UPDATED: Oh, Canadians. Why must you confound conventional wisdom like this?

by kadyomalley on Monday, July 13, 2009 8:04am - 74 Comments

UPDATED: Oh, Canadians. Why must you confound conventional wisdom like this? Just when we-the-media-and-friends had finally come to the conclusion that coalition governments were something up with which you totally would not put, we get this from Harris-Decima, via Canadian Press:

Despite the apparent weariness with minority governments, the poll suggested that slightly more Canadians — 45 per cent versus 42 per cent — would support the idea of a coalition government after the next election.

At this point, I really have to wonder: Are you just messing with our heads? Do you want to drive Colleague Potter round the bend?  Because that would just be — mean. We try so hard to understand you, but just when we think we’ve finally got a read on where you stand, we suddenly spot you off in the distance, waving cheerfully.

Also, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings — or at least, bad from the perspective of 42% of you — but the likelihood of any of the parties actually campaigning on an openly pro-coalition ticket is pretty much nil, because at least two of the leaders are privately convinced that they can win all by themselves, and one of them is almost certain to be right.

The only way you’ll end up with that coalition — which, I might remind you, you came out against so vehemently during The Madness that the new Liberal leader has spent a good chunk of the early days of his tenure reassuring you that he had absolutely no interest of getting tangled up in that sort of thing again, thank you very much, while the prime minister is widely rumoured to be preparing to make your alleged antipathy thereto a centrepiece of his next election campaign  – is if the next election results in an even more tenuous minority than we saw in 2006; one in which the government and the official opposition are separated by less than, say, ten seats. (A brief tangent: ITQ once spent an evening trying to figure out the most unstable parliament possible under current mathematics; the answer, she concluded, is 78/78/77/75.)

Even then, it’s unlikely, since — again, this is the problem with the whole ‘hey, let’s elect a coalition government this time and see how that works’  idea, bless your politically adventurous little hearts  – under that sort of scenario, both leaders would doubtless operate under the theory that the next time around, they’d do better, so there would be little incentive, from their respective points of view, to hunker down and make the best of things. Well, other than the howls of “But Canadians don’t want an election!” that would ensue at the first – and every subsequent – confidence vote, but see above re: your relentlessly mercurial nature.

So anyway, if you can’t have a coalition government — which you almost certainly can’t, as labouriously explained above — you have also apparently decided that, all things considered, you’d prefer a majority to a minority, which is fair enough, really, considering what you’ve seen over the course of the last three minority parliaments:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey showed 64 per cent of respondents prefer a majority over a minority government, up from 52 per cent two years ago.

Only 24 per cent said they preferred a minority, as compared to 36 per cent in 2007.

“What people went in with the hopes of was that it would help facilitate more coalition-building and more consensus-building within the parties, but in practice what it has yielded is more conflict with the parties and less getting done,” said Jeff Walker, senior vice-president at Harris-Decima.

In another question, the pollsters gave respondents four different scenarios to ponder: A Liberal majority or minority, or a Conservative majority or minority.

The Liberals came out on top in both respects — with 30 per cent preferring a Liberal majority, and 14 per cent a Liberal minority, as compared to the 24 per cent who backed a Conservative majority and nine per cent who wanted a Conservative minority.

Unfortunately, given the above numbers, it would seem that 54% of you are destined to be disappointed, and no, I don’t know what happened to the other 23%; we can only assume that they picked none of the above when presented with the listed scenario. Perhaps they were miffed that the other three parties were left off the list.

Anyway, I know some of y’all are sick to death of ITQ’s poll-related posts, but I figured this one might get a pass from the commentariat, since it’s at least not another freeze framed horse race. Have at it!

