Minor changes to the 5-day rolling average:
PC - 48% (+1)
Lib - 38% (-1)
NDP - 9% (=)
Green - 4% (=)
PA - < 1% (=)
This incremental move serves to move the seat projections incrementally:
PC - 37
Lib - 17
NDP - 1
Friday, September 17, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
New Brunswick 2010
Now for something closer to home: New Brunswick is renewing its legislature on Monday the 27th, and CRA has been kind enough to grace us with a daily tracking poll ever since the campaign began.
New Brunswick's legislature is composed of 55 members, and the main parties are the governing Liberals and the opposition PCs. The NDP lies a distant third, and the Greens almost a non-factor. A new party, the People's Alliance, has yet to break out of 0% in the CRA polls, so this will be their last mention on this blog, for now.
The election began very very close, with the two major parties exchanging the lead, and the first 4 days, the gap was never bigger than 1%. The Liberals then managed to hang on to this razor-thin lead for a few days, until on September 7, the PCs tied it up. Immediately a day after, the PCs regained the lead, and after that the wheels fell off the Liberal bus.
There was a leader's debate last night, but since people need time to evaluate leader's performances, we'll probably get a sense of how the debate influenced voting intention tomorrow or Friday. Currently, though, the figures stand at:
PC - 49%
Lib - 37%
NDP - 10%
Green - 4%
The 5-poll average is:
PC - 47%
Lib - 39%
NDP - 9%
Green - 4%
The projection for these numbers:
PC - 36 seats
Lib - 18 seats
NDP - 1 seat
Usual caveats apply: the projection can only be as good as the poll numbers plugged in, but for now, Politically Uncorrect projects a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY.
New Brunswick's legislature is composed of 55 members, and the main parties are the governing Liberals and the opposition PCs. The NDP lies a distant third, and the Greens almost a non-factor. A new party, the People's Alliance, has yet to break out of 0% in the CRA polls, so this will be their last mention on this blog, for now.
The election began very very close, with the two major parties exchanging the lead, and the first 4 days, the gap was never bigger than 1%. The Liberals then managed to hang on to this razor-thin lead for a few days, until on September 7, the PCs tied it up. Immediately a day after, the PCs regained the lead, and after that the wheels fell off the Liberal bus.
There was a leader's debate last night, but since people need time to evaluate leader's performances, we'll probably get a sense of how the debate influenced voting intention tomorrow or Friday. Currently, though, the figures stand at:
PC - 49%
Lib - 37%
NDP - 10%
Green - 4%
The 5-poll average is:
PC - 47%
Lib - 39%
NDP - 9%
Green - 4%
The projection for these numbers:
PC - 36 seats
Lib - 18 seats
NDP - 1 seat
Usual caveats apply: the projection can only be as good as the poll numbers plugged in, but for now, Politically Uncorrect projects a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY.
The Triple Crown
Sweden is holding elections on Sunday the 19th to renew their 349-member Riksdag. There's the centre-right Alliance governing coalition (made of 4 parties), the centre-left "red-green" coalition (made of 3 parties), and then there's the Sweden Democrats, a far right fringe group.
A bit of history: the centre-left main party, the Social Democrats, were the most successful political group in the Western World. After World War I, they never lost more than 1 election in a row, and formed government about 80% of the time.
This election promises to be a record breaker. The Sweden Democrats are polling over the 4% threshold set for eligibility to win seats, for one, but most significantly, the Social Democrats look set to lose, for the first time, a second election in a row, with all polls showing the Alliance will form a parliamentary majority.
So, with that, a bit of a projection:
The Alliance - 50-54%
Red-Green - 40-44%
Sweden Democrats - 4-7%
A bit of history: the centre-left main party, the Social Democrats, were the most successful political group in the Western World. After World War I, they never lost more than 1 election in a row, and formed government about 80% of the time.
This election promises to be a record breaker. The Sweden Democrats are polling over the 4% threshold set for eligibility to win seats, for one, but most significantly, the Social Democrats look set to lose, for the first time, a second election in a row, with all polls showing the Alliance will form a parliamentary majority.
