Canadian Election 2019

[cp]

A poor performance for the federal Conservatives would not endanger Ford's rule of the provincial party, correct? It doesn't seem like 2008 or 2011 reflected badly on McGuinty at all, or like federal politics impacts provincial politics this way in other provinces.

Actually there is a long history of unpopular provincial governments costing their federal cousins votes and seats in Canadian elections. In 1979 the extreme unpopularity of the rightwing Manitoba PC government under Sterling Lyon cost the federal PCs several seats and could have been the difference between the Joe Clark government surviving or losing power.

In 1997, the Nova Scotia Liberals were extremely unpopular - the federal Liberals went from holding all 11 federal seats in NS to holding zero of them!

In 1974, 1997 and 2000 the federal NDP suffered heavy losses in BC because of the unpopularity of the BC NDP governments in those times.

The backlash against Mike Harris is widely seen as having contributed to the Liberals under Chretien sweeping Ontario in 1997 and 2000.

A backlash against Dalton McGuinty is seen as having cost the federal Liberals a lot of seats in Ontario in 2004 and 2006 and 2008  

Yes, I know that provincial government popularity or lack thereof often affects federal results in Canada. (While the reverse seems to happen somewhat less often and not be as strong). My question was whether a federal election result had ever brought down a provincial premier? Like, let's say there are large Conservative gains in every province but large losses in Ontario, and as a result Trudeau is reelected with a bare minority government. Would there be pressure on Ford to step aside? And has anything like that happened before?

As best as I can figure, the answer is no.

The only example I can think of doesn't really point to a clear causative relationship between the federal election *on its own* and a provincial election in which an incumbent loses. I'm thinking of the 1993 federal election and the subsequent 1994 Quebec provincial election.

The 1993 federal election saw the Liberals returned to power with a majority. But in Quebec the Bloc Quebecois won 54/75 seats. The following year the incumbent Quebec Liberal government was defeated by a resurgent Parti Quebecois (leading to the 1995 referendum).

On the face of it, you can make a case for the 1993 election contributing to the poor performance of the PLQ in 1994: the BQ surged ahead, the Liberals in the province were reduced to a rump. In reality, though, Robert Bourassa's (provincial) administration had been beset by problems for years. The 1993 election didn't cause the PLQ's collapse so much as it foretold what was already quite apparent.


Still, this provides some useful perspective on what may happen to Ford. If his premiership continues to lurch from problem to problem every month it will be harder for him to shake off any criticism he might face for ostensibly undermining the federal Tories this year. His subsequent defeat might not be *caused* by resentment over a disappointing Scheer performance, but it probably won't help things.

[cp]

A few updates on polls and so far it seems any impact for ethics commissioner report has not materialized at least not yet and may not at all.  Numbers still a bit over the place, but some interesting pictures emerge.

Advanced Symbolics which tries to use AI to predict results (I am bit skeptical of this, but only NDP numbers seem high, others seem about right) has Liberals 147 seats, Conservatives 139 seats, NDP 31 seats, BQ 17 seats, Green party 3 seats, PPC 1 seat.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/

CBC predictions are different, but they were not updated since 5 days, so maybe there were some changes due to SNC-Lavalin affair last days.

So we are looking at a Liberal Minority or Liberals needs NDP to have a working majority? I don't know much about how the Canadians actually run their parliament. I know that Harper basically ran a Conservative minority government even though a clear majority of MPs were left-of-center between 2011 and 2015.
I even remember that in the aftermath of 2011, many commentators were saying that Liberals were becoming a centrist third party and that the Conservatives would be elected again, again, and again. This would happen until the NDP, the new "main opposition", could maybe eventually win one but it could be decades before that happened, if ever.
Have no ideas what Canada would be like after 4 or 5 consecutive Conservative government. Would it not much change? Would it be more or less shift from Bernie Sander's America into Biden's America? Would it become what America is now more or less or would it become a generically right-wing country where abortion is illegal and the only people who can see a doctor or get proper treatment for chronic conditions and grave illness are those who can afford it? FWIW, my understanding of Canadian immigration or even Canadian tourism law is that its already pretty Trumpy.

The Tories led minority governments from 2006-2011, not 2011-2015. I'm also not quite sure it's accurate to say there was a clear majority of 'left-of-centre' MPs during those years. There were, and still are, plenty of centrist Liberals further to the 'right' than some Tories, at least on specific issues. Meanwhile, the BQ had a contingent of pro-business and small town MPs who wouldn't fit any description of left wing.

There were a good number of commentators predicting a realignment as you described; this view was especially prominent among Conservative circles, as it portended much more durable electoral success for that party. Truth be told it was always a little pie-eyed as analysis goes, and it ended pretty quickly as soon as Trudeau took the helm of the Liberals and shot back to first place in the polls.

[cp]

Dissolution tomorrow.

Which of the big parties is likely to end up with the most seats?

