Why have each party's opinion pols ratings stayed so static since 2008?

[Ken Burch]

Normally, once a government is elected, the governing party in most parliamentary systems goes into a sharp drop in support. The opposition parties gain ground and one or the other of them usually takes a strong lead over the governing party.

This hasn't happened in Canada since the last election.

The Conservative government, despite every turn of events, has retained a fairly solid lead, though not enough to increase its status from a minority government to a majority government.

The Liberal opposition remains in a relatively weak second place, despite a change of leadership.

The New Democrats remain in third place.

And the Greens continue to show a much higher level of opinion poll support than they ever seem to receive in a general election or any byelection.

Why the stasis, Canadian DU'ers?

[HeresyLives]

1. The Liberal Party has had the 'perfect storm',

from Martin to Dion to Ignatieff, plus all the internal squabbling. They can't seem to get on their feet and articulate an alternate view.

The NDP and Greens won't ever get anywhere, so it's the Liberals people look to for the next govt. And while they're waiting for Liberal recovery, someone has to govern, but they don't trust or like Harper and are keeping him on a short leash.

[Spazito]

2. It is because Canadians are choosing 'none of the above'....

Canadians are NOT impressed with any of the parties or their leaders right now so there is, as you say, stasis. Here is an opinion article that captures the why, imo:

'None of the above' wins again

Here's the picture as we move into a dismal new year. Harper has blown a sure thing. Iggy is trapped in Dion territory. The NDP is completely stalled. Elizabeth May has moved to a silent retreat in Nepal. And Canada’s real leader, Barack Obama, is staggering under a mountain of troubles.

What a sad time this is for our modest little democracy. We may never have another election, since everyone will surely lose. Of course that means the Conservatives stay in power in perpetuity, hoping to govern as if they had a slam-dunk majority. But we’re seeing yet again that their own hubris and uncontrollable meanness — deny, deceive, destroy — costs them the moral high ground that every government needs in order to function.

All parties must be shell-shocked by the recent spate of polling. The Conservatives especially must be kicking themselves all around their bunker that they didn’t maneuver an election a month ago. There seems little doubt they had their majority in sight. Now the moment has completely evaporated. Stephen Harper's unprecedented contempt for parliamentary democracy is hurting him badly among many journalists. An election would most likely return the Conservatives with an even more precarious minority, which could only be interpreted as a personal defeat for Harper.


snip

The country is deeply weary of political game-playing and deeply sour about its politicians. Who can blame them? It's as if we're all waiting for something new and special, for our own Obama. But as the real thing drowns in the lethal political swamps of Washington, no one remotely of his calibre appears on the Canadian horizon.

more



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/none-of-the-above-wins-again/article1405855/

[Ken Burch]

3. Has any Canadian political analyst picked up on the irony

that, in a way, Barack Obama's one-time rock star-like popularity was a kind of American version of "Trudeaumania"?

[Spazito]

5. Canadians(minus our Cons) still have very fond memories of Trudeau...

and it is interesting you raise the spectre of Trudeau because he was known for his strong leadership, a trait sadly lacking in ALL of the current party leaders. Canadians, by and large, are quite pragmatic and so do not 'buy in' to the hyperbole on Obama's 'failures'. "Trudeaumania" had context, it wasn't merely based on 'appearances' but, rather, on results.

[Ken Burch]

15. My point was mainly about the intensity of Trudeau's support in his first campaign

Where he was treated, by a lot of young people, as a combination of a Kennedy and a Beatle, an intensity that was never really matched in any later election he contested. There were significant differences between the two men AFTER they took power, of course.

[HeresyLives]

4. We are always waiting for a saviour,

but there just aren't any available. What you see is what you get.

[Spazito]

6. I don't recall a time previously where ALL the leaders sucked so badly....

at the same time. It is fascinating in a somewhat macabre way, imo.

[HeresyLives]

7. Well I do.

The Diefenbaker-Pearson years dwindled into constant fighting and minorities, which is why Trudeau was seen as a saviour. He was a strong leader, but so is Harper. That doesn't mean people like them. Trudeau is seen as a great man now, at least by Liberals, but he wasn't all that popular at the time. He was just seen as better than Joe Clark.

Mulroney and Turner were another example. The 'free trade' election went nowhere till the last week when a massive advertising campaign took over.

[Spazito]

8. I disagree....

wrt Mulroney and Turner. Mulroney was seen as a strong leader whereas Turner was pegged with being weak right from the beginning. Canadians like strong leaders over weak ones not unlike many other countries. The majority of Canadians do not belong to any party and, therefore, party loyalty is not an issue when it comes to voting, the perception if not the reality of strong leadership carries more weight, imo.

As to the Diefenbaker-Pearson years, Diefenbaker did achieve a majority government only one year after forming a minority government and Pearson, again, was seen as weak but, barely, better than Diefenbaker in the 1963 and 1965 election.

