Election 2015

[Kilo_302]

Or......they could run on their record in 9 years in power.

That would be the "Conservatives vote FOR something, rather than AGAINST something", would it not?  It has been said many times on here, and I wish it were true, but most of us here seem to be 'anti-Trudeau' or 'anti-NDP' far more than we are FOR Harper.

Personally, I think all parties are barking up the wrong tree if they think the majority of the electorate cares about what "tribe" is who.  50 years ago, one would never see voters choosing between parties on far opposite sides of the spectrum.  One might have seen voters vacillate between the old Socreds and the Conservatives, or similar left wing parties.  Nowadays, we regularly see people choosing between polar opposites (Wildrose and NDP for example, or even BQ and a Federalist party in Quebec).  This tells me that party loyalty is a thing of the past, and is probably just a function of the modern society we live in, and its 24/7 access (pun intended) to all sides of issues. 

That's not to say that there isn't a "base".  There will always be some that will vote for their "tribe" regardless of what they have done, what they say they'll do, or who the leader is, but I think those traditional bases may be dwindling.  I think you have actually identified that, as your "base" numbers are lower now for each party than one would have estimated in the past.

Harrigan

I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.

Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.

Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.

Make me believe.

Disavow the "vast left wing conspiracy".  Quit the Socialist International.

 

[Underway]

I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "redistribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.

Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.

Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.  The Liberals are by their very nature capitalists who (broad strokes here people...) have a form of noblesse oblige and believe that government should be a positive force in peoples lives.  They aren't against the rich because they are rich.  The NDP are socialists, who think that governments can do things for the population better than individuals if we all chip in together.

Problem is that what defines left and right in Canada is different from other countries definitions and have significantly different policies.  Socialists in Europe are often very pro-military, they are true socialists where the state is the most important organization.  Democrats in the US are often closer to the right in Canada than the left.  The right wing in Japan looks nothing like the right wing here.

Even within Canada the left and right are fuzzy.  BC's Liberal Party does not resemble Ontario's in policy or their left/right alignment.  Quebec's Liberal Party is very different than the one in Nova Scotia.

As well left and right policies are changing over time and sometimes flip.  There was a time when liberalism was what the liberals did and big government was what the conservatives did (think John A and his railroad).  So the measurement standard has changed as well.

I will agree that debate in Canada has broadened since the Canadian Alliance absorbed the Progressive Conservatives (you had it the wrong way around).  If the debate has shifted to the right (and I think it has) its because of demographics and the fact the Conservatives have cut taxes to the point where in order to fund a social program agenda one has to raise taxes or cut other services.  They have boxed in the finances in for the longer term as I don't see Canadians federally supporting tax increases in general and cutting programs is anathema to big government.  And there is no oil boom coming so revenues will be tight for the foreseeable future.

 

[Harrigan]

I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.

Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.

While I may disagree somewhat with your characterization of the NDP as smack in the "centre", nevertheless I think the crux of your argument is correct.  Parties change.  I believe this is in response to the voter rather than leading the voter, but that's just one opinion.  A case can be made either way. 

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.  The Liberals are by their very nature capitalists who (broad strokes here people...) have a form of noblesse oblige and believe that government should be a positive force in peoples lives.  They aren't against the rich because they are rich.  The NDP are socialists, who think that governments can do things for the population better than individuals if we all chip in together.

Problem is that what defines left and right in Canada is different from other countries definitions and have significantly different policies.  Socialists in Europe are often very pro-military, they are true socialists where the state is the most important organization.  Democrats in the US are often closer to the right in Canada than the left.  The right wing in Japan looks nothing like the right wing here.

Even within Canada the left and right are fuzzy.  BC's Liberal Party does not resemble Ontario's in policy or their left/right alignment.  Quebec's Liberal Party is very different than the one in Nova Scotia.

As well left and right policies are changing over time and sometimes flip.  There was a time when liberalism was what the liberals did and big government was what the conservatives did (think John A and his railroad).  So the measurement standard has changed as well.