Probably the Liberals.

Agreed. I'd go so far as to say they're being underestimated in the conventional wisdom right now, i.e. that they'll end up with another majority, albeit reduced, rather than within spitting distance of whomever comes second place.

[cp]

I am quite curious as to the staying power of this. Suppose it depends on the rest of the campaign (and on that front, the Tories haven't been doing themselves many favours).

It'll be the story of the week(end) for sure and probably get referenced consistently by the Tories, but I doubt it has the legs to last the entire campaign, nevermind becoming its defining issue.

A relevant bit of historical context: blackface in Canada, and particularly Québec, isn't viewed quite the same way as it is in the U.S. Minstrelsy wasn't nearly as prominent in Canada as it was in the U.S. during its heyday and, obviously, most of the black communities in Canada originated from different historical circumstances (i.e. not transatlantic slavery).

Case in point: about 10 years ago a satirical comedy program in Québec caused a minor controversy when they did a skit where a white actor portrayed a black Montréal Canadians hockey player with his face darkened by makeup. The anglo/ROC press picked up on it and ran stories about Québec's racial insensitivity; the National Post (of course) tried to link it to the reasonable accommodation debate. In Québec, however, many - especially nationalists - insisted that it couldn't be racist because of the historical factors I outlined above. Those voices spun the controversy as 'Canada doesn't understand Québec'.

This isn't to say blackface isn't racist af or that Trudeau shouldn't have known better when he was 29. Just that the controversy probably lacks the salience that a lot of anti-Trudeau voices wish it did.

 

[cp]

I can't wait for the post-Facegate polling.

Rather early, and just a daily tracking poll, but still

Libs: 36.8
Cons: 34.2
NDP: 10.1
Green: 9.8
Bloc: 4.7

Changes from the previous poll were all under 0.5 in every case.

[cp]

I think that's a good analysis. The blackface story isn't an issue that has a lot of swaying power, at least on its own. If it comes to light that Trudeau had said or done (previously unrevealed) things that were similarly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., especially if they were more recent than 20 years ago, then it will create a much more plausible narrative about Trudeau's hypocrisy, insincerity, and judgment. However, unless those things happen the blackface story is much easier to interpret as a one off event. Consequently, it probably doesn't factor very heavily into the deliberations of voters when they think about who will be best placed to manage the budget, foreign affairs, interprovincial relations, unity, etc. for the next 4 years.

[cp]

FWIW, after all the hyperventilating, it seems to be that the electoral impact of Trudeau taking part in a minstrel show will be pretty marginal. If this had happened four years ago, it would have been fatal for Trudeau, but now he has a record as PM and that is something for people to balance this against. These scandals just don't seem to have the impact they once did.

The whole story likely did two things - it gave NDP leader Jagmeet Singh an opportunity to hit the ball out of the park with his reaction and to gain profile AND it torpedoes the Liberal strategy of going after Tory candidates for things they said or did in the past...but in the end i don't think it changes the fundamentals and I am still predicting what I predicted months ago - Liberals lose majority, remain largest party and a Trudeau minority gov't likely lasts a full 4 years

Trudeau's travails last week have probably precluded any really aggressive/sanctimonious harping by the Liberals about some future Tory/NDP candidate's past misdeeds, but I don't think it has torpedoed any strategy. For one thing, if the misdeed is bad enough to be reported on the media and/or non-Liberal parties will do more than enough to make a (mini)scandal out of it. Also, I'm skeptical that the Liberals planned *that much* of their campaign strategy around anticipated Tory candidate embarrassments. Or at any rate, if they did plan their campaign around that, then they have much bigger problems than Trudeau in blackface!

[cp]

Things are much more boring in Ottawa South.

Evergreen post

[cp]

Interesting poll of native Canadians:

Con: 26%
Lib: 21
NDP: 17
Green: 16


n= "1,024 people self-identifying as First Nations, Inuit or Métis"

https://aptnnews.ca/2019/10/02/vote2019-climate-change-and-drinking-water-top-indigenous-issues-in-federal-election/

Are indigenous voters a bellwether bloc in Canada?

No. Inuit and Metis voters are concentrated in about 10 ridings in Manitoba and the high north and their votes respond more to local issues and/or the personalities of the people running. First Nations indigenous people are more spread out, though many of them live on reservations or in the downtowns of cities like Montreal, Halifax, and Toronto. In both cases they tend to be somewhat segregated from the non-indigenous population, and so tend to have different sets of political priorities.

Also, indigenous people make up about 5% of the total population and tend to vote in lower numbers than settler/immigrant groups.

[cp]

[snip]

So, you think Scheer is scarier than Harper?

A lot of progressives voted Liberal in 2015 to give the boot to Harper, but you didn't.

I don't think Scheer is worse than Harper. Perhaps he is "just as bad", but not worse.

