2017 Polls

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

NDP once again at 19% in latest poll.

 

Sean in Ottawa

This return to 19% could be due to one or both of two things:

1) the leadership race, ending and Singh's victory.

2) A return to parliament. The NDP was about 19% when parliament broke for the summer and then sank during the summer. The Conservatives increased during that time. The NDP has recovered to pre-summer numbers and the Conservatives have been reduced to their pre summer numbers.

The question is where we go from here. I have said that the efficient floof for NDP support that used to be at 18% or so is now closer to 23-24 due to the vote being spread out more. This recovery to 19% could be on the path to reaching those numbers.

A recovery for the NDP, even at the loss of the Liberals may not be good news for the Conservatives if this distribution allows NDP support to concentrate. With the FPTP system you cannot draw absolute conclusions from vote totals. If the Liberals lost votes to the NDP in NDP friendly areas, it is possible that the Conservatives could lose seats as much as the Liberals.

Singh's position on pipelines may provide the NDP with a better position in BC at the expense of the Greens. This would be a problem for both Conservatives and Liberals in that province. It also will do no harm in Quebec which understands the same issue. In cold terms these are two places the NDP has to do well. Ontario may not care either way.

Sean in Ottawa

DP

R.E.Wood

38 Con -- 36 Liberal -- 14 NDP

"Support for the NDP has remained steady, despite the fact the party elected Jagmeet Singh as its new leader on Oct. 1. The NDP was at 14 per cent in mid-August, 15 per cent in September, and 14 per cent in the latest poll last week."

... "Despite their dip in support, the latest poll numbers would give the Liberals a minority government, due to vote distribution. The Liberals would secure 164 of 338 seats, the Conservatives 148, the NDP 15, the Bloc 11 and the Greens two seats, Forum says."

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/13/dip-in-popularity-continu...

NorthReport

40% of Canadians want Morneau gone

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

NorthReport wrote:

40% of Canadians want Morneau gone

But then what does the other 60% say?

NorthReport

The other 60% say Morneau is being investigated by the Ethics Czar.

R.E.Wood

The latest Nanos:  Liberals 38.3 ... Conservatives 30.9 ... NDP 17.5 percent

Nanos tracking has Trudeau as the preferred choice as PM at 45.0 per cent of Canadians followed by Scheer (21.1%), Singh (8.8%) and May (5.2%).

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/11/14/liberals-38-conservatives-3...

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

New polling from Abacus

Canada

Liberal - 40%

Conservative - 32%

NDP - 18%

Green - 6%

Bloc - 4%

BC

NDP - 33%

Liberal - 32%

Conservative - 21%

Green - 14%

AB

Conservative - 62%

Liberal - 20%

NDP - 16%

Green - 2%

SK/MB

Conservative - 41%

Liberal - 31%

NDP - 21%

Green - 6%

ON

Liberal - 43%

Conservative - 37%

NDP - 15%

Green - 4%

QC

Liberal - 44%

Bloc - 18%

Conservative - 17%

NDP - 17%

Green - 4%

ATL

Liberal - 60%

Conservative - 16%

NDP - 11%

Green - 13%

Approval Rating Of Leader

BC

Trudeau - 44%

Singh - 28%

Scheer - 16%

Prairies

Scheer - 38%

Trudeau - 34%

Singh - 21%

ON

Trudeau - 47%

Singh - 25%

Scheer - 23%

QC

Trudeau - 54%

Singh - 21%

Scheer - 16%

ATL

Trudeau - 67%

Singh - 15%

Scheer - 10%

http://abacusdata.ca/liberal-slippage-halts-with-an-uptick-on-some-key-i...

NorthReport

It would be helpful if the pollster's political connectionss are listed with their way too frequently biased polling results.

We already know about Forum's Liberal connections so for example who owns Abacus and do they have any connections ie relatives etc working for a political party?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

It would be helpful if the pollster's political connectionss are listed with their way too frequently biased polling results.

We already know about Forum's Liberal connections so for example who owns Abacus and do they have any connections ie relatives etc working for a political party?

The Chair is Bruce Anderson -- you know him from the At Issue panel:

Bruce Anderson is the chairman of polling firm Abacus Data, a regular member of the At Issue panel on CBC’s The National and a founding partner of i2 Ideas and Issues Advertising. He has done polls for Liberal and Conservative politicians but no longer does any partisan work. Other members of his family have worked for Conservative and Liberal politicians, and a daughter currently works for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He writes a weekly digital column for The Globe and Mail.

