Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The chance of Toronto Centre going Green (always an uphill climb) is pretty much nil at this point.

Still bizarre to me that Paul insists on running there. The byelection I can understand, and she didn't do too badly there, but byelections are usually bad for the governing party so taking Toronto Centre from the Liberals in a general always seemed like a suicide mission, even more so now. The smart play for her would have been to use the T-C byelection as a springboard to run in Guelph in the general.

[Benjamin Frank]

With Greens infighting, I cannot see how this ends well for them.  Mind you BQ faced similar problem back around 2017, but at least it was a majority so enough time to change leaders and recover.  Greens lack that.  Wouldn't be surprised if Paul Manly's seat goes NDP.  Elizabeth May's seat is a tougher one as not exactly favourable to any of the other three parties.  A bit too affluent for NDP although possible but BC NDP is more moderate than federal NDP.  Liberals are very weak on Vancouver Island so seems unlikely.  Tories have won the riding in past, but Greater Victoria area has really shifted left in last decade.  More importantly Saanich-Gulf Islands has a lot of your educated well to do types and that group not just in Canada, but globally has really swung left over last decade. 

Overall probably good news for NDP as a lot of Green supporters are types who dislike both Liberals and Tories so I see NDP benefitting most.  Liberals could get some too as a fair bit of overlap.  Probably Tories being most harm as weaker splits although ironically on a lot of issues, Green voters aren't that left wing so if O'Toole runs on a moderate enough platform, there is some potential, but still overall probably a net loss for party. 

By my understanding, Bloc got saved in 2019 by the politically astute and dangerously charismatic YFB. There was also a vacuum for them to exploit - the Liberals were declining in popularity, Scheer was an awful fit for Quebec in so many ways, and the NDP was spiraling in Quebec. I don't think such a vacuum exists for the Greens now though, both the LPC and NDP are polling better than their 2019 results.

Also, the Bloc is (rightly) seen as a party that can actually win seats in Quebec and play a serious role in national politics. Whereas for the Greens, even if the events of the Atwin affair hadn't happened, they're just not taken seriously.

I think the Green collapse will help the Liberals most on balance, even if Green voters are more likely to switch to the NDP. Most of the seats that hold the keys to a LPC majority are LPC-CPC races, so even a minor consolidation of the centre-left vote could have a noticeable impact.

If Elizabeth May steps in as interim Green Party leader for the next election, most voters probably won't even be aware she ever stepped down and it would end up that she has a chance to learn from her mistakes in 2019.

I don't dispute that they have other problems though, especially in candidate recruitment, but there are really only maybe a dozen ridings that matter for them.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1404863944079155203

Pure self-immolation at this point.

[PSOL]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1404863944079155203

Pure self-immolation at this point.

Honestly, props on them for doing so.

I agree with the comments made by Frank that putting Elizabeth May back in charge is the only way to save the party.
To think I thought Annmarie Paul would excise the left faction and sweep seats from the NDP a few months ago.

[CumbrianLefty]

Who could ever have foreseen that trying to make the Canadian Greens into a rabidly pro-Israel party would have any negative consequences, eh.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Who could ever have foreseen that trying to make the Canadian Greens into a rabidly pro-Israel party would have any negative consequences, eh.

Paul isn't "rabidly pro-Israel" and she wasn't trying to force that into the platform. But one of her chief advisors is, and the main problem was he said he would work to defeat two of his own MPs for being anti-Israel, which alone should have gotten him immediately fired. Leave your opinions at the door when you're a political strategist, because your job is to get your party more seats, not less.

Not only did Paul not fire him (letting his contract expire, yawn), she didn't speak up in defense of her MPs. Really, the Green Party's biggest problem isn't division over the Israel issue, it's that they're extremely amateurish and suck at realpolitik

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Honestly the least worst option for the GPC is to quietly bring back Elizabeth May. The eco-socialists won't be happy about that, but it might be the only way to salvage something out of this saga. Paul is toxic to much of her own party now, and holding a leadership election while a general election is looming seems very unwise.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/TorontoStar/status/1405179745973719048

[Benjamin Frank]

The problem with the Green Party is that it doesn't have much practical reason to exist anymore. There may be some younger voters who are attracted to the 'newer' Green Party who don't see the 'new' in the 60 year old New Democratic Party, but I don't think that's a strong argument for the party's existence.

1.I believe there was a poll of voters, not even just party members or party officials, who said they could see little difference between the platforms of the N.D.P and the Green Party.