UPDATE: Hurray! The full results are now online — and gosh, they’re interesting. Turns out that, with the obvious exception of Alberta, it is Ontarians who are most wary of a coalition government. It’s worth noting that the survey actually asks whether voters would support a coalition after electing another minority government, which means that it wouldn’t require the parties involved to campaign openly to govern cooperatively with one of their opponents. Which is probably good news for everyone but the Conservatives, since they’re the ones who would most benefit from the fear of the formation of a post-election coalition. Also – and this isn’t terribly surprising – it is Conservative voters who are most strongly opposed to a coalition, which is likely because they realize that their party of choice would have the most trouble finding a partner in a minority parliament.

Oh, and on the majority/minority question, it seems that only in Alberta do the Conservatives find majority support for the government winning either a majority or a minority next time around; everywhere else, the preference seems to be for a Liberal majority-or-minority. Make of that what you will.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

    Some of us Kady – have been trying to persuade "the powers that be" in the party that we happen to be members of – that the prospect of the Canadian public giving a majority mandate to a party with a brand noew – and barely known leader – who refuses to release a policy platform until…well who knows… – is about as likely as – say – Canadians giving a twice majority-denied PM a third term with an increased number of seats.
    Therefore – the ONLY option is to make some sort of a pre-election deal with another party that was – lets say – NOT part of the previously proposed coalition…

  • an online reader

    " Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?
    Negative advertising is an integral part of informing voters so they can make up their own minds " Tom Flanagan

    The Hill Times, July 13, 2009 Liberals broke embargo on PBO's five-year forecast .
    Politicians are asking for a majority when all seem to approve of misinformation ? Ya Right .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Tom Flanigan??? Can't you see what he's trying to do? He's planting a little seed in your heads (for Harper) claiming Libs are soft…..it's part of the Harper strategy…….and, I'm surprised that people still fall for it.

    If you look at BT's site – Stephen Taylor is looking for views on the latest draft 10 percenter…….uh, huh – it's being paid for by taxpayers and our silly media don't bother to check out if the Cons have gone over the allowable budget on this, etc.

    Kady, you're one of my favourite journalists, but I feel lately that you are putting down Canadians and voters.

    I wish the media would check on the cost to taxpayers of the Cons 10 percenters.

    I've receive 19 this year so far. In fact, I have all of them except for the first one that I threw out.

    Do you not think 19 ten percenters in approx 7 months is a little abusive of taxpayer monies?

    Why aren't people outraged by this?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Oh, I love Canadian voters. I just show it with sarcasm, which, for ITQ, is highest form of affection. The fact that they keep me — and the various parties — guessing is just one of their more adorable traits. I don't think they're likely to get their wish as far as majority government goes, but that says more about our electoral system than it does our electorate.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

        "but that says more about our electoral system than it does our electorate."

        Ya, but Quebec has a constitutional right to federal representation, so what can you do?

        • Two Hats

          Quebec doesn't have a right to federal representation. Quebeckers do.

  • an online reader

    GLORIA GALLOWAYOTTAWA — From Monday's Globe and Mail
    Last updated on Monday, Jul. 13, 2009 06:56AM EDT
    " For the first time in decades, doctors across the country will be given rules to help determine which patients get access to life-saving treatments in the event an influenza pandemic hits the country hard this fall. "

    Lets be prudent with Health care tax dollars , lets not interfere in Provincial matters , lets announce $ 6 billion to spend on military equipment to be delivered two years after we pull out of Afghanistan ? Ya right !

  • jarrid

    "… to make some sort of a pre-election deal with another party…"

    Would this be a public pre-election deal WW? And if so, why would the NDP do the LIberals such a favour, risking making their Party almost irrelevant? And why would the LIberals make such a deal, identifying themselves alongside the NDP brand at a time when economic issues are at the forefront of everyone's minds? Looks like yet another political Hail Mary pass to me.

    • Scott M.

      Keep reading Jarrid…

      the ONLY option is to make some sort of a pre-election deal with another party that was – lets say – NOT part of the previously proposed coalition…

      I think WW is hinting at a Conservative/Liberal coalition. That would be interesting if it was announced in advance. Of course it will never happen under our current FPTP system, but if it did I wonder if that announcement would change the "voter intention" playing field a lot.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

        Keep reading Jarrid…

        Tee hee.

