Polls Provide Cautionary Tales

The latest rash of polling consistently shows support for the Harper Conservatives on the wane, a very strong NDP alternative. Some polls have the NDP in the lead, others like Abacus show a dead heat.  These are heady days for the NDP, no question about it.  But, underneath some of the polling, perhaps a cautionary tale, within that ample intellectual room for the "co-operation" argument.

There exists a disconnect between rising disapproval in all things Harper government and support numbers.  For the purposes of trends, Abacus begins with a baseline of August 2011.  Here we see a 10% erosion in "right direction" numbers for the country.  We also see a very concerning 12% rise in disapproval of the Harper government (last August 43% approval/37% disapproval, now 34% approval, 49% disapproval).  On the economy, we see a 9% drop in the federal government's handling.   Harper's personal numbers see a 1% gap in approval/disapproval last August rise to 14% today, another troubling trend line.

Taken in totality, the numbers are very, very concerning for this government, no doubt about it.  However, when we review the party support numbers, we see a more muted picture, which deserves attention.  Last August, Abacus had it 38% for the Conservatives, 32% for the NDP and 19% for the Liberals.  Today, we see 35% each for the Conservatives and NDP, 20% for the Liberals.  In other words, despite abysmal trends for the government, Harper, the Conservatives have only dropped 3%, not even outside the polls margin of error.  In addition, the NDP up 3%, Liberals static, fairly minor moves when juxtaposed against the government performance/Harper numbers.   I think this an imperative point for those giddy with dreams of conquest, the questions are a bit more complicated moving forward.

The opposition are not fully maximizing the disquiet with this government.  Approvals are now SO bad for the Conservatives that we see competition, outright leads, but this reality still hasn't captured the underlying unease, the full price isn't being paid.  That the government can still remain tied nationally, despite abysmal numbers, further argument for proponents of co-operation, those that want some agreement that makes "opposition" succinct and efficient.   Despite these worrying trends for Harper, we still have a situation where a slight rebound, "less bad" if you will, translates to another mandate, almost absurd on one level.

For those of us who wish the Conservatives no good fortune, these polls are clearly encouraging.  However, beyond the headlines and pom poms, there still exists a structural disconnect within the polling that leaves some room for government optimism.  To my mind, a shrewd alternative looks for ways to SNUFF out any escape routes. 

Who Will Be The "Unite The Left" Candidate?

You can really sense a buzz within certain quarters as people digest the potentialities within the Liberal leadership race. Our media class seems intrigued, as evidenced again yesterday within the context of the Rae announcement. The idea of "supporters", a wider primary concept, allows for many scenarios beyond the traditional narrow partisan process. Of course, any anticipation also comes with the capacity for complete let down, should this race not catch fire, but the nuts and bolts are in place for opportunity.

Within any discussion about the leadership, a conversation of who will be the unity candidate, who will be the person to champion "co-operation", a point made again yesterday by columnist Tim Harper. One only has to look at the last NDP race, wherein Cullen came out of nowhere largely because of his controversial stand on co-operation to realize the issue sits in the wings waiting for an advocate. With a system that allows a wider input in the ultimate choice, the capacity exists for a raucous debate on this score.

A largely ignored story on the CBC The National a couple nights ago highlighted an emerging "unite the left" grassoots sentiment spontaneously manifesting itself, without the guidance of head office.

Minor in scope at this point, but also seeds that people need to pay close attention to because the concepts have resonance. This is the audience for the Liberal candidate who makes co-operation a campaign center piece. Interestingly, Trudeau has mused on this score in very clear terms, although I question whether those sentiments would manifest should he choose to run. Whatever, the larger illumination would be watching blue Liberals gush over Trudeau when policy wise he about as left as they come in the "big tent". Certain absurdities will be revealed, as they already are presently, but that is more a psychology Doctorate thesis at this point.

Again, I sense a unique interest in this Liberal race, quite out of proportion given our current lowly status. This reality provides the Liberals a terrific opportunity to re-engage with the Canadian public, present compelling policy and debates, breakout of the downward spiral.   The great debate within this race may very well turn out to be the co-operation angle.  Cullen was handicapped by a narrow audience- as well as a rally around the flag mentality from opponents- a situation the Liberal race could evolve outside of, with the right advocate.  One thing is clear, there are rumbling out there in the hinterland, an audience waiting for further articulation.

Two Thirds Of "Liberals" Support Merger

There is a sleeper issue within the coming Liberal leadership race that has yet to come forth, but will manifest, of that I have little doubt. The idea of a merger, co-operation, arrangement, an extension of the Nathan Cullen thrust, someone will champion. Why? Because the topic is fertile ground:

More interesting is whether any Liberal leadership hopeful campaigns on a ticket of supporting a merger of the left, "because clearly a majority of Liberal party supporters think it's a good idea," Bricker said. Sixty-four per cent of Liberal supporters and 57 per cent of NDP voters said they "strongly" or "somewhat" support their parties merging into a single party.

Here's the kicker, the Liberal race has the capacity to appeal beyond hardcore partisans, those LEAST likely to support an idea which challenges the narrow established tribalism.  Without the "supporter" component, talk of co-operation and mergers is dead on arrival.  But, with the potential of less invested participation, there is a built in capacity to find the spark required.  The conversation goes nowhere without the proper advocate, but the above finding demonstrates the audience is there for the right motivator.

I don't believe I've seen any finding wherein 2/3rds of remaining Liberal voters favour a merger.  Add to that a decent majority from the "riding high" NDP supporters and you have a compelling backdrop.  Again, diehards will resist, but these polls reach beyond party membership and into the realm of average voters, this audience isn't invested enough to share the flag affections.  As well, partisanship tends to cloud certain synergies that those less devoted can easily ascertain.  In other words, a certain detachment actually provides better perspective.

So, who is going to come out of the shadows and be the pro-merger, co-operation, arrangement candidate?  Make no mistake, it will be someone and I predict she/he will be a force.  The general public is well ahead of partisans on this score.

Wither The Tribes?

Interesting article today, detailing developments in a lone riding which could become a template for greater "co-operation" moving forward.  I contend some measure of co-ordination is largely inevitable, as well as a belief the move will come from a grassroots expression, rather than the rigid party apparatus which is largely incapable of seeing beyond narrow self interest.

