Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Game changer

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:09am - 55 Comments

The last time the Liberal Party of Canada was more popular than the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, the Liberal leader looked like this:

So now that it’s happening again, I don’t think Michael Ignatieff has to worry too much about his eyebrows. This is the monthly big-sample Quebec-only CROP poll, the one that was pitiless (and accurately so) in chronicling Stéphane Dion’s failure to rise in his home province. Today it shows the Liberals up 7 points from a month ago, the Bloc down 4, the Conservatives down 3, the NDP flat on the floor. Which leaves the numbers at 37% Liberal, 31% Bloc, 15% Conservative, 12% NDP.

With about that share of the popular vote, the Liberals won 26 Quebec seats in 1997 (against a stronger Bloc and weaker third and fourth parties). Note that, if repeated, this would represent a pickup of 12 seats for the Liberals over their result last October: a handy reminder of how shattered they were that night, and how far back they have to go. Give them a dozen new seats in Quebec, a dozen in Ontario and a dozen in the rest of the country and they still would have fewer seats than Paul Martin managed to salvage in the 2004 election. Note that the title of this post says “game changer,” not “game over.”

For the Liberals, good news and bad: their new strength is in the part of the country where nobody will listen to a Conservative attack. But it also reveals dangerous weakness in the election readiness of the two other parties the Liberals will need to cooperate if they are to bring the Harper government down. Ignatieff has answered one question: Can he show any strength with the electorate? Now we’ll see the answer to a second: can he keep it?

INSTANT UPDATE/ CORRECTION: Actually, the last time the Liberals were more popular than the Bloc in Quebec, the leader looked like Paul Martin (it was February, 2004, just before the release of the sponsorship audit went so well). But I like the picture up above, so I’m going to keep it.

Tags: CROP, Michael Ignatieff, Polls, Quebec

More by Paul Wells

Sean Stokholm

Another question – how is the financial health of the Libs these days?

Paul Wells

They’re claiming (also in La Presse, last week) to be just about done eliminating their campaign debt.

Sean Stokholm

Thanks! That’s fairly impressive, if true.

Kaplan

I’ve a hard time believing THAT, actually.

Paul Wells

Today I agree with Kaplan.
Ted

Look for an announcement at the convention on Friday.
Kaplan

My apologies, sir.

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ SteveV

Here are the party figures for this quarter:

Q1 2009 – $1,831,843

Q1 2008 – $846,000

Wandering

“The last time the Liberal Party of Canada was more popular than the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, the Liberal leader looked like this:”

Stopped reading here.

Charles H

“Wandering
Apr 29, 2009 at 10:22 am”

Stopped reading right there.

(Seriously, was there a point to this post?)

Stewart Smith

Wandering was showing empathy for Jack voting against a budget he had not seen.
Wandering

“Seriously, was there a point to this post?”

Yes.

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Interesting. I would think numbers like this would make it less likely BQ or NDP would help support the Libs in their desire to have election in the autumn. Con weakness in Quebec might enable the government to avoid election they are probably not keen on having just yet.
Liberal Delegate

With the delegate fees they are charging being about 5 times the cost per delegate to host the convention, there is no doubt that the debt will be gone once the receipts are totaled from that affair.
Wayne

Fantastic news! I was waiting for for the CROP .. this is indeed shaping up to be a better fight than I thought it would. Going to be a lot of sleepless nights in the LPC and BLOQ Headquarters. The CPC down only 3 points! I would assumed way worse than that by the media spin. This fall is going to be a hoot of a canadian poltical fight in Quebec and no doubt about it. I have a feeling Stevie will be inviting Jack to the fall winter festival dance in Montreal so they can watch Iggy and Gillie have hissy fits with each other..

Mike T.

I would, in fact, be interested in hearing from the CPC cheering section how long they think Harper can follow instruction from Layton before self-destructing.

http://www.chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

6 months

Paul Wells

This isn’t worth a separate post ’cause it’s very inside baseball, but why did I get an email from Fabrice Rivault last night saying he was dropping out of the race for Liberal VP-francophone because Alf Apps, the party’s next president, is already openly endorsing Brigitte Garceau?

