There will be a May election, just as so desired by the Harper government. You don't buy time during the Super Bowl for ads unless you have something like this in mind. I have been somewhat distressed although not completely surprised at the inability of the media to discern this obvious fact.
I expect a Harper government once the results are in but not a majority. More on polls and projections at a later date, and I hope, more blogging between now and May 2 or 9.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
The recent poll shift
The recent Conservative ad blitz has shifted the polls in the direction of the Harper Conservatives. However, TC does not perceive this success as foreshadowing a Conservative majority. With all their wealth the Conservatives have had the paid media airwaves to themselves and have reportedly been spending a great deal of money. It moved the polls a few points in their direction. However, the opposition parties, while quiet today, will all be on the air with paid media during the next campaign.
A recent American comparison recommends itself. Meg Whitman, the former CEO and founder of EBay, was defeated in her effort in 2010 to be elected Governor of California despite spending a record $177 million on her campaign, compared to the $36 million spent by her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown. Despite being outspent overall Brown matched Whitman's spending on television advertising at the end of the campaign. Her loss was about much more than just money, but the point stands that Conservative television advertising will be much more evenly matched by their opponents during and especially towards the end of the impending Canadian campaign. And other factors will be important as well.
I have averaged three recent polls and came up with a seat estimate of C - 152, L - 78, NDP - 26, BQ - 51 and Other -1. This suggests to me that the opposition parties are likely too far behind for any of them to pull ahead of the Conservatives, but it also doesn't look like we should be anticipating a Conservative majority. We also shouldn't forget that strange and dramatic shifts have happened in the middle of previous campaigns (it is what makes them fun to watch): a Liberal lead in 1984 turned into a PC landslide; Turner almost caught Mulroney in 1988 before falling back; David Peterson started the 1990 campaign way ahead then proceeded to lose to the NDP led by Bob Rae; Jean Chrétien was labeled "yesterday's man" before proceeding to three consecutive majorities. And there have been many other examples of unexpected upsets.
A recent American comparison recommends itself. Meg Whitman, the former CEO and founder of EBay, was defeated in her effort in 2010 to be elected Governor of California despite spending a record $177 million on her campaign, compared to the $36 million spent by her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown. Despite being outspent overall Brown matched Whitman's spending on television advertising at the end of the campaign. Her loss was about much more than just money, but the point stands that Conservative television advertising will be much more evenly matched by their opponents during and especially towards the end of the impending Canadian campaign. And other factors will be important as well.
I have averaged three recent polls and came up with a seat estimate of C - 152, L - 78, NDP - 26, BQ - 51 and Other -1. This suggests to me that the opposition parties are likely too far behind for any of them to pull ahead of the Conservatives, but it also doesn't look like we should be anticipating a Conservative majority. We also shouldn't forget that strange and dramatic shifts have happened in the middle of previous campaigns (it is what makes them fun to watch): a Liberal lead in 1984 turned into a PC landslide; Turner almost caught Mulroney in 1988 before falling back; David Peterson started the 1990 campaign way ahead then proceeded to lose to the NDP led by Bob Rae; Jean Chrétien was labeled "yesterday's man" before proceeding to three consecutive majorities. And there have been many other examples of unexpected upsets.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Polls and Elections in Ontario and Manitoba
In a first past the post system the party leading in the polls may not be the one that winds up with the most seats.
There are provincial elections due in both provinces in early October this year, on Oct. 6 in Ontario and Oct. 4 in Manitoba. Recent polls suggest both races will be tight but, interpreted at face value, the polls potentially provide misleading guidance about what to expect. In both provinces the Progressive Conservatives currently hold narrow leads in the polls, but in neither province would it be enough to win the most seats.
In Manitoba a December 20, 2010 Probe Research poll gave the opposition PCs are four point lead 42-38 overall but they trail by ten points in the City of Winnipeg. The PCs "waste" thousands of votes in the first past the post system in rural constituencies. A much more efficiently distributed NDP vote leaves the outcome in Manitoba very much in doubt. My seat projection model translates the Probe poll into a narrow NDP victory in terms of seats: NDP - 29, PC - 26, L - 2. However, there would be several close outcomes, enough to leave the final outcome in doubt. The Manitoba PCs have consistently trailed in the City of Winnipeg and that is their greatest obstacle to success. If trends continue they are likely going to be still counting votes in Manitoba when the polls open in Ontario 36 hours later.