        I think WW is hinting at a Conservative/Liberal coalition.

        A grand coalition? Neat idea, but Harper would never go for it, especially since to this point he's basically been governing with the Liberals as a coalition partner anyway. Why would he all of a sudden decide to give them spots in cabinet when, quite clearly, no such thing is needed to get their support in Parliament?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

    Ah yes – Professor Tom Flanagan – the same esteemed gentleman who believes that Attack Ads. provide a public service…
    I guess – the ONLY public service that PM Harper will be increasing investment in…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

    "which, I might remind you, you came out against so vehemently during The Madness"

    To be fair, in the heat of the moment there were three major considerations that need to be considered when comparing to that polling.

    1) the Harper/CPC (mis)information machine was in full force suggesting that the coalition was illegitimate, capitalizing on a lot of ignorance. both the the information stream and some of the ignorance has been reduced.

    2) this poll is talking about the idea of a coalition in general rather than a specific coalition at that time

    3) and as a related matter, given that the Harper/CPC (mis)information machine was in full force with the inaccurate 'socialist and separatists' messaging that much of the media was swallowing, that particular communicationally-deficient coalition no doubt had an additional challenge generating support. this does not apply to this poll given 2 and could be different for any future poll.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      Is it a "jinx" if we post the same idea at the same time, but with different wording? :)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

        I beleive it is indeed a jinx… pls discuss implications for any forthcoming coalition that we have just been rendered jinxed.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

          LOL

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

            Instead of laughing, you should have taken the first opportunity to punch s_n_m in the shoulder, or something, shouldn't you?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

            I really don't think that the media was "swallowing " the " socialists and separatists " so much as being
            irresponsible stenographers throughout much of the kerfluffle. For the most part it took a while for them to reduce their heart rates enough to take a look at what was really going on.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            in terms of ends, i see little difference. to the degree they did not refute the line – as they should have – i can only assume that they initially at least accepted it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    It's possible that some writers – like Potter – have read too much into the anti-coalition mood of last fall. It may have had a lot to do with Dion in particular, and the rushed ad hoc feeling about the whole thing. The whole "recoiled in horror' hyperbole has been a bit over the top, and may be leading some to wrongly assume that most Canadians hate coalitions forever (double stamped, no erasies!). Context may be very important.

    Canadians may well be more amenable to the idea if it is presented in a way that is more thoughtful and gives everyone a few minutes to digest. Also, the realization that a majority ain't gonna happen, in combination with the ongoing train wreck that our minority parliaments have become, may be enough to convince folks that a coalition is a lesser of evils.

    • an online reader

      Would it be possible that the Council of CEOs held a series of Xmas meetings laying down the law to harper , liberal finance critics and the big six bankers ? The Ottawa bunker little tory house on the Hill and certain journalists ran with the message ?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

        I'll bite. How does that relate to the public perception of coalitions?

        • an online reader

          Nibble is the key . Canadians want a leader , Canadians don't want a Unholy Alliance , Canadians want a majority , Dion is a bumbling idiot with a 148 (?) I.Q , harper is a cunning chess master (who lived like a mushroom in the dark at Calgary U learning from jet setting Texan Red Adare) ……….

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            No. Canadians want a government.
            There's a difference.

  • Anon

    Only 24% support a Conservative majority? Any of them outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      That's curious, eh? So there are 12-ish% out there who would vote Conservative but don't want them to have a majority?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

    "at least two of the leaders are privately convinced that they can win all by themselves, and one of them is almost certain to be right."

    One of them is almost certain to be "right"?
    IS there double meaning here – Do you really think Harper can do it?
    Mind you, the reference could also be towards Iggy ;)
    Just checking….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Correct! I meant correct! I swear!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

        Say no more! Say no more!
        Wink! Wink! Nudge! Nudge!

  • Bailey

    I was one of those lucky few who Harris/Decima called for this survey. And I was one of those 64% who prefer a majority over a minority and I would support a coalition.