His comments on the At Issue Panel have been generally balanced. He was with Decima previously. I don't think he is unethical and I would not see his polling as biased.

brookmere

Here is all the polling prior to the 2015 election. You can see for yourself that Abacus did not show a bias against the NDP. Their last poll before the election put the NDP at 24%. They also put the NDP in first place in a number of polls previously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Cody87

So we can conclude that so far, Scheer is less popular than Singh (and also more unpopular), except in the Conservative heartland, even though the Conservatives historically have been much stronger than the NDP. And digging into the details shows Scheer is also more unpopular, so he's going to have to focus on his image or be a drag on his party and policies. Even in the praries Singh is not significantly more unpopular than Scheer!

But this is important:

As shouldn't be surprising, many voters are either neutral or don't know enough for both Singh and Scheer. So comparing their favorability is not really fair, when for both Singh and Scheer around 60% of voters haven't made any kind of decision on them. Consider that you could with equal methodology report just the negative impressions and "show" that Trudeau is the least popular leader in half the regions. How could he be the most popular and least popular at the same time? To avoid this fallacy it's necessary to at least exclude the "don't know enough" voters, but probably also some portion of the neutral voters for the new leaders. Once you do that the numbers are much more competitive (at least west of Quebec).

Anyway, it's bad news for Scheer and very encouraging for Singh. I hope Singh can do well in Quebec, I think he'll do fine in Ontario based on these numbers. Scheer needs to play for Ontario for any chance at forming even a minority government. I think Scheer is more likely to lead the Conservatives to third party status than first party. For Singh to lead the NDP to government in 2019 will require some luck and lots of skill, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to see 2011 numbers at least for the NDP come 2019.

NorthReport

Trudeau is down 8% in the polls from a year ago

Pondering

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/17/most-canadians-rate-justin-trudeaus-eco...

Canada may have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but that doesn't mean Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government will get the credit, according to a recent poll.

Just one-quarter of Canadians would describe Trudeau's economic performance as good or or very good, according to a Nanos Research poll conducted for Bloomberg News.

More than a third of Canadians — 36 per cent — would rate his performance as poor or very poor. Another 36 per cent would mark it as average.

Concerns about housing, rising interest rates, and income inequality may be to blame. More than eight in 10 Canadians are concerned or somewhat concerned about the impact of higher interest rates on their ability to pay down their debts.

That's a really interesting stat. The economy is the number one issue for most voters. Doesn't mean they think anyone else would do better. I think Harper had very high marks on the economy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/20/liberal-ministers-unknown-to-mos...

Though she didn't have the awareness scores of her defence or transport ministry counterparts, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland had the strongest approval rating in the survey.

Forty-six per cent of respondents approved of her performance, while 23 per cent were not impressed. Freeland has been a central figure in Canada's ongoing NAFTA renegotiation marathon with the U.S. and Mexico, and has been playing a lead role in charting the government's relationship with the unpredictable administration of President Donald Trump.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's clear Canadians are unaware of the fact that Canada's reputation in the world has gone up tenfold since thed Harper nightmare. Even among Americans,Canada and Trudeau have become quite popular. If Canadians decide to shit the bed and re-elect a Conservative government next election,the world will be confused and Canadians will prove themselves as losers.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Latest polling from Nanos

Liberals - 39%

Conservatives - 31%

NDP - 17%

Green - 7%

Bloc - 5%

https://twitter.com/niknanos/status/934202546599727105

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Polls show the Liberals with a double-digit lead over the Conservatives (and the NDP) among female respondents nearly every week since the Oct. 19, 2015 election, with a more than 14 percentage point gap on Nov. 17. The NDP typically polled third among female voters in the Nanos polls, though it pulled even with or briefly surpassed the Conservatives on a few occasions.

The same polls show a much tighter race for male voters, with the Liberals and Conservatives running neck-and-neck since the summer. The last time the Conservatives and Liberals polled within one percentage point of each other among women, according to the Nanos ballot tracker, was July of 2015.

http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/11/27/grits-rebound-polls-mps-point-econom...

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Latest polling from Nanos

Liberals - 40.1%

Conservatives - 30.7%

NDP - 16.5%

Green - 6.9%

Bloc - 4.2%

Preferred Prime Minister

Justin Trudeau - 45.6 %

Andrew Scheer - 22.8%

Jagmeet Singh - 6.6%

Elizabeth May - 6.1%

Qualities of a Good Political Leader

Justin Trudeau - 63.9 %

Andrew Scheer - 33.9%

Elizabeth May - 41.4%

Jagmeet Singh - 35.4%

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/12/05/liberals-40-conservatives-3...