So, with that, a bit of a projection:
The Alliance - 50-54%
Red-Green - 40-44%
Sweden Democrats - 4-7%
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The referendum conundrum
After a legal challenge of the validity of the anti-HST petition, where the petition was affirmed, it was sent to a committee of MLAs a couple of weeks ago. Earlier this week, the committee reached a decision: the HST is going to referendum. This looks bad for the Liberals and Gordon Campbell, because it means the HST battle will be protracted, and now has even more potential to damage them further.
Now, note that since Canada and it's provinces operate under constitutional monarchy, power is vested not in the people, but in the crown. Therefore, a referendum is never legally binding on a Canadian government. Of course, this means they can ignore the results of a referendum, but only to their own peril. This is Gordon Campbell's conundrum. Does he respect the wishes of the people?
Well, apparently, he does, as he has announced, sort of, that a simple 50% no vote would move him to abolish the HST. Of course, the definition of "respecting the people" in politics simply means a fear of being voted out.
Now, to his credit, he hasn't flip-flopped on this either. He stated that he believes people will see the benefits of the HST by the time the referendum rolls around and will vote to keep it. In other words, he's going gaga (i.e. his age is finally getting to him).
This is a good time to once again quote that Angus Reid poll. Remember that dismal 12% rating for Gordon Campbell? Well, that would be because of the widespread dissatisfaction with the HST. Apparently currently 70% of the electorate would vote to abolish it, with only 18% support for keeping it. I believe I voiced the opinion that the HST makes economic sense, but it was brought in in a senseless way. People who actually oppose the tax itself might not be in the majority, but coupled with people who didn't like how it was brought in would bring us to the number of 70%. Regardless of why British Columbians oppose the HST, it appears that the overwhelming opinion is that the HST should be abolished, and so the current projection will simply be that "the no vote will take a landslide majority."
However, I cannot as of yet project that the HST will be abolished, otherwise I'd be basing something on the words of a politician, and we all know how wise that would be.
Now, note that since Canada and it's provinces operate under constitutional monarchy, power is vested not in the people, but in the crown. Therefore, a referendum is never legally binding on a Canadian government. Of course, this means they can ignore the results of a referendum, but only to their own peril. This is Gordon Campbell's conundrum. Does he respect the wishes of the people?
Well, apparently, he does, as he has announced, sort of, that a simple 50% no vote would move him to abolish the HST. Of course, the definition of "respecting the people" in politics simply means a fear of being voted out.
Now, to his credit, he hasn't flip-flopped on this either. He stated that he believes people will see the benefits of the HST by the time the referendum rolls around and will vote to keep it. In other words, he's going gaga (i.e. his age is finally getting to him).
This is a good time to once again quote that Angus Reid poll. Remember that dismal 12% rating for Gordon Campbell? Well, that would be because of the widespread dissatisfaction with the HST. Apparently currently 70% of the electorate would vote to abolish it, with only 18% support for keeping it. I believe I voiced the opinion that the HST makes economic sense, but it was brought in in a senseless way. People who actually oppose the tax itself might not be in the majority, but coupled with people who didn't like how it was brought in would bring us to the number of 70%. Regardless of why British Columbians oppose the HST, it appears that the overwhelming opinion is that the HST should be abolished, and so the current projection will simply be that "the no vote will take a landslide majority."
However, I cannot as of yet project that the HST will be abolished, otherwise I'd be basing something on the words of a politician, and we all know how wise that would be.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
"Wow! That high?"
That was the response of an anonymous interviewee of the Global News report on the fact that Premier Gordon Campbell's approval rating is, according to Angus Reid, 12%. Win.
That's 12% approve, 76% disapprove, 12% undecided, for a net approval of -64.
Seriously, the numbers are not good. This at a time when members of his caucus are publicly musing about whether he should resign. When the Liberal Party is about to convene. This, along with trailing the NDP by an increased margin of 23%, and it might really be the final nail in his coffin. His prospects are about as rosy as a lump of coals.
