2011 Canadian Provincial Elections - Wrap-up phase.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the issue with the NDP during the Harris years had more to do with the damage done by the incompetence of the Rae government (which, as you all know, managed to piss off it's own natural supporters about as much as right-wingers) than a desire to rally round the largest opposition party.

[DL]

I think the big thing which could impact the NDP is how the public perceives Hudak.  When Davis was in power, the NDP frequently got around 25% in Ontario, but under Mike Harris they languished in the low teens.  Most NDP supporters didn't have too strong a preference between Davis and the Liberals, but most hated Mike Harris with a passion and would vote Liberal simply to block him.  If Hudak is seen as a Harris clone which many would argue he is, then expect several unions to endorse the Liberals and much of the NDP support to flock to the Liberals.  Off course that might not prevent a PC win, especially if they get 44% which their federal counterparts got in which case they would still win a majority albeit with fewer seats than the federal Tories.  The NDP can make the strong case for voting for them, but the desire to block the Tories is something they have little control over. 

Except that in the last Ontario election the Tories were led by the very moderate, inoffensive John Tory - and the NDP didn't do all that well with 17% of the vote and 10 seats. The NDP did do well in 1985 when the Ontario Tories were led by an ultra-rightist named Frank Miller (he of the loud tartan sports jackets). The conventional wisdom in the recent federal election was that everyone remotely progressive was soo "freaked out" about "evil Harper" that they would all flock to the federal Liberals in a national epidemic of strategic voting to stop Harper and that the NDP would get squeezed. Remind me what the results of the last federal election were?

Once you get beyond a few professors of social work living in downtown Toronto ridings where the Tories are not a factor - very few people think in terms of voting for "x" even though they prefer "z"  because they want to stop "y" - they just vote for who they like the best.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think the issue with the NDP during the Harris years had more to do with the damage done by the incompetence of the Rae government (which, as you all know, managed to piss off it's own natural supporters about as much as right-wingers) than a desire to rally round the largest opposition party.

I disagree. The 1995 election wasn't that bad for the NDP, after all... it got 21% of the vote, which is pretty good for the party.

I lived through the Harris years, and it's why I was a big provincial Liberal supporter right up until 2003. Harris had a polarizing effect on people, and it had to do with why the NDP didn't do well in 1999 and 2003.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree. The 1995 election wasn't that bad for the NDP, after all... it got 21% of the vote, which is pretty good for the party.

It's only 'not so bad' when looked at outside of any context. To pick just one... there were a lot of NDP incumbents running for election and incumbents - even ones with no chance of being returned - will normally poll better than non-incumbents. As has been seen federally wrt the collapse of the Liberal vote following the removal of an incumbent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but the key question is why the NDP was stuck where they were (as the party to get squeezed, rather than the party doing the squeezing) when they had formed the government just a few years earlier. And the only logical answer is one of credibility. So it all links up, in that way that these things tend to.

[DL]

Actually 21% for the NDP in 1995 was pretty bad - especially for a party with 74 MPPs running for re-election. Up until the 1995 election, the ONDP had a pretty consistent mid-20s vote share:

1967 - 26%
1971 - 27%
1975 - 29%
1977 - 28%
1981 - 21% (that was considered a total fiasco under Cassidy)
1985 - 24%
1987 - 26%
1990 - 37%
1995 - 21%
1999 - 13%
2003 - 15%
2007 - 17%

[Hatman 🍁]

Now compare to federal results

1968: 21%
1972: 22%
1974: 19%
1979: 21%
1980: 22%
1984: 21%
1988: 20%
1993: 6%
1997: 11%
2000: 8%
2004: 18%
2006: 19%
2008: 18% (this was the best showing ever in terms of seats at the time... strange, eh?)
2011: 26%

So, compared to the national party, the 1995 showing wasn't too bad. Especially since the party was in single digits federally at the time.  Nowadays, the federal party is actually doing better than the provincial party.

[DL]

Its interesting that up until 2004 - it was almost a given that the NDP always got significantly higher support in Ontario provincial elections than in federal elections (typically the provincial over federal bump was about 6-7%) - now its the reverse. I wonder why?

