Election 2011

[ModlrMike]

The best outcome for the Conservatives would be either Denis Coderre or Martin Cochon, followed distantly by Justin Trudeau.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Looking at the next contenders for LPC leadership I really have the impression that this party is going to be in the benches for a looong time should it manage to subsist beyond the next few years.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sounds like the setup to a civil war inside the Liberal Party.
...

That "civil war" has been raging for over 40 years, ever since Trudeau arrived on the scene.

There was a small 'civil war' in 1949/50 when St Laurent, who took office in late '48, upended King's timid, tentative, isolationist foreign policy (if "policy" is the right word) and imposed his own view of Canada in the world.

But Trudeau really tore the Liberal apart: first, he repudiated everything for which St Laurent and Pearson had stood; and second, he championed social and economic policies that had never, ever been in the Liberal mainstream. John Turner kept the traditional (Pearson, St Laurent and back) flag flying within the party in the 1970s and '80s. Jean Chrétien was a Trudeauite, but, in his gut, a fiscal conservative; he pushed Turner, et al aside. Paul Martin was a St Laurent-Pearson-Turner Liberal and the battles between the Chrétienistas and the Martinis were the stuff of legend.

What's coming next? Who will carry the St Laurent-Pearson-Turner-Martin banner and who will drink the Trudeau-Chrétien kool-aid? Is there any room for the Manley Liberals in the 21st century?

 

[Edward Campbell]

With 12 days to go, including a “holiday” week-end, check out these 14 ridings (data for which is from ThreeHundredEight.com) which appear to me to be the closest in the country:

1. Vancouver Kingsway: Cons at 35.6% leading NDP at 34.1%
2. Ajax-Pickering: Cons at 43.6% leading Libs at 43.2
3. Brampton-Springdale: Cons at 41.6% trailing Libs at 41.9%
4. Brampton West: Cons at 41.0% trailing Libs at 42%
5. Kitchener-Waterloo: Cons at 38.0% trailing the Libs at 38.1%
6. Vaughn: Cons at 46.1% leading Libs at 45.1%
7. Welland: Cons at 33.5% leading NDP at 31.9%
8. Brome-Missisquoi: BQ at 31.1% leading Libs at 30.8%
9. Brossard-La Prairie: BQ at 29.7% trailing Libs at 30.6%
10. Haute-Gaspésie-Le Matis-Matane-Matapédia: BQ at 34.2% trailing Libs at 34.5%
11. Saint John: Cons at 43% leading Libs at42.5%
12. West Nova: Cons at 42.2% leading Libs at 40.0%
13. Egmont: Cons at 44.3% trailing Libs at44.7%
14. Random-Burin-St. George's: Cons at 42.1% trailing Libs at 43.5%

The Conservatives are leading in 6 and “contending” in 5 of them. If they can hold their leads and gain the other five then they are back at 152 seats, only three away from a majority.

There are other close races.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More projections, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 20, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2011
Parties hold firm

With only today's Nanos poll to add to the projection, there hasn't been much change. In fact, there has been virtually no change at the national level. But a few new seats are getting close to the tipping point.

The Conservatives and Liberals are unchanged at 38.7% and 28%, respectively, while they are still projected to win 147 and 80 seats. The New Democrats are up a tiny 0.1 point to 17.9%, and remain at 35 seats. The Bloc Québécois and Greens are unchanged as well, at 8.6% and 5.8% respectively. The Bloc is also projected to win 45 seats.

Regionally there have been a few more changes. The Conservatives were stable in most parts of the country, but also gained 1.1 points in the Prairies. They are now at 51.7% in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, better than their 2008 performance.

The Liberals dropped 0.3 points at both ends of the country, but continued their slow, incremental progression in Ontario. They now stand at 35.5% there.

The New Democrats had more movement, with gains of 0.3 points in British Columbia and Alberta, and gains of 0.2 points and 0.7 points in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, respectively.

None of this has resulted in any seat changes, however. But a few seats that have not changed hands so far in the campaign in the projection are getting close.