Gordon Campbell has been in office since 2001. He's been the Olympic premier. He's won 3 majorities. It's been a successful run...up until the HST. It's a logical time to resign, and he probably will, instead of leading the party through election 2013, which is pretty much already a lost cause.
Unless, of course, he wants either his party, or the electorate, to hand him the pink slip.
Which, I might add, we rather want to.
That's 12% approve, 76% disapprove, 12% undecided, for a net approval of -64.
Seriously, the numbers are not good. This at a time when members of his caucus are publicly musing about whether he should resign. When the Liberal Party is about to convene. This, along with trailing the NDP by an increased margin of 23%, and it might really be the final nail in his coffin. His prospects are about as rosy as a lump of coals.
Gordon Campbell has been in office since 2001. He's been the Olympic premier. He's won 3 majorities. It's been a successful run...up until the HST. It's a logical time to resign, and he probably will, instead of leading the party through election 2013, which is pretty much already a lost cause.
Unless, of course, he wants either his party, or the electorate, to hand him the pink slip.
Which, I might add, we rather want to.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Decision 2010: Australian federal election
"The people have spoken, but it's going to take a little time to determine what they said."
~ Bill Clinton
These words describe perfectly the situation Australia faces in the coming week. Last night, Australia voted in a federal election, to decide how its 150 'divisions' would be distributed. The side that gets itself elected in 76 divisions is the side who gets to form government.
The election was being touted as the closest in Australian history, and it did not disappoint. I spent last evening watching the drama unfold on the ABC, and in the end, after two hours of analysis, the panel could only say, "We have no idea."
When I went to bed, the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) was elected or leading in 72 divisions, and the opposition Liberal/National Coalition in 73. Needless to say, it would be the smallest margin between the two major sides, ever. It looks almost set to be the first hung parliament in Australia in 70 years.
73 and 72 add up to 145. The remaining 5 divisions are split between 4 independent members and the first Green ever to be elected into the Australian lower house. The Green and one of the independent members are likely to vote with the ALP. The other 3 have conservative backgrounds, and are more likely to side with the Coalition. If that's the case, left-of-centre members add to 74, and right-of-centre members add to 76. The Coalition has the upper hand; but at the end of the day, anything can happen, and nobody has a clue who will be the Prime Minister of Australia at this time next week.
This result was actually a bit of a shock. Every poll released on the last day before the election had the ALP ahead by a razor-thin margin. It would either be a Labor hung parliament or a bare Labor majority. The Coalition was only given an outside chance.
As a strange election, it had strange beginnings. Labor's term actually constitutionally lasts until November. Julia Gillard decided to call a snap election just weeks after deposing Kevin Rudd as Labor leader and Prime Minister. Indeed, it would seem her initial popularity was enough to steer Labor to an easy victory. But as the campaign progressed, Labor had what the media called a "disastrous" week, opening the door to Tony Abbot, leader of the Coalition.
With several very close seats, postal votes and recounts could still alter the makeup of the lower house. If the situation changes to 72 for the Coalition and 73 for Labor, and the other members split towards their "natural" leanings, then we would end up with 75 for the Coalition, and 75 for Labor. In such a case, neither party might be able to form a government. Parliament could then immediately dissolve, and a new election called.
Constitutional crisis, anyone?
UPDATE: Labor has won the backing of the Green AND 3 of the independents, allowing them to form government with a razor-thin majority of 76 to 74. Julia Gillard will continue as Prime Minister.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Justice will be served...in a few weeks...months...years...
A serial killer is caught when he's 40 years old. The trial comes after 2 years, takes 6 years, and sentencing comes after another year. He's sentenced to the legal maximum of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, but he's already served 9. He appeals, and the appeal takes up 7 years, with the same result. He files for a second appeal, which similarly takes up 7 years, and changes nothing. At this time, 23 years have elapsed. The serial killer serves the remaining 2 years of his sentence, and is then paroled on account of "good behaviour." He is now 65 years old, upon which he begins to collect pension from the government.
What is wrong?
That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.
Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.
The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?
Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.
Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?
What is wrong?
That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.
Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.
The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?
Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.
Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)