I'm not committed to a preferred course, but the spirit here is encouraging:

In February of this year, Green Party supporters in the riding, at their annual general meeting, agreed to have its executive reach out to Liberal and NDP representatives in the riding. “The purpose of the discussions has been to explore areas of agreement on visions for a progressive Canadian future, including electoral reform,” wrote Alec Adams, the Green riding association president. The three parties agreed it might be useful to express joint concern over government policy. “Our goal is to galvanize the progressive vote in 2015, so people will cast their votes in a way that will make a difference,” he wrote. The meetings have been “non-competitive and congenial,” Adams says, but he emphasized things are being done one small step at a time. Just to be safe, they are representing themselves to the public as concerned individuals, leaving their party affiliation at the door. Last Saturday, a protest against the omnibus bill was held in Orillia and it was jointly organized by all three opposition parties in the riding.

Partisans routinely defend the distinctive character of each political brand. In one sense this contention is true, except when taken to the practical world. The NDP are now lead by a man who's first political ads INTRODUCING him to Canadians take place in a corporate boardroom- yes a Bay Street setting- that's the new far left ladies and gentleman. The Liberals are lead by an interim leader who is quite possibly to the LEFT of the NDP leader, no need to rehash his orange past. The Liberals are working with the Greens, the Liberals have worked with the Greens going back to Dion, we have seen many, many committed Greens move into the Liberal tent and vice versa, the synergies are simply irrefutable. Provinces have elected many NDP governments, which dippers routinely cite, without mentioning Doer, Dexter, Calvert bear NO relationship to the "real left", in fact Dalton McGuinty may just be the real "progressive". But I digress...

There is a certain narrow mentality that dominates the tribes, one that I have also fell prey to in the name of "team". Actual political orientation takes a backseat to the flag, Ignatieff, Dion, far apart on the spectrum, but the commonality is the brand and that supersedes. Our NDP friends are doing the same right now, many have admitted a discomfort with Mulcair's orientation to me privately, but that evaporates in the name of path to power and the necessary pragmatism that comes with mainstream politics. If we blindfold ourselves and simply read rhetorical lines, in many respects partisans would be at a loss to ascertain true origin, and that is the bottom line.

 People talk about the Liberals being "squeezed", which to me is a simplistic explanation. In reality, Liberals are being squeezed because the NDP are becoming the Liberals, the very nature of the term implies a move into formerly held terrority. Mulcair is moving the NDP to the center, the party of Broadbent is deader than any column could articulate about the Liberals ultimate fate, don't kid yourself. The Greens scream politically redundant on a host of levels, apart from the party apparatus and internal dynamics that nobody outside of the partisan realm particularly cares about.

The Liberal leadership race is shaping up like a dud already, the names being floated resemble those of job applicants to captain the good ship Titantic. The only intrigue for me as of today, does SOMEONE come out of the hinterland and champion "co-operation", is there a revolutionary amongst us? Should we see that expression, THEN this notion of "supporter" can become a important variable because there is a mechanism to allow for non-partisan types to weigh in on the future of the closed tribe.  In other words, the appetite amongst the general audience sees more value in co-operation than do we committed party members, the lack of mental rigidity that scoffs at the mere mention.  As well, "locals" on the ground-as Simcoe North demonstrates- can unilaterally find common ground and these understandings can manifest.

I'm not sure where we go moving forward, but I remain convinced that should anything of political substance develop it will come from the ground, a practical sensibility that sees a greater interest beyond the tribes.

NDP Bounce Will Hold

The latest Harris Decima poll cements a robust NDP, now at 34%(33% Apr 30) compared to the Conservatives at 30%(unchanged) and the Liberals at 20%(unchanged). Without seeing the internals we can surmise they remain much the same as the previous offering, wherein the NDP had a massive lead in Quebec, competitive for first in Ontario and strong in British Columbia. You have to be careful with early leadership polls, people will recall the Liberals temporarily vaulting to first in the aftermath of Dion, then Ignatieff, only to see numbers erode in fairly quick order. However, I'm prepared to posit this NDP "honeymoon", "bounce", is somewhat different and fully expect it to hold for a number of reasons.

I fully expect Conservative Mulcair attack ads to begin soon, but the absence to date is telling in the sense there is no obvious target here, easy shots don't readily come to mind. Particularly in Quebec, I'm hard pressed to see any reason for people to abandon Mulcair and the NDP, look elsewhere, at least short term. The NDP have a base, which I argue will hold, given the leader, his environmental credentials, as well as a lack of compelling alternatives.

It's been a tough few months for the Harper government, perhaps the longest sustained period of negativity I can recall. The Conservatives sit at 30%, which is basically bottom since the right united, further erosion unlikely. Beyond that core support, there is serious trouble however, one can even posit these Conservative may be passing their "best before date" as a government, the signs are readily available. What is interesting in the polling, analysis does show softer Conservative support bleeding to the NDP. Traditional voter movement in some regions of Canada, but quite noteworthy elsewhere, an emerging new dynamic which speaks to an evolving NDP. That voters fed up with the Conservative regime are now turning to the NDP, this suggests a new found resilience for the NDP. Played correctly, there is an opportunity here for the NDP to solidify any public perception change. In other words- unsettling to we Liberals- the NDP are becoming the defacto alternative in the minds of Canadians, an angle that deserves particular attention, old trends are breaking down in fundamental ways.

I am not suggesting no future "wane" in NDP support, nor am I naive enough to believe these Conservatives don't have the capacity for rebound. As well, Liberals do have an opportunity with this looming leadership, if realities are properly digested, it could provide a springboard to shake up the current predicament. That said, I don't view recent polling as a blip, I expect the NDP to remain within range of the Conservatives. I don't see a temporary honeymoon, at least not in the historic sense, there is something a bit more substantive occurring in the land...

Mulcair's Shrewd Gambit

It is quite fascinating to digest the narrative Mulcair has chosen in the early days of his leadership. An economic argument, Mulcair can't seem to stop talking about "dutch disease", the high dollar, the regional disparity, within the "new" Canadian economy. Mulcair's thrust has been labelled divisive, but I see it as intellectually necessary, as well as potentially quite shrewd politically. There is a very large electoral audience that will be receptive to Mulcair's message, whatever alienation occurs will have little impact on NDP fortunes. Despite all the talk about a shift "west" in Canada, simple electoral math still shows a very plausible path to power that excludes much of the "changing landscape".