The Liberals are within one point of the leader in three ridings: Vaughan (46.1% Conservative to 45.2% Liberal), Brome - Missisquoi (31.1% Bloc to 30.7% Liberal), and Saint John (43% Conservative to 42.3% Liberal).

The New Democrats, meanwhile, are within one point of the leading party in one riding: Vancouver - Kingsway (35.2% Liberal to 34.4% NDP).

But things are still fluid, as the Conservatives are also still very close in some of the ridings that have recently switched over, like Brampton - Springdale, Kitchener - Waterloo, and Sault Ste. Marie. Depending on how the polls move in the next few days, we could see the Tories back over 150 or below 143, the amount of seats they held when the election was called.

On an unrelated topic, ThreeHundredEight.com's newest sponsor, 270soft, designs election simulation computer games. They've recently released their version for the 2011 Canadian election. It looks like a lot of fun, and I've been reliably informed that some of their older titles were great. So, I invite you to check them out.

So: no real change, but the election game does look interesting.

 

[CougarKing]

That "civil war" has been raging for over 40 years, ever since Trudeau arrived on the scene.

There was a small 'civil war' in 1949/50 when St Laurent, who took office in late '48, upended King's timid, tentative, isolationist foreign policy (if "policy" is the right word) and imposed his own view of Canada in the world.

But Trudeau really tore the Liberal apart: first, he repudiated everything for which St Laurent and Pearson had stood; and second, he championed social and economic policies that had never, ever been in the Liberal mainstream. John Turner kept the traditional (Pearson, St Laurent and back) flag flying within the party in the 1970s and '80s. Jean Chrétien was a Trudeauite, but, in his gut, a fiscal conservative; he pushed Turner, et al aside. Paul Martin was a St Laurent-Pearson-Turner Liberal and the battles between the Chrétienistas and the Martinis were the stuff of legend.

What's coming next? Who will carry the St Laurent-Pearson-Turner-Martin banner and who will drink the Trudeau-Chrétien kool-aid? Is there any room for the Manley Liberals in the 21st century?

Having recently read Granatstein's Who Killed the Canadian Military? for a grad. level Canadian foreign policy class, I was appalled to read that Trudeau once told Bill Lee, a former RCAF Wing Commander that "Why would would a guy as smart as you waste his time in the military?" (116, Granatstein)

Granatstein then went on further to describe Trudeau's disdain for the CF when he made his case to try to withdraw the Canadian brigade group from NATO and Canada's CF104s from Europe, though he conceded that they must retain 5,000 troops. Then the drop in the defence budget from 18 to 13 percent under Trudeau from 1967-68 was also discussed.

But you are already well aware of all this, having seen it first-hand.

Still, I take it Iggy would ascribe less to Trudeau's views than Chretien? He seemed to recognize the importance of the military- at least as a stabilizing factor to create the environments necessary for nation-building- in his book Empire Lite, if I can recall correctly, which was also required reading in our grad. class. 

However, I definitely won't be voting for "Prince Iggy's" party.

 

[GAP]

Disturbing, frustrating in a way, that the MSM, with CBC's particular Liberal bias, that I was listening to As it Happens last night. Being promoted was "the average citizen's voice" etc.  There was one person who for some silly reason was going to vote NDP...fine they're right outre' anyway, on liberal that compared his mother who had Alzheimer's, Iggy's mother had Alzheimer's, and had a friend to once spoke to Iggy and liked him, so he's going to vote Liberal..........

huh? That's your reasoning behind voting?  :

Oh, and no Conservative voters.....at all....

 

[Old Sweat]

This story by Jane Taber in today's Globe and Mail raises an interesting possibility. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Faring well from B.C. to Ontario, Harper faces ‘fault line’ in Quebec


Jane Taber

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:34AM EDT

A new scenario is emerging that could see Stephen Harper’s Conservatives lead a government in which the Ottawa River is the political dividing line. They’re ahead in every region west of there but are tied in Atlantic Canada and faring poorly in Quebec, according to the latest Nanos Research poll.

