Canadian Election 2019

[adma]

Do people speculate about coalitions every time a Canadian election produces a minority government, or is something unique about this time around?

Not usually, but given the proposed coalition back in 2008-9 (and the Tories raising the specter of it again in the 2011 campaign) it gets mentioned now more than it used to be.

Two things to that:

First, there's a much sharper Lib-Con divide now than there was back in the days of the PCs.  And secondly, a lot of the present coalition talk was contingent on the likelihood of the Cons getting a seat plurality as well as a vote plurality--which, of course, didn't happen.  So now that the Libs have a clear seat plurality, the coalition discussion's toned down--it's more likely that we'll see a reprise of the NDP contingency-support of Lib minorities in the 60s and 70s, than an outright coalition...

[DistingFlyer]

Do people speculate about coalitions every time a Canadian election produces a minority government, or is something unique about this time around?

Not usually, but given the proposed coalition back in 2008-9 (and the Tories raising the specter of it again in the 2011 campaign) it gets mentioned now more than it used to be.

Two things to that:

First, there's a much sharper Lib-Con divide now than there was back in the days of the PCs.  And secondly, a lot of the present coalition talk was contingent on the likelihood of the Cons getting a seat plurality as well as a vote plurality--which, of course, didn't happen.  So now that the Libs have a clear seat plurality, the coalition discussion's toned down--it's more likely that we'll see a reprise of the NDP contingency-support of Lib minorities in the 60s and 70s, than an outright coalition...

Agreed; that's why I brought up the 2008-9 coalition proposal.

Another period that deserves a mention when comparing to the present time is 2004-5. The 1960s are often invoked, but since the Pearson administration frequently had all-party (or at least three of four) support for its initiatives, and actually had the Socreds be the first small party to say they'd support them, I think a better comparison would be the 1970s and 2000s, where some noticeable changes in Liberal policy were brought about (Medicare, the CPP, the new flag & so on were centerpieces of the 1962 & 1963 Liberal platforms already).

[Flyersfan232]

are people in alberta n sask so filthy rich n selfish or just full of hate we will never know

If you see it like that, you are less than clueless about the current issues in Canada (and specifically those two provinces).

You are welcome to join us here in the states.

[super6646]

are people in alberta n sask so filthy rich n selfish or just full of hate we will never know

If you see it like that, you are less than clueless about the current issues in Canada (and specifically those two provinces).

You are welcome to join us here in the states.

The healthcare issue alone makes that a big no from me fam, but thanks for the offer.

And OT, but Johnny better not ditch us for the flyers in a few years .

[100% pro-life no matter what]

So, is the left going to bring up the popular vote here...

Also (I don't follow Canadian politics closely, so I don't know), could all the other parties come together and remove the Liberals from government?  Could we wind up with a stalemate in Canada like the one in Spain for a while a few years ago?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So, is the left going to bring up the popular vote here...

Also (I don't follow Canadian politics closely, so I don't know), could all the other parties come together and remove the Liberals from government?  Could we wind up with a stalemate in Canada like the one in Spain for a while a few years ago?

The popular vote is less of an issue as Liberal+NDP is higher than any other vote total.

As for the latter, they could but why would the NDP do that?

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

The Liberal Party of Canada is not "left"

Left And Right Are Meaningless Terms Whose Applicability And Tenants Change Based On Time Period, Geography, Culture, Context, And Perspective Of The Defined Selection.

Fixed due to unnecessary unreadability

[adma]

Gutted at Ruth Ellen losing, she could have been the next NDP leader.

Being a folk hero doesn't make one a national leadership contender.

Though in that folk-hero light, there might be an argument that Jenica Atwin's the new Ruth Ellen Brosseau.  (And I *can* see her ultimately parlaying that folk-heroness into leadership--or at least, she's a readymade answer to "who could possibly succeed Elizabeth May".)

[DC Al Fine]

So, is the left going to bring up the popular vote here...