I will agree that debate in Canada has broadened since the Canadian Alliance absorbed the Progressive Conservatives (you had it the wrong way around).  If the debate has shifted to the right (and I think it has) its because of demographics and the fact the Conservatives have cut taxes to the point where in order to fund a social program agenda one has to raise taxes or cut other services.  They have boxed in the finances in for the longer term as I don't see Canadians federally supporting tax increases in general and cutting programs is anathema to big government.  And there is no oil boom coming so revenues will be tight for the foreseeable future.

Broadly speaking, I think you are right on.  The only quibble I have is that I would say that Conservatives believe that the less government the better.  The CPC says that they believe that, but I refuse to accept that Bill C-51 would ever be tabled by a party that believes in 'less government'.

Harrigan

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Recently, on national TV, a Conservative spokesman said his party’s advertising offers voters information they can trust: “We’re better than news – because we’re truthful.”

If the press took umbrage, too bad. The CPC is playing the MSM's game here. The CPC wasn't really 'reporting' this news, they were shaping it. That they took it right into the lion's den and poked the lion in the eye with a stick makes it even more believable and courageous sounding.

If the MSM want to, truly, be above the fray, they have to start 'reporting' the news and not shaping it by opining their own spin on it. Boring presentation? Absolutely. However, by just presenting the known facts, without their own spin, they will force the population into defining their own position on things. At least those that have not become too lazy to care.

BBC World News is a good example of fact reporting without the spin. That is the standard our MSM should strive for.

 

[a_majoor]

Broadly speaking, I think you are right on.  The only quibble I have is that I would say that Conservatives believe that the less government the better.  The CPC says that they believe that, but I refuse to accept that Bill C-51 would ever be tabled by a party that believes in 'less government'.

Harrigan

The issue is partially the tension between the Transformative and the Transactive. The CPC is Transformative in that they have a broad st of principles outlined in their constitution and election platforms, which all their policies and actions can (in theory) tie back to. The NDP has similar Transformative roots in their membership in the Socialist International, and defined for Canadian conditions in their constitution and policy platforms. Once again, in theory, everything can be tied back to these roots.

Of course, governance in the real world is never so nice and neat. Politics, as defined in organizational theory, is a means of allocating limited resources. No party, no group or even an all powerful Pharaoh has unlimited resources (and ultimately you would not have enough time, even if somehow there were no limits to the physical resources available). So you have to make compromises and transactions to govern. The LPC was the master of Transactive governance, being able to seemingly cut a deal with everyone to gain support and get power, but eventually the balls fall out of the air, and the Liberals find themselves not being able to appeal to the electorate since they did not take the time to "stand" for anything.

Bills like C-51 or a multitude of other proposed laws and bills may well represent attempts by the CPC to either provide some sort of transactive activity to appeal to some elements of their electoral base, or perhaps the "least worst choice" in trying to deal with difficult problems which their Transformative principles are ill equilpped to deal with. (Remember the example of "The Strange Death of Liberal England", or the dissolution of parties like the Federalists, Whigs, Social Credit or Progressives when they were no longer able to generate any coherent answers to the issues of the day).

This isn't to say any of this is particularly "right"; a government led by Tom Mulcaire will have many of the same issue to deal with. Looking at Greece, Ontario under Bob Rae or the bankrupt American "Blue" states, one can see the NDP's Transformative worldview will be under a lot of pressure once it comes into full contact with the real world.

 

[ballz]

Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.

That statement is only half true at best, and is a bit of an affront to libertarians and classical liberals. The half that may be true is that the CPC may believe that less government is better on economic issues (and I would argue that they only practice that half the time), but they certainly don't believe in less government is the answer on social issues. They may not be progressive on social issues, but they are clearly conservative (in the actual definition of the word) on social issues, both may be opposites but neither is laissez-faire.

But a great and fair post overall.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

The NDP is in the center, full stop.

Not so sure about that.  The NDP doesn't seem to have any doubt where they stand.