Nationally, the Conservatives are 11 points up on Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals – 39.1 per cent support compared to 28.4 per cent. The NDP is at 19.8 per cent, the Bloc Québécois is at 7.7 per cent and the Green Party is at a mere 3.9 per cent.

Pollster Nik Nanos, however, stressed the real action is in the regions. “We could see a new political fault line running down the Ottawa River,” he said, noting that as of Tuesday night the Conservatives “were leading outside of the margin of error” in British Columbia, the Prairies and Ontario. But they lag in Quebec and are statistically tied with the Liberals in Atlantic Canada.

He pointed first to Quebec where Mr. Harper’s support continues to sag. Over the past two days, the Conservatives have had between 15.4 and 16.6 per cent support compared to the Liberals at 20.9 per cent. And Mr. Nanos said with that low Tory score, it’s now conceivable that a few of the 11 seats they now represent in the province will be “in play.”

The big story in Quebec, though, is Jack Layton and his New Democrats – he has seen party support grow from 23 per cent to 25.4 per cent over the past two days. Mr. Layton’s challenge, Mr. Nanos said, is to convert that “goodwill” into votes. (The margin of error in the Quebec sample is plus or minus 6.4 percentage points 19 times out of 20.)

In Atlantic Canada the parties are all competitive. The Conservatives are polling at 38.2 per cent for the Conservatives, the Liberals are at 34 per cent and the NDP is at 25.5 per cent. (The margin of error is plus or minus 9.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

But the story west of the Ottawa River is one of Tory strength. In Ontario, the Conservatives continue to lead with 44.9 per cent support compared to 36.9 per cent for the Liberals and only 12.7 per cent for the NDP. (The margin of error is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

In the Prairies, the Tories are dominant – 55.3 per cent compared to 24 for the Liberals and 16.8 per cent for the NDP. (The margin of error is plus or minus 6.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

And even in British Columbia, the Tories are back on top after having been on a slide. Their support increased to 41.8 per cent Tuesday from 36.4 per cent on Monday. Compare this to the Liberals, who have now dropped over that same period to 25.9 per cent from 34.1 per cent support. (The margin of error is plus or minus 7.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

The poll of 1,018 Canadians was conducted between April 17 and April 19. The national numbers have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

 

[CougarKing]

huh? That's your reasoning behind voting?  :

That's not my reason for voting. And I don't have to explain my reason for doing so.

 

[GAP]

That's not my reason for voting. And I don't have to explain my reason for doing so.

Did you think I was commenting on your post? wrong...I was talking about the "logic" of why people decide who to vote for.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This story by Jane Taber in today's Globe and Mail raises an interesting possibility. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Faring well from B.C. to Ontario, Harper faces ‘fault line’ in Quebec


Jane Taber

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:34AM EDT

A new scenario is emerging that could see Stephen Harper’s Conservatives lead a government in which the Ottawa River is the political dividing line. They’re ahead in every region west of there but are tied in Atlantic Canada and faring poorly in Quebec, according to the latest Nanos Research poll.

...

This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago and to which I refer now and again. It was entitled "Old Canada, New Canada," I think, and I cannot remember who wrote it - I want to say Michael Bliss but I have not found it amongst his (fairly well) archived works.

Anyway, the Old Canada. New Canada thesis says that the Ottawa River divides Canada into two distinct societies:

1. One, Old Canada, is very conservative* - it wants to hang on to everything it has and it, especially in QC, is very collectivist;

2. The second, New Canada is liberal,* individualistic, full of new Canadian immigrants, entrepreneurial, mistrustful of big, remote governments and so on.

That divide, the author suggested was just as great as, and growing more quickly than the traditional English/French divide.

Brian Lee Crowley, in Fearful Symmetry: the fall and rise of Canada's founding values, suggests something similar. He argues that a Liberal Party of Canada that was overly beholden to, especially, QC's conservative* interests ruined Canada by debasing its "founding" (Anglo-Scots) liberal* values and replacing them with foreign, conservative* ones.