Also (I don't follow Canadian politics closely, so I don't know), could all the other parties come together and remove the Liberals from government?  Could we wind up with a stalemate in Canada like the one in Spain for a while a few years ago?

No.

I mean technically the Tories, Bloc and NDP could vote down the Throne Speech and nominate someone else for Prime Minister, but there's no chance of that happening. If/when the government falls, since there is no chance of someone else obtaining the confidence of the House, we would just have new elections.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's hard to claim that winning 34% gives the CPC a mandate to govern in the way winning 48% would, especially since the LPC is obviously the Condorcet winner. Still, the Trudeau government itself has zero democratic legitimacy left, either. There's simply no winner to this election under the current rules.

[xelas81]

It's hard to claim that winning 34% gives the CPC a mandate to govern in the way winning 48% would, especially since the LPC is obviously the Condorcet winner. Still, the Trudeau government itself has zero democratic legitimacy left, either. There's simply no winner to this election under the current rules.

What?
On the Pure PR system most likely outcome would be Liberal minority.
To be fair NDP would have more seats and have bigger leverage but it is not enough to change who became the PM.

[Cinemark]

"The CBC won the popular vote but got less seats so democrats should stop whining about the popular vote" (Republicans)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's hard to claim that winning 34% gives the CPC a mandate to govern in the way winning 48% would, especially since the LPC is obviously the Condorcet winner. Still, the Trudeau government itself has zero democratic legitimacy left, either. There's simply no winner to this election under the current rules.

What?
On the Pure PR system most likely outcome would be Liberal minority.
To be fair NDP would have more seats and have bigger leverage but it is not enough to change who became the PM.

No party with 33% of the seats would be able to form a government alone (okay, that's not quite true, Denmark also somehow manages to have minority governments led by parties with ridiculously small pluralities, but at least they have to negotiate with other parties for outside supports beforehand, and can't just expect to be handed the government without making major concessions).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm familiar with the general lay of the land in Canadian politics and the big names in Canadian political history but don't follow the Canadian political process day-to-day. Can someone explain to me what exactly it is about Biebertrudeau that makes him so uniquely loathsome to the West? He's not even that anti-fossil fuel except rhetorically. Do people see the campaign rhetoric and assume he's coming for their livelihoods even though he's barely lifted a finger against the oil lobby in the past four years? Is there just a different culture out there that's put off by the dictatorship-of-the-woketariat vibes? Is it an affirmative strategy on the CPC's part to establish itself as a Western Canadian sectional party, rather than toxicity on Trudeau's part?

[T'Chenka]

I'm familiar with the general lay of the land in Canadian politics and the big names in Canadian political history but don't follow the Canadian political process day-to-day. Can someone explain to me what exactly it is about Biebertrudeau that makes him so uniquely loathsome to the West? He's not even that anti-fossil fuel except rhetorically. Do people see the campaign rhetoric and assume he's coming for their livelihoods even though he's barely lifted a finger against the oil lobby in the past four years? Is there just a different culture out there that's put off by the dictatorship-of-the-woketariat vibes? Is it an affirmative strategy on the CPC's part to establish itself as a Western Canadian sectional party, rather than toxicity on Trudeau's part?

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm familiar with the general lay of the land in Canadian politics and the big names in Canadian political history but don't follow the Canadian political process day-to-day. Can someone explain to me what exactly it is about Biebertrudeau that makes him so uniquely loathsome to the West? He's not even that anti-fossil fuel except rhetorically. Do people see the campaign rhetoric and assume he's coming for their livelihoods even though he's barely lifted a finger against the oil lobby in the past four years? Is there just a different culture out there that's put off by the dictatorship-of-the-woketariat vibes? Is it an affirmative strategy on the CPC's part to establish itself as a Western Canadian sectional party, rather than toxicity on Trudeau's part?