[mileslunn]

Actually 21% for the NDP in 1995 was pretty bad - especially for a party with 74 MPPs running for re-election. Up until the 1995 election, the ONDP had a pretty consistent mid-20s vote share:

1967 - 26%
1971 - 27%
1975 - 29%
1977 - 28%
1981 - 21% (that was considered a total fiasco under Cassidy)
1985 - 24%
1987 - 26%
1990 - 37%
1995 - 21%
1999 - 13%
2003 - 15%
2007 - 17%

I think the fact the PCs were mostly Red Tories as well as the fact the Liberals provincially up until the 80s were to the right of their federal counterparts benefited the NDP.  In 1999, I believe the strong desire to oust Mike Harris from those on the left is why the NDP did so poorly.  While they got 21% in 1995, the common sense revolution was only an idea on paper, once put into practice it probably motivated some to vote strategically.  That is why I say if Hudak is seen as a Harris clone it could hurt the NDP.  Mike Harris wasn't universally hated, but pretty much anyone who was slighly left of centre hated him.  Off course those on the right side of the spectrum loved him thus why you got fairly polarized results.

[mileslunn]

Now compare to federal results

1968: 21%
1972: 22%
1974: 19%
1979: 21%
1980: 22%
1984: 21%
1988: 20%
1993: 6%
1997: 11%
2000: 8%
2004: 18%
2006: 19%
2008: 18% (this was the best showing ever in terms of seats at the time... strange, eh?)
2011: 26%

So, compared to the national party, the 1995 showing wasn't too bad. Especially since the party was in single digits federally at the time.  Nowadays, the federal party is actually doing better than the provincial party.

Interesting, that until this election the NDP generally did better in terms of popular vote.  The reason in 2008 they won the most seats ever but not votes is most of their gains were in Northern Ontario which are the smallest ridings population wise and much of this was over the unpopularity of the carbon tax and since Northern Ontario tilts more to the left unlike rural Southern Ontario, the NDP gained.  I think their decline until 2011 was also partly due to changing demographics.  Up until this election they did quite poorly amongst immigrants and visible minorities who are the fastest growing segment of the population.  Also the decline of manufacturing and unions probably hurt them thus why places like Cambridge, Oshawa, Brant, and Essex went Conservative instead of NDP as the blue collar unionized worker population as a percent of the population is not as large in those areas as it was 30 years ago.  As for their gain in 2011, if you look at the polls the NDP was consistently polling under 20% in Ontario prior to the Easter weekend.  There is a certain segment of the population especially in downtown Toronto who hates Harper with a passion and conservatism in general and they will simply vote for whichever party is more likely to defeat them.  The NDP surge in Quebec pushed them ahead of the Liberals nationally and it was a few days after that they got a strong bounce in Ontario.  I suspect many of these voters would have stuck with the Liberals had they stayed in second place.  By the same token the Tory gains in suburban 416 and the 905 belt would have been limited to marginal ridings like Ajax-Pickering, Mississauga South, and Brampton-Springdale, not ones like Willowdale or Mississauga-Brampton South as I suspect a fair number of Blue Liberals bolted to the Tories to stop the NDP.  From listening to an interview with John Manley, it almost seems like he wanted the Tories to win after the NDP surged so I expect that wing of the Liberal Party probably swung over to the Tories and helped them gain more seats than expected.  The point is not everyone is loyal to a certain party, in fact many people vote for whomever they think is most likely to defeat the party they dislike most.  I realize strategic voting isn't as rampant as some say, and on a riding level that is true and is few fully understand the dynamics of their riding, but on a national level I think it happens.  In 2004, the Tories got 13/14 seats in Saskatchewan despite only getting 42% of the popular vote and much of this was due to vote splitting on the centre-left as many NDP voters swung over to the Liberals to stop the Tories which worked in Ontario, but in Saskatchewan had the opposite effect in electing more Tories.  Now true, the Tories have held those ridings, but they have also increased their share of the popular vote by more than 10% too.  Had they not increased their vote from 2004, I suspect much of the urban-rural ridings in Saskatchewan would now be NDP.  Off course much of their gains probably came from former Red Tories of the old PCs who voted Liberal since they were still fearful of the Conservatives and Blue Liberals who would never consider going NDP.

[mileslunn]

Its interesting that up until 2004 - it was almost a given that the NDP always got significantly higher support in Ontario provincial elections than in federal elections (typically the provincial over federal bump was about 6-7%) - now its the reverse. I wonder why?

