of 100000 people.
The Liberal brand has only survived because it is supposed to be a catch-all. A powerless Liberal administration, as feudal as it was in power, isn't worth much.

[Foucaulf]

In unrelated news, Vancouver East seems to be a bastion of ultra-leftism.

Hipsters, immigrants, and the riding covers the Downtown Eastside, Vancouver's poorest neighbourhood; the DTES is likely Canada's poorest neighbourhood west of Ontario.

Sometimes pictures really are worth a thousand words.

Though I'm terrified of Layton succumbing to Cleggmania, I feel like this election will be the NDP's time. They'll have the best results in the party's history and replace the Bloc as the third largest party in the commons.
As both the Tories and the Liberals hammer the NDP for being incapable of government, that would be the ideal outcome for now.


With the election heating up, so might turnout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe this proves a higher turnout: the same voters might want to get the vote done earlier. Compound this news with the vote mobs and reported increases in 18-34 turnout, however, and there are signs there could be over 60% turnout this election.

[Foucaulf]

In these turbulent election times, humour is all the more important.

(One picture has already been sigged, so the site would have been linked sooner or later.)

EDIT: Spoke too soon, here's a politico's last wishes.


I'm predicting two trends during the last week of the campaign:

• Layton makes big pitches in the Maritimes, Quebec and BC, offering little support in Ontario except for incumbents.
• Harper and Ignatieff clashes over Southern Ontario. The Liberals try to persuade voters not to vote NDP in order for the Liberals to keep a dozen clutch ridings. Harper will keep hammering Ignatieff to split the vote and pave the way to a majority.

Barring a majority outright, it would be interesting to see if enough Liberals balk at an alliance with the NDP to support Harper at the next session.

[Foucaulf]

You missed the best part - EKOS's seat projection based on that poll.

Conservative 131 + Arthur, Liberal 62, NDP 100, Bloc 14

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EKOS queries the Green Party in their polls, which always inflate their votes and steals others. It also has a reputation for outlier polls, and Graves gets hit with being a "Liberal" pollster every now and then. It's not as if they haven't shown huge leads for the Conservatives before, though

[Foucaulf]

Worth a read: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/04/rubber-hits-the-road-for-parties-and-seat-projectors/

Not sure what to make of that.

There might be some deeper - and more interesting - reason, but I suspect it's the usual problems that come with regional breakdowns, even ones with decent sample sizes. We need some real polls of provinces (sorry to sound like a stuck record, but we do).

If we aggregate the two Ontario polls for a 20% support for the NDP, both Nanos and EKOS breakdowns are within a typical 3% MoE. To draw conclusions from this ambiguity, we have to take one of two perspectives.

A. Enough Ontario voters dislike Bob Rae's NDP government enough to keep federal party levels low.
B. Enough new Ontario voters (students, immigrants) like Jack Layton enough to give his party momentum.

Depending on one's perspective, that's a few seats lost or gained by the NDP, which is particularly problematic given that's all Harper may need for a majority. Until the NDP legitimately upseats the Liberals as the second-ranked party, though, the party will eat up Liberal votes, which also puts Liberal seats at risk. Such could be the case if the NDP stagnates or improves.
No matter what result, the Conservatives still have an edge. This is why I think the Liberals have to focus entirely on Ontario after Ignatieff's trip to Vancouver.


Going back to that article, though...
I think the criticism towards projectors is unwarranted. They can choose to look backwards and be oblivious to rapid swings, or they can choose to rest in the present and be at the mercy of an underdeveloped polling market.

The American projection process is better not simply because it has more polls and Nate Silver. The American election process is more focused and continuous. Every party position switch, every primary and every gerrymander falls into a scheme cooperated by the Beltway. There are more debates in American politics, more ways for the voter to keep track of the process, and be more in-tune with the scheme.

The Canadian election process is less so. There are two debates, and after that the leaders do their own things. The different parties can basically create their own narrative without having to face the other ones in a TV studio. The Canadian voter can have his views altered during the one convergence and subscribe to his new party's narrative thereon. This is why we can have people claiming a Conservative blowout, a NDP-led coalition or the youth vote rescuing the Green Party this time. Three different narratives.

Without any change from the broadcasters or the politicians, the projectors and the pollsters have to create an American projection without the American process, but they have implicitly created the process. It is the politicians' fault for reacting so wildly to such a shift, not the projectors'. Though some would say that we should not give such gravitas to the projectors, I say they're the only ones we have, certainly better alternatives to partisan spin doctors.

[Foucaulf]

Also, this is the same nation that gave the world the 1993 election.