In the next election, a party will need 170 seats to form a majority, perhaps 130 odd seats will be enough for a functioning minority. Mulcair has intentionally singled out three provinces with his message, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, arguing that our artificially high dollar greatly harms the manufacturing sector. Of note, those three provinces ALONE count for 209 seats with the new distribution next election, the one that supposedly moves power west. It is quite reasonable to posit Mulcair could well sweep Quebec in the next election, this "dutch disease" message will resonate all day long in a province with little sympathy for the "oil patch". People can scoff all they want, but if you can deliver Quebec, score 50 or 60 seats, you start with a very formidable base from which to propel yourself, that fact still remains part of the Canadian electoral equation.

Where Mulcair really starts to intrigue, Ontario in particular, because I sense a very receptive audience to this economic message.  People in Ontario are very sensitive to the dollar arguments, everyone understands the importance, there is a simple sophistication that average people understand.  We can talk about productivity, innovation, competitiveness, but at a certain point it's all irrelevant should a soaring dollar price us out of the market.  As well, there is a suspicion about these "economic benefits" Ontario supposedly reaps from the development of the energy sector.  Of course an acknowledgement of equalization payments, a process known well in this parts, given past "powerhouse" considerations.  That said, Mulcair's message has the potential to hit home in a fundamental way; almost advocacy in tone, championing concerns felt here, in a place which just happens to have 121 seats in the next election, 36% of the electorate.  If Mulcair is truly moving the NDP to the center, then this core economic message has some interesting potential in Ontario, make no mistake about it.  A strong Quebec core makes the NDP a "viable" alternative, once they've crossed that threshold in the minds of voters, all traditional bets are off in Ontario.  We see this reality today, massive support in Quebec impacting national numbers, appearing very much a true alternative to the rest of the country as well.

The NDP aren't going anywhere in Alberta next election no matter, ditto for their former stronghold in Saskatchewan.  The NDP are strong in British Columbia, this "dutch disease" message from Mulcair might well prove a net neutral, alienating some, but maintaining some core urban support, enough to win seats, pad the national numbers.  There is little downside in the Mulcair message for Atlantic Canada, apart from Newfoundland, there is an intuitive sympathy for the argument.  My point being, despite all this talk about the new electoral math, Mulcair's argument can resonate with wide swaths of the electorate, his views aren't reckless, but potentially quite impactful.  That this is a economic message from Mulcair that he articulates well, should also not be ignored. It is on this file the NDP face their greatest credibility hurdle and he may just be turning a liability into a central talking point.

A strong "central" Canada coalition, with sprinklings of support elsewhere is still a winning combination. Despite the new math pundits keep harping on, 18 new seats have been created in this central region, only 12 in the "west", which actually means greater importance, not less, in appealing to Ontario and Quebec.  Mulcair isn't crazy, this gambit is actually quite shrewd and a KEY angle to monitor moving forward.

After The "Honeymoon"

These are great days to be the NDP. Whatever lull the party experienced after the death of Jack Layton has been corrected, terrific polling translates to realistic government in waiting proclamations. As stated prior, Mulcair brings a perceived "regional" base of support from which to grow, a challenging dynamic for we Liberals moving forward. However, acknowledging strength doesn't equate to envisioning Prime Minister Mulcair, that is an entirely different calculation.

The honeymoon phase, a politican can do no wrong, shiny and new, the simple ability to stand erect translates to fawning praise. Case in point, apparently Mr. Mulcair had a great week in Parliament, but really it was pretty ordinary by normal standards. Perhaps a human condition, we tend to exaggerate "newness" because of inherent attributes it entails, as opposed to simple recognition of objective performance. This sensibility works well during the "honeymoon" phase, but inevitability the "flavour of the month" wanes and in Canadian politics were are left with one of the most uneviable job, that of Opposition Leader.

The opposition parties have been working reasonably well together of late. People will recall during the Liberal years, even more ideological divergent parties also worked well together, a common enemy tends to blur edges. However, with the arrival of Thomas Mulcair, we have seen an almost instanteous poisoning of the "relationship" between the NDP and Liberals. Granted, the Liberals have reacted defensively, as they come to grips with life that involves a permanent, robust Leader of the Opposition, but it's more than that, and it is here we need to train our gaze moving forward.

A very interesting observation from former MP Glen Pearson on his blog, well worth a read beyond the quotation I present:

Which brings us to Thomas Mulcair. I never talked to the man – by his own choice. We sat in the same lobby together for a number of years and not once did he acknowledge me when I said hello – likely because I wasn’t a significant player. He would journey down to our end of the lobby to grab a coffee or a tea, always with blinders on, and always with no intention of talking to any of us. If there were ever to be an initiative to work in compromise with other parties, this might prove difficult now.

Let me state here that I have always had an appreciation for the NDP, despite some difficult moments early in my political tenure. People like Paul Dewar, Chris Charlton, Nathan Cullen, Joe Comartin, Irene Matthyssen, and, yes, Jack Layton, came to be my friends.

I note, Rae has alluded to a similar point, obviously a sense that Mulcair is not someone you can collobrate with. You can chalk it up to partisanship, but I note this is the same vein that people like Broadbent, Rebick have articulated, the sense "nobody can work with this guy". Pearson conveys an arrogance, as well as looming liability, because a politican who can't build consensus is doomed, not a luxury trait, an utter must. When the honeymoon ends and serious critique begins, it is here that Mulcair may seem vulnerable. Is the pettiness we heard this week from the opposition benches the new reality with Mulcair? I posit that "edge" will wear thin and the inability of the opposition to get along will be a contributing factor to further apathy. As well, style is style, if one is abrasive and "impossible", you don't confine that expression to certain entities, this character flaw with also manifest within the family.

When the tan lines fade, I'll be looking to see if Mulcair is truly capable of reaching out, building consensus, rallying in inspiring fashion, demonstrating a capacity for team play. Say what we want about Harper's temper, Harper's almost anti-social disposition, he was and is a master at keeping all oars in the water rowing in the name of common cause, that's partially why he is Prime Minister today. The jury is very much out on Thomas Mulcair, the recollections of Mr. Pearson instructive when the real scrutiny begins.