  As mentioned in the above post it is due to the anti-Conservative vote.  They don't care who wins, as long as the party is on the left side of the spectrum.  Yes I know calling the Liberals a left leaning party is a stretch, but at least they are both to some degree for an activist government and have some degree of skepticism of the free market, and believe in government intervention to help the disadvantaged.  Had the NDP surge not occurred in Quebec, I believe the party would have stayed in the teens as most of the gains were simply anti-Conservative voters who would vote for whichever party was most likely to defeat the Conservatives nationally.  I live in Trinity-Spadina and you have lots of lefties who will vote for whichever party that it is.  After all many of them voted for George Smithermann as mayor and he is a Liberal not an NDPer (that would be Joe Pantalone) since they wanted to stop Rob Ford.  Since the biggest swings were in Downtown Toronto that is why I suspect it was the anti-Conservative vote coalescing around the party most likely to defeat them.  Elsewhere in the province where the population is more centrist or on the right, the swing was much more modest.

[Hatman 🍁]

Mayoral elections are officially non partisan, but that's besides the point.

ALSO, one should note that until the 1980s, the Liberals in Ontario were to the right of the Big Blue machine. Their base was in rural southwestern Ontario, an area that is pretty socially conservative and where the federal Liberals are now a non factor. It was not too long ago that right wing nut job, radio host Lowell Green ran for the provincial Liberals.

[mileslunn]

Mayoral elections are officially non partisan, but that's besides the point.

ALSO, one should note that until the 1980s, the Liberals in Ontario were to the right of the Big Blue machine. Their base was in rural southwestern Ontario, an area that is pretty socially conservative and where the federal Liberals are now a non factor. It was not too long ago that right wing nut job, radio host Lowell Green ran for the provincial Liberals.

  True enough.  It was really in the 80s they swapped roles.  Although for very different reasons, the Democrats in the US were up to the 60s in many ways also to the right of the Republicans who were a lot more moderate than today.  I should note though provincially the Liberals still hold many seats in Southwestern Ontario, but we shall see if that continues or if they go the same route as their federal cousins.  Also when the federal Liberals one here, many of their MPs were rather right wing i.e. Paul Steckle, Pat O'Brien, Rose-Marie Ur, and Roger Gallaway and I never really understood why they weren't Conservatives.  Maybe thats why they won in 2004 since they were essentially Conservatives and then once they left asides from O'Brien's riding, the Tories saw a major jump in support and the Liberals plummeted in all of the ridings including O'Brien's.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

[MaxQue]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

Trudeau would kill the Liberal Party in Quebec for another generation, too.

[mileslunn]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

 On the social front you have John McKay while on the economic front you have Scott Brison, both who almost lost their seats.  Other than those two, I cannot really think of any others.  Mind you many on the left of the party in downtown Toronto also got defeated albeit by the NDP such as Kennedy, Minna, and Silva.  By contrast most on the right of the party lost to the Conservatives as they were in the suburbs or rural areas (and I don't just mean this election but rather the past four).  If you gave the leader a massive raise, maybe you could get Manley or McKenna to return, but I think working in the private sector is much more rewarding for those two.

[mileslunn]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

Trudeau would kill the Liberal Party in Quebec for another generation, too.

He would also hurt them in the West and with the West's growing population it is a lot harder to write off the West than it was 30 years ago.  He might regain the immigrant vote which would at least re-establish the GTA as a Liberal stronghold and also pick up a few more Montreal area ridings and parts of the Lower Mainland.  I would argue Dominic Leblanc though comes from the right area.  From a rural riding in New Brunswick which was their worst Atlantic province and in fact their vote in that province wasn't that far off the national average as well as it is the most Conservative province east of the Ottawa River and perhaps even outside the Prairies.  He is also young enough that he could go through multiple elections so it wouldn't be about winning, but rather gaining seats each election and maybe after three or four rounds finally winning.  He also seems quite articulate which is in contrast with the last two or even three leaders.  For all the rot in the leaders, one of the problems the Liberals had is none of their last three leaders connected with the average voter.  By contrast I think Chretien was someone who connected quite well and had a very good political antennae thus why he won three majorities.

[2952-0-0]

If the next permanent Liberal leader is Trudeau or anyone connected with Chretien and Martin, then the Liberals can spend another two elections in third party status fending off challenges from both the left and right.