CONSTITUTION OF THE
New Democratic Party of Canada
Effective April 2013

"New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions ... to build a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community dedicated to the same goals."

 

[Harrigan]

The issue is partially the tension between the Transformative and the Transactive. The CPC is Transformative in that they have a broad st of principles outlined in their constitution and election platforms, which all their policies and actions can (in theory) tie back to. The NDP has similar Transformative roots in their membership in the Socialist International, and defined for Canadian conditions in their constitution and policy platforms. Once again, in theory, everything can be tied back to these roots.

Of course, governance in the real world is never so nice and neat. Politics, as defined in organizational theory, is a means of allocating limited resources. No party, no group or even an all powerful Pharaoh has unlimited resources (and ultimately you would not have enough time, even if somehow there were no limits to the physical resources available). So you have to make compromises and transactions to govern. The LPC was the master of Transactive governance, being able to seemingly cut a deal with everyone to gain support and get power, but eventually the balls fall out of the air, and the Liberals find themselves not being able to appeal to the electorate since they did not take the time to "stand" for anything.

Bills like C-51 or a multitude of other proposed laws and bills may well represent attempts by the CPC to either provide some sort of transactive activity to appeal to some elements of their electoral base, or perhaps the "least worst choice" in trying to deal with difficult problems which their Transformative principles are ill equilpped to deal with. (Remember the example of "The Strange Death of Liberal England", or the dissolution of parties like the Federalists, Whigs, Social Credit or Progressives when they were no longer able to generate any coherent answers to the issues of the day).

This isn't to say any of this is particularly "right"; a government led by Tom Mulcaire will have many of the same issue to deal with. Looking at Greece, Ontario under Bob Rae or the bankrupt American "Blue" states, one can see the NDP's Transformative worldview will be under a lot of pressure once it comes into full contact with the real world.

I think you have made some very good points.  I agree that the CPC and NDP are theoretically transformative, and the Liberals are theoretically transactive.  The CPC does just enough to keep their 'base' towing the line, and presumably the NDP would do the same.  The short form of all this is: governing to the centre, where (gasp) most Canadians are.  It's why I am not concerned that CPC will install a dictatorship, or that the NDP will make us all communist.  They will both talk to their base, but govern where most Canadians are, which is the centre.

One interesting transformative policy plank that is now out there is the Liberal promise to make 2015 the last "FPTP" election.  This would seem to be a policy that would be suggested by the NDP, not the the Liberals.  The reason I find it interesting is that Trudeau is suggesting a policy that does not favour the Liberals at all, and will no doubt be supported by the NDP.  This is win-win for the NDP on many fronts (for more gain for them than the Liberals). 

And, as Mr.Campbell has already suggested, any change from the FPTP system is bad news for conservatives, as it guarantees a majority of seats in Parliament would be from 'progressive' parties.

Harrigan

 

[Brad Sallows]

The CPC as it currently behaves in office is centre-right; the LPC by its own policy proposals is centre-left.  The NDP is further left of the LPC.  The 20% of Canadians further left of the NDP will need to decide whether to support the NDP or some fringe party.  The 20% of Canadians further right of the CPC will need to decide whether to support the CPC or some fringe party.  To claim the NDP is in the "centre" is to render all meaning of "left" and "right" (and therefore "centre" also) meaningless - it's a self-negating claim.

The LPC has unwittingly destroyed most of its traditional "transactive" foundational assets.  Patronage took a blow when Mulroney rapped Turner with it.  The Senate - which was the LPC information channel to corporate Canada - has been thrown aside by Trudeau.  How many old-time Liberals who understood the old party shat themselves when Trudeau did that?

I doubt the NDP really want a replacement for FPTP.  They might have slightly larger representation in Parliament, but will have dramatically reduced chances of ever forming a government - if "every vote counts", people inclined to vote other than NDP will not have a compelling reason to ever vote NDP either "strategically" or in disgust.  Would they rather be slightly larger in opposition, forever, or have a shot at governing as the major partner in a coalition?