Less a failing of the Libs or Ottawa in general, and more a success on the part of the various conservative parties that they have cultivated a loyal base in the oil industry - it's just maybe a bit too successful. Various conservative tickets have not lost Alberta in recent history, more often than not it's their best province. The province was so loyal that it had two viable right-wing parties locally until their vote splitting finally enabled the NDP opposition. The Petroleum industry in general tends to draw/cultivate right-wingers, no matter where you are in the  globe. The low education requirements, high pay, and male dominated environment all set the starting point for the industry rather far toward the conservative axis of ideology.

More recently though? Oil states as a general rule go in boom and bust cycles that boom when the overall market is poor and bust when the overall market is high. Since the markets are  strong, Alberta will suffer no matter how many pipelines are built. Same situation in Alaska which is why the state is ungovernable right now. People were highly motivated to turnout and highly motivated to vote for the  opposition because they feel left behind in contrast to the rest of the country, even though whenever the next recession hits it will be the other way around. We can debate endlessly whether the decision to put all of Alberta's eggs into to Oil extraction basket rather then diversifying industry to oil-related manufacturing for plastics or cement or whatever was a good one, but Alberta's situation is that of a rentier state whose opinions of govt move with the markets. Add on a side of every other serious party supporting some sort of climate policy that attacks the fuel industry and we get a recipe for 80% blowouts.

[T'Chenka]

I'm familiar with the general lay of the land in Canadian politics and the big names in Canadian political history but don't follow the Canadian political process day-to-day. Can someone explain to me what exactly it is about Biebertrudeau that makes him so uniquely loathsome to the West? He's not even that anti-fossil fuel except rhetorically. Do people see the campaign rhetoric and assume he's coming for their livelihoods even though he's barely lifted a finger against the oil lobby in the past four years? Is there just a different culture out there that's put off by the dictatorship-of-the-woketariat vibes? Is it an affirmative strategy on the CPC's part to establish itself as a Western Canadian sectional party, rather than toxicity on Trudeau's part?

Less a failing of the Libs or Ottawa in general, and more a success on the part of the various conservative parties that they have cultivated a loyal base in the oil industry - it's just maybe a bit too successful. Various conservative tickets have not lost Alberta in recent history, more often than not it's their best province. The province was so loyal that it had two viable right-wing parties locally until their vote splitting finally enabled the NDP opposition. The Petroleum industry in general tends to draw/cultivate right-wingers, no matter where you are in the  globe. The low education requirements, high pay, and male dominated environment all set the starting point for the industry rather far toward the conservative axis of ideology.

More recently though? Oil states as a general rule go in boom and bust cycles that boom when the overall market is poor and bust when the overall market is high. Since the markets are  strong, Alberta will suffer no matter how many pipelines are built. Same situation in Alaska which is why the state is ungovernable right now. People were highly motivated to turnout and highly motivated to vote for the  opposition because they feel left behind in contrast to the rest of the country, even though whenever the next recession hits it will be the other way around. We can debate endlessly whether the decision to put all of Alberta's eggs into to Oil extraction basket rather then diversifying industry to oil-related manufacturing for plastics or cement or whatever was a good one, but Alberta's situation is that of a rentier state whose opinions of govt move with the markets. 

Liberals somewhat but even moreso NDP and Greens want to basically begin a Canadian version of The Green New Deal, especially in Alberta, which would partially untether the Alberta economy from global oil and gas markets. In the long term, this is definitely the better path forward for Alberta. Many voters don't see thus though, instead buying into the Conservative "BUT MUH OIL SANDS, F__K THE PLANET" rhetoric. There is no sustainable future in Alberta that involves keeping things going the way they are now.

[adma]

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

[DC Al Fine]

I'm familiar with the general lay of the land in Canadian politics and the big names in Canadian political history but don't follow the Canadian political process day-to-day. Can someone explain to me what exactly it is about Biebertrudeau that makes him so uniquely loathsome to the West? He's not even that anti-fossil fuel except rhetorically. Do people see the campaign rhetoric and assume he's coming for their livelihoods even though he's barely lifted a finger against the oil lobby in the past four years? Is there just a different culture out there that's put off by the dictatorship-of-the-woketariat vibes? Is it an affirmative strategy on the CPC's part to establish itself as a Western Canadian sectional party, rather than toxicity on Trudeau's part?