Yeah, I don't know too much about Canadian politics, but I notice their elections can generate massive swings which wouldn't happen in other Westminster systems.

A more apt comparison would be your coupon election.

Echoing the previous post, federal politics is always marked by regionalism. Take the Conservatives and the Liberals - as "neoliberal" as both may be, few Albertans vote for the Liberals because they still remember the National Energy Program, a federal takeover of the province's oil. There comes a point where it's easier to create a party that especially caters to regional interests, which splits the left-right vote on the federal level. When this split happens in swing ridings and swing provinces - Ontario, maybe BC - the unified alternative wins.

Quebec always has favourite-son syndrome, and the province is united by a theme of Anglo-French conflict. When a party establishes its position regarding that theme, the whole province swings. PM Laurier established this for the Liberals in 1896, and that kept Quebec a Liberal fortress for 60 years. Then Diefenbaker linked up with Quebec's Duplessis, and swept it in 1958. The Quiet Revolution revived the Liberal vote, and it apexed with Trudeau. Quebec's inertia prevents it from swinging too often, but once every decade...

Alberta is similar, except the huge swings happen on the provincial level, then reflected federally. See the Liberal -> United Farmers -> Social Credit -> Conservative transition.

[Foucaulf]

I - and likely the majority of the electorate - completely forgot about newspaper endorsements!

http://tgam.ca/CN2h

The Globe and Mail endorses the Conservatives. Too bad their endorsement reads like it was written right after the debate.

Endorsements like this display how politically invariant the Canadian media is. In the next day or two one will see a great majority of newspapers support the Conservatives, citing both "at least Harper hasn't screwed up yet" and "Better the devil we know". The two left-wing newspapers of note, The Toronto Star and Le Devoir have been solid supporters of the Liberals and the Bloc, and will keep the line this election.

The question is how many newspapers will endorse the NDP - virtually none like last election, or will one mainstream paper support them? The next question obviously becomes: "Would anyone care?"

[Foucaulf]

Worth a read: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/981471--hebert-a-liberal-campaign-of-self-destruction?bn=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a crucial quote. Precedent has established that the Liberals and the Conservatives were the only two parties with cross-country appeal throughout Canadian history. The CCF -> NDP chronology, until now, has been a Western movement drifting into Ontario; so were the Progressives. Reform and Bloc are painfully regionalist, while Social Credit leaped from Alberta into Quebec. What happens if the NDP takes over the Liberals as that cross-country party? The Liberals would be fenced in Vancouver and Toronto, and become a third party. Liberalism will never be seen as a cross-country ideology again, and the Liberals will be forever seen working for Toronto's interests.

Nothing in the culture of the federal Liberals has prepared them for life as a third party because that would mean the death of today's federal Liberals. As the Liberals move from uniter to sectarian, the internal political system of the Liberals must change completely. Perhaps the election was supposed to do that, but all it did was accelerate the Liberal decline. The party just has to deal.

[Foucaulf]

Rumours of a riding poll in Trois Rivières showing an NDP lead.

Sources please.

NDP candidate Robert Aubin has a 14-point lead over the BQ incumbent...

Cible-Recherche seems like a local outfit. MoE is +/- 4.3%.

This represents a swing of 33% to the NDP and 17% away from the Bloc! Then again, you would expect swings from a riding where half the electorate don't know their MP's name.

[Foucaulf]

Best case for the Tories is that the NDP/Bloc/Liberals vote down the throne speech, despite the Tories being the largest party, and form an NDP minority.

As much as I support the NDP, there will be no "NDP minority". The seats will be split too evenly between the Liberals and the NDP that it will have to be a coalition of the NDP and the Liberals with confidence and supply from the Bloc. Ideally the NDP + Liberals will have more seats than the Conservatives, but failing that the NDP + Liberals popular vote will definitely be greater than the Conservative one.

If the budget is defeated, the GG will seek out the leader of the opposition since he would command the second highest number of seats. Which brings me to my next point...

Layton will have to scrape the floor to come up with Ministers, especially if the Liberals decline to participate, the markets will panic, and scandals and gaffes will plague the government for its likely sub-18 month tenure.

You're assuming that Layton is going to wait until the Throne Speech to form negotiations. Problem is that he already has a Shadow Cabinet, like the Liberals. If Ignatieff is going out the door, Layton could offer the Liberals power in the form of a major cabinet position. Surely the party will take it to avoid collapse in the wilderness.

If the markets haven't panicked yet over Belgium being without a government for over a year, surely it won't happen with a diluted administration. If the G-20, KAIROS and patronage problems did not kill the Conservatives, it would not do so for a NDP-involved government.