I'd consider Harper 'worse' than Scheer if only for the fact that I don't think Scheer is terribly capable, whereas Harper had the ability to get (awful) things done. Thankfully, he didn't end up accomplishing much in the way of lasting right wing policies.

fwiw, had I been able to vote in 2015 I probably would have voted Liberal. The local MP for where I would have voted (David McGuinty - Ottawa South) was a sensible and conscientious sort of politician, so I wouldn't have minded him in office even if we disagreed on some points. Also, in 2015 I much preferred Trudeau's pitch and leadership style to Mulcair's, who I thought really failed to rise to the occasion.

This time, however, with my restored emigrant voting right, I'm almost certain to vote NDP. The candidate in Ottawa South isn't crazy (have had to deal with highly unimpressive NDP candidates in Ottawa South before!), and I'm comfortable tacitly un-endorsing Trudeau, mostly because of a lack of real change/progress rather than distaste with what he did. I won't mind if he gets reelected, but I think his premiership would benefit from more leftwing input at the policymaking level. Fingers crossed

[cp]

   Conservatives are kind of in a box because I would think most soft NDP or Green voters who are wavering, are wavering between voting for their first choice, and if not for the Liberals. Not a big universe of potential CPC voters out there, outside of the already small PPC electorate. Don't see how they get too close to a majority.

Indeed. I haven't seen any polls like this lately, but for a while around 2011-2015 some pollsters published figures for a question along the lines of 'what party would you ever consider voting for?'. The Libs always managed in the 50s, the Tories could never crack 45. Add to that the fact that the 'pool' of voters who would consider voting Tory is disproportionately concentrated in the 75 or so ridings in the prairies and you've got a serious structural impediment to a Tory majority.

[cp]

Wait....if I am reading this right, center right and right-wing parties in canada will barely combine for 1/3 of the vote? That is embarrassing.

It's Canada not Louisana

I get that, but the U.K., Germany, etc are also not Louisiana and center right parties combine for way more there than Canada.

Many center-right voters vote for the liberals.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Are the liberals a “big tent” party?

In a manner of speaking. They are highly adept at a kind of flexible centrism/moderation. In the 60s they leaned noticeably to the left, in the 90s and 00s they leaned noticeably to the right. They are rarely so 'big tent' that they include, for comparison's sake, Ted Cruz, Hilary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders all at the same time. But there have been periods when they've all but jettisoned one 'wing' they could appeal to because it is not electorally viable.

The best comparison for the Canadian federal Liberals is the UK Conservative party. They are the party of old money and the well connected, reluctantly embracing change and more concerned with power than policy at the end of the day. Unlike the UK Tories, however, the Liberals have never found common cause with any truly radical right wing politics (nor left wing, really, notwithstanding the Liberals' right-leaning opponents tiresome insistence to the contrary).

For the record, the Liberals are, historically speaking, in a more left-leaning mode, though very slightly. That might change after tonight.

[cp]

Wait....if I am reading this right, center right and right-wing parties in canada will barely combine for 1/3 of the vote? That is embarrassing.

It's Canada not Louisana

I get that, but the U.K., Germany, etc are also not Louisiana and center right parties combine for way more there than Canada.

In purely functional terms (and Bagehot was right: really, what else matters in politics?) the Liberal Party of Canada has spent most of the the time since the 1980s operating to the right of all significant German parties other than the AfD and not always that much more to the left of the British Conservatives.

That was probably true up until 5 years ago or so. Trudeau's no lefty, but he's decidedly less right-leaning than Paul Martin, and WAY less right wing than Theresa May (or Merkel, for that matter); he'd probably find more overlap with Johnson if it weren't for the fundamentalism of Brexit screwing everything up.

[cp]

Does not Conservative weakness in Quebec go back to the execution of Louis Riel in 1885? Since then only occasional elections produced a Conservative majority in federal elections in Quebec.

... umm, sure? Seems as good/random an explanation as any.

For my part, I think the reasons cited so far are too Canada-centric. Québec's relationship with the federal parties underwent a transformation after the Quiet Revolution in the 60s, just like every other aspect of Québec at the time. C/conservative parties had a hard time incorporating the decolonialist rhetoric of that era, which has inflected politics there ever since. The simultaneous embrace (and endurance) of social democratic politics made it even harder for Anglo conservative parties to succeed.

[cp]

Agreed. Obviously Jagmeet Singh should get a pass for the Quebec losses, but going backwards in Toronto, when Trudeau was tainted by scandal is not good at all, and absolutely needs to be corrected next time around.

I'm curious what the NDP post-mortems about the area have concluded.

Singh has gotten a remarkably free pass in the NDP.  They're using the yardstick of "we could have lost party status" and "he did as well as Layton the first time out."

does Singh have any potential at all to become the next Jack Layton?

Not really, especially if a breakthrough in Québec is considered integral to being the next Jack Layton.