Here are the latest seat projections, including a couple of new polls this week from Ekos and Harris/Decima. I’ve broken the projections down into “solid” (where the projected margin of victory is 10 points or greater) and “leaning” (less than 10 points). See complete details at http://www.democraticSPACE.com/canada2009/.

NATIONAL
CPC – 135 seats (106 solid + 29 leaning) – 34.4% support
LPC – 94 seats (64 solid + 30 leaning) – 30.2% support
BQ – 45 seats (40 solid + 5 leaning) – 9.1% support
NDP – 34 seats (19 solid + 15 leaning) – 16.2% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 7.9% support

ONTARIO
LPC – 47 seats (34 solid + 13 leaning) – 37.9% support
CPC – 45 seats (34 solid + 11 leaning) – 36.8% support
NDP – 14 seats (8 solid + 6 leaning) – 15.4% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 9.1% support

QUEBEC
BQ – 45 seats (40 solid + 5 leaning) – 36.7% support
LPC – 20 seats (12 solid + 8 leaning) – 28.3% support
CPC – 9 seats (6 solid + 3 leaning) – 17.6% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 12.1% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 4.5% support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CPC – 21 seats (14 solid + 7 leaning) – 39.2% support
NDP – 9 seats (6 solid + 3 leaning) – 23.9% support
LPC – 6 seats (3 solid + 3 leaning) – 23.0% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 12.3% support

ALBERTA
CPC – 27 seats (27 solid + 0 leaning) – 56.8% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 9.6% support
LPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 18.8% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 12.5% support

PRAIRIES
CPC – 22 seats (19 solid + 3 leaning) – 51.6% support
NDP – 4 seat (3 solid + 1 leaning) – 18.7% support
LPC – 2 seats (1 solid + 1 leaning) – 19.8% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 9.2% support

ATLANTIC CANADA
LPC – 17 seats (13 solid + 4 leaning) – 36.8% support
CPC – 11 seats (6 solid + 5 leaning) – 32.5% support
NDP – 4 seat (4 solid + 0 leaning) – 24.0% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 6.0% support

NORTH
LPC – 2 seats (1 solid + 1 leaning) – 34.0% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 23.1% support
CPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 31.5% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 10.8% support

Here are the latest seat projections, including a couple of new polls this week from Ekos and Environics. I’ve broken the projections down into “solid” (where the projected margin of victory is 10 points or greater) and “leaning” (less than 10 points). There are 81 seats currently in play, a bit more than 1/4 of the seats.

NATIONAL
CPC – 133 seats (104 solid + 29 leaning) – 34.7% support
LPC – 95 seats (64 solid + 31 leaning) – 31.5% support
BQ – 44 seats (39 solid + 5 leaning) – 9.2% support
NDP – 36 seats (19 solid + 17 leaning) – 15.8% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 7.5% support

ONTARIO
LPC – 47 seats (34 solid + 13 leaning) – 38.2% support
CPC – 45 seats (34 solid + 11 leaning) – 37.5% support
NDP – 14 seats (6 solid + 8 leaning) – 14.1% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 9.3% support

QUEBEC
BQ – 44 seats (39 solid + 5 leaning) – 35.7% support
LPC – 20 seats (12 solid + 8 leaning) – 29.3% support
CPC – 10 seats (6 solid + 4 leaning) – 17.1% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 11.7% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 5.4% support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CPC – 19 seats (13 solid + 6 leaning) – 38.5% support
NDP – 11 seats (6 solid + 5 leaning) – 26.0% support
LPC – 6 seats (3 solid + 3 leaning) – 22.9% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 11.1% support

ALBERTA
CPC – 27 seats (27 solid + 0 leaning) – 59.9% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 9.7% support
LPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 16.6% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 11.5% support

PRAIRIES
CPC – 22 seats (19 solid + 3 leaning) – 50.0% support
NDP – 4 seat (3 solid + 1 leaning) – 22.4% support
LPC – 2 seats (1 solid + 1 leaning) – 20.5% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 6.4% support

ATLANTIC CANADA
LPC – 18 seats (13 solid + 5 leaning) – 37.8% support
CPC – 10 seats (5 solid + 5 leaning) – 32.0% support
NDP – 4 seat (4 solid + 0 leaning) – 23.7% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 5.7% support

NORTH
LPC – 2 seats (1 solid + 1 leaning) – 34.5% support
NDP – 1 seat (0 solid + 1 leaning) – 22.6% support
CPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 31.9% support
GPC – 0 seats (0 solid + 0 leaning) – 10.3% support