Then everyone goes back to the polls and its Tory majority.

Harper letting Layton take power will be a major screwup, and the caucus will be planning for a leadership convention. Even if the government lasts 18 months, we will see changes in leadership for the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc, followed by Layton's handling over the reins. The election after that would be a whole new ballgame.

[Foucaulf]

Ontario: NDP 34

Holy hell! The MoE for the Ontario breakdown is 3.6%, the lowest of the bunch. Unreliable as it may be, this is the best poll for the NDP so far.

I wouldn't have believed it days ago, but maybe the NDP will break through Ontario. Now things are getting out of hand. The more the NDP gains in Ontario, the less chances of a Liberal coalition; they'll be amalgamated.

Can't believe people were talking about a union of the Liberals and the NDP only a few months ago. At this rate, the Liberals will be torn apart1

[Foucaulf]

The NDP smear campaign continues... something about Jack being caught naked in a massage parlour in 1996.... the media is grasping at straws...

This will only help him in Quebec

Ratings or not, Sun News is beginning its corrosive effects on politics. Anonymous source leaks to channel that Layton was naked in a massage parlour? This is less Fox as it is News of the World, except they spent ten minutes talking about it.

But the media taketh and it giveth. Globe columnist Ibbitson claims the Toronto Star will endorse the NDP.

[Foucaulf]

Well, Layton's wife confirms the story was true, so Sun News' story is correct.

It is about time Canada got themselves a news channel that's not unabashedly leftist.

All Chow admitted was that Layton was found in a massage parlour by the police, and released without charges. Nothing about Layton being naked, or the Chinese masseuse, or wet Kleenex thrown into the trash.

It's yellow journalism overall. The news is advertised as "Layton found in bawdy house" when nobody has proof that it was a brothel. I have doubts that it is even legal for a policeman to reveal these confidential matters. Until a journalist can contact the TPS, this ranges on the absurd.

[Foucaulf]

If it were found that John Boehner (or Steven Harper) had been discovered naked in a "massage parlor" by police, do you think the Atlas lefties would have pooh-poohed it quite so fast?

Of course? If I were that desperately against Harper, I would go on about the Conservatives paying people to write online comments supporting them and Harper's wife running off with a RCMP officer. Both are popular rumours (google), but no press outlet has reported them yet because they're just rumours. Same thing here, except Sun Media actually did it!

You can follow the Sun's narrative, but you choose to separate yourself from all others. Find articles from other press sources that don't repeat Layton factoids circa 90s.

[Foucaulf]

"Shut down the CBC", claims Tory

In all seriousness, another look at the problems of Canadian media. Harper recognizes that the reporters want him far more than he wants them, and media questioning becomes a crapshoot.

Harper seems to be positioning himself for a coalition with the party which he spent years accusing of lusting for power via undemocratic coalition. How appropriate.

Surely he knows enough to make it confidence & supply rather than a coalition, or he can yank right-wing Liberals once the collapse comes. Having to appease ex-Liberals probably gives Harper an excuse for not cutting the deficit or making controversial social policy.

A disclaimer: Harper has not said anything about what happens if he retains his minority, because he still doesn't know for sure. Nobody has talked about the breaking point for prairie conservatives, either. After voting for the Tories but receiving nothing, when will they jump ship?

[Foucaulf]

Though long discredited, ThreeHundredEight's final projection is out:

Conservatives 143 (uc), NDP 78 (+42), Liberals 60 (-17), Bloc 27 (-20), Independents 0 (-2)

Looks like the consensus is that the Tories will get between 140 to 150 seats. The NDP will become the official opposition, but the number of seats they will obtain varies from the mid seventies to the mid hundred-tens. Taking the average, we get around 95.

All that remains to see is whether the Tories will have enough for a majority, whether the Bloc/Liberals will be pummeled into submission, and maybe whether May wins her seat. And how many ridings switches parties overall. Certainly exciting enough for me to miss Canucks game 3.

Election Prediction is still shifting. They now have the NDP with more seats than the Liberals, with all races projected:   

They're saying Duceppe will keep his riding and that the NDP will take Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. Ambiguity resolved.

[Foucaulf]

What's the absolute best case scenario for the NDP? I take it that even with Layton cashing in on being the most likable federal politician for the past 3-4 years official opposition status is way out of their reach?

The talented Éric Grenier calculated 44 seats. I suspect this is an understatement. The NDP can hope for 50-60 seats if there was a real collapse of the Liberal Party - mind you, this would almost certainly result in a 200+ seat majority for the Tories...