Ralph Goodale would massively help the Liberals in the west and the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto and would certainly be effective at grabbing soft CPC support (especially if Harper governs with an arrogant and complacent attitude), but he will have to write off Quebec which is too risky.

Unfortunately they cannot pick anyone who isn't already an MP, since no seat in the country is guaranteed Liberal, not even Montreal West Island.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unless they want someone from Newfies as their leader.

[Verily]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

Trudeau would kill the Liberal Party in Quebec for another generation, too.

He would also hurt them in the West and with the West's growing population it is a lot harder to write off the West than it was 30 years ago.  He might regain the immigrant vote which would at least re-establish the GTA as a Liberal stronghold and also pick up a few more Montreal area ridings and parts of the Lower Mainland.  I would argue Dominic Leblanc though comes from the right area.  From a rural riding in New Brunswick which was their worst Atlantic province and in fact their vote in that province wasn't that far off the national average as well as it is the most Conservative province east of the Ottawa River and perhaps even outside the Prairies.  He is also young enough that he could go through multiple elections so it wouldn't be about winning, but rather gaining seats each election and maybe after three or four rounds finally winning.  He also seems quite articulate which is in contrast with the last two or even three leaders.  For all the rot in the leaders, one of the problems the Liberals had is none of their last three leaders connected with the average voter.  By contrast I think Chretien was someone who connected quite well and had a very good political antennae thus why he won three majorities.

I feel like picking a leader from the Maritimes risks the Liberals looking too much like the latter-day PCs and becoming further marginalized to just that region.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think the collapse of the Liberal right wing helped to destroy the Liberals. Who is left on that front? Many of those infamous right wing Scarborough MPs either retired or were defeated.  With the election of Bob Rae as interim leader, they can say  goodbye to their right wing. I'm disappointed that Rae agreed not to run for leader, agreeing to serve only the interim. Not because I like him - far from it - but because it would further destroy the Liberals, continuing in the footsteps of Dion and Ignatieff. But I suppose tradition dictates they go French this time, so we will see either Trudeau or LeBlanc be leader. Or maybe even Garneau.

Trudeau might help the Liberals in the GTA, but that's about it. And that's their best hope.

Trudeau would kill the Liberal Party in Quebec for another generation, too.

He would also hurt them in the West and with the West's growing population it is a lot harder to write off the West than it was 30 years ago.  He might regain the immigrant vote which would at least re-establish the GTA as a Liberal stronghold and also pick up a few more Montreal area ridings and parts of the Lower Mainland.  I would argue Dominic Leblanc though comes from the right area.  From a rural riding in New Brunswick which was their worst Atlantic province and in fact their vote in that province wasn't that far off the national average as well as it is the most Conservative province east of the Ottawa River and perhaps even outside the Prairies.  He is also young enough that he could go through multiple elections so it wouldn't be about winning, but rather gaining seats each election and maybe after three or four rounds finally winning.  He also seems quite articulate which is in contrast with the last two or even three leaders.  For all the rot in the leaders, one of the problems the Liberals had is none of their last three leaders connected with the average voter.  By contrast I think Chretien was someone who connected quite well and had a very good political antennae thus why he won three majorities.

I feel like picking a leader from the Maritimes risks the Liberals looking too much like the latter-day PCs and becoming further marginalized to just that region.

Not necessarily. But these days, it is clear to win a majority a party must win 2 of either QC, ON and the West.

[mileslunn]

Not necessarily. But these days, it is clear to win a majority a party must win 2 of either QC, ON and the West.

The West has 92 seats, Ontario 106 seats, and Quebec 75 seats and both Ontario and the West will gain seats after the re-distribution so pretty much next to impossible to win a majority without 1/3 of the seats in both areas.  While Alberta may be less friendly to the NDP than Ontario, I would argue British Columbia which is the largest Western province is far more favourable to the NDP than Ontario is.  Likewise based on the distribution of votes, I don't think either the Liberals or NDP could get a majority without winning a whole wack of seats in Quebec.  The Tories can only because of their sheer dominance of the Prairies, Rural BC, and Rural Ontario thus between Ontario and the West, they have 100 seats that are rock solid, 120 seats that are fairly solid meaning they only need to find 35 marginal seats or seats that lean in their direction.  By contrast the number of rock solid Liberal or rock solid NDP seats in Ontario and the West is much smaller thus they have to win a whole wack of swing seats and you rarely win all those thus why they must do well in Quebec if they want to get a majority.