Latest seat projections show the Conservatives with a 133-99 seat advantage over the Liberals, including new polls this week by Harris-Decima and Ekos. See results below…

NATIONAL
CPC – 133 (34.6%)
LPC – 99 (32.5%)
BQ – 45 (9.1%)
NDP – 31 (15.5%)
GPC – 0 (7.1%)

ONTARIO
LPC – 49 (38.9%)
CPC – 45 (37.7%)
NDP – 12 (13.4%)
GPC – 0 (9.1%)

QUEBEC
BQ – 45 (35.6%)
LPC – 21 (30.5%)
CPC – 9 (16.8%)
NDP – 0 (11.3%)
GPC – 0 (5.1%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CPC – 19 (37.4%)
NDP – 10 (25.5%)
LPC – 7 (25.2%)
GPC – 0 (10.3%)

ALBERTA
CPC – 28 (62.0%)
LPC – 0 (16.9%)
GPC – 0 (10.4%)
NDP – 0 (8.3%)

PRAIRIES
CPC – 22 (49.1%)
NDP – 4 (21.1%)
LPC – 2 (22.6%)
GPC – 0 (6.5%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
LPC – 18 (38.8%)
CPC – 10 (31.8%)
NDP – 4 (22.9%)
GPC – 0 (5.7%)

NORTH
LPC – 2 (35.5%)
NDP – 1 (22.3%)
CPC – 0 (31.9%)
GPC – 0 (9.6%)

See full details at http://democraticSPACE.com/canada2009

Our latest projections include new polls by Environics, Ekos, and Angus Reid over the past week or so. While Environics shows a slight tilt towards the Liberals, it is offset by a slight tilt towards the Conservatives in the Ekos and Angus Reid polls, so the start of the Olympics has has changed little from our last update a week or so ago. The Liberals and Greens are up marginally and the NDP is down a bit, but otherwise things are holding steady.

NATIONAL
CPC – 129 (34.6%)
LPC – 103 (32.9%)
BQ – 45 (9.3%)
NDP – 31 (15.2%)
GPC – 0 (6.9%)

ONTARIO
LPC – 53 (39.2%)
CPC – 41 (37.2%)
NDP – 12 (13.4%)
GPC – 0 (9.3%)

QUEBEC
BQ – 45 (36.1%)
LPC – 21 (31.1%)
CPC – 9 (16.6%)
NDP – 0 (11.2%)
GPC – 0 (4.3%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CPC – 19 (37.0%)
NDP – 10 (25.6%)
LPC – 7 (25.6%)
GPC – 0 (10.2%)

ALBERTA
CPC – 28 (61.2%)
LPC – 0 (17.9%)
GPC – 0 (10.2%)
NDP – 0 (8.2%)

PRAIRIES
CPC – 22 (48.7%)
NDP – 4 (22.5%)
LPC – 2 (21.8%)
GPC – 0 (6.3%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
LPC – 18 (39.7%)
CPC – 10 (32.9%)
NDP – 4 (21.0%)
GPC – 0 (5.6%)

NORTH
LPC – 2 (35.9%)
NDP – 1 (22.0%)
CPC – 0 (32.0%)
GPC – 0 (9.4%)

See full details at http://democraticSPACE.com/canada2009

As widely expected, the latest seat projections show a significant drop for the Conservatives, as Canadians register their displeasure over the government’s decision to prorogue Parliament. The current state of affairs looks much like the weak majority of 2006. Our current projections are:

NATIONAL
CPC – 129 (34.5%)
LPC – 102 (32.4%)
BQ – 45 (9.4%)
NDP – 32 (16.0%)
GPC – 0 (6.5%)

ONTARIO
LPC – 53 (39.5%)
CPC – 41 (37.7%)
NDP – 12 (13.8%)
GPC – 0 (8.1%)

QUEBEC
BQ – 45 (36.3%)
LPC – 21 (30.6%)
CPC – 9 (16.6%)
NDP – 0 (12.0%)
GPC – 0 (3.7%)

BRITISH COLUMBIA
CPC – 19 (37.1%)
NDP – 10 (25.3%)
LPC – 7 (26.2%)
GPC – 0 (9.9%)

ALBERTA
CPC – 27 (60.3%)
NDP – 1 (9.0%)
LPC – 0 (15.3%)
GPC – 0 (13.0%)