Before the ban on corporate and union donations, there was a clear difference, at least in perception, between the largely union funded NDP and the Greens, which sold themselves as not beholden to anybody, but this really isn't the case anymore in regards to the NDP.  As has been mentioned here previously, there also used to be a much larger contingent of right leaning greens (conservatives who ride bicycles) but they also don't really exist anymore.

2.The practical consequence of this is that the Green Party organization, with I suppose something of an exception in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island, is controlled by politically immature amateurs, and that's certainly what we saw here.

[Continential]

Jenica Atwin changes her position on Israel after she changed parties.

[mileslunn]

Ekos poll out https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2021/06/politics-and-pandemic/ and seems to show most believe worst behind us.  Probably true although rise in UK should be warning with new variants we could see a spike, although at least UK is only seeing a spike in cases, not in deaths which are staying low, so perhaps covid is here to stay but won't kill as many and like flu have to learn to live with it.

Numbers absolutely horrible for Tories.  It seems O'Toole's moderation pushing some on hard right away, but not gaining any centrist while Trudeau's pivot to left not pushing NDP down.  I think though demographics should make Tories very worried about long term future.  I had a separate post on when will Labour in UK and Tories in Canada return to power.  While both in terrible shape, at least Labour doing well amongst groups growing so have reason for optimism long term even if things look bad short term.  For Tories in Canada no such thing.  Yes people get fed up with government and want change and polls just a snapshot, but I think if Harper's goal was to make Tories natural governing party, he failed miserably.  Also Nanos which is paywalled shows Tories ceiling low.  While O'Toole unlike Singh is not exactly likeable, I also think in general Canadians don't like conservatism and what it is selling and prefer progressive politics.  Yes higher inflation, debt crisis could change things, but I get impression in Canada many are saying enough of the neo-liberal era and wish to return to big government era.  In other countries cultural conservatism tends to trump economic wishes whereas in Canada that is not the case.

I think NDP does have potential to gain from Green implosion.  Greens still pretty high, but in Ekos they often tend to put them higher than what they usually get and I've found polls in general tend to overestimate them.  Probably accurate in support, but many strategically vote on election day knowing in vast majority of ridings they have no chance at winning.

[King of Kensington]

Interesting how they include Visible Minority and Indigenous - though the latter seem way off.

[King of Kensington]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

[mileslunn]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

Very interesting.  I think as said earlier biggest challenge for Tories is being conservative enough to appeal to base and moderate enough to appeal to swing voters.  A decade ago that was a challenge but there was enough overlap a good leader could accomplish that as Harper did.  Since then I believe the divergence has meant gap is too big.

Reason median voters have swung leftward is really two fold:

1.  Income Inequality: While greatest increases in income inequality came in 90s, Occupy Wall Street really put that in the spotlight and took it from a peripheral issue to central issue.  While free market may be good at creating prosperity, it tends to lead to fairly unequal outcomes.  Otherwise only way to reduce this is through a more activist government which off course any Conservative party will oppose thus helps parties on left.

2.  Climate Change: As risks from it are getting nearer and nearer, its become a bigger issue.  For left it is easy to win on as they tend to favour bigger government and most solutions here involve bigger government.  Yes a revenue neutral carbon tax is a market mechanism which if Tories had some foresight should have run on but problem is most of their base thinks climate change is a hoax while it is left who want strong action.  Not surprisingly those in the middle that want something done but open to different solutions are gravitating towards parties that believe it is a serious issue, not ones still debating whether it is real or a hoax.

By contrast base has become even more right wing than they were a decade ago and I blame three things primarily

1.  Social media echo chambers: Those who interact with people of different views are more likely to have moderate non-ideological viewpoints as they here a variety of viewpoints thus get a well rounded viewpoint.  If in an echo chamber only hearing one side, it tends to harden one's views and push them more to extremes.  Sort of like Fox News effect in US which has really pushed GOP to right.

2.  Election of Trump: With Trump pushing fake news and dark web conspiracy theories, that has drawn in a certain crowd and a lot come from base thus believe in ridiculous crazy ideas that are not grounded in any reality.  Yet trying to reason with them never works as they are convinced they are right.

3.  Social Conservatives:  Social Conservatives don't care about nuances, they feel strongly about issue and will never go away.  Since they thought Harper would advance their issues but didn't, they are determined to ensure next leader does and won't let them off the hook.  They figure like most eventually people will fatigue of Liberals and Tories will bounce back so they want to make sure their wishes get done this time.  They never consider possibility if Tories don't change, they may never win again.  They assume since all governments eventually get defeated and Tories only party to ever beat Liberals; party will eventually win someday no matter what position it takes.