But consider future elections when, not if, we have 30 more seats in the HoC - all of them West of the Ottawa River. 20 of those seats will likely be "safe" Conservative seats meaning that a post 2015 general election might see the Conservatives having to get 170 of 338 seats. Not too hard if they can, already, win 150 of 308 and they count of 20 of the 30 new seats - in the suburbs of Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.


----------
* In the classic senses of those words, which is exactly the reverse of the way almost everyone in, especially, the USA misuses those terms - mainly because they are ill-educated and lazy.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Having recently read Granatstein's Who Killed the Canadian Military? for a grad. level Canadian foreign policy class, I was appalled to read that Trudeau once told Bill Lee, a former RCAF Wing Commander that "Why would would a guy as smart as you waste his time in the military?" (116, Granatstein)

. . . . . . .

I don't wish to derail this thread by mentioning something not directly related to the forthcoming election, but, since much of what we hear about the candidates is mostly imagemaking and spin, there is a tenuous connection because it refers to past masters of that political art.

Not having read that Granatstein book, I don't know the context in which the author mentions Bill (Leaky) Lee, however the Canadian military may have looked much different following reorganization integration unification if he had decided much earlier to "waste" his intelligence elsewhere.  For those who don't know about this former officer who passed away last month, then this excerpt from his obituary may provide some insight into what he considered (or what his family thought he considered) the highlights of his life.

http://www.lifenews.ca/thespec/profile/190672--lee-william-maurice-bill

LEE, William Maurice (Bill) The Lee family sadly announces that Bill passed away peacefully on Friday, March 18, 2011, in Ottawa after having lived 86 years to the fullest. He was born in Hamilton, ON, on June 14, 1924. Bill had three highly successful careers: the military, politics and business. He was a bon-vivant and a brilliant character with a few eccentricities. A life-long Hamilton Tiger-Cats fan, he was famous for his "boyish good looks"; daily summer attire almost exclusively of white sport shirts and white terry-cloth shorts; great family BBQs; his generosity to friends and family; and his taste for good wines and single-malt Scotches. In the RCAF during WWII, Bill was a navigator with RAF Ferry Command and flew countless times across the Atlantic and in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. After WWII, Bill was the RCAF public relations officer at Trenton, then head of RCAF (Europe) public relations in Metz, France, and later the head of RCAF public relations in Ottawa. He was seconded to lead communications for the Royal Tour of Prince Philip and the Canadian tour of US President and Mrs. John F. Kennedy. Bill retired from the RCAF as a Group Captain (Colonel) at 39 years of age to become Executive Assistant to Defence Minister Paul Hellyer. He managed Mr. Hellyer's campaign for the Liberal Party leadership and, when Pierre Trudeau won, he managed Prime Minister Trudeau's successful election campaign tour of 1968, and was a force behind "Trudeau-mania". Don Peacock, in his book "Journey to Power", called Bill "one of the most skilled and professional political organizers in Canada." Judy LaMarshe, in her book "Memoires of a Bird in a Guilded Cage", called Bill "the best of the back-room boys." Peter Dempson, in his book "Assignment Ottawa", referred to Bill as "a boyish-looking man with a keen mind and a quick wit". Martin Sullivan, in his book "Mandate '68", called Bill "a man of great charm and awesome efficiency." Greg Weston, in his book "Reign of Error", described him as "a veteran political analyst … who knew more names and faces in the powerhouse backrooms of the capital than most who occupied elected office." Bill founded, with William (Bill) Neville, Executive Consultants Limited, the first (and highly successful) government-relations company in Ottawa. He was founding Vice-chairman of the Public Policy Forum.  . . . . .

While Helleyer didn't function as a puppet for Lee, it was often alleged that much of the eventual change to the Canadian Forces resulted from his advice.

Trudeau may not have had much use for the Canadian military but, apparently, he had no such reservations about using (Air Force) public relations/affairs officers (both retired and serving/seconded?) in his office.  During the years of 1974 to 1984 (with the nine month interlude of Joe Clark not included) the PM's press secretary (well, 74-79 as assistant press secretary) was Ralph Coleman who later came back to wearing uniform on a daily basis until he retired in 1999 as a colonel.