Trudeau was elected and repeatedly elected over a period from 1968 - 1979 and then re-elected again in 1980. I cannot see how you can say he was unpopular with Canadians overall.

Edited to add missing punctuation.

[HeresyLives]

9. 'You had a choice, sir'

was Mulroney's winning line in the first election, but by the second election it was only the massive free-trade advertising campaign at the last minute that saved him.

We do have a 'swing vote' that doesn't belong to any party, but we also have the devout who always vote their party. For example, barring a miracle, Alberta is never going to vote Liberal.

Diefenbaker got a majority, but after that it dwindled into constant bickering. It's amazing Pearson got as much accomplished as he did.

Trudeau has grown in the public imagination over the years. He wasn't that popular at the time, just more popular than the Opposition leader, which is all he had to be.

[Ken Burch]

16. The thing about Mulroney that I could never understand in observing him from afar

was how his party managed to package a guy who had always been nothing buy a backroom hack as some sort of bold antipolitical "outsider" type. Why did that EVER work?

[HeresyLives]

17. I don't think he had a seat when he

became leader, and he wasn't well-known before that. Suddenly came out of nowhere to replace Joe Clark.

[Ken Burch]

18. He didn't have a seat, yet he'd spent most of his life

being a backroom Tory fixer, somebody who would've fit in with Frank Skeffington in "The Last Hurrah" if he'd been a Yank.
Then again, once Turner had shot himself in the foot(and perhaps also the groin)by making all those patronage appointments of outgoing Trudeau people, I suppose the Tories didn't really have to do much. They could probably have taken a majority with THESE guys as co-leaders:

[HeresyLives]

19. Heh! Well most Canadians

don't pay much attention to party politics, so he was a fresh new face to most, while Turner sounded older by the minute.

[Ken Burch]

20. I always thought Turner looked like the "Man From Glad"

From the old '60s commercials.

[HeresyLives]

21. Canadians realized they remembered him

from years earlier, when he had dark hair and danced with Princess Margaret. Mentally he still seemed to be living back then, and had been out of the political loop too long.

[Ken Burch]

22. Didn't he get caught copping a feel from a female Liberal candidate at a campaign stop?

n/t.

[HeresyLives]

23. Iona will always be remembered for that.

In 1982, she became president of the Liberal Party of Canada, a largely administrative position. During the 1984 convention which elected John Turner as Party leader, Campagnolo created a minor furor within the Liberal Party: she said that second-place leadership candidate Jean Chrétien was "second in the balloting, but first in our hearts".

When John Turner became Liberal leader in 1984, a television camera caught Turner patting Campagnolo's bottom. Although Campagnolo herself dismissed it (and patted Turner right back), the incident was used to paint Turner as being out of touch with contemporary women's issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iona_Campagnolo

[CHIMO]

24. To Understand

Start digging from this article.
http://www.rabble.ca/news/why-mulroney-schreiber-scandal-matters

[Ken Burch]

26. Thanks for that.

I read "Rabble.ca" a lot, and also post in its discussion forum, Babble.

[HeresyLives]

10. My personal preference

would be for a totally new party, one that's progressive and without any baggage. But I doubt I'll ever see that.

[daleo]

11. To some extent, the BQ and Greens have changed the calculus

Between them, they have taken away about 15% of the vote. The majority of that has been taken from the Liberals, in my opinion. We may be stuck in this rut until Quebecers decide that a regional party is not an adequate voice for their interests.

I think Harper has peaked and a Liberal minority is an even money bet in the next year or two. But I can't see a majority for some time to come.

[HeresyLives]

12. I agree. It also depends on the issue.

If some major issue came along that upset Canadians, although I'm not sure what it would be if huge deficits, climate and war crimes don't qualify, and Ignatieff got out in front of it for a change, that would make a huge difference.

[daleo]

13. The detainee/torture issue might be significant

But I think the most likely prospect would be something related to oil.

The interests of most of the country are fairly divergent from the Harper/Alberta/oil company nexus. For example, Quebec and Atlantic Canada have a lot of hydro and wind potential, and Ontario needs to focus on new green industrial strategies - both of these factors may eventually lead to a political alignment of a Liberal/NDP east and a Conservative west (BC would likely split both ways). That might result in a Liberal majority or Liberal/NDP coalition in 5 or 10 years.

[HeresyLives]

14. That's depressing!

In 5 or 10 years none of it will matter.

[Bragi]

25. The third of Canadians who are right wing are content

Meanwhile, the two-thirds of us who are centre-centre left haven't changed our views, but we have not been offered a way to unite to defeat Harper.

There is and will be no political unity among the majority because the electoral ambitions and sectarian instincts of the small number of activists involved in Canada's 4 centre/left-of-centre parties trumps the desire of their supporters.