I guess the question isn’t, why is Fabrice Rivault emailing me, it’s why did Apps endorse Garceau instead of leaving the race open?

Careful in your replies, if any. I don’t want anyone cheaply smeared.

Liberal Delegate

Party insiders, have their fingers in many pies this time around. The national director is going around denouncing some constitutional changes, the leader is whipping caucus to support some constitutional changes and all around power is being concentrated in the centre under the guise of democratic reform.

With the difficulty the OLO had in pushing its governance package at the national executive meeting at the end of March, the meeting in which the national executive rejected most of the renewal commissions recommendations, the central apparatus is trying to ensure that only the ‘right’ people make it onto the executive where they have direct input on things like this. Traditionally, the OLO doesn’t bring out heavy weights from caucus to lobby the national executive on changes they want to the constitution, operating agreements, etc. But this group in power wants what it wants now.

They even attempted to suspend Roberts Rules for the constitutional sessions, to remove the bargaining position of Young Liberals on the weighted one member one vote leadership selection amendment. Fortunately a highly organized campaign with just a bit of an ultimatum restored the rules, but it just goes to show the lengths the new ‘power elite’ are willing to go.

nd

Yeah, the real important thing is that snot-nosed 15 year old kids should have a disproportionate amount of influence on choosing a party leader. That worked out *so* well in 2006.

Liberal Delegate

Scape goatting any group for the performance of a leader is rather stupid. The same rules (youth delegate quotas) elected three Prime Ministers since ’82 when they were put in the constitution. I remember from the floor in 2006, the demographics of my camp (Iggy) were pretty much the same as Dion’s as far as I could observe.

No point blaming anyone, it was a moment of group think.

nd

Well, surely the important thing is to ensure that the conditions that lead to such a disastrous outcome are not preserved. Namely, delegated conventions, and delegate quotas. I still remember the debate over one-member-one-vote in 2006 – a bunch of self-interested party hacks arguing about how to preserve their privilege to make awful choices on behalf of the rest of us, and voting to preserve control of the party in the hands of a few zealots with little discernible political knowledge, but much free time on their hands.

Youth delegates weren’t especially culpable, of course, but they symbolized the problem – kids who couldn’t vote in the general election would command a voting bloc of at least 15% of delegates (and possibly more).

If the current party reform accomplishes nothing else, it will have a positive and long-lasting effect simply by changing leadership elections to one-member one-vote.
Canuckistanian

group think? or putting delegates interests ahead of the party’s interests? i agree with nd.
Mark

But the delegates sent to the convention in 2006 were sent based on the votes of the riding members. Ergo, youth had no disproportionate say in who the leader was, as those youth delegates were sent based on the leadership preferences as expressed by voters of all ages in each individual riding. I don’t dispute your conclusion – that youth quotas ought to be avoided – but I utterly reject the premise of both of your arguments.

I also reject the assumption that the outcome in 2006 would have been different under a one-member-one vote system. There is no evidence whatsoever that the people who moved from their second choice to their third, and so on, acted any differently than would the thousands of members who sent them there.

On a preferential ballot, the candidates the majority of party members did not want as Leader still could not have won. The process doesn’t change that math.

In fact, the only distortion that OMOV would have brought to the 2006 result, would be the elimination of the ex-officio votes, which overwhelmingly had lined up for Ignatieff and Rae. If anything, OMOV may have actually secured the same result quicker.
nd

Mark, youth delegates account for one-seventh of all delegates – unless you think that youth comprise at least one-seventh of the membership of the Liberal party, then they are indeed accorded disproportional influence. Moreover, even if they (the delegates) were initially selected based on the preferences of the party members, that only constrains their vote on the first ballot, after which they are free to vote as they please. It’s possible that they were able to somehow divine the second and third preferences of the voters at large, and cast their ballots accordingly, but somehow I doubt it.

I made no claims about what kind of result OMOV would have produced in 2006, but your claims strike me as obviously spurious. You were not privy to the secondary preference choices of the membership at large, and so cannot accurately predict the hypothetical outcome of a preferential ballot. In a related matter, you appear to be confusing the “candidates the majority of party members did not want” with “candidates the majority of delegates did not want”. Finally, the greatest beneficiary of ex-officio support was obviously Dion, because those votes allowed him to overtake Kennedy after the first ballot, even though he trailed him in initial voting.