A similar scenario applies in in Ontario where there is the distinct possibility that the election will produce a minority government. A recent Ipsos poll puts the McGuinty Liberals just three points behind the opposition PCs who have 38% to the Liberals' 35% with the NDP at 17% and the Greens at 9%. However, TC's model suggests this would produce a virtual dead heat with the Liberals having 45 seats to the PCs' 44 with the NDP at 18, and with razor thin margins in several seats. Clearly, both races are too close to call and it is not obvious from current polls which party will have the most seats when the votes are counted..
There are provincial elections due in both provinces in early October this year, on Oct. 6 in Ontario and Oct. 4 in Manitoba. Recent polls suggest both races will be tight but, interpreted at face value, the polls potentially provide misleading guidance about what to expect. In both provinces the Progressive Conservatives currently hold narrow leads in the polls, but in neither province would it be enough to win the most seats.
In Manitoba a December 20, 2010 Probe Research poll gave the opposition PCs are four point lead 42-38 overall but they trail by ten points in the City of Winnipeg. The PCs "waste" thousands of votes in the first past the post system in rural constituencies. A much more efficiently distributed NDP vote leaves the outcome in Manitoba very much in doubt. My seat projection model translates the Probe poll into a narrow NDP victory in terms of seats: NDP - 29, PC - 26, L - 2. However, there would be several close outcomes, enough to leave the final outcome in doubt. The Manitoba PCs have consistently trailed in the City of Winnipeg and that is their greatest obstacle to success. If trends continue they are likely going to be still counting votes in Manitoba when the polls open in Ontario 36 hours later.
A similar scenario applies in in Ontario where there is the distinct possibility that the election will produce a minority government. A recent Ipsos poll puts the McGuinty Liberals just three points behind the opposition PCs who have 38% to the Liberals' 35% with the NDP at 17% and the Greens at 9%. However, TC's model suggests this would produce a virtual dead heat with the Liberals having 45 seats to the PCs' 44 with the NDP at 18, and with razor thin margins in several seats. Clearly, both races are too close to call and it is not obvious from current polls which party will have the most seats when the votes are counted..
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The coming federal election
It now appears certain that we will have a federal election this spring, likely in May. The Liberals have clearly signaled their intention to vote against the budget, and the Bloc has just set terms for its support the Tories won't be able swallow. The NDP, reflecting Jack Layton's predisposition, makes conciliatory gestures, but remains too distant from the Conservatives ideologically for a deal to be possible.
One timing consideration that no one seems to have noticed is the Supreme Court hearings on the federal proposal for a national securities regulator. They are scheduled to be held on April 13 and 14 in Ottawa. Not likely to be a big issue overall, but it is a sensitive matter in Quebec, so I am guessing that the election will not fall close to those dates. Mid-May looks like a good bet. Another option would be an early date.
The polls have been static for a long time. An election with voting statistics that replicated them would return the Conservatives to office with a minority administration with fewer seats than before, the Liberals would gain as many as ten seats while the NDP, at best, would hang on to what they have. The Bloc may pick up a few. However, preferences expressed by the public in surveys are weak and subject to change. The obstacles to a Conservative majority are formidable and haven't changed.
The Liberals right now look to be in better shape entering the electoral fray than they were under Stéphane Dion in 2008. Michael Ignatieff does not have much in the way of political skills but they are arguably superior to Dion's. The party's infrastructure, supporting personnel and policy positioning do look stronger than 2008.
If the campaign were to be framed around corporate tax cuts, it could help offset the negative public assessment of Ignatieff. A poll out this week suggests just 21% of Canadians accept the government's position that such tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, while a 52% majority quite rightly reject this notion. And other pollsters agree that corporate tax cuts are unpopular. In the past this has been an NDP issue, but the Liberals could easily steal it. Voters are most likely to be pragmatic, and uninterested in historical positioning, if the issue takes off as the most important of the campaign.
It is the Liberals who have put out ads attacking the cuts:
Another issue that could hurt the government is the F-35 fighter purchase. Context matters here. The government wants to engage in deficit fighting. It isn't remembered well now, but the military took a big hit in Paul Martin's mid-nineties deficit fighting precisely because military spending has a very low priority with voters. A campaign that emphasized these two issues could work well for the Liberals.
Both issues ought to be strengths for the NDP but the Liberals have demonstrated great effectiveness over the years in stealing the social democrats' themes. The NDP has generally been trending at or slightly below their 2008 showing despite having a leader who is far more popular and respected than Mr. Ignatieff. Although currently stuck at long-term support levels, the party does have growth potential. How many realize the NDP is Canada's most popular second choice including in Quebec?(page 12). That potential, however, will remain unrealized unless the NDP finds some way to break through its traditional barriers.