    There were also a whole bunch of Canada Day related questions in that same phone survey.

  • Egg Head

    What is the supposed contradiction here? There's no contradiction in being open to a coalition government in some unspecified form at some unspecified point in time on the one hand, and being against a coalition government in the specific form it was proposed in December 2008. Did this survey even ask voters what sort of coalition government they had in mind? (i.e., so far as I can tell, maybe they had in mind a Liberal-Conservative coalition)

  • rj4

    Thanks for telling us off, but it would appear those who understand that it's not unconstitutional are talking to those who had never taken a civics or Canadian history course.

    The other part that's really strange about this, as a magazine isn't the point to be informative? Is this just a mea culpa that Macleans just doesn't get it?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      Actually, I'm telling *us* off for consistently misreading your views. I'm not quite sure what your first point is, however. I agree that it's not unconstitutional – but during the fracas over the EFU, the conclusion that was drawn, very possibly erroneously, was that it was politically unsaleable, although as noted by commenters above, that could be the difference between electing a coalition, and having one thrust upon one through a shifting minority parliament. But since the PM has made it clear that, in his view, a parliament controlled by the united forces of the opposition is a defacto coalition, and that this is something that Canadians don't want, it seems to be a fairly common misconception round these parts.

  • Egg Head

    Again, the anti-coalition argument never depended on the assumption that Canadians would always be against a coalition in any form. For instance, in a long post on the subject at the time, Paul Wells wrote that:

    "Canadians are legitimists. They get, or can grasp once reminded, the idea that governments are creatures of Parliaments, not directly of elections. I believe a coalition alternative to Harper would have broad appeal, and would be accepted by voters even without an election, if it met a few criteria"

    Wells then went on to explain why the proposed coalition met none of those criteria. (http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/12/04/alternatives/)

    So, again, I ask: did this poll ask voters about any of the details of a hypothetical coalition? Otherwise, for all we know, the 'pro-coalition' is, say, in favor of a Tory-Liberal coalition.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      That link only works if you take the closing parenthesis off. And I'd hate for anyone to miss out on that analysis.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        That really is a great piece, and it includes the single most important question posed to a party leader during the campaign.

        Dion’s press secretary cut me off and he apologetically offered to take more questions. No, I said; all I felt like doing was asking the last question a few more times. “The answer would be the same,” he said, smiling.

        Send not to know for whom the bell tolled, Stéphane.

  • Egg Head

    The updates clarify a bit, but not enough. Again, as the quote from Wells I posted above shows, the anti-coalition argument never depended on the idea that Canadians could never accept a post-election coalition. The poll bears that out, but a lot more is yet to be determined about the precise conditions under which people are willing to endorse it: again, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the pro-coalition people in this poll are for a Liberal-Tory coalition.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      Honest question: is anyone seriously proposing a Liberal-Tory coalition (beyond the one we have now)? Wouldn't that mess with the time-space continuum we now comfortably inhabit?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

        Yes, yes it would. Honestly, I've tried to figure out how that could possibly work in a formal sense — government by blue ribbon panel, anyone? More importantly, I very much doubt that Harris Decima responders would have had that in mind; I have to think that the majority were thinking Liberal-NDP coalition although a few might have gone with Conservative-NDP. The main problem with the idea of a Liberal-Tory coalition is that both parties believe they can win, probably because they have a combined success rate of doing so of roughly 100%.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

          A useful question might have been exactly what coalition people would prefer. No doubt the parties are polling this privately.

          The only coalition I could see working for the Conservatives is if they subdivided into three or four explicitly regional parties, and then formed a multi-party coalition with the Bloc. The ultimate divide and conquer strategy! (and I've been watching too many movies with grand conspiracy plots).

        • Egg Head

          SeanStok asks: "is anyone seriously proposing a Liberal-Tory coalition"
          The answer is: no.

          Kady adds: "The main problem with the idea of a Liberal-Tory coalition is that both parties believe they can win"
          And that's true.