The LPC is talking about replacing FPTP because they still haven't figured out where they went wrong or conceived a practical path back to power and are flailing about for solutions.  Replacing FPTP is an electoral analogue to selecting Trudeau as leader.  They are panicking.  What they need is for Trudeau to resign right now and for a serious "interim" leader to take over.

Since the LPC is being hammered flat, I can't imagine that a "left" vote split is the CPC strategy.  If it is, the CPC need to lower Mulcair and raise Trudeau.  Given the way things are going, I suppose their intent is to push the LPC into complete free fall and capture "Blue" LPC voters.

 

[Underway]

Changes to FPTP often lead to a more fractured political landscape.  It might be bad for all big tent parties when they all explode into their individual sub factions.

As for the conservative strategy it is to destroy the LPC.  If that means sacrificing a pawn (this election) to do it then I think they would call that fair.  In a country with just the NDP and the CPC the CPC win 3 out of every four elections.  The long term threat to the conservatives is the liberals. 

 

[Harrigan]

  In a country with just the NDP and the CPC the CPC win 3 out of every four elections.  The long term threat to the conservatives is the liberals.

I'm afraid I have to disagree 100% with that assertion.  Any coalescence between Liberals and NDPers into one party would doom the CPC to eternal opposition, because they would be facing a left-centre mixture of the two.  Historically, right-of-centre parties in Canada have earned more than half the vote exactly twice since WWII (Diefenbaker in 1958, and Mulroney in 1984).  The rest of the time, it is 40% Conservative and 60% Progressive (in general).  And at the moment it is 28% Conservative, and 72% Progressive.  Trend lines are not in CPC's favour.

Only if you think there are more "Blue Liberals" than "Orange Liberals" would this model not be accurate - and if that is the case, how can you call the Liberals a centre-left party?

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

  Patronage took a blow when Mulroney rapped Turner with it. 

Are you suggesting that Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper have not used patronage ad nauseum since 1984???  That line certainly did in Turner in 1984, but it didn't hurt the four following PM's at all, who have shown no reluctance to use patronage whenever it suited them. 

It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate.  After all the sound and fury when in opposition about the ills of the Senate, Harper has filled it with his folks, and its credibility has never been lower.  The NDP, despite what we may think of their other policies, have always been clear and consistent about what they think of the Senate - they want it abolished - and they can call out the other two parties more or less with impunity. 

Harrigan

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are you suggesting that Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper have not used patronage ad nauseum since 1984???  That line certainly did in Turner in 1984, but it didn't hurt the four following PM's at all, who have shown no reluctance to use patronage whenever it suited them. 

It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate.  After all the sound and fury when in opposition about the ills of the Senate, Harper has filled it with his folks, and its credibility has never been lower.  The NDP, despite what we may think of their other policies, have always been clear and consistent about what they think of the Senate - they want it abolished - and they can call out the other two parties more or less with impunity. 

Harrigan

Except everyone knows the PM took this to the SC, who said it would be unconstitutional. That and every Province and Territory would have to be in full agreement (like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening). The PM checked his paperwork before launching into a no go campaign that would take all work off the table for, at least, four years.

It's not impossible to abolish the Senate, but it is damn near so.

Mulcair knows this emphatically, however, he continues to lie about him doing it, to capture the vote of the ignorant, easily led sheep.

If he gets in the position of attempting it, you can bet there'll be a run on the union kitshops for the orange shirt bearing the logo of

              Disband
                the
              Senate

 

[ballz]

I'm afraid I have to disagree 100% with that assertion.  Any coalescence between Liberals and NDPers into one party would doom the CPC to eternal opposition, because they would be facing a left-centre mixture of the two.  Historically, right-of-centre parties in Canada have earned more than half the vote exactly twice since WWII (Diefenbaker in 1958, and Mulroney in 1984).  The rest of the time, it is 40% Conservative and 60% Progressive (in general).  And at the moment it is 28% Conservative, and 72% Progressive.  Trend lines are not in CPC's favour.

