Canada 2011 Official Thread

[Хahar 🤔]

Eugh, I hate how centre-left parties seem to be doing so badly, all over the world.

Such blanket statements are never accurate. At best they're true for a small subset of the world.

At any rate, the Liberals aren't really of the left in any sense.

[You kip if you want to...]

Eugh, I hate how centre-left parties seem to be doing so badly, all over the world.

Such blanket statements are never accurate. At best they're true for a small subset of the world.

At any rate, the Liberals aren't really of the left in any sense.

I know that, but if you look at the Canadian party system in a completely black-and-white sense. Oh well, i'd never vote for the Canadian Liberals, i'd just prefer them to the Harper Tories.

[cp]

There is a distinct possibility, though I refuse to believe it till I see it. The last time we had four elections in so short a time (1962, 1963, 1965, 1968) the fourth ended in a majority government. Already the PM has explicitly asked for us to be given a majority, letting the word slip once but emphasizing stability. Chretien didn't get his 1997 majority (in the Balkanized '90s) until the last 10 days of the campaign.

Well observed. The similarities go deeper: the first election saw the ruling party reduced from majority to minority rule and the middle two elections saw the former opposition rule with minority governments while the formerly-ruling party squabbled bitterly over its leadership (Diefenbaker and Stanfield).

It's worth remembering, however, that the fourth election saw the ruling party replace its leader for a new, charismatic bachelor named Pierre Trudeau. His eponymous mania, combined with his sangfroid at the St. Jean Baptiste Day riots, won him a majority. Anyone see that happening with Harper?

[2952-0-0]

I don't see that. Harper has exerted so much control over the party that there are no credible challengers to his leadership, and has turned the party into a complete one man show. And none of the CPC frontbenchers spell charisma in any way, shape, or form. To date he has never named a Deputy PM, which is not a healthy sign that he tolerates any dissent within the caucus.

If the election results in a Liberal minority (unlikely now, but who knows), Harper gets turfed. If the election results in a smaller CPC minority, he will probably be forced to step aside in the caucus meetings. But at this stage there is no one to fill the vacuum if he steps aside, and my hunch is that a big part of the party rank and file will tune out of the leadership race and party donations will drop (if they haven't already been banned by court ruling by then).

Such are the risks of turning a party into a one-man personality cult.

[Insula Dei]

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?

[Hash]

Depending on what polls are to believed, the Tories are on the cusp of a majority.

Here's where we shape up:
Greens: 0 (no one thinks Elizabeth May will win)
NDP 25-40
BQ 45-55
Liberals 55-75
Tories 145-160

That's if you believe the IR poll. There is a good chance that the Grits will win more seats than in 2008 and there is a chance that the Tories will win less seats than in 2008. A more accurate view would be:

Greenies: 0, low chance of 1
NDP: 25-40
Bloc: 40-55
Liberals: 60ish-high 80s/low 90s
Tories: high 130ish-low 160s

Harper's goal seems to be to win a majority without winning over 30% of the pv in Quebec which has, afaik, never happened but which isn't to say can't happen. I fathom Harpy hates Quebec ever since arts cuts 2008/coalition 2008 and certainly his whole "coalition with teh separatist!" doesn't scream Quebec brown-nosing 2006-2008 style.

[cp]

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, so it would be a rather Pyrrhic victory. 

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2011/03/february-2011-best-and-worst-case.html

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. Conversely, their floor is probably around 18-20 seats.

[You kip if you want to...]

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?

It is out of reach, although there's a chance that Duceppe could become Leader of the Opposition should the Liberals be destroyed.

[Insula Dei]

Would Layton survive a 20-seat loss? Or even any type of losing seats?

[cp]

Good question. Layton's only returned positive results for the NDP. Having never suffered a loss before (Winnipeg North being a possible exception) it's difficult to gauge how he'd be affected.

I think he's popular enough with the party that he'd be the favourite to win if there was a leadership challenge. But he's 60. There are questions about his health. And Thomas Mulcair wants his job. Kind of a coin toss. And Dippers want to comment?

[Insula Dei]

I have to say, Mulcair looks like an epic leader. Why do so few politicians these days opt for even the most modest of beards?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have to say, Mulcair looks like an epic leader. Why do so few politicians these days opt for even the most modest of beards?

Their image advisors tell them not to.

[Hash]

I have to say, Mulcair looks like an epic leader. Why do so few politicians these days opt for even the most modest of beards?

Mulcair is an opportunistic egomaniac.

[DL]

Good question. Layton's only returned positive results for the NDP. Having never suffered a loss before (Winnipeg North being a possible exception) it's difficult to gauge how he'd be affected.