 

[HavokFour]

Back on topic...

Metro
​

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is pretty well known, I hope, that I am a very partisan Conservative, but I can only hope that PM Harper knows what he's doing when he says “The other parties “are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can ... They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government.”” See this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/minority-or-not-harper-sees-no-point-in-compromise/article1992800/

Minority or not, Harper sees no point in compromise

JOHN IBBITSON

Rivière-du-Loup, Que.— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Stephen Harper has no plans to compromise on his next Throne Speech or his next budget if he wins only a minority government, because he believes it wouldn’t matter.

The Conservative Leader insists that, unless his party receives a majority of parliamentary seats in the federal election May 2, Michael Ignatieff will force his defeat and become prime minister.

The question of who would govern in the 41st Parliament if no party has a majority of seats is threatening to overwhelm this election, after the Liberal Leader said Tuesday he would be prepared to form a government if the Conservatives won the most seats but were defeated on their Throne Speech.
The obvious next question is whether Mr. Harper would be willing to temper that Throne Speech and compromise on the budget to secure opposition-party support.

But Mr. Harper was having none of it.

“I don’t accept the [premise of the] question,” Mr. Harper replied, when asked by a reporter if he would be prepared to compromise to stay alive.

The other parties “are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can,” he maintained. “They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government.”

All three opposition parties said in March they couldn’t approve Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget because it continued with reducing corporate taxes and spent money on things they opposed while not spending enough on things they supported.

But the Conservatives have vowed to reintroduce that budget if re-elected – indeed, it forms the core of their election platform.

It would be reasonable to ask whether that budget could be modified to assuage opposition concerns so that a third minority Conservative government could survive, avoiding a possible political crisis that could lead to a fifth general election in seven years.

But Mr. Harper was clear Wednesday that he was unwilling to compromise because compromise would, he believed, prove fruitless.

“If you listen to what the others are saying, they will defeat us,” he insisted. “They’re just saying they’re going to defeat us. And [Mr. Ignatieff] will then sit down with the NDP and Bloc Québécois to negotiate a different government. ... This is not an abstract constitutional debate; this is a very real choice facing the voters.”

For his part, Jack Layton says his number one goal is to defeat Mr. Harper and his Conservatives but he is willing to work with other parties in the event of a minority government – including one led by Mr. Harper.

“I’ve done it a thousand times,” the NDP Leader said Wednesday while campaigning on a farm in Southwestern Ontario. “Well, not a thousand. It sometimes feels like a thousand – he keeps saying ‘we don’t agree, we don’t agree.’”

But nonetheless, Mr. Layton said he is always prepared to work with other parties. “I have shown that in my 30 years in politics. And I think that’s what Canadians want.”

Mr. Harper, however, has clearly abandoned any hope of a fall-back position, in the event his bid for a majority government fails. Knowing that most Canadians reject the idea of a party that comes in second in an election forming government, he is doing everything in his power to convince voters to prevent that by giving him a majority.

If the electoral result is ambiguous on May 2, anything might actually be possible. But for the last 12 days of this campaign, for Mr. Harper, it’s majority or bust.

With a report from Gloria Galloway

I wish Harper would say: “If Canadians see fit to return me with another minority government then I will reach out – not to the BQ, because I do not believe we can kowtow to separatists and still do what is best for Canada, and not to the NDP, because Mr. Layton has said that he cannot abide me and my party in power, but to Liberals because many of them think like us, many are centrists who want what is best for all Canadians, not just for special interest groups.

What will I offer those Liberals?

• Democratic reform through -
      - More equitable votes for Canadians because we will add 30 seats, from Ontario, Alberta and BC, to the House of Commons,
      - Senate reform,  and
      - Better procedures for our work in the House of Commons, including a question period regime that more closely parallels that used in Westminster;
  
• A sane, sensible budget that controls spending but still allows for at least three more years of 6% increases for health care and enhanced benefits for seniors;
  
• A revised Veterans' Charter that incorporates the Liberals' good idea about education funding for veterans;
  
• Serious consideration of how to implement the good ideas in the Liberal's “learning Passport” - especially “If you get the grades, you get to go.”
  