Less a failing of the Libs or Ottawa in general, and more a success on the part of the various conservative parties that they have cultivated a loyal base in the oil industry - it's just maybe a bit too successful. Various conservative tickets have not lost Alberta in recent history, more often than not it's their best province. The province was so loyal that it had two viable right-wing parties locally until their vote splitting finally enabled the NDP opposition. The Petroleum industry in general tends to draw/cultivate right-wingers, no matter where you are in the  globe. The low education requirements, high pay, and male dominated environment all set the starting point for the industry rather far toward the conservative axis of ideology.

More recently though? Oil states as a general rule go in boom and bust cycles that boom when the overall market is poor and bust when the overall market is high. Since the markets are  strong, Alberta will suffer no matter how many pipelines are built. Same situation in Alaska which is why the state is ungovernable right now. People were highly motivated to turnout and highly motivated to vote for the  opposition because they feel left behind in contrast to the rest of the country, even though whenever the next recession hits it will be the other way around. We can debate endlessly whether the decision to put all of Alberta's eggs into to Oil extraction basket rather then diversifying industry to oil-related manufacturing for plastics or cement or whatever was a good one, but Alberta's situation is that of a rentier state whose opinions of govt move with the markets. Add on a side of every other serious party supporting some sort of climate policy that attacks the fuel industry and we get a recipe for 80% blowouts.

To add to this, Trudeau while not overtly attacking Alberta oil like some eastern politicians are prone to do, has developed a reputation as uncaring and aloof to Alberta's problems. Things like the SNC-Lavalin affair bolstered the impression that Trudeau/Liberal Party/elites, will bend over backwards and even break the law to help a Montreal firm, but Calgary with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, gets very little attention.

[DC Al Fine]

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people".

[DistingFlyer]

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people".

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

After the Tories implemented the National Policy of tariffs with the US, Ontario became a strongly Conservative province in most elections to come. The West tended to swing back and forth, with each party frequently doing well there when in government.

After the First World War and the rise of the Progressives, the Tories found themselves weaker than usual on the Prairies (one reason for the 1925 & 1926 outcomes), while remaining strong in Ontario.  The Depression made that split even more pronounced, with Conservatives doing extremely poorly on the Prairies (generally coming third or fourth) while still doing well in Toronto. Looking at the safest Tory ridings from the 1920s to the 1950s, many are in urban Ontario (1921, 1925, 1926, 1940) or even Montreal (1930 & 1935).

Prairie populist John Diefenbaker brought the Prairies into the Tory fold in 1957 & 1958, but it cost him in the central cities: a lot of ridings that the Tories had seldom (or even never) lost before went Liberal or NDP in 1962 & 1963, and some have never come back. The Prairies, however, have remained very strong for the Tories (or Reformers in the 1990s) to this day. The safest Conservative/Reform ridings from 1958 to the present have always been (except 1988) on the Prairies, with Crowfoot maintaining a remarkably long winning streak (1968 through 1974, 1997, & 2004 to the present).

(In fact, the 80% majority obtained in Battle River - Crowfoot this time is the largest Tory majority at a General Election in at least 100 years, and the biggest margin for anybody since Pierre Trudeau's 86% lead in Mount Royal in 1968.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people".

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

After the Tories implemented the National Policy of tariffs with the US, Ontario became a strongly Conservative province in most elections to come. The West tended to swing back and forth, with each party frequently doing well there when in government.

After the First World War and the rise of the Progressives, the Tories found themselves weaker than usual on the Prairies (one reason for the 1925 & 1926 outcomes), while remaining strong in Ontario.  The Depression made that split even more pronounced, with Conservatives doing extremely poorly on the Prairies (generally coming third or fourth) while still doing well in Toronto. Looking at the safest Tory ridings from the 1920s to the 1950s, many are in urban Ontario (1921, 1925, 1926, 1940) or even Montreal (1930 & 1935).