R.E.Wood

Mighty Middle wrote:

Latest polling from Nanos

Preferred Prime Minister

Justin Trudeau - 45.6 %

Andrew Scheer - 22.8%

Jagmeet Singh - 6.6%

Elizabeth May - 6.1%

Qualities of a Good Political Leader

Justin Trudeau - 63.9 %

Andrew Scheer - 33.9%

Elizabeth May - 41.4%

Jagmeet Singh - 35.4%

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/12/05/liberals-40-conservatives-3...

These are the numbers I find most interesting, and I think they echo the past and foretell the future. (And I don't look on them with the glee that I'm sure Mighty Middle does, but rather with depression and resignation.) We had the same problem with Mulcair that we're seeing with Singh -  very few people want him to actually become Prime Minister.

I know what his supporters will say: "Just wait. Once people get to know and learn about Singh they'll love him as much as we do." It's the exact same refrain we heard from the Mulcair supporters. And look where that took us.

Sorry for being cynical - wish I wasn't - but I think we collectively made a drastic mistake (again, and for the same myopic reasons: in Mulcair's case it was all about "We've got to protect our Quebec seats at all costs", which Mulcair failed to do, and in Singh's case it's "Ooh, he can win the suburbs!" I sadly think NDP members are like cats chasing the red dot of a laser pointer on a wall), and the NDP seat count is going to go nowhere but down in the next election. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

But do you honestly think that the NDP would be doing any better in these polls if your choice, Angus, had been elected leader? I think any of the candidates would have been about where Singh is right now. If there is a difference, it will be in what happens between now and the election. Which, as Yogi Berra (or Mark Twain, or somebody else) observed, is hard to predict.

Cody87

R.E.Wood wrote:

These are the numbers I find most interesting, and I think they echo the past and foretell the future. (And I don't look on them with the glee that I'm sure Mighty Middle does, but rather with depression and resignation.) We had the same problem with Mulcair that we're seeing with Singh -  very few people want him to actually become Prime Minister.

I know what his supporters will say: "Just wait. Once people get to know and learn about Singh they'll love him as much as we do." It's the exact same refrain we heard from the Mulcair supporters. And look where that took us.

Sorry for being cynical - wish I wasn't - but I think we collectively made a drastic mistake (again, and for the same myopic reasons: in Mulcair's case it was all about "We've got to protect our Quebec seats at all costs", which Mulcair failed to do, and in Singh's case it's "Ooh, he can win the suburbs!" I sadly think NDP members are like cats chasing the red dot of a laser pointer on a wall), and the NDP seat count is going to go nowhere but down in the next election. 

That's not what the numbers say. If you follow the link to the article and open the full report pdf, and scroll to page 16 it clearly shows that Singh is:

35% qualities of a good leader

23% does not have qualities of a good leader

41% unsure.

If you take out that 40% unsure, his proportionally adjusted leadership rating is 60% to 40%, an excellent net rating of +20% for a new leader with (so far) minimal exposure. Now, to be fair, Trudeau's numbers are still a little better - he's 64%/27%/9%. But just as I said in my post a few weeks ago (only a few posts ago in this same thread), you can't compare raw numbers acting like the "unsure/undecided" are all going to go negative, when one leader has undecided numbers around 10% and the other two are at 40%. Singh is at 35% with potential to as much as double that with a good performance.

Edit: For example, look at what happened around the election on page 17 for BQ. They had a hugely negative net rating with a lot of  undecideds, and then all of those undecideds broke positive for BQ, later breaking back to unsure after the election. The unfavouability ratings remained pretty constant but there's a group that moves between "unsure" and "approve."

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Léger Poll

Canada

Liberals - 40%

Conservatives - 34%

NDP - 13%

Green - 8%

Bloc – 4%

Atlantic Canada

Liberals - 50%

Conservatives - 24%

NDP - 12%

Green - 11%

Quebec

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 18%

Bloc - 18%

NDP - 12%

Ontario

Liberals - 41%

Conservatives - 37%

NDP - 14%

Green - 5%

MB/SK

Conservatives - 58%

NDP - 16%

Liberals - 13%

Green - 9%

Alberta

Conservatives - 52%

Liberals - 25%

NDP - 14%

Green - 8%

BC

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 27%

Green - 15%

NDP - 11%

http://leger360.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/La%20politique%20federale%20a...

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Ironically, FPTP is killing the Conservatives most, while they are the party which supports electoral reform the least...

JKR

I think FPTP is working out the best for the Conservatives as they only need to gain 5 points on the Liberals, mostly from Ontario, to be back into phoney FPTP majority territory again even though they are the least favoured party of the majority of voters. This is why the Conservatives completely support FPTP. They depend on vote-splitting to remain viable without moderating their policies.