PRAIRIES
CPC – 22 (51.8%)
NDP – 4 (21.4%)
LPC – 2 (19.1%)
GPC – 0 (7.0%)

ATLANTIC CANADA
LPC – 17 (35.7%)
CPC – 11 (33.2%)
NDP – 4 (25.6%)
GPC – 0 (4.7%)

NORTH
LPC – 2 (35.4%)
NDP – 1 (22.9%)
CPC – 0 (32.0%)
GPC – 0 (9.0%)

See full details at: http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2009/

Trouble has been brewing for a while behind the scenes in the Green Party; today it boiled over in David Akin’s National Post piece, which highlighted the upheaval over May’s leadership in the wake of a mass exodus of senior party officials. The exodus included the firing of Political Campaign Director Catharine Johannson, the resignation of Executive Director Maureen Murphy, and the resignation of the party’s Federal Council Donna Dillman — all in addition to the recent firing of 4 of the party’s 7 organizers and 3 other staff resignations, including its long-awaited and just-hired Quebec Press Secretary. Rumors are that the Greens are facing dire financial consequences, which has no doubt prompted widespread cutbacks.

With the release of Akin’s article, some May supporters are now calling for the removal from the party of the “traitor” who forwarded the “private” emails referred to by Akin (“The traitor should be found. They should be removed from the federal council and then their membership should be revoked… and elsewhere…”I’d like to remind everyone that the 9th circle of hell is reserved for the traitors”). The only problem is that the emails were not private — they were sent to public email listservs that are accessible to all GPC members, so quite literally any GPC member could be the “traitor” — that might make for a long witch-hunt.

Given the turmoil over May’s leadership and attempts to weed out dissidents, it is perhaps not surprising that some are attempting to postpone or cancel the constitutionally-mandated leadership vote to avoid May having to face the leadership when her 4-year term expires in August.

Interestingly, as the GPC turmoil was unfolding this weekend, May was rightfully chastising Stephen Harper for proroguing Parliament. But the parallel to attempts to postpone the GPC leadership vote are hard to miss. In fact, you can easily substitute “postpone” for “prorogue”, “Prime Minister” for “GPC leader”, and “Greens” for “Liberals” in May’s weekend comments and you have a description of what’s unfolding within the GPC…

“To postpone or not to postpone, that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the minds to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Greens or simply to avoid that sea of troubles and, by postponing, end them.”

In one of last remaining media platforms she has (Jane Taber’s blog), May deflects criticism by declaring that “somewhere around 90 per cent of our membership (my guess!) is totally supportive all of the time.” There’s no need to guess, this support can be confirmed by simply proceeding with the mandated leadership vote in August. I have no doubt that May would prevail, although 90% support might be an exaggeration.

Of course, postponing the leadership vote seems to be moot now that May appears to have acquiesced to holding the vote — as she told Akin: “I’m happy to subject myself to anything.” Hopefully, this puts to rest the postponement drama, because it is becoming increasingly clear that the GPC has much bigger tofu to fry.

Update: I guess when it rains, it pours.

(apologies, this is longer than usual)

For the last couple months, the Green Party of Canada (GPC) has been plagued by an internal debate about whether to proceed with their constitutionally mandated leadership contest in Aug 2010 (i.e. 4 years after Elizabeth May’s Aug 2006 election) or do a last-minute constitutional (by-law) amendment at their August biannual general meeting (BGM) so May doesn’t have to face the membership before she has a chance to contest Saanich-Gulf Islands (SGI) in a general election.

Two competing motions have been put before GPC Federal Council by two at-large Councilors: (1) by David Coon of New Brunswick, to postpone the leadership race until the fall, after members have decided whether they want to change the constitution or not, or (2) by Dan Murray of Ontario, to proceed with the leadership race as constitutionally-mandated, but with no explicit provision to put the by-law change before members at the August BGM. But there is a solution that best meets the expectations of both sides: (1) proceed with a summer leadership race as mandated, culminating in an August vote *and* (2) propose the by-law change at the Aug BGM, so that the term limit change, if adopted, applies to the next mandate. That is, while it is perfectly acceptable to have Elizabeth May’s next term not be limited to 4 years if members so choose, it is wrong to postpone the leadership race so you can retroactively change the current term just as it is set to expire.

The case against postponing the GPC leadership race can be argued on at least 3 grounds: (1) the underlying strategic premise is flawed, (2) it has practical (negative) implications on the GPC’s finances, and perhaps most importantly, (3) it raises serious questions about democratic principle and unnecessarily sows division within the party.