Prairie populist John Diefenbaker brought the Prairies into the Tory fold in 1957 & 1958, but it cost him in the central cities: a lot of ridings that the Tories had seldom (or even never) lost before went Liberal or NDP in 1962 & 1963, and some have never come back. The Prairies, however, have remained very strong for the Tories (or Reformers in the 1990s) to this day. The safest Conservative/Reform ridings from 1958 to the present have always been (except 1988) on the Prairies, with Crowfoot maintaining a remarkably long winning streak (1968 through 1974, 1997, & 2004 to the present).

(In fact, the 80% majority obtained in Battle River - Crowfoot this time is the largest Tory majority at a General Election in at least 100 years, and the biggest margin for anybody since Pierre Trudeau's 86% lead in Mount Royal in 1968.)

Interesting that the Tories became the party most supportive of free trade with the US by 1988!  And that hurt them in the prairies I suppose?   Have the prairies always tended to be protectionist?

[DistingFlyer]

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people".

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

After the Tories implemented the National Policy of tariffs with the US, Ontario became a strongly Conservative province in most elections to come. The West tended to swing back and forth, with each party frequently doing well there when in government.

After the First World War and the rise of the Progressives, the Tories found themselves weaker than usual on the Prairies (one reason for the 1925 & 1926 outcomes), while remaining strong in Ontario.  The Depression made that split even more pronounced, with Conservatives doing extremely poorly on the Prairies (generally coming third or fourth) while still doing well in Toronto. Looking at the safest Tory ridings from the 1920s to the 1950s, many are in urban Ontario (1921, 1925, 1926, 1940) or even Montreal (1930 & 1935).

Prairie populist John Diefenbaker brought the Prairies into the Tory fold in 1957 & 1958, but it cost him in the central cities: a lot of ridings that the Tories had seldom (or even never) lost before went Liberal or NDP in 1962 & 1963, and some have never come back. The Prairies, however, have remained very strong for the Tories (or Reformers in the 1990s) to this day. The safest Conservative/Reform ridings from 1958 to the present have always been (except 1988) on the Prairies, with Crowfoot maintaining a remarkably long winning streak (1968 through 1974, 1997, & 2004 to the present).

(In fact, the 80% majority obtained in Battle River - Crowfoot this time is the largest Tory majority at a General Election in at least 100 years, and the biggest margin for anybody since Pierre Trudeau's 86% lead in Mount Royal in 1968.)

Interesting that the Tories became the party most supportive of free trade with the US by 1988!  And that hurt them in the prairies I suppose?   Have the prairies always tended to be protectionist?

Not really; the Tory drop in 1988 on the Prairies was more due to the Reform intervention (which took 9% of the vote but only cost them one riding there) as well as unpopular provincial governments, particularly in Saskatchewan. The recently-ousted NDP government in Manitoba & the Liberals' taking second place there saw a repeat at the federal level too.

Additionally, the Progressives in the 1920s opposed tariffs while the Tories favored them - one reason for the results at that time. By the 1980s, tariffs largely applied to the kinds of industries found in Central Canada (read: manufacturing) while East & West had to compete at world prices without any advantage being given to them. That's one reason why Ontario swung so hard to the Liberals (from 18% down to 1% up): the special advantage they'd had for the last century was about to disappear.

Atlantic Canada also swung hard to the Liberals (19% down to 5% up), largely due to claims that regional subsidies & programs would be put at risk by free trade. That didn't happen, of course, and with the economic field leveled the GDP per capita gap between this region and the country as a whole went on to narrow.

[adma]

Incidentally, I did a quick once-over of a united NDP-Green result, and they had the net plurality in an additional 7 Liberal seats and 1 Conservative seat.  (I could be off a bit.  Or not.)

[King of Kensington]

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.