On the other hand if the NDP were to get 13% of the vote uniformly across the country like the Leger poll shows, the party would likely be wiped out and could even lose party status. It's troubling to see that the NDP seems weak in every region. Under FPTP a party needs to have some stronghold areas to remain viable. I wonder how they are doing in the inner city ridings? It should be remembered that in 1993 the PC Party received 16% of the vote but won just two seats. It seems that the NDP may have to concentrate more on a certain segment of the population, but which one? Getting 14% of the vote under PR would be great but 14% under FPTP could be a disaster for a party if their support is evenly spread out across the country. On the other hand, 14% percent of the vote under PR would give a party 47 seats.

R.E.Wood

Cody87 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

These are the numbers I find most interesting, and I think they echo the past and foretell the future. (And I don't look on them with the glee that I'm sure Mighty Middle does, but rather with depression and resignation.) We had the same problem with Mulcair that we're seeing with Singh -  very few people want him to actually become Prime Minister.

I know what his supporters will say: "Just wait. Once people get to know and learn about Singh they'll love him as much as we do." It's the exact same refrain we heard from the Mulcair supporters. And look where that took us.

Sorry for being cynical - wish I wasn't - but I think we collectively made a drastic mistake (again, and for the same myopic reasons: in Mulcair's case it was all about "We've got to protect our Quebec seats at all costs", which Mulcair failed to do, and in Singh's case it's "Ooh, he can win the suburbs!" I sadly think NDP members are like cats chasing the red dot of a laser pointer on a wall), and the NDP seat count is going to go nowhere but down in the next election. 

That's not what the numbers say. If you follow the link to the article and open the full report pdf, and scroll to page 16 it clearly shows that Singh is:

35% qualities of a good leader

23% does not have qualities of a good leader

41% unsure.

If you take out that 40% unsure, his proportionally adjusted leadership rating is 60% to 40%, an excellent net rating of +20% for a new leader with (so far) minimal exposure. Now, to be fair, Trudeau's numbers are still a little better - he's 64%/27%/9%. But just as I said in my post a few weeks ago (only a few posts ago in this same thread), you can't compare raw numbers acting like the "unsure/undecided" are all going to go negative, when one leader has undecided numbers around 10% and the other two are at 40%. Singh is at 35% with potential to as much as double that with a good performance.

Edit: For example, look at what happened around the election on page 17 for BQ. They had a hugely negative net rating with a lot of  undecideds, and then all of those undecideds broke positive for BQ, later breaking back to unsure after the election. The unfavouability ratings remained pretty constant but there's a group that moves between "unsure" and "approve."

But Cody87, you ignored this part:

Preferred Prime Minister

Justin Trudeau - 45.6 %

Andrew Scheer - 22.8%

Jagmeet Singh - 6.6%

Elizabeth May - 6.1%

Singh ranks only .5% above Elizabeth May as people's choice for "Preferred Prime Minister" - that was also what sank Mulcair. Even when he was getting decent numbers showing people supported his work in the HoC, that he had the "Qualities of a Good Political leader" etc... I recall he lagged when it came to who people actually wanted as PM, although perhaps not as badly as Singh is doing right now. 

And yes, Michael Moriarty, I do believe that Angus would have been doing better right now if he had been elected leader. But I'm not going to delve back into the reasons why, as the leadership contest is over, the members weighed their options and chose Singh, and obviously not just for the reason I mentioned earlier (the suburbs), but for a few other reasons as well. But I do think all of the reasons why Singh was chosen are "shiny object" reasons (by that I mean party members voted like a magpie collecting shiny things, or the cat chasing the laser pointer I mentioned before).

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

JKR wrote:

On the other hand if the NDP were to get 13% of the vote uniformly across the country like the Leger poll shows, the party would likely be wiped out and could even lose party status.

The NDP has always said the national and regional numbers don't tell the whole story. What is reported in polls don't reflect what happens on the ground.

Case in point, in 1997 federal election the NDP (under Alexa McDonough) got 11.05% of the vote and 21 seats spread across the country. While the old PC Party (under Jean Charet) got 18.84% of the vote and 20 seats - all of them in Eastern & Central Canada (though they did pick up one seat in Manitoba). So the NDP got more seats than the PC Party, while the PC's got a higher vote percentage than the NDP.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
 It seems that the NDP may have to concentrate more on a certain segment of the population, but which one? Getting 14% of the vote under PR would be great but 14% under FPTP it could be a disaster for a party if their support is homogenous. Fourteen percent of the vote under PR would give a party 47 seats.