Challenges For Mulcair

Yesterday, I mused about Mulcair presenting a challenge to the Liberals. This assertion doesn't equate to some belief that a Mulcair led NDP will sweep the nation and form government, only a relatively strong obstacle for the Liberals themselves, as we try to reassert ourselves on the political landscape, particularly "traditional" ground. In fact, there is much to wonder about when it comes to Mulcair as we move forward and the NDP attempt to solidify themselves as government in waiting.

I'll refrain from commentary on facial hair, because frankly if that's your big contributing insight one day out of a leadership finale, you should probably seek other employment, this clearly isn't your calling. For my money, one of the more intriguing commentaries on Mulcair comes from Judy Rebick, harsh but full of refreshing candour, this particular passage something to watch:

The third narrative is what has been called a whisper campaign against Mulcair. It was a pretty loud whisper turned into a shout by Ed Broadbent. No one can get along with this guy. He is a bully who doesn't brook opposition. Kind of like a certain Prime Minister we know. It was also suggested that Mulcair had nothing to do with the victory in Quebec. Quieter but just as widespread was the knowledge that not very many women who have worked with him for more than a few months were supporting him. I was shocked by how few women were among his published endorsers. Some of these whispers are true from what I can tell.

Personality, this could well be Mulcair's chief Achilles heel. Also relevant, our current PM has personality issues of his own, but has shown an ability to bring his own people together in common purpose (power tends to help in this regard as well, which should be mentioned). "No one can get along with guy", that is where it can all unravel, especially when he takes the helm after an era of the Layton style, wherein inclusion was a centerpiece ideal. Mulcair must bring people together, that is a leader's primary job, should he fail to give voice to others, domineer and dismiss, we will see his leadership undermined, there will be problems moving forward. While Broadbent's comments were ill timed, the underlying message conveyed a problematic aspect to a Mulcair rule, the idea that people who have worked closely less inclined to support, a red flag moving forward for sure.

Lost in this Mulcair victory I think, the fact that the early rally behind Topp, particularly the Layton loyalists, looked very much like a pre-emptive strike to undercut Mulcair. There was a very QUICK move to put up an alternative to Mulcair, this inner circle obviously feared something and they pivoted quickly from mourning to maneuvering, the speed quite telling. Smiles and standing ovations now are irrelevant, the real test will come in the months ahead as we watch to see if all oars are enthusiastically pulling together, or if under the surface tensions distract from the task at hand.

Mulcair is not a populist, one wonders if he can resonate with his type of personality. You listen to Mulcair in interviews, I find him engaging, thoughtful, interesting and compelling, he has gifts no question. However, I can recall many a failed politician- some recent Liberal examples come to min- who sounded great one on one, but failed to touch the electorate in any compelling way. I found Mulcair's victory speech incredibly flat and frankly it bored me to tears, I packed up halfway through as it was felt like sitting through the credits after a long movie. How Mulcair performs on the stump, walking the streets, interacting and engaging, this is a large unknown moving forward.

Those of us who follow politics closely know full well Mulcair has a nasty temper, as well as a habit of saying certain outlandish things. Fine when you're an attack dog, a subordinate, quite another when you're perceived as a possible PM in waiting. Again, one can point to our current PM and allay any fears on the "angry guy" front, but I contend to this day, Harper is largely the benefactor of good timing, rather than a wave of affection that brought him to office. In other words, I don't consider his rise a template to copy, anger is not normally a preferred trait when it comes to "lik3ability". Layton thrived because he was likeable, we did want to have a beer with him, he had that common touch, authenticity, sincerity and above all a sense of compassion. Mulcair has big shoes to fill, particularly within a party which isn't as angry by nature as some others, if you "get" me. I think Mulcair did a masterful job during this campaign of holding his perceived anger in check, he looked a statesman, his message was positive, so perhaps we overstate these concerns. Still, history is just that, so I'll be looking for flaring nostrils, red faced rants and how that could potentially play.

Like every new leader, Mulcair will be a work in progress. Leader of the Opposition is never an easy gig, at many times thankless and you always appear wanting and incomplete, perceptual hurdles a given. Let's see if Mulcair can handle the heat, both in front of the cameras and perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes within his own party.

Second Ballot Results: Mulcair Grows

Results from the second ballot:

Mulcair: 23902(38%) Topp:15624(25%) Cullen:12595(19%) Nash:10519(16.8%)

Reads of this blog will recall I thought the Martin Singh factor was something to watch on the second ballot. Indeed, that scenario looks to be critical as Mulcair comes out of the second ballot with the most growth, a full 8% more than his first ballot score. With Singh encouraging his supporters to put Mulcair as second choice, they've been activated in this round creating perceived momentum, relative to the others. I suspect when the dust settles we will see Singh delivered a high percentage of support to Mulcair.

Nash is out, as pointed out the classic convention floor move to another candidate muted by the preferential vote, much is written in stone, impact less than old style brokering. Conventional wisdom on the floor many Nash supporters would have Topp as second choice, but that remains to be seen, I suspect a more divided breakdown. While Topp is still viable, he is a full 15% behind Mulcair, which means he requires a monolithic move to his side, a scenario which looks a reach, given the format.

Really hard to see Cullen going anywhere now, so far back, without a confined room of real time voting, I can't see the momentum to pull it off. However, assuming Cullen drops off the next vote, it will be fascinating where his vote breakdown. Many see some synergy with the Mulcair campaign, but I'm not convinced, suspect a fractured dispersion.

I think we're in for two more votes. I'll be looking to see if Mulcair can get to 42-45%, that should be enough to put him over the final ballot. Again, this format doesn't lend itself to dramatic consensus moves at this stage.

NDP First Ballot Results

Pretty surprising results on the first ballot:

Turnout - 50%. Mulcair 30, Topp 21.3, Cullen 16.3, Nash 12.8, Dewar 7.4, Singh 5.8, Ashton 5.7. Singh out. Dewar out. Ashton out.

Mulcair comes in on the low end of expectations. As I mentioned yesterday 35% was the arbitrary number many had floated on the convention floor. However, with Singh at a decent 6%, one wonders what kind of a boost this will give Mulcair in the next round. Mulcair has a decent lead, but there is no air of inevitability in this building, people are prepping for a potentially long day. I would describe this result as somewhat disappointing for Mulcair, not fatal, but much in doubt.

For me, the two big surprises, Topp comes in a strong second and Dewar a very disappointing fifth, and barely that. Looks of chatter about Topp fading, but he's delivered a decent result, with some speculation of more British Columbia votes coming in the next round, an added dynamic moving forward. Topp is well placed moving forward.