Only if you think there are more "Blue Liberals" than "Orange Liberals" would this model not be accurate - and if that is the case, how can you call the Liberals a centre-left party?

Your 28% / 72% split doesn't make much sense to me, it assumes that if the Liberals disappeared and their voters had to choose between the CPC and the NDP, that all the former LPC voters would vote NDP and that's just not going to the be the case at all. In the current climate (the CPC being in power for so long) then yes, it would probably tip the scales in the NDPs favour, but it would be damn-close to 50/50 if I had to guess.

Going off last elections popular vote / seats (we can't go off the current polls, we have no idea how it will shake out), if the liberals dissolved and their voters had to find a new home in the NDP or the Conservatives, or let's say hypothetically there was a ranked ballot and the LPC voters #2 party was now being considered, it would mean that the sum total of the "conservative" vote would have been over 50% of the popular vote. (39.62% CPC + 3.91% *Green* + ~9% from the Libs).

*Green*: I have included the green vote as conservative. They do identify as a small "c" conservative party and many of their policies support that. However, if it was a ranked ballot, I admit that a lot of Greens aren't actually conservative (they probably don't even know the Green party is conservative) so I am sure a number of them would have the NDP ranked above the CPC.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate improving the lot of Canada's veterans.

FTFY

 

[Harrigan]

Except everyone knows the PM took this to the SC, who said it would be unconstitutional. That and every Province and Territory would have to be in full agreement (like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening). The PM checked his paperwork before launching into a no go campaign that would take all work off the table for, at least, four years.

It's not impossible to abolish the Senate, but it is damn near so.

Mulcair knows this emphatically, however, he continues to lie about him doing it, to capture the vote of the ignorant, easily led sheep.

The Supreme Court didn't say the Senate couldn't be abolished, and everyone knows it.  The Supreme Court said it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to do it unilaterally.  Laws are pesky that way. 

The method to change the senate exists, and was reiterated by the SC: amend the Constitution using the 7/50 formula, or all 10 provinces for abolition. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-disappointed-but-will-heed-scc-on-senate-reform-1.1792243

The Federal Government needs to sit down with the Provincial Premiers and actually explain to them why the Senate needs to be abolished.  This is hard.  It takes leadership.  It means standing in front of the nation and explaining what you want to do, why you want to do it, and convincing the Premiers to get on board.  If the public is on the PM's side, and on this issue they probably are, then the Premiers will be the ones on the hot seat, not the PM. 

Or, you don't even try.  And that is disappointing.  It can be done if you are actually committed to doing it and make your case.  If, on the other hand, you only intended to SAY you wanted to do it to get votes from your base, then job well done.  He has been 100% successful.

Actually talking to the Premiers to build a consensus takes leadership.  This government has met with the Premiers only twice in 9 years, and not since 2009.  Is it hard?  Absolutely.  But it wasn't too hard for Trudeau to take it on in 1982.  And it wasn't too hard for Mulroney to take it on in 1987, and again in 1990.  They both showed leadership, even if they didn't get the results that they wanted.  I give both credit for trying and at least engaging the public (crazy talk!) on fundamental issues of our parliamentary democracy.  That's WHY they are Prime Ministers - they are supposed to take on these battles.

That question is equally applicable to Justin Trudeau and Mulcair, not just for Harper.  If you are not willing to put your own personal popularity or votes on the line to do what is best for the country, then don't bother applying for the job.

Sorry if I get emotional about this.  I am just disappointed with our political system at the moment.  I thought we got rid of the rot in 1993, and again in 2006, and now in 2015 we are probably even worse off. 

Harrigan

(OK, I feel better now....) 

 

[Harrigan]

Your 28% / 72% split doesn't make much sense to me, it assumes that if the Liberals disappeared and their voters had to choose between the CPC and the NDP, that all the former LPC voters would vote NDP and that's just not going to the be the case at all. In the current climate (the CPC being in power for so long) then yes, it would probably tip the scales in the NDPs favour, but it would be damn-close to 50/50 if I had to guess.