I also think pandemic has really split right.  Left is pretty united in support of public health measures but right deeply split.  Red Tories tend to believe in policy serving greater good while more right wing believes in greater freedom.  In many cases common good and freedom are complimentary to each other so easy to stay on same page.  But with pandemic quite the opposite.  Common good is served by strict public health measures including lockdowns and mask mandates.  Right of party see this as infringement on freedom, which it is and thus oppose those measures.  Trying to take middle ground like Ford and Kenney did just angers both sides as moderates see putting lives at greater risk than necessary as a dereliction of duty while base sees this as an abuse of power and argue freedom trump everything else and health risk, especially if only a minority (around 1-2%) die is not sufficient reason to restrict one's freedom.

So in summary, I think a perfect storm has come about that basically puts right in a lose-lose situation.  Try to moderate and risk split on right.  Move further to right and only appeal to base and no one else.  And unlike in past where some middle ground between two could be found, now it seems doing that just angers both sides and pleases no one.

By contrast left is broadly united on most issues and differences are more over degree not direction.  Its very easy to compromise over degree.  Impossible to over direction.   

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Interesting how they include Visible Minority and Indigenous - though the latter seem way off.

Probably a low sample size for the latter. 4.9% of Canadians identify as indigenous, so even if they got a perfectly proportionate number of indigenous people on this survey, that's only 1412*0.049 = 69 indigenous respondents. Way too small a sample to get an accurate result, plus I'd imagine indigenous people are a little harder to reach (and typically care a lot less about Canadian politics) than the general population. I'd imagine the real NDP number is much higher.

A solid LPC lead among visible minorities with the CPC just below the national average (and the Bloc way behind) seems about right. Not a clue about people with disabilities, but I'd imagine the CPC does worse with them than the general population, since they're more likely to be on benefits.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Numbers absolutely horrible for Tories.

Keep in mind that this is well below the polling consensus. 338Canada's average has them at 30.8%, and EKOS has had a few polls recently that are noticeably worse for the Tories than other firms.

[Benjamin Frank]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

Very interesting.  I think as said earlier biggest challenge for Tories is being conservative enough to appeal to base and moderate enough to appeal to swing voters.  A decade ago that was a challenge but there was enough overlap a good leader could accomplish that as Harper did.  Since then I believe the divergence has meant gap is too big.

Reason median voters have swung leftward is really two fold:

1.  Income Inequality: While greatest increases in income inequality came in 90s, Occupy Wall Street really put that in the spotlight and took it from a peripheral issue to central issue.  While free market may be good at creating prosperity, it tends to lead to fairly unequal outcomes.  Otherwise only way to reduce this is through a more activist government which off course any Conservative party will oppose thus helps parties on left.

2.  Climate Change: As risks from it are getting nearer and nearer, its become a bigger issue.  For left it is easy to win on as they tend to favour bigger government and most solutions here involve bigger government.  Yes a revenue neutral carbon tax is a market mechanism which if Tories had some foresight should have run on but problem is most of their base thinks climate change is a hoax while it is left who want strong action.  Not surprisingly those in the middle that want something done but open to different solutions are gravitating towards parties that believe it is a serious issue, not ones still debating whether it is real or a hoax.

By contrast base has become even more right wing than they were a decade ago and I blame three things primarily

1.  Social media echo chambers: Those who interact with people of different views are more likely to have moderate non-ideological viewpoints as they here a variety of viewpoints thus get a well rounded viewpoint.  If in an echo chamber only hearing one side, it tends to harden one's views and push them more to extremes.  Sort of like Fox News effect in US which has really pushed GOP to right.

2.  Election of Trump: With Trump pushing fake news and dark web conspiracy theories, that has drawn in a certain crowd and a lot come from base thus believe in ridiculous crazy ideas that are not grounded in any reality.  Yet trying to reason with them never works as they are convinced they are right.

3.  Social Conservatives:  Social Conservatives don't care about nuances, they feel strongly about issue and will never go away.  Since they thought Harper would advance their issues but didn't, they are determined to ensure next leader does and won't let them off the hook.  They figure like most eventually people will fatigue of Liberals and Tories will bounce back so they want to make sure their wishes get done this time.  They never consider possibility if Tories don't change, they may never win again.  They assume since all governments eventually get defeated and Tories only party to ever beat Liberals; party will eventually win someday no matter what position it takes.