Cullen is the interesting one, in the hunt, but well back. This is where second choice could be important, particularly with a relatively low "live" vote on the first ballot. Many votes are locked in, given Cullen had quite a bit of momentum the last couple of weeks, one wonders where the second choice shakes out. Cullen very much in the game.

Nash seems to be a point of disagreement, some saying she can still move up, others, like myself, see her to far back to truly challenge. Fourth is a tough spot, and with Topp very, very viable, one wonders where the support comes from. What I will look for, where does Nash go, does she move to Topp after the second ballot, that is the type of move required to take out Mulcair.

It's going to be a long day, and I'm loving every second of it...

Mulcair's Magic Number?

One number everyone will be watching, Mulcair's first ballot percentage. Some talk about a Mulcair first ballot win here at the NDP convention, but I think that would be a stunner. The conventional wisdom is multiple votes, and within that a conversation about what Mulcair needs on the critical initial ballot.

I'm thinking 35% is a key number for Mulcair, anything above that and he takes on an air of inevitability. Rather than a real alternative emerging, a unifying sense develops and serious challenge looks remote. Factor in a muddled field behind Mulcair, and it's hard to see the wheels coming off, whether he inches or surges, 50%would look to be within his grasp.

On the other hand, should Mulcair come in around 30%, a couple percent either way, then this race looks wide open, everything in play. With so many reasonably strong contenders, Mulcair could end up with the lead, but not a pronounced one that looks unstoppable. A number on the low end could still work for Muclair because of a "divided opposition", but I see much intrigue should he fail to reach this arbitrary threshold.

I'll be looking for how the second to fifth shakeout, fully expecting a surprise within. Equally important, if Mulcair can meet expectations on the first ballot, create a sense of inevitability and in turn win without much consternation.

NDP Leadership Race Goes "Liberal"

It really is quite astounding, that someone with as much political experience as Ed Broadbent would so openly and fundamentally attack the candidate who is the consensus favourite to assume the NDP leadership. I would categorize his comments as reckless, but perhaps worse outright dangerous, leaving much potential for lasting damage. That the elder NDP statesman made subsequent comments in more than one venue, all the more amazing, because a moment of reflection should have solicited pause.

It's not that Broadbent doesn't make sense, isn't articulating genuine concern as to philosophical leanings and personal fitness, but it seems obvious that no good can come from so scathing an indictment. Broadbent has effectively opened up a deep chasm that will have ramifications moving forward. Should Mulcair lose the leadership, fair to ask about his future place in the NDP, particularly if there is the slightest sense that party purists have rejected his presence within. As well, the very real possibility that the verdict amounts to a rejection of the new Quebec breed, since Broadbent went out of his way to divide new and old MP's into tiers. If this convention reveals any sense of ganging up to stop Mulcair, this doesn't occur in a vacuum, there will be lasting impact and Broadbent's words will haunt.

The other scenario involves Mulcair winning, and while much is in doubt, surely Broadbent must realize this the most likely scenario, or at least a real possibility. Mulcair wins, and yet there will be this sense that his colleagues question his mental makeup, people are uncomfortable with his leadership style, some see an abandonment of the traditional NDP political bent. I'm not sure a bunch of smiling faces, arms raised in unity on the convention floor will adequately put to rest the Broadbent blindside, particularly when his expressions aren't without merit.

Broadbent represents a terrific blunder, a poorly conceived gambit inspired by narrow self interest. In trying to help his sagging candidate Topp, he has undermined Mulcair in a way that cuts deep. Actually, the fact that Broadbent didn't see the political pitfalls, didn't react with the slightest FORESIGHT, perhaps a testament to why his brand of NDP leadership never did reach the promised land, because yesterday was strangely amateurish for such a seasoned politician. To say Broadbent's broadside was ill conceived is being kind....

Harper Will Galvanize Opposition

The "anything can happen" camp in both opposition parties will resist any talk of co-operation, but if you live in the world of probability rather than possibility, sober conclusions must be entertained if we are to truly rid Canada of a government I personally consider a scourge. A divided opposition is Harper's trump card, it is the dynamic that allows an almost justified arrogance, simply take care of the base and Conservative prospects are guaranteed, the "rest" an irrelevant afterthought. A superficial review of issue after issue showing majority opposition to policies- yet little electoral recourse- proof positive that the Conservative equation is forever favourable. Look elsewhere, approval ratings at these levels amount to devastation, in Canada, it represents stable majority government, due to inefficient opposition.

Trudeau is the latest to openly muse about what may be required to defeat these Conservatives in the next election. His sentiment really no different that what we are hearing from certain quarters in the NDP, there are forces in both parties open to some level of co-operation, degree yet to be entirely fleshed out. Watching how the MP's from both parties GENERALLY interact- partisan constructs aside- there is a fairly positive mood, which is cultivated primarily by a sense of common "enemy". Liberals, NDP, Green, doesn't matter, we are all concerned about the government changing the environmental review process for instance, from my perspective the dangerous dimensions of application trump any tribal concern. In other words, this government is so offensive, on so many issues, as well as the toxic climate they cultivate, they will galvanize opposition. I firmly believe a Harper majority, their unbridled power, is beginning to act like a cold shower, it is putting the true damage into undeniable focus, which will allow for decisions beyond narrow self interest and arbitrary lines that pale in comparison.

Differences will always remain, fundamental philosophical departures, but surely a party with a "frontrunner" who sounds like a Liberal, and another with a former NDP leader at the helm, aren't that far apart that no rapprochement can be had. When faced with the reality of what another Harper mandate might mean for the country we desire, big picture epiphany will be reached, it is happening one member at a time, as we continually see the consequences of this particular reign.

I'm not sure what manifestation of co-operation will unfold, but I will remain open to ever proposal, because while there are fundamental disagreements, there is also a common realization of what the alternative means. There is a way to rid ourselves of Harper in 2015, there is reasonable path, but it will require brave thinking that puts common interest above self interest.

Conservative Cracks

Three years until we vote, meaningless, yes I understand! Nanos poll out with a few noteworthy results, not the least of which the walking dead party, the Liberals, touch 30% nationally, pretty remarkable, even if it's a one off result(I bet they can't keep Peter C. Newman's book on the shelves). As well, EKOS out with their poll, which shows the Conservatives barely outside a statistical tie with the NDP, dissatisfaction with this government skyrocketing. The two polls provide contradictory results in one sense, but both show some evidence of Conservative cracks.