Firstly, on the question of democratic principle, in her latest book, Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis of Canadian Democracy, Elizabeth May writes:

“A full, free and functioning democracy is not something we should lose without a fight. We must not be driven by fear or seduced by creature comforts into allowing democracy to slip between our fingers.”

Indeed, we must not. I applaud May for her leadership in calling out Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament for what it was: sacrificing democracy for personal convenience. But the situation with the Green leadership race is eerily similar. GPC Federal Council must ask itself whether it is justifiable to sacrifice the democratic principles established by the GPC constitution in the name of convenience — the inconvenience that there might not be a general election before May’s first term is up in August (which wouldn’t allow them to test their strategy of getting Elizabeth May elected in Saanich-Gulf Islands).

It should be noted that the 4-year term limit was established only in 2006 (it was previously 2-years) — the same BGM when May was elected — and following both the Martin (2004) and Harper (2006) minority governments, so it’s not like the 4-year term limit is a relic of the past, nor was it passed in an era of majority governments. I would assume members knew what they were doing when they instituted the 4-year term limit (I’m guessing but it could be rationalized that since the GPC has no elected caucus to check the power of the leader, unlike other major parties, asking the leader to seek a renewed mandate every 4 years allows for some level of accountability).

This debate would end tomorrow if May simply applied the same democratic standard to which she holds Harper and agreed to seek a renewed mandate. She would be on solid ground asking for the confidence of the membership to build upon the accomplishments of her first term; after all, she led the GPC to an all-time high in votes last time. And I have no doubt whatsoever she would be re-elected easily (if she is contested at all; after all, I assume there would be a reasonable entry fee to ensure only truly serious candidates come forward). In fact, I suspect she could win without stepping foot outside of Saanich and without spending a dime. I’m puzzled by the fears that are driving these attempts to circumvent the constitution. These same fears were brought up when Stuart Hertzog contested May for the SGI nomination and yet it was a complete non-event; May won easily and the party came out looking more principled for allowing the contest. You can’t just say you do politics differently, you actually have to do it differently.

And going to questionable lengths to change the rules at the 11th hour is surely going to sow divisions within the party, and will no doubt lead to questions about the legitimacy of May’s extended tenure. It’s just not worth the damage it would do internally. Canadian political history is pretty clear that party leaders who unify their parties are far more successful than those who sow divisions.

Secondly, beyond questions of democratic principle, the underlying premise for postponing the leadership contest is flawed. The GPC has apparently concluded a leadership contest would be so damaging to May that they are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid her facing the membership. Why? I would argue the opposite: a summer leadership contest would bring renewed energy (more media exposure, new members, more contributions, etc) to a party that has largely fallen off the face of the Canadian political map. Far from hurting May in Saanich, it would help her.

And postponing risks a potential fall leadership race. A summer leadership contest is far more preferable than the fall for 2 reasons: (1) there would be a significant lost opportunity cost since the fall is the best time to organize, fundraise, knock on doors, etc — you don’t want GPC members working on a leadership campaign instead of building support for the next election, and (2) there is a far greater likelihood of a fall general election (the most common time for a Canadian election) than an August one (which has only happened once in Canadian history). And if the raison d’être of postponement is to avoid a potential conflict between leadership race and general election, it is clear that a summer race is the more prudent choice, since the chance of overlap is virtually non-existent.

Also, if the race is postponed and a fall election is called, it means going into an election with a leader whose term has expired — i.e. a lame-duck leader — which would be devastating (if not embarrassing), and almost certainly would preclude an invitation to the leaders’ debates. It just makes no strategic sense whatsoever and puts the GPC in an unnecessarily risky position. And for what? So May doesn’t have to seek a renewed mandate — a new mandate that she is virtually guaranteed to receive?

Thirdly, there are also practical financial considerations. Postponing also means less significant BGM in Toronto – a missed opportunity to grab the media spotlight (since August is a slow month for political news). And it will also cost the party more to hold separate BGM and leadership races (assuming the leadership race allows for both remote voting and in-person, as it did last time) — that means a second general meeting. That doubles the risk of running into a general election. But more importantly, given the precarious state of party finances, it would be imprudent to unnecessarily add to the party’s already significant debt. Two general meetings is a significant cost. Planning for the Toronto BGM is already well under way and the costs to-date are running at almost $250,000. Registration fees start at $200 and run up to $400. Assuming $250 on average, to break even at $250,000 requires at least 1,000 members to attend — over 4 times as many as attended the last BGM in Pictou, NS. Holding a second general meeting means going further into debt and it means another fee to members (unless the GPC plans on bearing the full cost of the in-person leadership component). Not only will that discourage attendance to the in-person leadership component but it also limits the amount of money members can donate to the GPC, since both registration fees would be included in the $1,100 Elections Canada yearly maximum. So it should be clear that postponing the leadership race has significant financial consequences for the GPC.