I also think pandemic has really split right.  Left is pretty united in support of public health measures but right deeply split.  Red Tories tend to believe in policy serving greater good while more right wing believes in greater freedom.  In many cases common good and freedom are complimentary to each other so easy to stay on same page.  But with pandemic quite the opposite.  Common good is served by strict public health measures including lockdowns and mask mandates.  Right of party see this as infringement on freedom, which it is and thus oppose those measures.  Trying to take middle ground like Ford and Kenney did just angers both sides as moderates see putting lives at greater risk than necessary as a dereliction of duty while base sees this as an abuse of power and argue freedom trump everything else and health risk, especially if only a minority (around 1-2%) die is not sufficient reason to restrict one's freedom.

So in summary, I think a perfect storm has come about that basically puts right in a lose-lose situation.  Try to moderate and risk split on right.  Move further to right and only appeal to base and no one else.  And unlike in past where some middle ground between two could be found, now it seems doing that just angers both sides and pleases no one.

By contrast left is broadly united on most issues and differences are more over degree not direction.  Its very easy to compromise over degree.  Impossible to over direction.  

These are actually much bigger issues in the United States.  The issue I think is one of market failure and that what is good for an individual can be bad for the collective.  Overfishing is the classic example of that.

I remember a discussion on the PBS Newshour (McNeil Lehrer as it was called then) with an economist after the NAFTA debate between then Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot and the subsequent passage of NAFTA in Congress.  The economist said that he was excited that the public supported an abstract economic concept like free trade and he predicted much benefit for the United States and continued support for free trade as long as the corporations and their executives did not take all the gains from trade for themselves.  

Canadian businesses I think have generally been more responsible than U.S businesses, but I think we all pretty much know how that economists' hope and warning went.  The problem was essentially that each corporation thought to themselves 'there is no harm if I take the gains from trade for myself.'  But, when virtually every corporation did it, they pretty much poisoned the well on free trade for tens of millions of Americans.

Of course, it's quite ironic that the initial beneficiary of the turn against globalization that was so championed by Republican free market ideologues in the 1990s was Donald Trump.  

I think this is also a large part of what is going on with global warming. In order to be a laissez faire/free market ideologue you have to deny the reality of market failures. So, specifically in this case, you have to deny the reality of global warming.

I don't know that it's so much that Canadians want 'big government' but most Canadians recognize that free market excesses and individual greed need to be reigned in and regulated to address market failures.  

I disagree the issue on the right in Canada and the United States is between degree and direction.  I think it's between 'principle' and practicality.  It isn't a new argument that Republican candidates tend to run on broad 'principle': 'freedom!' 'Constitutional conservative!" and Andrew Scheer in Canada was the exact same: right wing platitudes to pass for policy.

I agree that Erin O'Toole seems to be trying to move the Conservatives past this to some extent, but obviously a good deal of the party is resistant.


I don't listen to much talk radio in the United States (which thankfully seems to be mostly dying out in favor of interview podcasts) but there is clearly a schism on the right with older conservatives as represented by, say, John Batchelor (who clearly no longer has many listeners) but who does interviews (and doesn't take phone calls.) He styles himself as 'more intellectual' but his guests on economics are all from the CATO Institute who all mouth versions of 'business good, government bad' (or government baaaaaaaad if you like Animal Farm.)

In contrast, many younger right wing podcasters apparently minimize discussing economics, and when they do they tend to focus on bashing big tech.  (Interestingly, Batchelor also has guests on who bash big tech.)

In British Columbia, radio station CKNW which used to be the 'top dog' but now usually finishes third in the ratings and skews heavily to older listeners still has the idiot economist Michael Campbell (the much worse brother of former Premier Gordon Campbell) spouting free market nostrums as if the Financial Meltdown and rising income inequality never occurred.

[Geoffrey Howe]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

Very interesting.  I think as said earlier biggest challenge for Tories is being conservative enough to appeal to base and moderate enough to appeal to swing voters.  A decade ago that was a challenge but there was enough overlap a good leader could accomplish that as Harper did.  Since then I believe the divergence has meant gap is too big.

Reason median voters have swung leftward is really two fold:

1.  Income Inequality: While greatest increases in income inequality came in 90s, Occupy Wall Street really put that in the spotlight and took it from a peripheral issue to central issue.  While free market may be good at creating prosperity, it tends to lead to fairly unequal outcomes.  Otherwise only way to reduce this is through a more activist government which off course any Conservative party will oppose thus helps parties on left.