I think that is exactly the wrong way to go and is why the NDP is struggling.  Although, to be fair, the numbers are virtually meaningless at the moment. Trudeau's numbers matters because he is the incumbent. His good numbers illustrate that he will be almost impossible to beat and will most likely get another majority. Singh's numbers don't matter at all and won't until the run up to the election. I don't think any other NDP leadership contender would have significantly higher numbers. He is wisely playing his cards close to his chest. The turban can be both a help and a hindrance. It gets attention. That matters. You have to be noticed to be judged. Bigots and racists will have a problem but would they vote NDP anyway? Polls suggest most people don't have a problem with it. I think Singh could totally up end people's expections of what someone who looks like him is like. Help or hindrance, we won't know for quite sometime. I think it's a good sign that there has been so little reaction.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

And yes, Michael Moriarty, I do believe that Angus would have been doing better right now if he had been elected leader. But I'm not going to delve back into the reasons why, as the leadership contest is over, the members weighed their options and chose Singh, and obviously not just for the reason I mentioned earlier (the suburbs), but for a few other reasons as well. But I do think all of the reasons why Singh was chosen are "shiny object" reasons (by that I mean party members voted like a magpie collecting shiny things, or the cat chasing the laser pointer I mentioned before).

I guess we'll never be sure how it would have gone with Angus as leader, but it is nice to know that you have such a positive image of your fellow NDP members.

R.E.Wood

Michael Moriarity wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

And yes, Michael Moriarty, I do believe that Angus would have been doing better right now if he had been elected leader. But I'm not going to delve back into the reasons why, as the leadership contest is over, the members weighed their options and chose Singh, and obviously not just for the reason I mentioned earlier (the suburbs), but for a few other reasons as well. But I do think all of the reasons why Singh was chosen are "shiny object" reasons (by that I mean party members voted like a magpie collecting shiny things, or the cat chasing the laser pointer I mentioned before).

I guess we'll never be sure how it would have gone with Angus as leader, but it is nice to know that you have such a positive image of your fellow NDP members.

My opinion has been going steadily downhill, unfortunately. Just as my opinion of the federal party itself has been declining steadily the last number of years. I hope things turn around before the next election.

blairz blairz's picture

To Michael Moriarty I can't imagine any of Singh's opponents not doing better than he has so far. 

 

SocialJustice101

progressive17 wrote:

Ironically, FPTP is killing the Conservatives most, while they are the party which supports electoral reform the least...

Without FPTP, a Harper Government would NOT have been possible.   Same with multiple PC Governments in Ontario, which would not have existed.    FPTP is how the Cons win majorities in Canada and the UK, despite being a minority of the general population.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Ironically, FPTP is killing the Conservatives most, while they are the party which supports electoral reform the least...

Without FPTP, a Harper Government would NOT have been possible.   Same with multiple PC Governments in Ontario, which would not have existed.    FPTP is how the Cons win majorities in Canada and the UK, despite being a minority of the general population.

And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

SocialJustice101

Pondering wrote:
And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the two systems and they are not aware of the biases of FPTP.  Mainstream media is also not interested in informing people, as they want to keep the 2 party system which produces fake Convervative majorities.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Ironically, FPTP is killing the Conservatives most, while they are the party which supports electoral reform the least...

Without FPTP, a Harper Government would NOT have been possible.   Same with multiple PC Governments in Ontario, which would not have existed.    FPTP is how the Cons win majorities in Canada and the UK, despite being a minority of the general population.

And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

 

 

Have you heard of the "appeal to popularity" fallacy?

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Quote:

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the massesappeal to beliefappeal to the majorityappeal to democracyappeal to popularityargument by consensusconsensus fallacyauthority of the manybandwagon fallacyvox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author.

...

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appe...

Quote:

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness.  This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Léger Poll

Canada

Liberals - 40%

Conservatives - 34%

NDP - 13%

Green - 8%

Bloc – 4%

Atlantic Canada

Liberals - 50%

Conservatives - 24%

NDP - 12%

Green - 11%

Quebec

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 18%

Bloc - 18%

NDP - 12%

Ontario

Liberals - 41%

Conservatives - 37%

NDP - 14%

Green - 5%

MB/SK

Conservatives - 58%

NDP - 16%

Liberals - 13%

Green - 9%

Alberta

Conservatives - 52%

Liberals - 25%

NDP - 14%

Green - 8%

BC

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 27%

Green - 15%

NDP - 11%

http://leger360.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/La%20politique%20federale%20a...

A question and an observation on that poll:

1)Did they  not give "Green" as an option for those polled in Quebec, or does the party have singularly low support levels there?

2)If a major part of the case for Singh was that he would boost the party in Ontario and B.C., it's devastating that this poll shows the NDP at only 14% in Ontario and BEHIND the Greens in B.C.