Going off last elections popular vote / seats (we can't go off the current polls, we have no idea how it will shake out), if the liberals dissolved and their voters had to find a new home in the NDP or the Conservatives, or let's say hypothetically there was a ranked ballot and the LPC voters #2 party was now being considered, it would mean that the sum total of the "conservative" vote would have been over 50% of the popular vote. (39.62% CPC + 3.91% *Green* + ~9% from the Libs).

*Green*: I have included the green vote as conservative. They do identify as a small "c" conservative party and many of their policies support that. However, if it was a ranked ballot, I admit that a lot of Greens aren't actually conservative (they probably don't even know the Green party is conservative) so I am sure a number of them would have the NDP ranked above the CPC.

I am using the latest aggregate from Eric Grenier on http://www.threehundredeight.com/  Yes, of course it is a snapshot, though at least a time-compensated aggregate of all the election polls.  Certainly no worse a figure to use than the last election 4 years ago.  And I assumed the Greens as a Left of Centre party vice Right of Centre one.  I agree that is probably up for debate, but even then would only affect the most recent elections.

I am not assuming the Liberals will disappear, because I think that possibility is simply a CPC wet dream, not anything based in reality (and in my opinion, I think the CPC NEEDS both the Liberals and NDP healthy to split the vote).  What I could foresee is a slow merge of the Liberals with the NDP just like Reform and the PCs did (re-merge in the latter case).  That would most likely happen with the NDP moving more into the centre economically (where the votes are), and staying progressive socially (also where the votes are). 

Ultimately, Canadians have voted at a 60:40 rate in favour of parties perceived to be centre-left (progressive) over parties perceived to the centre-right (conservative) since WWII.  I am not making it up - look at the voting results in all the elections since 1945.  Of course the definition of "centre" wobbles around somewhat (St.Laurent Liberals and Harper Conservatives probably look very similar if one looks at it objectively), but if we generalize into left vs right, Canada has been a "left" nation at a 60:40 rate.  And despite the exhortations of Ibbitson and Flanagan, that ratio is not much different today.

By my reckoning, major parties perceived as "right" at the moment number one (CPC), whereas those perceived as "left" are more numerous (Liberals, NDP, Green, BQ).  According to the aggregation of the polls, that puts 28.4% on the "right", and 69.9% on the "left".  I agree that the 1.6% other should be left out as that could be in the minor parties on either side. 

As for the hypothetical of a world with no Liberal party, even if a 50/50 split were to occur, it still 42/57 if one considers the Green a "left" party vice "right" (which I do).  That is still pretty much at the 40:60 ratio.

Harrigan

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...

         

              ... I suspect that the largest number of us (38.2%, at a guess) are smack-dab in the middle and there is, really, no difference in opinion between the 19.1% just to the left of the centre line
                    and the 19.1% just to the right of it. I also believe that the 15% who are centre left are not too far away from the 15% who are centre right. So, almost 70% of us are centrist ~ firmly in
                    the "mushy middle" on almost every issue.

                  That means, in my guesstimation, that only 15% of us are firmly on the right and, equally only 15% of us are firmly on the left. (That's why I keep saying the CPC has a 20% base ~ the 15%
                  on the real right have nowhere else to go and some (many, even most) of those in the right of centre segment are not inclined to lean left. That's also why I believe the NDP has a firm lock on 15% of the vote and why the Liberals,
                  if they still are a real "big tent" transactive (another way of saying unprincipled) party have access to their own, firm 20% or even more.)

                  That centrist reality is why, in my opinion, Prime Minister Harper's long range strategic goal is to replicate the UK's two party system in Canada: with the Liberals gone the whole of the centre, the 70%,
                  is "up for grabs" and it will, as often as not, be "grabbed" by the conservative party ~ more often IF the prime minister can, as some pundits say he is doing, change the political culture in Canada by making us all
                  slightly more conservative in our values and expectations.