          But I don't think that either of those facts means that Joe Public might not have that in mind. If you've studied public opinion a bit, you know that people's opinions are all over the map, and don't fit into conventional journalistic/partisan narratives. So I think that SeanStok and Kady may simply be talking over the heads of some people here.

          Basically, I think the problem is this: generic support for "a coalition" ought to be pretty uncontroversial, actually. Its like generic support for "working across party lines". Most people are for it in a generic sense. But, as you know, political parties often have more support in generic terms (i.e., Liberals) than in specific terms (i.e., Dion Liberals). So, basically, whether or not Canadians are comfortable with a coalition in a generic sense is besides the point, because if Harper is planning anti-coalition ads, they're not going to be against a generic coalition: they're going to be against Finance Minister Jack Layton. Fair or not, I think that you have to make the calculus a LOT more specific in order to tell whether Canadians are actually on board for an actual coalition, as opposed to the idea of one.

          • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley


            if Harper is planning anti-coalition ads, they’re not going to be against a generic coalition: they’re going to be against Finance Minister Jack Layton. Fair or not, I think that you have to make the calculus a LOT more specific in order to tell whether Canadians are actually on board for an actual coalition, as opposed to the idea of one.

            TWEEEEEEEET! That would fall outside the Flanagan Rules for negative campaigning, as there is no evidence to support the notion that anyone, up to and including Jack Layton, would ever seriously propose that he would serve as finance minister in a Liberal-NDP government.. (What’s wrong with a little comment thread cross-pollination?)

            Also, given that the poll shows almost no appetite for a coalition amongst Conservative supporters, for your theory to be correct, there would have to be a lot of Liberals who were thinking of the Tories as the most likely partner, which doesn’t seem terribly likely.

          • Egg Head

            Look, my "theory" isn't actually really a "theory" in any worked-out sense: I actually think what's most plausible is that when Canadians say that they're for a coalition in a generic sense, they just have in mind something like "working across party lines to get things done". Partisan Conservatives are going to be most resistant at this point simply because they're likely to think "well, wasn't it the coalition that almost removed us from power". But, in principle, I think that a "coalition" should be appealing to a lot of people. But the devil will be in the details, or the attack ads if you will – and no, I don't expect Flanagan Rules to apply when they're drafted.

          • Maureen

            Canadians can support a coalition, but they would like some input on it – not when it looks suspiciously like the four losing parties in the last election cooking up some backroom deal to gain power. Do the following and Canadians will buy in – define coalition, present a platform that the coalition would support (and follow-through on), provide a clear statement on what a coalition WOULD NOT support, set a time limit for action and how the coalition will dissolve.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

            Actually, if you look at the question, you'll see that's not necessarily the case, at least as far as these particular results go. Respondents were asked the following: "If the next election were to result in another minority government, how strongly would you support two of the parties coming together to form a coalition government that would hold a majority of the seats in the House of Commons?" Which means that the 45% who support a coalition over another minority government would do so even if it was formed after the election. It would be interesting to see what the response would be if they were asked about the scenario you describe, though.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            Excellent point Maureen.

            Despite whatever theoretical preference Canadians may have on coalition governments, this last winter of discontent demonstrates that Canadians are firmly opposed to the practice of coalitions, built after the fact.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

            Actually, as I noted in my reply to Maureen, they were asked about "two of the parties coming together to form a coalition government" after the election of another minority government. So while your – and her – points may, indeed, stand, the results of this particular poll would not seem to back them up.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

            The poll responses were to a hypothetical situation only. When faced with the actual situation, like last winters, the public didn't like the idea of a coalition. In theory, sure, there may be no problem with coalitions, but the real politics of it – not so pretty. Its always going to look like power mongering.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

            Well, I guess we may find out if — as is almost certain to be the case — the next election results in a minority parliament, and if the government and the official opposition are separated by a sufficiently small number of seats that would allow two parties – not three, mind you – to form some sort of formal alliance.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

        It's like a coalition of Coke and Pepsi!
        Bah! Both taste like malted battery acid! ;)
        I miss Bloom County…….