2.  Climate Change: As risks from it are getting nearer and nearer, its become a bigger issue.  For left it is easy to win on as they tend to favour bigger government and most solutions here involve bigger government.  Yes a revenue neutral carbon tax is a market mechanism which if Tories had some foresight should have run on but problem is most of their base thinks climate change is a hoax while it is left who want strong action.  Not surprisingly those in the middle that want something done but open to different solutions are gravitating towards parties that believe it is a serious issue, not ones still debating whether it is real or a hoax.

By contrast base has become even more right wing than they were a decade ago and I blame three things primarily

1.  Social media echo chambers: Those who interact with people of different views are more likely to have moderate non-ideological viewpoints as they here a variety of viewpoints thus get a well rounded viewpoint.  If in an echo chamber only hearing one side, it tends to harden one's views and push them more to extremes.  Sort of like Fox News effect in US which has really pushed GOP to right.

2.  Election of Trump: With Trump pushing fake news and dark web conspiracy theories, that has drawn in a certain crowd and a lot come from base thus believe in ridiculous crazy ideas that are not grounded in any reality.  Yet trying to reason with them never works as they are convinced they are right.

3.  Social Conservatives:  Social Conservatives don't care about nuances, they feel strongly about issue and will never go away.  Since they thought Harper would advance their issues but didn't, they are determined to ensure next leader does and won't let them off the hook.  They figure like most eventually people will fatigue of Liberals and Tories will bounce back so they want to make sure their wishes get done this time.  They never consider possibility if Tories don't change, they may never win again.  They assume since all governments eventually get defeated and Tories only party to ever beat Liberals; party will eventually win someday no matter what position it takes.

I also think pandemic has really split right.  Left is pretty united in support of public health measures but right deeply split.  Red Tories tend to believe in policy serving greater good while more right wing believes in greater freedom.  In many cases common good and freedom are complimentary to each other so easy to stay on same page.  But with pandemic quite the opposite.  Common good is served by strict public health measures including lockdowns and mask mandates.  Right of party see this as infringement on freedom, which it is and thus oppose those measures.  Trying to take middle ground like Ford and Kenney did just angers both sides as moderates see putting lives at greater risk than necessary as a dereliction of duty while base sees this as an abuse of power and argue freedom trump everything else and health risk, especially if only a minority (around 1-2%) die is not sufficient reason to restrict one's freedom.

So in summary, I think a perfect storm has come about that basically puts right in a lose-lose situation.  Try to moderate and risk split on right.  Move further to right and only appeal to base and no one else.  And unlike in past where some middle ground between two could be found, now it seems doing that just angers both sides and pleases no one.

By contrast left is broadly united on most issues and differences are more over degree not direction.  Its very easy to compromise over degree.  Impossible to over direction.  

This is interesting. We have similar schisms in the UK; though not to quite the same extent as I would say we are somewhat less Americanised, and yet the Tories have a big majority and seem to be electorally successful (though there is a very important by-election today). The glue which is keeping us together is, I suppose, being in government, and Boris' personal popularity. It is much easier to be united in government than in opposition.

Boris' strategy of pivoting to the left economically but right culturally could work I think. But there are some obstacles:
1) As you are fond of pointing out, Canada is more culturally liberal than Europe. Still, I think if it's not done in a tub-thumping sort of way it could have some success.
2) No "loony left" (Corbyn) to keep less sympathetic Tories in line.
3) Boris also ran on a specific issue of "Get Brexit Done." This was effective because we had had four years of political gridlock where the only thing people could think about was Brexit; needless to say, people were fed up. I even know a few Remainers who were attracted by this.

So what might the Canadian equivalents be?

1) As I said, I still think there is some scope for cultural conservatism - or at least an opposition to some of the more nauseating elements of Americanised liberalism. Perhaps it could be marketed as "common sense" or getting on with the "real issues."

2) I gather Trudeau isn't particularly left-wing. So tough here. Emphasise his more leftist ideas; but focus on how incredibly sanctimonious he is. Surely people will grow tired of that. (I don't follow Canadian politics much, yet I can't listen to him for more than a few seconds.)