SocialJustice101

Unfortunately, only NDP and the Greens are talking about electoral reform, and rarely so.    The media and the big 2 are usually silent.  While Trudeau promised electoral reform in 2015, he was not selling a particular system, be that PR or Single Transferable Vote.   Most people don't even bother to look into our electoral system.  Con media companies keep telling us we already have a democracy.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the two systems and they are not aware of the biases of FPTP.  Mainstream media is also not interested in informing people, as they want to keep the 2 party system which produces fake Convervative majorities.

Excuses excuses. Yes, people who don't even know the difference between PR and FPTP are sufficiently satisfied to not be interested. The mainstream media wants to make money. If electoral systems were click bait they would have stories about it. Mainstream media doesn't want anything because it is a product being sold and a tool for its owners. It has no will of its own. It is rapidly going out of fashion along with newspapers as a source for political news.

For the sake of argument, lets say that PR  is more democratic. Will it defeat neoliberalism? Prevent political corruption? Have an impact on climate change?

SocialJustice101

Pondering wrote:
For the sake of argument, lets say that PR  is more democratic. Will it defeat neoliberalism? Prevent political corruption? Have an impact on climate change?
It would certainly be up to the people, not a heavily rigged establishment system, to ensure that there is less corporate oligarchy, less political corruption, and less environmental impact.

SeekingAPolitic...

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Léger Poll

Canada

Liberals - 40%

Conservatives - 34%

NDP - 13%

Green - 8%

Bloc – 4%

Atlantic Canada

Liberals - 50%

Conservatives - 24%

NDP - 12%

Green - 11%

Quebec

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 18%

Bloc - 18%

NDP - 12%

Ontario

Liberals - 41%

Conservatives - 37%

NDP - 14%

Green - 5%

MB/SK

Conservatives - 58%

NDP - 16%

Liberals - 13%

Green - 9%

Alberta

Conservatives - 52%

Liberals - 25%

NDP - 14%

Green - 8%

BC

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 27%

Green - 15%

NDP - 11%

http://leger360.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/La%20politique%20federale%20a...

A question and an observation on that poll:

1)Did they  not give "Green" as an option for those polled in Quebec, or does the party have singularly low support levels there?

2)If a major part of the case for Singh was that he would boost the party in Ontario and B.C., it's devastating that this poll shows the NDP at only 14% in Ontario and BEHIND the Greens in B.C.

The decision to throw away being the conscience of the parliament regardless of the NDP's neoliberal politics was bad bad decision. That was a fortress that could shelter the NDP in bad times and provide message for why they exist.  Being another neoliberal party with a goal just winning works for liberals but not the NDP.  I am sure May is running around talking to anyone that will listen that the greens are conscience of parliament.   I think the greens being the ndp is valid worry at this point. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Léger Poll

Canada

Liberals - 40%

Conservatives - 34%

NDP - 13%

Green - 8%

Bloc – 4%

Atlantic Canada

Liberals - 50%

Conservatives - 24%

NDP - 12%

Green - 11%

Quebec

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 18%

Bloc - 18%

NDP - 12%

Ontario

Liberals - 41%

Conservatives - 37%

NDP - 14%

Green - 5%

MB/SK

Conservatives - 58%

NDP - 16%

Liberals - 13%

Green - 9%

Alberta

Conservatives - 52%

Liberals - 25%

NDP - 14%

Green - 8%

BC

Liberals - 47%

Conservatives - 27%

Green - 15%

NDP - 11%

http://leger360.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/La%20politique%20federale%20a...

A question and an observation on that poll:

1)Did they  not give "Green" as an option for those polled in Quebec, or does the party have singularly low support levels there?

2)If a major part of the case for Singh was that he would boost the party in Ontario and B.C., it's devastating that this poll shows the NDP at only 14% in Ontario and BEHIND the Greens in B.C.

The decision to throw away being the conscience of the parliament regardless of the NDP's neoliberal politics was bad bad decision. That was a fortress that could shelter the NDP in bad times and provide message for why they exist.  Being another neoliberal party with a goal just winning works for liberals but not the NDP.  I am sure May is running around talking to anyone that will listen that the greens are conscience of parliament.   I think the greens being the ndp is valid worry at this point. 

They did give Green as an option in Quebec and the number was 5%.

8% for the Greens nationally is quite a good score for them. Green votes don't just come from the left. Some disgruntled Tory voters also go Green. It looks like that is happening in BC.

After electing them as government in BC not too long ago, it didn't take residents of that province to get pissed off with the NDP. Except for AB, SK, MB, and some Ontario hinterlands, it is now hard for the Conservatives to argue that they are a national party.