[Holmes]

The BC Liberals must be afraid of the BC Conservatives. Why else would they take a page from the NDP playbook and raise the minimum wage, and promise to reduce the HST to 10% if voters keep it? With the possible emergence of the BC Conservatives, they seem to be pushing the NDP further to the left... will it work?

[mileslunn]

The BC Liberals must be afraid of the BC Conservatives. Why else would they take a page from the NDP playbook and raise the minimum wage, and promise to reduce the HST to 10% if voters keep it? With the possible emergence of the BC Conservatives, they seem to be pushing the NDP further to the left... will it work?

  That might also explain why Christy Clark is bringing out Jay Hill, Chuck Strahl, and Stockwell Day.  Another problem she faces on her right flank is it is well known she is a federal Liberal, whereas Gordon Campbell was pretty quiet about his federal affiliation although he seemed more conservative than Liberal.  Off course not all BC Conservative votes will come from the BC Liberals.  It is about 2/3 from the BC Liberals and 1/3 from the NDP as many populist types who voted Reform in the 90s but NDP provincially would vote BC Conservative, but not BC Liberal.  I think if it looks like the NDP might win, the Conservative vote will decline.  The Globe and Mail had a good discussion on this recently.

[Foucaulf]

The BC Conservatives are a non-issue. What is an issue is the demographic which both that party and the BC Liberals wish to attract; voters who were enraged over the HST. With no electoral action over the tax rise since the referendum (which was tremendously successful), the Liberals will not risk being portrayed as the anti-populist party. A swing in the Interior or in the Fraser Valley towards the NDP would be significant enough to give the left a majority.

The Clark government knows the difficulty of renegotiating the HST. If the tax is here to stay, the Liberals have to keep swing voters from jumping ship with policy that would lessen the burden, such as tax cuts.

The NDP leftward shift is insignificant too. Adrian Dix, a former minister in the Glen Clark government of 1996-2000 is suffering "Red Ed" syndrome. But the demographics of the province has shifted so much that he has the chance to impress the majority of voters who have no clue about him.

[mileslunn]

The BC Conservatives are a non-issue. What is an issue is the demographic which both that party and the BC Liberals wish to attract; voters who were enraged over the HST. With no electoral action over the tax rise since the referendum (which was tremendously successful), the Liberals will not risk being portrayed as the anti-populist party. A swing in the Interior or in the Fraser Valley towards the NDP would be significant enough to give the left a majority.

The Clark government knows the difficulty of renegotiating the HST. If the tax is here to stay, the Liberals have to keep swing voters from jumping ship with policy that would lessen the burden, such as tax cuts.

The NDP leftward shift is insignificant too. Adrian Dix, a former minister in the Glen Clark government of 1996-2000 is suffering "Red Ed" syndrome. But the demographics of the province has shifted so much that he has the chance to impress the majority of voters who have no clue about him.

In the case of the Fraser Valley, it is pretty solidly Conservative so I cannot see the BC Liberals losing here.  They won by pretty large margins.  As for the Interior, you are right about Kamloops, Prince George, and the Kootenays, but the Okanagan Valley and Peace River Country is unlikely to go NDP.  I also disagree that BC has swung to the left.  If you look at the recent federal results, it is quite the opposite.  The Tories got 46% in BC.  Now I realize there are some crossover Tory-NDP votes.  As for the BC Conservatives I don't think they will get a lot of votes, but as you saw in 1996, they don't need to get a lot to split the pro free enterprise vote and thus allow the NDP to win.  Being from BC originally, I would hardly describe it as hardcore NDP, although they do have a strong base and certainly can get over 40% without too much difficulty, although if you look at BC's history, whenever the pro free enterprise vote has united behind one party, that party has always won.  With the exception of the 2001 election, the NDP has always had a strong opposition but they only win when the pro free enterprise vote is divided. 

As for the Red Ed syndrome, Britain is a whole different ball game and never mind the Conservatives have actually generally polled at or above the 36% they got last year.  The Labour Party is only ahead as the Lib Dems have imploded and much of that has swung to the Labour Party.  There seems to be a lot of anger amongst Lib Dem voters at backing the Tories, which is really not something that can be applied to BC.  If anyting Britain is sort of like Canada federally since if you took England only, the Tories would have a majority, but Wales and especially Scotland tend to vote much more left than England much the way Quebec does.