3) Again tough. I think a "common sense" line might be the way forward here. Yes, climate change is an issue; but no, we don't want to live in caves or have Extinction Rebellion activists stop all public transport. Also, coming out of the pandemic, take a tough stance opposing any lingering restrictions. They are unnecessary, people find them irritating, and it would be a bona fide small-government stance that might appease the West while still being grounded in reality. A bit like the Tories in 1950 here opposing rationing which had stayed on five years after the war.
Appealing to immigrant/ethnic minority populations. I understand Harper did this quite well. Trump made some surprising gains too; the Tories here do well amongst many Indians and Chinese. I'd also add that they tend to be less keen on "woke" culture than some white progressives.

4) Accept that the radical fringes of the party can't hold you hostage. Federal Tories should accept that the West is not the whole country. Most likely they will grudgingly come along; throw some scraps like opposition to remaining COVID restrictions, maybe some more devolution? The Canadian right seems to be more fissiparous than the British and this is a real problem. Nevertheless, I think that a healthy scepticism of the Western base would be healthy. After all, Tony Blair won three landslides effectively ignoring the left of his even more fissiparous party (while throwing some scraps like banning fox hunting).

5) Simply fatigue of the status quo. This is powerful and should work in the Tories' favour - as Labour here.


Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

[Hatman 🍁]

Interesting how they include Visible Minority and Indigenous - though the latter seem way off.

Probably a low sample size for the latter. 4.9% of Canadians identify as indigenous, so even if they got a perfectly proportionate number of indigenous people on this survey, that's only 1412*0.049 = 69 indigenous respondents. Way too small a sample to get an accurate result, plus I'd imagine indigenous people are a little harder to reach (and typically care a lot less about Canadian politics) than the general population. I'd imagine the real NDP number is much higher.

A solid LPC lead among visible minorities with the CPC just below the national average (and the Bloc way behind) seems about right. Not a clue about people with disabilities, but I'd imagine the CPC does worse with them than the general population, since they're more likely to be on benefits.

Our Indigenous numbers are always "unexpected", so I think it has more to do with response rates and who identifies as Indigenous. A person who is a quarter Indigenous or Metis or something living in the suburbs is more likely to answer a poll than someone who is 100% Native living on a reserve or in downtown Winnipeg. The latter are the kinds of people we think of when we think of Indigenous, and they do indeed vote Liberal or NDP, but they're less likely to be represented in polls.

[mileslunn]

Mainstreet, Research & co. and Abacus out and all show big leads for Liberals with Tories all doing poorly so I don't think Ekos is off here.  I think Tories are in a big rut.  Now yes historically they have tended to outperform polls and considering how much base hates Trudeau, I imagine in end they will come around to support O'Toole, but still I think Tories getting sub 30% is not just possible, its likely at this point.  Whether just a blip or long term trend hard to know, but I tend to unlike others see the shift to left as long term and that Tories aren't just in a rut now but in permanent decline.  That doesn't mean will never win again as never is a long time, although it is certainly possible they will never return to power albeit unlikely.  But I do stand by my view odds are they won't win in next decade.

While future hard to predict, I do think swing left in Canada if it happens would be akin to New Deal coalition you saw in US after Great Depression.  Generally crisis lead to big shifts so a big shift left due to pandemic would not be unprecedented.  Only question is why Canada going that way and not others so can Canada remain an outlier on this or will it follow broader trends?

[King of Kensington]

I'm skeptical of these high Prairie numbers for the NDP that we're seeing in some polls.  A lot of the things people dislike about Trudeau is even more true of Singh. 

[mileslunn]

I'm skeptical of these high Prairie numbers for the NDP that we're seeing in some polls.  A lot of the things people dislike about Trudeau is even more true of Singh. 

Probably strong urban/rural split, also maybe some confusion with provinces.  While NDP struggling in Saskatchewan, they are slightly ahead in Manitoba provincially and have around a 10 point lead in Alberta provincially.  But yeah Notley supports energy industry while Singh doesn't so not sure Notley support will transfer over. At same time I think Kenney's unpopularity is going to hurt Tories in Alberta.  I suspect they will probably only get in low 50s vs. 69% last time, but good news is they won by such astronomical margins in Alberta they can drop 20 points and only lose a handful of seats. 

[Benjamin Frank]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

[MaxQue]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

What you propose is exactly what the Conservatives are doing right now.

The problem is that the socially conservative base is not approving of that, because they will never be a majoirty in Parliament and so, they will never get what they want (they didn't under both Mulroney and Harper). They want the party leader to be in agreement with them, the party to campaign on those questions and some even want whipped votes on those questions.