I think there is still a lot of latent anger at the Harpers, especially in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. 

With the Liberals even higher than their election results in 2015, they are looking at clean sweeps in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, most of Ontario and BC. Even with 34% of the vote, it looks like the Conservatives would get far fewer than 34% of the seats. In the few places where the Conservatives are strong, they have a big "wasted vote". On the other hand, the Liberals could drop 10% in Quebec and BC and 20% in Atlantic Canada, and it still wouldn't matter.

Again Conservatives are stupidly saying they hoped the NDP would do better. Today it was Stockwell Day's turn on Power and Politics. This is not only bad for the NDP but it is bad for the Conservatives. All the Conservatives have to offer is the fecal Harperform, and even they know Canadians don't want that any more. 

Unless the NDP can give us something to get excited about, Trudeau has to do nothing but hold up Ontario. NDP, do something!

josh

13%?  It’s one poll, but Good Lord.

NorthReport

Singh second in leadership approval ratings in latest poll released today.

Trudeau 49%

Singh 39%

Scheer 33%

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the two systems and they are not aware of the biases of FPTP.  Mainstream media is also not interested in informing people, as they want to keep the 2 party system which produces fake Convervative majorities.

Excuses excuses. Yes, people who don't even know the difference between PR and FPTP are sufficiently satisfied to not be interested. The mainstream media wants to make money. If electoral systems were click bait they would have stories about it. Mainstream media doesn't want anything because it is a product being sold and a tool for its owners. It has no will of its own. It is rapidly going out of fashion along with newspapers as a source for political news.

For the sake of argument, lets say that PR  is more democratic. Will it defeat neoliberalism? Prevent political corruption? Have an impact on climate change?

In and of itself, it can't do those things.  It can create the space in which all of those things can be possible.  It's IMpossible to get an anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party under FPTP.  You know this as a resident to polities(Quebec and Canada)in which FPTP has never almost never been anything but the enemy of change.  And more to the point, how has FPTP ever served YOUR needs as an(I assume)francophone Quebec left-federalist?

​Why would you go to this much trouble to defend an electoral system that serves the interests of no one but the white, the straight, the "Christian" and the wealthy? 

Cody87

Ken Burch wrote:

Why would you go to this much trouble to defend an electoral system that serves the interests of no one but the white, the straight, the "Christian" and the wealthy? 

Just to be clear, how many of those boxes does one need to tick for the electoral system to serve one's interests? Obviously it should serve everyone, but I would wager at least 95% of the population can check at least one of those four.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the two systems and they are not aware of the biases of FPTP.  Mainstream media is also not interested in informing people, as they want to keep the 2 party system which produces fake Convervative majorities.

Excuses excuses. Yes, people who don't even know the difference between PR and FPTP are sufficiently satisfied to not be interested. The mainstream media wants to make money. If electoral systems were click bait they would have stories about it. Mainstream media doesn't want anything because it is a product being sold and a tool for its owners. It has no will of its own. It is rapidly going out of fashion along with newspapers as a source for political news.

For the sake of argument, lets say that PR  is more democratic. Will it defeat neoliberalism? Prevent political corruption? Have an impact on climate change?

In and of itself, it can't do those things.  It can create the space in which all of those things can be possible.  It's IMpossible to get an anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party under FPTP.  You know this as a resident to polities(Quebec and Canada)in which FPTP has never almost never been anything but the enemy of change.  And more to the point, how has FPTP ever served YOUR needs as an(I assume)francophone Quebec left-federalist?

​Why would you go to this much trouble to defend an electoral system that serves the interests of no one but the white, the straight, the "Christian" and the wealthy? 

I'm not defending FPTP. I am saying I don't see PR as significantly better. Given the cost and upheaval of changing the system it would have to be a lot better. As things stand it's just a distraction from what really matters, which in my opinion is neoliberalism, if not the root of all evil the root of a great deal of it.

It's even more impossible for an anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party to have power under PR than under FPTP. Under PR only the parties forming the ruling coalition have power. Currently under FPTP the NDP could win power with just 35% of the vote. The NDP is using FPTP as an excuse for their failure.

An anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party will always lose because it is too unfocused. The left keeps trying to collect all the disenfranchised hoping to form a big enough group to defeat the establishment. In my opinion it doesn't work. Activists may think these disparate groups should be mutually supportive and form a large enough group but they aren't and they don't.

What we do need is a party willing to focus everything on neoliberalism which does not mean naming it. It means focusing on the engines of neoliberalism and the puppet masters. It's like dominoes. Get neoliberalism and the rest becomes defeatable. As long as neoliberalism reigns the rest are virtually insurmountable.