I’ve outlined why postponing the leadership race is unwise for at least 3 reasons: (1) democratic reasons, (2) strategic reasons, and (3) financial reasons. There is a much better solution: (1) proceed with a summer leadership race as mandated, culminating in an August vote *and* (2) propose the by-law change at the Aug BGM, so that the term limit change, if adopted, applies to the next mandate.

Council must weigh the odds of 2 events: (1) the odds of May being defeated for re-election, and (2) the odds that members will reject the by-law change to remove the 4-year term limit. The odds of May not being re-elected are slim at best, but the by-law change could go either way. It’s a very risky gamble to take and not at all the prudent course of action. Moreover, it is also likely that proponents of the by-law change will use the fear of adverse consequences to cow members into accepting the by-law change. Blackmailing and fearing members into accepting a preferred change that would have significant long-term consequences based on exceedingly short-term considerations is wrong. A party lead by one of the most vocal critics of such strong-arm tactics by Stephen Harper would be ridiculed for its hypocrisy. GPC Federal Council would be wise to step back and look at the bigger picture here. I have every confidence it will do the right thing: not postpone the leadership contest *and* ask members in August whether they would like the subsequent leadership terms to be limited to 4 years or not.

Conservatives cancel Parliament — twice — to avoid being voted down.
Liberals don’t bother with a leadership race, crown a leader without a vote.
NDP flip flops to avoid an election vote because their polling numbers are down.
Greens change their constitution so their leader can avoid a leadership vote.

Apparently, democracy has become inconvenient for all of Canada’s federal parties.

I can’t decide whether the state of Canadian politics is apathetic or just plain pathetic…

As 2009 draws to a close, here are our current seat projections. There has been little change over the last month.

CONSERVATIVE — 38.9% (144 seats)
LIBERAL — 27.6% (87 seats)
NDP — 16.0% (32 seats)
BLOC — 9.3% (45 seats)
GREEN — 7.1% (0 seats)

See our 41st Election website for regional breakdowns.

(Note to Facebook readers: Facebook doesn’t format tables, so please hit ‘view original post’ and the bottom to see the formatted table)

With the Copenhagen Climate Change (COP-15) conference set to begin today, I thought it might be useful to get a sense where different nations stand, both in terms of their current total and per capita CO2 emissions, but also what they have publicly offered in terms of CO2 cuts. There are some slight variances depending on the sources, so bear with me — below is my best guess based on a number of sources. The other thing that complicates comparison is that different countries using different baselines, so I’ve included a column showing the equivalent cuts relative to the 1990 Kyoto baseline.

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say developed countries need to collecting reduce CO2 emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to have a chance of avoiding a greater than 2% increase in global temperatures (which is considered a breaking point). As you can see from the table below, only a few are offering cuts remotely near that — the European Union (20-30%), Japan (25%), and Norway (30-40%) are closest. But Japan might have trouble actually reaching its target. Australia’s 24% looks promising but it hasn’t yet passed legislation and much of its cut is due to concessions it won previously to count reductions in deforestation, so it’s a bit artificial. The U.S. and Canada are clearly laggards, offering what amounts to only a 3-4% cut. Considering Canada committed (and ratified) under Kyoto to a 6% cut by 2012, it’s clear Canada in particular is well behind the eight ball. China and India are significant players, but as developing countries they are not committing to absolute targets but rather merely “intensity” based reductions (this means their CO2 emissions will continue to rise as their economies expand, but not by as much).

Clearly, there is much work to be done to close the gap between North America and Europe, as well as bring emerging giants like China and India into the mix. It should be interesting to see how the next two weeks play out.

Notes
¹ 2008 estimate
² 2008 estimate (tons)
³ by 2020
⁴ per unit of GDP only (intensity target)
⁵ from 2006 level
⁶ from 2000 level

Various Sources
BBC
Pembina Institute (PDF)
Wikipedia
CIA World Factbook
Energy Daily