Nanos describes his latest as "steady" for the Conservatives, and the top line national results support that notion, no change whatsoever. However, looking at the regionals, we see that two places show measurable change, Atlantic Canada with a large Conservative uptick which offsets a 6% drop in Ontario, creating the national sawoff result. Poll junkies will note, Atlantic Canada has a very small sample size, poll to poll the results vary wildly, whereas Ontario is the more instructive MOE wise, within a singular poll. A very encouraging result for the Liberals, particularly because Nanos has found Ontario resilience for consecutive results:

Libs 37.8% (35.1%)
Cons 35.9% (42.1%)
NDP 21.9% (16.9%)
Greens 3.9% (5.4%)

The third place Liberals are in first place in Canada's most populous province again for a Nanos poll. Noteworthy as well, this occurs with Bob Rae at the helm.

Nanos also puts the NDP back up to 32.6% in Quebec. As well, the Liberals remain pretty firm at 27%, a solid second place result in the province. The Conservatives are an afterthought fourth in the province. We have a circumstance were "steady" shows the opposition leading in Canada's two most populated provinces, and poll to poll, this result represents a seat loss for the Conservatives.

Moving to the EKOS poll, if you look at his trendline since the election, Libs gently moving up, Conservatives consistently falling, NDP off their highs. The Conservatives down to 31.5% nationally represents weak minority terrority, less than a year into their mandate. What is really concerning for the Conservatives, the EKOS right direction/wrong direction shows considerable erosion:


Confidence in this government is on the wane, an underlying result which has to be of some concern.

These two polls don't provide consistent narratives, one has the zombies at 30%, the other the NDP nipping at the Conservatives heels, but both show opposition to this government is manifesting itself, weakness very evident. The question now, what are we going to do about it and make that opposition optimal, in terms of effectiveness?

Speaking Of "Boring"

What's your definition of boring, bland, yawn inducing? For myself it's predictability above all else. From a purely partisan perspective, I suppose this now on going media categorization of the NDP leadership race as "boring" is a welcome frame, but really it does a disservice to the wider political climate. What is more maddening, the recurring frame shows no relationship to reality, because every NDP debate has been JAM packed, NDP membership signups are impressive, the NDP were forced to MOVE their convention site to a BIGGER location because SO many people are coming. All the empirical cues point to a rank and file engaged, real world excitement and yet everyday we have to endure this manufactured frame that this race is boring everyone to tears. Please point to me the last internal party leadership race that captured the imagination of the wider Canadian population? Never happens, and if that's the self determined benchmark, it's a false standard.

Students of Canadian politics will note a reoccurring lament that our political discourse is deteriorating, politicians don't talk substance, they hurl insults, places like Question Period have become unseemly exercises, all "theater", all "show". And yet, a recent effort to raise the level of discourse, stop the cat calls, was met with "this is boring", "it's too nice in here", the same profession which clamors for high brow discourse couldn't handle civility. And herein lies the rub, the inherent contradiction, our media need a "story", without a juicy angle, certain intrigue, sensational elements, there is no compelling narrative. A deeper look reveals that we the "client" are simply receiving what we appeal to, the audience is the final arbitrator and we eat up the fluff and bombast, at the expense of serious discourse. In other words, blame is a complicated discussion, so any observation isn't really an indictment, just a recognition of the state of things. We live in a world wherein scribes lament the lack of focus on serious issues, the "tone" of our discourse and yet when confronted with said want, they react with a yawn and demand some sizzle.

If the NDP are playing "nice" with each other, what is wrong with that, why is that "boring"? Does that dynamic come with a lack of compelling ideas put forth? No, we have a Brian Topp who completely wants to redo our approach to taxes in a fundamental way. We have a Nathan Cullen proposing a very bold electoral arrangement that would alter the political landscape in truly remarkable fashion. We have Thomas Mulcair attempting to move the NDP towards the center, should he win, the direction of that party will profoundly change. In other words, there is much to chew on within this race, real philosophical questions, that go beyond "knockout" punches and acrimony. I predict we will start to see more jostling as this race reaches crescendo, but that's not the point, nor is that some sort of imperative as the "boring" cries imply.

If nobody was showing up to the debates, if membership drives were pedestrian, if this convention was poorly attended, if there were no serious proposals on the table, these type of measures could support a "boring" argument. However, as it stands, "boring" looks nothing more than a perceived lack of friction, required ingredient for a "story", but of no relevance to what constitutes a successful leadership process.

Red Wave Envelops Canada

Well not quite, but since the name of the game in the short term is perceived viability, Liberals will take the recent spate of polling. Three polls out, all offer similar trends, Liberals will a slight uptick, NDP down, reinforcing recent narratives. Perhaps of biggest concern to the NDP, CROP now pegs support in Quebec at only 29%.

Harris Decima gives the Liberals a 3% rise since their last offering, a now noteworthy 6% rise since the election to 25%. Angus Reid also finds Liberal "gains", up 3% to 22%. Both pollsters also find the NDP support waning since the election. As well HD finds Conservatives support well down, while AR finds their support holding firm. The general trends suggest a Liberal party far from dead, and the NDP failing to solidify their election successes.

We've watched a steady decline in NDP Quebec support for a few months now, but CROP now finds the party below the psychological 30% barrier, which translates into no delusions that the orange wave is in danger of collapse. Much will depend on the next NDP leader, this could be a temporary wane, but these numbers reinforce the notion that Quebec remains a fluid province, the NDP "hold" precarious at best. CROP also finds the Liberals "benefiting most" from the NDP collapse, and while 19% isn't juggernaut status, it's a far cry better than 10% as CROP previously found. People might recall, this Liberal number is more in line with pre-election polling, we hovered within this low 20, high teen range for quite some time. It's all relative so a return to what was considered lowly at the time, is now a positive. Again, a sense of VIABILITY is of chief concern to the Liberals at the moment, just be part of the mix, that's the realistic short term goal in my mind.

Angus Reid also finds Rae doing well, and CROP sees Rae in a deadheat with Harper on the best PM question. Fair to say that Rae's performance is helping the Liberal bottomline and he deserves at least partial credit for the modest recovery. Of note, HD also finds the Liberals in a statistical tie with the Conservatives in Ontario, NDP third, another encouraging number, particularly with "Rae Day" at the helm.