        • Egg Head

          "It's like a coalition of Coke and Pepsi!"

          As I said in my response to SeanStok and Kady, the fact that something seems totally implausible, or even literally impossible, to people who follow politics, doesn't mean that a lot of Canadians wouldn't have it in mind anyway. Public opinion often works that way.

          • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley

            So – shouldn’t someone, you know … tell them that?

          • Egg Head

            Should someone tell people that they're ideas are implausible or impossible? Sure, but you're still going to have a lot of people who, e.g., tell pollsters that they want a lot more money for public services and a lot lower taxes at the same time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    Just wanted to let you all know that the full results are now available on the Harris Decima website. I've updated the post to include a link, but here it is again, just to save you the trouble of hitting refresh.

    • Anon

      Sounds like these "Just Visiting" ads have had zero impact, or indeed, those actionplan.gc.ca ads. Probably why Flanagan wants those ads running 24/7.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Torybaiter Torybaiter

      The 50% preference in the 18-34 age group for either a Liberal majority or minority is interesting. I think it means if the Libs are able to spin a decent tale, they could find themselves with a lot of NDP and Green votes. "just visiting". At least for one election.

  • RayK

    Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing wisdom, I don't think it's at all surprising that Canadians would be open to the idea of a coalition.

    Remember that the bad polls that lead to the perception that the coalition was "deeply unpopular" were (1) hroserace polls showing the Conservative with 43% to 44% of the vote and (2) head-to-head polls in which the option "new election" won out over a coalition by a 55-45 margin.

    The press saw majority government numbers for the Conservatives as a repudiation of the coalition, but that ignored that a majority of actually people–even after the coalition was former–still said they'd vote for a coalition party. The polls asking whether people wanted a new election were irrelevant since that option was not on the table, but it's also skewed because Harper was telling Canadians that this whole coalition was somehow an undemocratic technicality and the press didn't correct the record on this.

    The odd poll that asked whether voters preferred a coalition to a Conservative government actually went 55-45 in favour–same as the horserace polls.

  • M to the T

    CPC Majority supporters are almost entirely in the $100k plus income – says it all – they have access and control them media so can distort the clear intentions of Canadians to TURF OUT THE CPC.

  • John D

    Oh you crazy canucks.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    What's so hard to understand?
    Canadians want a functioning government. One that governs.

    It's become obvious that this current setup isn't going to get us that, so bring on either a majority or a coalition. Either one will do, so long as we can get away from this idea that being the governing party/group means acting like you're in opposition.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

    Also, does anyone but me find the choice of colours for the majority/minority graph incredibly confusing? Dark and light blue for the Liberals? Really, Harris-Decima?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    Just because you enjoy dating someone, doesn't mean you want to marry them!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    The whole Republicans-for-Iggy thing has everyone confused.

  • Mulletaur

    "Canadians are slightly more likely to prefer that the Liberals form the next government than the Conservatives. When presented with four options (Conservative majority, Conservative minority, Liberal majority, Liberal minority), 44% said they prefer the Liberals win (30% majority, 14% minority), while 33% would rather a Conservative government (24% majority, 9% minority). The Liberals are the preferred choice in all regions, other than Alberta where 55% would rather a Conservative government, including 47% who preferred a Conservative majority. Across voting intention lines, those who support a party other than the Liberals and Conservatives are much more likely to prefer a Liberal victory."

    An interesting statistic but entirely meaningless (like the rest of this survey) given that the 44% who would prefer a Liberal government are divided between those who will vote Liberal and those who will not.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    To be terribly honest, if it wasn't for Harper, I might be among those.

    Hm. Actually. Thinking about what the Harper Party would consist of if it didn't have Harper.. probably not then either. It wouldn't be as objectionable, but if I'm going to vote for incompetence, I'd much rather it be honest incompetence.

    http://www.rhinoparty.com it is.

From Macleans