I think he's popular enough with the party that he'd be the favourite to win if there was a leadership challenge. But he's 60. There are questions about his health. And Thomas Mulcair wants his job. Kind of a coin toss. And Dippers want to comment?

I think most people think that this is Layton's last campaign - regardless of the results. It will be his fourth election, he will have been leader for 8.5 years and its a grueling job...especially when battling cancer and being treated for a hip fracture. The party would never push him out - he is extremely popular and runs well ahead of the party. Whatever the result, people in the NDP will unanimously thin that they did better with him as leader than they would have done without him. He will retire at a time of his choosing and most people think that he wants Mulcair to succeed him.

The latest round of polls has the NDP at 19% - with big gains in Quebec and that would actually be a slight improvement over last election when they had 18%. The NDP also tends to win more seats when the Liberals are doing relatively badly since there are a lot more Liberal/NDP marginals than Conservative/NDP marginals. As things stand now, the NDP would probably gain a couple of seats in BC and has one or two seats that are good chances at pickups in Sask, Ontario, Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. Of course there are also some vulnerable incumbents. If Layton's campaign catches fire and the NDP gets over the 20% mark - who knows what could happen - at this stage its likeliest that they will get a small increase to just over 40 seats. I think Layton would love to get 44 or more seats and beat the best ever NDP seat count of 43 in 1988.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If the NDP can hit 35% in Ontario and Quebec (and that is very unlikely) they would start picking up seats by the bucketfull.

[ScottM]

This will be the first Canadian election I've really followed (last year's British election was the first non-U.S. election I followed closely), so I'm looking forward to this.

Thanks to RogueBeaver for the links.

[Boris]

Eugh, I hate how centre-left parties seem to be doing so badly, all over the world.

Such blanket statements are never accurate. At best they're true for a small subset of the world.

At any rate, the Liberals aren't really of the left in any sense.

It's Canada. They're fine.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Weather you consider the Liberals left or not depends on if you go by their platform, policies, and statements, or weather you go by their governing record.

[Bacon King]

Weather you consider the Liberals left or not depends on if you go by their platform, policies, and statements, or weather you go by their governing record.

Perspective is important here- by either metric they're to the left of both US parties.

[minionofmidas]

Paul Martin was not to the left of the Democratic Party's center of gravity. Not by any stretch of the imagination. (Jean Chrétien or Pierre Trudeau, otoh...)

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If you were to suggest a combined public-private health system, you'd be called a radical right-winger in Canada, and a radical left-winger in the US. When you take those things out, you see that Martin, and even Chretien, were pretty well moderates, but Trudeau was a socialist.

[Hatman 🍁]

I have to say, Mulcair looks like an epic leader. Why do so few politicians these days opt for even the most modest of beards?

Mulcair is an opportunistic egomaniac.

Quite the opposite. What man on Earth would opt to run for a party that has no history of winning in the province, when he could have just as easily run for the Liberals, and would have worked far less hard to win the seat.

Well, perhaps he really wants to be a party leader, but he's not opportunistic enough to want to be Prime Minister, unless he foresees some cosmic realignment that will make the NDP win an election?

[Hatman 🍁]

I haven't seen any signs of the NDP gaining seats this election. Most likely there will be some modest losses, meaning that Layton will be out for sure. Mostly because of his health. I for one welcome our new supreme leader, Thomas Mulcair. However, I will probably work on the campaign of Peter Julian's leadership, because I've worked for him on the hill. (rumours have been that he will run as well).

[DL]

I've seen plenty of signs that the NDP will gain seats - I can rhyme them off - Surrey North, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Newton-North Delta, North Vancouver Island, Edmonton East, Palliser, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Parkdale-High Park, Davenport, Gatineau, Dartmouth, South Shore-St. Margarets, St. John's South-Mount Pearl.

I'm not sure what "signs" you need to see that the NDP can and probably will gain seats. Most polls have the party slightly above what it got in the last election and a rising tide raises all ships.

[Hash]

I've seen plenty of signs that the NDP will gain seats - I can rhyme them off - Surrey North, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Newton-North Delta, North Vancouver Island, Edmonton East, Palliser, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Parkdale-High Park, Davenport, Gatineau, Dartmouth, South Shore-St. Margarets, St. John's South-Mount Pearl.

I'm not sure what "signs" you need to see that the NDP can and probably will gain seats. Most polls have the party slightly above what it got in the last election and a rising tide raises all ships.

I can also rhyme off a whole bunch of vulnerable NDP seats in a list which might be just as long. Let's stop being hackish and get the head out of the sand and realize that while nothing says the NDP won't gain seats, nothing says the NDP won't lose seats.