A bit of talking past for sure, I also am aware that the NDP has moved toward the centre with their platform - I also think that the sovereignty movement in Quebec on the federal level has become stale/moot as referendums etc. will always be driven by the PQ. All of which helps explain this. I'm not sure how much Layton will have to throw his English base under the bus, only time will tell. I think you meant the reverse about the sponsorship scandal - it was only really an issue in Quebec, no? I think we can all agree that the NDP is going to change to accommodate these gains in Quebec, how much depends on how much of the constitutional debate Quebeckers are willing to stomach. Get elected on a populist platform, remove unpopular tax revenue first thing, use couple hundred million in surplus to balance budget this year, begin giant witch hunt for 'efficiencies'* to balance next years budget. * the slogan was to 'End the Gravy Train' - so far he's found a gravy boat's worth.
A friend of mine who is more on the right libertarian side than even I am is now considering moving to Canada.
Thing is, and Doyle may quibble here, I consider myself conservative, fiscally (and environmentally) to be sure, which is pretty common in Ontario - and why the Ontario Alberta axis makes sense. These guys are neither fiscally responsible or particularly conservative regarding the environment. This election has seen two major faults erode in Canada, the Alberta/Ontario rift from Trudeau's NEP days of the early 80's, and BQ rump from the failed Meech Lake accord in the late 80's. Not to mention the humbling of the Liberals - mostly due to attack ads from both the NDP and the Conservatives - this has been the biggest shift in Canadian politics since the old PC party was reduced to 2 seats in '93.
Which they came back from in an altered (slightly) form. The NDP has a huge opportunity here,but I think they'll blow it. They usually do-too many "true believers" not enough realpolitik.
2011 Canadian Election All that's really needed is a semi-official coalition among opposition parties, where each selects constituencies in which they will not stand, based on current election results or perceived strengths & weaknesses. This would give their supporters the opportunity (which may or may not work) to vote for a different left-wing candidate. Perhaps they can agree on a common platform, while acknowledging areas of mutual disagreement, which they do agree will not force a dissolution vote, if this strategy prevails. The winning Conservatives only increased thier percentage of the electorate by 2 points. The NDs increased by 12%, at the expense of the Libs & the BQ, who dropped a combined 11%. So, the major shuffling occurred among the opposition. 75% of Con votes were cast for winning candidates, 80% of Lib & 93% of BQ voters cast thier ballots for losers. "Popular support based on winning and losing candidates Party Winners Votes Party% Total% Losers Votes Party% Total % Cons 166 4,380,401 74.91% 58.98% 141 1,467,337 25.09% 20.11% NDP. 103 2,378,632 52.49% 32.03% 205 2,153,097 47.51% 29.50% Liberal 34. 571,379. 20.52% 07.69% 274 2,213,095 79.48% 30.33% BlocQue 4 64,620 7.25% 0.87% 71 826,809 92.75% 11.33% Green .. 1 31,890 5.56% 0.43% 303 541,318 94.44% 7.42% Other .. 0 .0 ...... 0.00% 0.00% 285. 95,790 100.0% 1.31% Total 308 7,426,922 50.44% 100% 1,279 7,297,446 49.56% 100%"
Re: 2011 Canadian Election There's no reason to expect that will happen at this election though. You're also not getting the reality that there is not just one federal election-more like five with completely different regional electorates.
Interesting points on the conversion of votes to seats that comes out that data Jake posted. You can make a majority with 40% of the popular vote, as long as you are getting 80% of your votes to be for winning candidates or so. The likelihood of an informal merger where the Liberals and NDP try to minimize vote splitting on the left has been discussed and found lacking, along with coalition governments, at least in public opinion. This is exactly how the Liberals under Chretien were able to get majorities - and it will take either a merger of left leaning parties, or a scandal equivalent to the Quebec sponsorship fiasco to coalesce the vote enough to dethrone Harper.
Re: 2011 Canadian Election Exactly, and for the record they are: - Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI) - Quebec - Ontario - Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) - BC Atlantic Canada tends to waver between Liberals and Conservatives, there is a similar axis provincially. Quebec has ebbed between the sovereigntists, and Liberals historically. Though the Conservatives have won seats (and majorities) in Quebec in the past. Provincially there is no conservative party and the axis is on federalist/sovereigntist terms. Ontario is the biggest voting block and tends to decide federal elections, traditionally it favours whichever part isn't in power provincially, with NDP taking seats in the North and urban Toronto/Ottawa/Hamilton. Chretien (Liberal PM) won his majorities by sweeping all Ontario seats. Prairie contests tend to be between the NDP and the Conservatives, with Liberals taking seats in urban areas (outside of Alberta which is essentially a one party rule province for the Conservatives). Saskatchewan is the cradle of the NDP, and along with Manitoba, BC and Ontario (an outlier in the early nineties) are the only provinces that have elected the NDP provincially. BC has a healthy mix of all three major parties federally, electing members from all three, but provincially there is no conservative party to speak of, and they've elected the Social Credit Party in the past, though the axis is more Liberal/NDP nowadays.
Greater Victoria is well known as an NDP stronghold. If May didn't win, it certainly would've been an NDP sweep in that region. Its not much different from the provincial level.