Realistically, I have trouble seeing them gain much more than they have. They might hit 40 seats if the Liberals do badly, but that assumes the Liberals would be worse off now than they were in 2008 under Dion running on the Green Shift.

I - perhaps we - forget how different things were a month ago. I'm not drinking until I see preliminary results, though.

Any plans for a new results thread?

[Foucaulf]

Do you think there is any chance that the polls have over estimated the NDP, and that once in the voting booth people casts their ballots for either the Grits or Tories because they know and trust their policies?

The entire reason the NDP has surged is because nobody knew any party's policies. Harper's saving grace - deficit financing in wake of the financial crisis - will not be replicated. In light of this, the NDP has structured the first half of the campaign on offering a policy scheme.

I had once thought Clegg Syndrome would catch up to Layton, but not anymore. For one, the Tories in '10 had the "Big Society", and for second all Clegg did was siphon the middle-class Labour vote. Those voters naturally moved on to the Tories.

[Foucaulf]

Now for some proper theorizing...

I have the feeling that Trudeau was ahead of the time and began the shift in the Canadian dichotomy. Makes sense, given that he was a New Democrat. With the official rise of the NDP into opposition, the transition is complete. Trudeau's work is done.

[Foucaulf]

Isn't it wonderful how the results seems stranger and stranger as election day passes? People I know on the West Coast is realizing the size of the NDP's Quebec sweep. As soon as most Dippers get past their euphoria, they are going to realize they've been hung out to dry in the West: Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar was lost, Pat Martin is the last NDP Manitoba MP and Layton's target BC ridings all went for the Conservatives. The establishment of the NDP as the sole left-wing party shows how far we still have to go.

Considering the party's future problems, it's funny how people focus on the NDP's Quebec caucus, "the most unqualified band of misfits parliament has ever seen." It was only a few decades ago that people were complaining about the overepresentation of lawyers in parliament, but now anyone who does not meet the political archetype is deemed as "inexperienced" or representing "special interests". Politics has truly become vocation!


Continuing projector apologetics, here's ThreeHundredEight:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Foucaulf]

Martin is one of two; Ashton was easily re-elected in Churchill. Let's not get too maudlin, especially as the reason for the poor result there will be gone by the time of the next election (even if we may not like the way in that reason is removed).

That's my BC intuition kicking in again. It's hard not to be afraid of the NDP in perpetual opposition, and I don't think government is possible without the party making agriculture/natural resources/immigration focus issues in an attempt to win over Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC respectively.

It seems like the NDP and Liberals have key policy differences that would prevent a merger. the Liberal Party strikes me as a New Labour like party that promotes itself as being fiscally moderate but socially liberal. The NDP fits the model of a Social Democratic party. If both merged, many Liberal supporters might jump ship and support the Tories.

The main question for a federal party is: do they give people more money, less money, or around the same amount? All three parties supported giving more money.

The next question is: do you keep healthcare spending levels at the current rate or cut it? All three parties supported the status quo.

Those two questions cover the economy and healthcare, the burning issues. With how devolved Canada is, those are the most the Federal government can do. With no party calling for a radical restructuring of federal Canada's role, it's no wonder they look similar.

Much of it comes down to identity politics, and Harper has been trying to Americanize political discourse (blue/red state) for a while. The remaining Liberals have survived because of personal recognition, and they will adapt as necessary. It's naive to wait for a united decision on anything from the remaining Liberals.

[Foucaulf]

"Entitlement" is taking prominence as an explanation for the Liberals' defeat:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet Silver is wounded, and he lashes out. As soon as he complained about "NDP nonsense on the Constitution", he will make a left-leaning voter stop reading. The Liberals have no time to complain about how much better their policy is compared to others - all policy in opposition are equally fruitless.

It will boil down to an existential crisis for the party, not just an upheaval in structure but an upheaval in class. My advice as a leftist is for Liberals to look at the name of their party, "Liberal" - and look at it hard. What does that mean? "Socially liberal" is inappropriate when three other parties jostle for that label. "Fiscally conservative" is Harper territory for months to come.

One has to use uniquely Western World concepts: negative liberty and the social contract. Humans do not gravitate towards liberty naturally; they will apply coercion for their selfish needs. Liberty from these coercions are not found in nature. Instead, society must unite in contract to protect these liberties - liberties enshrined in Liberal accomplishments such as the Charter and the Welfare State. While the Tories ostracize minorities and the NDP believes negative liberty takes second fiddle to personal security, the Liberals realize the Western state is based on the values only they will stand for. One must not expect the government to be the focus of attention, but instead allow an organic state to grow.

Silver says he will discuss his ideas for the Liberals in the weeks to come. I'll annotate him every step of the way.