I am glad, however, that we at least agree that OMOV removes most of the egregious distortions introduced by a quota-based delegate system. My own preference, frankly, is to do something similar to what the British Tories do, which is to let the Parliamentary caucus whittle the candidates down to two, then allow the membership-at-large to choose between them. This obviates the need for complicated preferential balloting, allows the rank-and-file membership to have a say in the choice of leader, while simultaneously ensuring that the winning candidate has a solid base of support among his MPs, a problem that plagued Dion for the entire duration of his ill-fated leadership.
Mark

When I said “both of your” arguments, I meant the arguments of “both of you” (i.e. ND and Lib Del).

http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

“Careful in your replies, if any. I don’t want anyone cheaply smeared.”

You’re no fun this morning, Wells. :)

Some chivying against Libs is exactly what I am in the mood for today. I have not heard of either of these people and just did quick google search but found nothing that would enable me to engage in a bit of caviling from the sidelines.
Justin

” youth delegates account for one-seventh of all delegates ”

Not true. Youth make up 6 of 22 delegates per riding. Plus each campus club can send 4 delegates. Youth make up about 1/3 of delegates (not including ex-officios)

nd

So much the worse then. I seem to recall that for the 2006 convention, there were 2 youth delegates out of 14 delegates per riding.

I remain firm in my conviction that party members who aren’t old enough to vote in the general election should have no say in who becomes leader.

Justin

It was 4 youth per riding in 2006.
Justin

I also think that is a false argument. I would say 98% of Young Liberals are college/university age or older (so 18+). I’ve been to a few bienniels now and it’s a very rare exception to have 14-17 year olds there. It’s hard to recruit people of that age to start with because you can’t go into high schools and just the cost factor to go to a leadership convention is prohibitive for younger Young Liberals.

sf

Well, the downside for the Liberals is that by stealing votes from the Bloq, rather than the Cons, they are reducing the chance of an election anytime soon. You can expect the Harper government to hang around another 4 years.

Mark

4 years? And will they call it a coalition? Kind of ironic to watch Harper propped up by the Bloc and NDP after his behaviour of recent months, no?

http://www.chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

write your sentence so its logically accurate:

“Kind of ironic to watch Harper propped up by the Bloc and NDP after his behaviour of recent months, no?”

You mean, propped up by the Bloc OR NDP (OR Liberals). There’s a world of difference two letters can make. Like, from irony to non-irony.

Ted

“non” is three letters.

http://www.chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

the difference is from irony to non-irony. the difference maker is the word “or”.

sf

That’s the thing. It’s not propping up when they are doing it for their own self-interest. The Cons are not losing seats to anybody right now.

sf

The provincial Liberals have also risen in the polls. I wonder if the poll respondents are confusing the fed vs provincial Libs.

Critical Reasoning

Nope. Iggy is enjoying a genuine honeymoon in Quebec.

nd

Isn’t 5 months kind of a long honeymoon?

Critical Reasoning

Not really. Iggy was relatively unknown in Quebec, and he is doing a good job at building his brand in the province.

Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

Nonsense. Quebec was a source of much of his support during the last leadership go-around.
Critical Reasoning

Even though Iggy had lots of leadership support from Quebec Liberals, I think it’s fair to say that the general population is just getting to know him.
sf

Maybe they just started noticing Dion is gone.

Zeph

So you think that this poll went like this?

Pollster: Hello sir, I’m a CROP representative and we would like to ask you a few questions.
Jean Quelqu’un: Mais certainement!

Pollster: If a provincial election was held today, who would you vote for (name of provincial political parties, rotate)?
Jean Quelqu’un: Liberal!

Pollster: Okay, now who would be the best provincial premier (name of provincial parties leader, rotate)?
Jean Quelqu’un: Jean!

Pollster: Now my next question is; if a federal election was held today, who would you vote for (name of federal political parties, rotate)?
Jean Quelqu’un: The ADQ changed its name for CPC? A bit odd but my vote would still go to the Liberal.