Polls aren't of particular importance right now, as someone will surely point out, "the election is YEARS away", so fixation is meaningless. I agree completely, particularly with two parties yet to pick new leaders, the situation is in flux and no one knows what trends will hold long term. However, perceptions matter, so any indication of momentum is always welcome, as is a sense of eroding support unwelcome. I'm sure the NDP are pleased as punch to answer questions about the need to change strategy in the wake of falling polls. I'm sure the Liberals hate talking about Rae doing well, evidence that news of our death was greatly exaggerated. In other words, poll change, but polls speak to "point in time" discussions and can feed themselves with negative or positive reinforcement.

Liberals are feeling pretty good about themselves coming out of a relatively successful Convention. Numbers that blunt talk of death are welcome indeed, put into the soup and helpful in terms of attitude moving forward. Nothing more, nothing less, with full knowledge there is a LONG, LONG way to go.

Why The Lise St-Denis Defection Matters

Everyone spinning this story, perhaps this post is more of the same, but I think today's "defection" of an NDP MP to the Liberals has some significance. I admit, I was absolutely stunned to hear these rumours this morning, there is just nothing intuitive to the idea that the Liberals could pickup a MP from the NDP, particularly from Quebec of all places. However, the Liberals have snagged a NDP MP from Quebec, and while Rae is right to say don't "exaggerate" the meanings, this move isn't inconsequential either.

I look at this story in terms of optics and narratives. Here we have a party fighting for its life, relegated to almost an afterthought in the Commons, appearing a viable option to someone from a party supposedly on the rise, "one step" from government. In addition, the geography is interesting as well, because the Liberals are nowhere in Quebec at the moment, whereas the NDP hold the lion's share of MP's, there is simply NO easily ascertained advantage in jumping to the Liberals. A head scratcher no matter how you cut it, rationales aside, this sends a clear signal that the NDP are still on precarious perch, the Liberals obviously down but perhaps not out.

The NDP have seen their support in Quebec erode as of late. As well, most objective observers have seen a less than impressive expression in Ottawa, partially because of the leadership race, but that doesn't tell the whole story. There is still very much a lingering doubt that the NDP are "for real" so to speak, therefore declining polls, pedestrian performance as Official Opposition, tend to feed that apprehension. Today's floor crossing is simply more ammunition for this perspective, another item for the ledger, that suggests the NDP aren't the firm alternative to the current government that they wish to convey. In fact, the Liberals have outperformed the NDP to date in Parliament, perhaps this professionalism and steady work ethic contributed to this decision(I found St-Denis' policy rationales less than convincing in totality). Whatever, the overarching conclusion, the down on their luck Liberals somehow managed to attract a MP to the fold, something I doubt the most seasoned observer ever pondered.

Liberals now head to our Convention with wind in our sails. Any talk of "death" now temporarily muted, and I'm sure St-Denis will be welcomed as a conquering hero, a terrific shot in the arm, no doubt about it. This defection should offer no distraction to the daunting work ahead, but it does speak to a certain resilience.

Score one for the zombies. And, if you still doubt this defection doesn't matter, I quick read of our opponents reaction should convince you otherwise. The NDP on the wane finds concrete example, the Liberals "still not dead" finds further confirmation, and a sense that things are still very much in flux in Canadian politics. We'll take it.

When Not To Chase A Poll

Anyone following the NDP leadership race has probably heard of this Forum Research poll, perhaps the first public gauge of the race. I'd like to look at this poll, not in the sense of insight- primarily because it provides NONE- but because it highlights an almost reckless incorporation by journalists who are supposedly trained to know better. Everyone is dying to get a read of how the race is going, perhaps this flawed release, leading to disproportionate conclusions. In response to the Forum Research poll, we get this patently ridiculous headline from the National Post, "John Ivison: NDP’s Paul Dewar upbeat despite poor polling":

Thomas Dewar, scion of the famous whisky family, once said he would never invest in a going concern until he knew which way it was going. On that basis, if you believe a new poll on the NDP leadership, you might not invest too much time helping the whisky baron’s namesake, Ottawa MP Paul Dewar.

A poll by Forum Research for the National Post asked Canadians who voted for the NDP in the last election who they preferred as the next leader of the party. Of the 300 respondents, nearly half were undecided, which suggests there is still plenty to play for. But of the 163 decided voters, 45% said they favoured Thomas Mulcair, with support coming from right across the country. Peggy Nash came second with 16%, while Mr. Dewar and perceived front-runner Brian Topp languished at 8%.

Now, in fairness, the article also provides a couple cautions on this poll, but the headline is clear, based on what I view as an entirely irrelevant beauty contest poll, the perception is actually evolving that Mulcair is way ahead, someone like Dewar trailing badly. I'm just amazed that professionally trained journalists will extrapolate anything from a patently flawed PRIMARY source, not worthy of anything except to note the power of name recognition.

The Forum Research poll doesn't ask potential delegates their opinion, it asks people who said they support the federal NDP who they prefer as leader. Half the respondents didn't even denote preference, a testament to treading carefully with the result. Further, if someone told me prior to seeing these numbers who would come out on top, I would have picked this order without hesitation. Mulcair has NATIONAL name recognition, he was the NDP deputy, he was the heir apparent, he has received a steady diet of coverage since becoming a MP. Peggy Nash has been on the federal stage for sometime, giving her a marginal advantage over a just emerging Dewar or more meaningfully a BACKROOM person like Topp. This "poll" is really nothing more than stating the obvious, a very general NDP audience really doesn't have much of an opinion yet, but when pushed, they cite who they know with more regularity. And, don't even get me started with the less than 200 sample size of mere voters for a party with almost 100000 actual MEMBERS.

It really does irk me that races become shaped based on the most dubious of sources. I expect seasoned journalists to denote red flags and precede accordingly, otherwise they WARP the reality of the situation. This poll tells me absolutely nothing that can be extrapolated to ascertain true measures of support. However, I keep hearing about this poll, it is now someone woven into our perceptions of how the race is going. Truth be told, we've yet to get a serious poll on the race, about all we can look at empirically is things such as endorsements, which speaks to organizational strength, where people are starting to move, even here very much subjective and dicey, but at least within the real playing field.