The Liberals do remain in a perilous, fragile position. TC wrote a series on the long-term Liberal decline last year and recently attended a political science seminar where one knowledgeable participant offered a similar analysis. One threat to the Liberal Party comes from Conservative efforts to win over traditionally Liberal immigrant voters. Although the media overstates the Conservatives' actual success to date, holding power means the Conservatives can bestow local favours, a critical factor in the parish pump politics of ethnic voting. This is reinforced by the perception they will continue to govern. The catch for the Conservatives, as it was in the eighties with respect to wooing Quebec, is that they continue to be the repository for anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada. You can't represent both ends of a spectrum for long.
One factor that ought to give the Conservatives pause is what the atmospherics in Ottawa would be like if they come back with fewer seats, even if the losses are modest. In that circumstance they would look like a government beginning to decay, and deep rot would soon set in.
One timing consideration that no one seems to have noticed is the Supreme Court hearings on the federal proposal for a national securities regulator. They are scheduled to be held on April 13 and 14 in Ottawa. Not likely to be a big issue overall, but it is a sensitive matter in Quebec, so I am guessing that the election will not fall close to those dates. Mid-May looks like a good bet. Another option would be an early date.
The polls have been static for a long time. An election with voting statistics that replicated them would return the Conservatives to office with a minority administration with fewer seats than before, the Liberals would gain as many as ten seats while the NDP, at best, would hang on to what they have. The Bloc may pick up a few. However, preferences expressed by the public in surveys are weak and subject to change. The obstacles to a Conservative majority are formidable and haven't changed.
The Liberals right now look to be in better shape entering the electoral fray than they were under Stéphane Dion in 2008. Michael Ignatieff does not have much in the way of political skills but they are arguably superior to Dion's. The party's infrastructure, supporting personnel and policy positioning do look stronger than 2008.
If the campaign were to be framed around corporate tax cuts, it could help offset the negative public assessment of Ignatieff. A poll out this week suggests just 21% of Canadians accept the government's position that such tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, while a 52% majority quite rightly reject this notion. And other pollsters agree that corporate tax cuts are unpopular. In the past this has been an NDP issue, but the Liberals could easily steal it. Voters are most likely to be pragmatic, and uninterested in historical positioning, if the issue takes off as the most important of the campaign.
It is the Liberals who have put out ads attacking the cuts:
Another issue that could hurt the government is the F-35 fighter purchase. Context matters here. The government wants to engage in deficit fighting. It isn't remembered well now, but the military took a big hit in Paul Martin's mid-nineties deficit fighting precisely because military spending has a very low priority with voters. A campaign that emphasized these two issues could work well for the Liberals.
Both issues ought to be strengths for the NDP but the Liberals have demonstrated great effectiveness over the years in stealing the social democrats' themes. The NDP has generally been trending at or slightly below their 2008 showing despite having a leader who is far more popular and respected than Mr. Ignatieff. Although currently stuck at long-term support levels, the party does have growth potential. How many realize the NDP is Canada's most popular second choice including in Quebec?(page 12). That potential, however, will remain unrealized unless the NDP finds some way to break through its traditional barriers.
The Liberals do remain in a perilous, fragile position. TC wrote a series on the long-term Liberal decline last year and recently attended a political science seminar where one knowledgeable participant offered a similar analysis. One threat to the Liberal Party comes from Conservative efforts to win over traditionally Liberal immigrant voters. Although the media overstates the Conservatives' actual success to date, holding power means the Conservatives can bestow local favours, a critical factor in the parish pump politics of ethnic voting. This is reinforced by the perception they will continue to govern. The catch for the Conservatives, as it was in the eighties with respect to wooing Quebec, is that they continue to be the repository for anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada. You can't represent both ends of a spectrum for long.
One factor that ought to give the Conservatives pause is what the atmospherics in Ottawa would be like if they come back with fewer seats, even if the losses are modest. In that circumstance they would look like a government beginning to decay, and deep rot would soon set in.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tory Majority: the Ottawa Spin Machine
The Ottawa scribes are at it again. Jane Taber is getting spun round the block by a "senior Tory MP" in her latest missive, titled Tories target 190 ridngs. Let us examine just this one quote:
Jack Harris, the successful NDP candidate, was a longtime provincial member and former party leader who, it is clear from these numbers, is overwhelmingly popular in his riding. Danny Williams or not, this one won't change. This is but one example of the Tory spin that went unexamined critically by the Globe.