  [*]We will talk with our Liberal colleagues about how to improve Canadian productivity; how to create more new, better jobs.
  

In short, my fellow Canadians, we will be prepared to work with Liberals, if they want what is best for Canada – and we think many of them do.”

What you are reading is, of course, the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[GAP]

But right now Harper has to try to grab the brass majority ring....he can do that by presenting a bleak alternative to Iggy's musings....

 

[a_majoor]

A real bombshell, should energize the CPC base. (Obviously the Legacy Media has not cared to follow up this information and I'm sure most Liberals, Dippers and BQ supporters are fine with this). Follow link to hear the recordings:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2011/04/unanswered-questions-from-november-2008.html

Unanswered questions from November 2008 and some from today.
October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.

November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.

November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.

In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.

Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:

"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early."  "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."
 
To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.

So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word.  Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?

The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?

Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!

 

[Benji88]

It makes some sense for the conservatives to stick to their previous budget - their stance earlier was that they had spoken to the opposition and tried to accomodate their concerns before releasing the final budget. Essentially saying "hey, we tried to work with these people, but they thought it'd be better to have an election, yadda yadda yadda." In that view, and considering that one of the worst mistakes Harper has yet made (IMO) was caving to the other parties over the whole stimulus package, I don't think they should make any further changes on the basis of trying to accomodate the other parties.

As for the evil coalition of doom, what's been lost in all the media attention and various sound bytes over that issue is that:
A) A coalition gov't is perfectly legal and technically viable
B) A coalition involving the Bloc scares the sh!t out of many canucks
C) A coalition involving Jack Layton is probably a really bad idea, at least financially speaking.

I think a less formal "coalition" between the conservatives and the liberals might not be too bad IF the proposed spending was tempered with a good dose of reality (i.e. a certain amount of defense budget is simply a requirement of running a country with a military, and even if there is no political cost for slashing defense spending, you simply cannot starve the military of funds - just as one example).

BUT, I strongly doubt we'll see any coalitions with the current crop of party leaders, and unless Harper does get a majority, he'll probably have to throw a bone or two at the opposition to get his budget passed. At least, he or someone he listens to will think that he has to buy them off with something.

 

[a_majoor]

It needs to be restated again and again:

A coalition is legal, but if all parites deny they wish to go into a coalition it is immoral to "bait and switch" the electorate.

If party leaders wish to form a coalition, say so up front so voters can examine the idea and make an informed vote.

Since all party leaders have denied wanting to form a coalition, we should not have to read between the lines or rely on hints leaders like Mr Ignatieff or Mr Layton have let slip during the campaign.

 

[Martino]

The electorate can only vote for their local MP who then interprets their will as best as they can. If the possibility of the Liberals forming a government with the support of other parties is so appalling to the majority of Canadians we'll see them say so with their votes on May 2nd.

 

[GAP]

Nik on the Numbers

To follow is the new research on the impact leaders have on local candidates, as well as new Leadership Index and issue numbers.

Leader impact on local candidates

Research indicates that, on the question of whether each of the federal party leaders will have a positive, neutral or negative impact on their local riding candidates, Jack Layton has come out ahead during this election, with a net impact score of +28, followed by a +10 net score for Stephen Harper, and a -7 net score for Michael Ignatieff. Duceppe, whose impact was tested only among Quebecers, received a net impact score of +33. Since February, when this measure was last tested, Layton has improved by 20 points, Ignatieff by 5 points, Harper has remained the same, and Duceppe is down 6 points in terms of their net impact on local candidates.

Note: Net impact is calculated by subtracting those who thought a leader would have a negative impact on a local candidate from those who thought a leader would have a positive impact on a local candidate.