If tomorrow everyone in Canada had minimum income and everyone else had a 20% raise racism would probably be cut in half. So would the ranks of sex workers. Petty crime would be reduced. Would it cure everything, no, but the defeat of neoliberalism would mean a seismic shift that would automatically reduce oppression and promote peace.

I was happy to hear that Singh is making income inequality his number one issue. That is an attack on neoliberalism. Focus on the tax havens would also be smart because that too is an attack on neoliberalism. The ISDS mechanism would be another worthy target.

Polls are an indicator tool but they aren't predictors at this stage of the game. Platforms have a huge impact on the outcome. Between now and the election period Singh has to build his personal image, make himself relatable to the average Canadian which is not an easy task considering the range that covers.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Under PR, if 50% of the electorate voted for parties whose policies were anti-neoliberal, then those parties would be able to form a coalition and govern accordingly. If less than 50% of the electorate supports such changes, it doesn't seem democratic to me for the FPTP electoral system to force it on the majority.

SocialJustice101

FPTP was designed to give advantage to a single status-quo party, as conversatives are united in their defense of the existing authoritarianism and inequality.  Progressive or semi-progressive parties often have differing new ideas, and are thus divided.   FPTP was designed to exploit such divisions.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
And the majority of the population are sufficiently satisfied that they prefer to stick with FPTP rather than move to PR.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between the two systems and they are not aware of the biases of FPTP.  Mainstream media is also not interested in informing people, as they want to keep the 2 party system which produces fake Convervative majorities.

Excuses excuses. Yes, people who don't even know the difference between PR and FPTP are sufficiently satisfied to not be interested. The mainstream media wants to make money. If electoral systems were click bait they would have stories about it. Mainstream media doesn't want anything because it is a product being sold and a tool for its owners. It has no will of its own. It is rapidly going out of fashion along with newspapers as a source for political news.

For the sake of argument, lets say that PR  is more democratic. Will it defeat neoliberalism? Prevent political corruption? Have an impact on climate change?

In and of itself, it can't do those things.  It can create the space in which all of those things can be possible.  It's IMpossible to get an anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party under FPTP.  You know this as a resident to polities(Quebec and Canada)in which FPTP has never almost never been anything but the enemy of change.  And more to the point, how has FPTP ever served YOUR needs as an(I assume)francophone Quebec left-federalist?

​Why would you go to this much trouble to defend an electoral system that serves the interests of no one but the white, the straight, the "Christian" and the wealthy? 

I'm not defending FPTP. I am saying I don't see PR as significantly better. Given the cost and upheaval of changing the system it would have to be a lot better. As things stand it's just a distraction from what really matters, which in my opinion is neoliberalism, if not the root of all evil the root of a great deal of it.

It's even more impossible for an anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party to have power under PR than under FPTP. Under PR only the parties forming the ruling coalition have power. Currently under FPTP the NDP could win power with just 35% of the vote. The NDP is using FPTP as an excuse for their failure.

An anti-neoliberal, anti-oppression, pro-peace and pro-equality party will always lose because it is too unfocused. The left keeps trying to collect all the disenfranchised into group hoping to form a big enough group to defeat the establishment. In my opinion it doesn't work. Activists may think these disparate groups should be mutually supportive and form a large enough group but they aren't and they don't.

What we do need is a party willing to focus everything on neoliberalism which does not mean naming it. It means focusing on the engines of neoliberalism and the puppet masters. Get neoliberalism and the rest becomes defeatable. As long as neoliberalism reigns the rest are virtually insurmountable.

If tomorrow everyone in Canada had minimum income and everyone else had a 20% raise racism would probably be cut in half. So would the ranks of sex workers. Petty crime would be reduced. Would it cure everything, no, but the defeat of neoliberalism would mean a seismic shift that would automatically reduce oppression, promote peace and tackle climate change.

I was happy to hear that Singh is making income inequality his number one issue. That is an attack on neoliberalism. Focus on the tax havens would also be smart because that too is an attack on neoliberalism. The ISDS mechanism would be another worthy target.

Polls are an indicator tool but they aren't predictors at this stage of the game. Platforms have a huge impact on the outcome. Between now and the election period Singh has to build his personal image, make himself relatable to the average Canadian which is not an easy task considering the range that covers.

JKR

SocialJustice101 wrote:

FPTP was designed to give advantage to a single status-quo party, as conversatives are united in their defense of the existing authoritarianism and inequality.  Progressive or semi-progressive parties often have differing new ideas, and are thus divided.   FPTP was designed to exploit such divisions.

Very good point.

Pages