More broadly, the problem for the Conservatives is the same as before. In 2008 with nearly a 12 point lead and a very weak Liberal leader, they could not win a majority. They need about 62% of the seats outside Quebec, a little more than the Mulroney 1988 overall majority or Trudeau's in 1968. Possible perhaps, but highly unlikely. TC has discussed this issue before in greater detail here. The underlying math hasn't changed. Blogger Éric Grenier of threehundredeight.blogspot.com writing recently in the Globe, makes essentially the same argument.
Some of their target ridings are obvious – the three seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, that were held prior to the last election and not just the Avalon seat they lost as a direct result of Danny Williams’s Anybody-But-Conservatives campaign. Now that the popular premier has stepped down, the Conservatives think they can win them back.They think they can win "them" back. One of the three is St. John's East. Here is the result from the last election.
| Parl | Date | Candidate | Occupation | Votes | Votes (%) | Party | Elected |
| 40 | 2008/10/14 | HARRIS, Jack | lawyer | 30,881 | 74.55% | N.D.P. |  |
| NOEL, Walter | economist | 5,211 | 12.58% | Lib | |||
| WESTCOTT, Craig | journalist - self-employed | 3,836 | 9.26% | C | |||
| TOBIN, Shannon John | student - entrepreneur | 578 | 1.40% | PC Party | |||
| STORY, Howard | businessman | 570 | 1.38% | G.P. | |||
| COULTAS, Les | retail manager | 347 | 0.84% | NLFP |
Jack Harris, the successful NDP candidate, was a longtime provincial member and former party leader who, it is clear from these numbers, is overwhelmingly popular in his riding. Danny Williams or not, this one won't change. This is but one example of the Tory spin that went unexamined critically by the Globe.
More broadly, the problem for the Conservatives is the same as before. In 2008 with nearly a 12 point lead and a very weak Liberal leader, they could not win a majority. They need about 62% of the seats outside Quebec, a little more than the Mulroney 1988 overall majority or Trudeau's in 1968. Possible perhaps, but highly unlikely. TC has discussed this issue before in greater detail here. The underlying math hasn't changed. Blogger Éric Grenier of threehundredeight.blogspot.com writing recently in the Globe, makes essentially the same argument.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Why growing inequality matters
I have long believed that the growing inequality in global, North American and Canadian society is immensely destructive both socially and economically. The Globe published an article on the growing economic/geographical divide in Toronto. It captures a part of the problem:
Toronto is becoming a city of stark economic extremes as its middle class is hollowed out and replaced by a bipolar city of the rich and poor – one whose lines are drawn neighbourhood by neighbourhood.The issue in Toronto is not one of urban form or policy. It is more fundamental, a fact that David Hulchanski, the author of the study highlighted in the Globe, summarized during an online chat on the Globe website:
Comment From Robert: what is the reason for increase in disparity?Addressing this issue is urgent. Income disparities are not just a cause of urban malaise. As this post from Kevin Drum makes clear, inequality is at the root of the current economic crisis and stagnation.
David Hulchanski: The reason: From 1945 to 1985 all types of evidence indicate we were becoming a slightly more equal society. After 1985 the top ten percent have taken an ever greater share of income. Public policies and changing labour markets left people with either very high paid jobs or very low paid jobs.
"Inequality, Leverage and Crises," an IMF paper written by Michael Kumhof and Romain Rancière, is full of long equations populated by many Greek letters. I won't even pretend that I can evaluate it. However, their introduction is pretty easy to understand: they've constructed a simple model for financial crises that essentially proposes the following narrative: (a) growing inequality produces less money for the middle class and more money for the rich, (b) the rich loan much of this money back to the middle class so they can continue to improve their living standards even with stagnant incomes, (c) the financial sector balloons to mediate all this, and (d) the system eventually collapses since, after all, this kind of thing can't last forever.It certainly cannot. It is an issue that ought to be addressed by all those on the centre and left. Achieving greater equality would be complex, and is not so much about taxes as it is about paying those who earn less, more, and paying less to those who earn more. It is in the interest of all of us including the well-off.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Some inconvenient truth (for Mr. Ford) about Toronto governance
Sometimes the truth about something clashes with ironically with conventional wisdom. Kudos to John Lorinc for this about Toronto city hall:
When council convenes this week to debate the new regime’s signature moves, I’m guessing Mayor Rob Ford won’t be rising to offer praise to former budget chief Shelley Carroll, former TTC chair Adam Giambrone and the senior bureaucrats who were allegedly complicit in the fiscal boondoggle that was the Miller era. He should, of course, because this crowd -- contrary to much of what we heard during the election -- has made it possible for Toronto’s Waste Collector in Chief to deliver a property tax freeze for which he has no electoral mandate.Read the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)