Pollster: Okaaay. Mind if I ask you who would be the best federal prime minister (name of federal parties leader, rotate)?
Jean Quelqu’un: I already told you, Jean Ignatieff is the guy and honestly, I just can’t stand Mario Harper and Gilles Marois… and don’t get me started about Amir Layton.

Personally, I think people can clearly tell the difference (otherwise the LPC would have about 40 MPs from Quebec right now if people had confused them with the PLQ during the last election) but I’m not trying to spin this poll data so…

sf

As far as I know they did not ask both federal and provincial questions in the same poll.

In Quebec they’re rather used to voting either for a Liberal or a separatist, federally or provincially. Only around Quebec city have they decided to try something new for once, and coincidentally it was both federally and provincially that they tried it.

Wascally Wabbit

Yup – they had better come up with some announcements that will comvince the delegates (who like me) decided to sit this one out – because the push for openness under Doug Ferguson could quickly become submerged under Alf Apps – based upon the way that the Executive is forming up.

And Unless King Michael – once crowned – has anything earthshattering to impart – that would show vision and some semblence of progressive policies – that would show that the dog isn’t going to allow his tail to be wagged from behind the curtain – we could be in the situation – next week – where nothing has changed since the Earnscliffe gang took over the party.

The CPC has its sheeplings. I just hope this weekend isn’t just trying to create Liberal lemmings!
http://www.maple-leaf-forever.com Lord Bob

“The last time the Liberal Party of Canada was more popular than the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, the Liberal leader looked like this:”

Kim Campbell’s tenure as Mr. Wells’s blog editor is off to a disasterous start.

Critical Reasoning

I don’t think the Chretien photo is particularly unflattering. Sure, he isn’t smiling and he has a wary look in his eyes, but I think the photo captures the essence of the man quite nicely.

Wascally Wabbit

Apr 29, 2009 at 3:04 pmReport Abuse” youth delegates account for one-seventh of all delegates ”

Not true. Youth make up 6 of 22 delegates per riding. Plus each campus club can send 4 delegates. Youth make up about 1/3 of delegates (not including ex-officios)

Reply

Correction Justin – are assigned up to 6 delegates per riding. From my understanding – few ridings can persuade enough youth members to fill up all the spots.
Oh – and as for youth membership in the party – it is still down well below 10% – which means the OMOV amendment – as proposed by the Youth Commission – asking for a 25% standing in a weighted OMOV option – is totally undemocratic – which is why it is being vigorously opposed.

And then of course – for the youth delegates who actually get as far as the convention – the challenge will be to keep them out of the hospitality rooms long enough that enough of them will still be standing on their feet and able to perform their voting obligations…but that’s another story!
http://deleted Sandi

Ignatieff shouldn’t feel bad about his eyebrows – he’s in good company. Let’s see now – Mark Twain, Abe Lincoln, Darwin, Einstein for starters.

Hmmmm….Wells playing games with James Moore and the Cons and being sour on the Liberals.

Well, let’s see how “principled” Jack Layton is now. Harper has always manipulated Layton.

Paul Wells

Insightful.

peter

Tories still #1 in quebec city in this poll. Translation: Libs take some bloc seats, tories keep 6-8 of the their 10 seats, and nothing much changes.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Exactly. Quebec poll numbers aren’t that significant on a province-wide basis because the province is so regionally divided: there’s Montreal, Quebec City & suburbs, the South Shore, and the North, and right now the Bloc is picking up half of Montreal and the whole of the South Shore and North, the latter two regions by huge margins in every riding (like 2:1 vs the 2nd place party).

As long as the Bloc keeps its stranglehold on those regions and the Liberals fail to win seats in the West and the Tories fail to win seats in the GTA, no majority government is possible. And I’m afraid it will take more than a great honeymoon for Ignatieff to break the Bloc’s grip on non-urban Quebec.

JamesHalifax

So the Liberals expect to “pay off ” their debts soon eh?

Apparently, keeping that extra $40,000,000 scammed from the taxpayers during ADSCAM did come in handy after all.

Well done Liberals!!!