Leadership Index and Top Issue

The one day index numbers for Layton yesterday jumped while they dropped for Harper largely on leadership perceptions in the province of Quebec. Layton has an advantage in Quebec on both trust and vision for Canada. This suggests that as of yesterday, with the improvement of NDP support in Quebec over the last week compared to the last election (from 12.2% to 25.4%) and the strong personal scores of Layton in the province, Layton today could be considered the new federalist alternative in Quebec. We will have to monitor this to see if this continues as the other parties will likely target Layton in Quebec. One outstanding issue, however, is whether this good will can convert itself into seats in Quebec for the New Democrats.

Looking at the top national issues, healthcare remained the top unprompted issue of concern (32.0%), followed by jobs/the economy (23.0%), education (7.1%), the environment (5.9%), and high taxes (4.0%).

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on www.nanosresearch.com where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.

Retrouvez les tableaux détaillés ainsi que les notes méthodologiques sur notre site web en français où vous pouvez également vous inscrire afin de recevoir des mises à jours regulières sur nos sondages.


  Methodology
The poll on leader impact on local candidates is based on a three day random telephone sample of 1,200 eligible voters conducted between April 14th and April 16th, 2011. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20.

The leadership index score is a summation of the three leadership indicators (trust, competence, vision). It is tracked daily with updated results from the previous night of polling. The margin of error for a survey of 400 Canadians is ±5.0%, 19 times out of 20.


  Impact Question: Based on what you have seen or heard THIS ELECTION, please indicate whether you think the following federal party leaders will have a positive, neutral or negative impact on the local candidate in your riding? [Rotate]***

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos survey with this question conducted between February 11th and February 14th, 2011 (n=1,016).

Net Leader Impact on Local Candidates (n=1,200)
Gilles Duceppe** Positive 52.6%, Negative 19.6% (+33.0 net, -6.2 point change since February)
Jack Layton Positive 44.8%, Negative 17.2% (+27.6 net, +19.6 point change since February)
Stephen Harper Positive 40.3%, Negative 30.4 (+9.9 net, +0.4 point change since February)
Michael Ignatieff Positive 28.4%, Negative 35.0% (-6.6 net, +5.2 point change since February)

Note: Net impact is calculated by subtracting those who thought a leader would have a negative impact on a local candidate from those who thought a leader would have a positive impact on a local candidate.
**Asked in Quebec only (n=300)
***In the February 14 wave of research, the question did not include the phrase "THIS ELECTION".

Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the previous Nanos Nightly Tracking completed on April 18th (n=400).

Leadership Index Scores:
Stephen Harper 92.8 (-17.8)
Jack Layton 76.8 (+17.3)
Michael Ignatieff 41.5 (-7.6)
Elizabeth May 13.5 (+6.0)
Gilles Duceppe 10.8 (-4.7)


The Most Trustworthy Leader:
Stephen Harper 25.5% (-5.9)
Jack Layton 29.7% (+5.9)
Michael Ignatieff 13.7% (-2.1)
Elizabeth May 6.2% (+3.3)
Gilles Duceppe 4.1% (-1.4)
None of them 13.8% (+2.9)
Undecided 6.9% (-2.8)


The Most Competent Leader:
Stephen Harper 37.9% (-5.2)
Jack Layton 19.4% (+6.6)
Michael Ignatieff 13.8% (-2.5)
Gilles Duceppe 4.8% (-2.9)
Elizabeth May 2.5% (+0.7)
None of them 10.2% (+4.9)
Undecided 11.4% (-1.6)


The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future:
Stephen Harper 29.4% (-6.7)
Jack Layton 27.7% (+4.8)
Michael Ignatieff 14.0% (-3.0)
Elizabeth May 4.8% (+2.0)
Gilles Duceppe 1.9% (-0.4)
None of them 10.8% (+4.6)
Undecided 11.4% (-1.3)


Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]

*The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 18th (n=1,200).

Healthcare 32.0% (+0.5)
Jobs/economy 23.0% (-2.7)
Education 7.1% (-0.2)
The environment 5.9% (+1.2)
High taxes 4.0% (-0.2)
Unsure 9.2% (NC)