I've seen this NDP poll syndrome happen too many times, rather than giving little weight, over zealous and lazy conclusions drawn, then subsequently picked up, evolving to almost a concrete viewpoint. The problem I have is that moving forward, a particular candidate has to fight against emerging perceptions, which are based on nothing of substance, an entirely false narrative, that doesn't pass any smell test I can understand, based on my own training of what constitutes solid sourcing and evidence based thesis development.

Dewar is "upbeat" despite poor polling, seriously? After all the heavyweights lined up behind Topp, Mulcair enjoys almost SIX times the support? When you give weight to suspect relevance, you can actually begin a self fulfilling prophecy journey, you can reinforce a notion that someone is trailing badly, when really you have nothing of consequence to assert that argument.

I expect better, as we all should... Hopefully Mr. Dewar can keep his chin up, in spite of this devastating result that will apparently haunt his campaign. Goodness.

Where Are The NDP In Quebec?

A steady flow of polls for Quebec this week, with widely varying results, but consistent on the trend front. The Harris Decima offering earlier this week stated the NDP were in "free fall" in Quebec, which caused quite a stir. I found the result interesting, but mentioned the word "outlier" because of the steep gradient, nothing of true substance to explain such a collapse. As often happens, Harris Decima was quickly followed by a Quebec only CROP poll, as well as this morning's Leger result. Given the CROP and Leger polls come with much larger Quebec sample sizes, Harris Decima looks a bit suspect on the reliability front, although there is something instructive within their result.

Harris Decima pegs the NDP support at a lowly 26% in Quebec, tied with the Bloc, Liberals well up to 20%, Conservatives 17%. CROP shows no such thing, NDP at 36%, Bloc 22%, Conservatives 22%, Liberals 16&. Leger puts the NDP at 33%, Bloc 26%, Conservatives 18%, Liberals 17%. Again, I'm inclined to favour the Quebec only pollsters, the NDP aren't falling apart in Quebec, BUT there is consistent evidence of decline. Leger sees NDP support "eroding", slowly but surely and CROP does note a 7% drop since the election. As well, polls prior to this week have suggested a similar gentle decline for the NDP in Quebec. Harris Decima have picked up on the decline, but the amplification isn't replicated and it's only use, with confidence, would be on the trend front.

Taken in totality, it is objectively fair to say NDP fortunes are marginally on the wane in Quebec, the heights achieved during the election and afterwards have dissipated, suggesting a softness, which is hardly surprising. The NDP haven't really distinguished themselves this fall, the leadership race has been pedestrian at best, and Ottawa "bubble" logic gives the Liberals the opposition nod in terms of effectiveness. That said, even the Harris Poll poll pegs the NDP support nationally a mere 6% behind the majority Conservatives, 6% up on the Liberals, so you could argue a certain firmness in the new world order of Canadian politics.

My view for quite some time has been don't expect much in the way of poll movement until at least the NDP leadership resolution. There is some evidence we Liberals are performing well (particularly in Ontario), obviously indications that the NDP are off their dizzying heights in Quebec, the Bloc are still a factor and the Conservatives sit in their usual range. Unless we see some massive issue arise that draws the gaze of a slumbering national electorate, there is really nothing to suggest big support changes are in the offing. Perhaps the NDP continue to drop in Quebec, but until they have a new leader, any digestion is utterly meaningless to the longer perspective.

For the most part, Canadians have tucked away their majority government, just happy they don't have to listen to constant electioneering and sabre rattling. Those seaching for deeper meaning will be left embarrassed, because the interest is actually superficial and sporadic. As for the NDP in Quebec, considering their "wave" came about so quickly and spontaneously, some sober pullback is expected and only when we see a new leader in action, should we truly take measure of future prospects.

Topp Heavy

This NDP leadership race is quite fascinating, and I'd submit not well thought out to date. The rush to Brian Topp is very much coronation in tone and purpose, he does seem the "pre-ordained choice of the establishment".

The Topp campaign are orchestrating a shock and awe type strategy, flexing their muscles in an effort to scare off credible alternatives. After Layton's death, talk of upwards of a dozen potential candidates, now the NDP looks lucky to find a serious alternative to the supposed anointed one. There are plenty of problems with this rapidly developing story, not the least of which the entire Topp movement is predicated on suspect rationale.

A month ago nobody would have considered Brian Topp a leading candidate to replace Layton, and yet here we sit with Topp skyrocketing to frontrunner, truly amazing when you sit back and digest the rapidity of it all. However, the impetus for Topp is really where the danger lies, because rather than an organic rise to prominence, he is really a creation of powerful inner circles who are reacting to Mulcair, he's an answer to the perceived heir. The quick co-ordination isn't about inspiration but more about blocking the more natural choice. This "establishment" move comes with terrific risk, because the rush to Topp looks reactive, as though someone was picked that has the necessary pedigree to undercut someone else who is perceived as unattractive. The pitfalls are obvious, and when the dust settles, I see every possibility of buyer's remorse. The backroom boy, with the powerful friends, mount a blitzkreig to dissuade others and take the bearded one out at the knees. Doesn't sound particularly democratic, doesn't sound particularly inspiring, in fact it sounds like another certain party.

There is a clue here for my NDP friends, as this Topp tornado rips across the land. Oddly, it comes from John Ivison (who's a terrific writer when he isn't carrying Conservative water) in his piece "Can anyone stop Brian Topp?":

One thing NDP members should perhaps think about is who the Conservatives would least like to face in four years time. One senior Conservative said that he is not concerned by Mr. Topp, calling him “wooden” and lacking in charisma. Nor is he worried by the prospect of Mr. Mulcair winning, calling him “very wedge-able.” But Mr. Dewar does make him nervous. “He’s young, bilingual, telegenic and has political genealogy [his mother was mayor of Ottawa]. He has good parliamentary experience and people seem to like him. He’s the closest thing I’ve seen to a young Bob Rae.”

I agree, as I've already said, I don't understand Topp as a political natural that will resonate. I also agree that Paul Dewar is the one that has the best capacity to capitalize on recent NDP gains. Dewar has an authenticity which is rare, he's capable, measured, likeable, intelligent, young, attractive, well versed and has a common touch. Grassroots dippers would be wise to blunt the Topp train, at least enough to allow for a truly open debate, where the outcome is in considerable doubt. As it stands now, the NDP leadership race looks like dictation from the Topp, a quick "sew it up" process that people might one day look back on and shake their heads.