Are Canada’s Liberals Doomed? A Guest Post from Dr. William Margulies

Not conclusively, but there’s a good chance 2015 will not go well for them.

The Liberal Party of Canada has not had a good 21st century. Once the natural party of government, it last had a parliamentary majority in 2004, last governed in 2006, and has been steadily losing votes and seats since then. In 2011, it suffered a catastrophic defeat at the polls, winning only 34 seats out of 308 – none of which belonged to party leader Michael Ignatieff – and fewer than 1 in 5 votes. The New Democratic Party (NDP), Canada’s social-democratic/labour option and long the country’s third party, became the official federal opposition for the first time.

The Liberals enjoyed a brief revival in the polls under their new leader, Justin Trudeau, the handsome scion of one of Canada’s most consequential prime ministers. But tactical errors, Trudeau’s perceived lack of gravitas and an NDP surge have left Canadians asking whether the Liberals will long survive the upcoming federal election, scheduled for this October.

Continue reading

As a scholar of the liberal party family, I undertook a cross-national study of how liberal parties fare in competition with their rivals, especially conservative and social-democratic rivals. The purpose of this article is to apply these findings to the case of the Liberals, and try to answer two questions: 1) Will the Liberals do badly in October?, and; 2) Will they eventually go extinct? My research suggests that the answer to the first question is quite possibly yes, and the second is more likely no.

My analysis of the first question relies directly on my own research. My PhD focused on how liberal parties fare when their rivals move towards or away from them on the left-right issue scale. Liberal parties are often near the centre of this scale, and sensitive to such movements. My work drew on an article by Jack Nagel and Christopher Wlezien, which found that, in the postwar United Kingdom, the Liberals/Liberal Democrats were almost always between Labour and the Conservatives. The Liberals gained votes when the Conservatives moved away from them to the right, and when Labour moved away from them to the left. My work found that this was true for liberal parties cross-nationally, across 26 advanced democracies – including Canada.

Historically, Canada’s party system has not precisely tracked those of European democracies. In Europe, liberal parties suffered a long decline throughout the 20th century. Prior to this, they often formed the political left in an arena dominated by middle- and upper-class voters that excluded non-taxpayers or working-class voters. As the working classes gained the vote, they flocked mainly to labour or social-democratic parties. These mass parties usually came to dominate the political left, and the liberals, seen as less effective, bled middle-class voters either to the right (on class grounds) or to the left (on ideological grounds). To quote Ralph Miliband, one of the greatest historians of the British Labour Party, by 1924, “for those who did not want to vote Conservative, there was now no serious alternative to the Labour Party, just as there was no longer any serious alternative to the Conservative Party for those who would not vote Labour.”

The Canadian Liberals, however, did not experience this secular decline. Why? Brian Tanguay, writing in the 1990s, pointed out that Canada, unlike Europe (but like its southern neighbor), never witnessed “the dawn of class politics.” Patronage politics and Canada’s deep linguistic divide were always more important, so the Liberals remained the chief centre-left party, and the labour-allied NDP was relegated to the third place. So the dynamic was similar – a liberal party between a conservative and a social democratic party – but the relationship between the Liberals and the NDP was the reverse of the dynamic found elsewhere.

But that is no longer true. In 2011, the NDP won a landslide victory in Quebec, while the Liberals suffered a historic collapse. As such, the Liberals are now the third party between much larger conservative and social democratic rivals, more closely resembling the dynamic found in the United Kingdom (which Nagel and Wlezien studied) and other European countries.

Of course, this is only bad for the Liberals if its rivals move to the centre. But the NDP is in fact doing that. Its leader since 2012, Thomas Mulcair, is frequently defined as a centrist, and a major Canadian magazine even reported that he was courted by the Conservatives themselves. In terms of policy, though the NDP has proposed increases in the minimum wage and corporation tax, it has ruled out increases in personal income tax rates, and promised tax relief for small-business owners, “some of the hardest-working job creators in our economy.” My data predict this will hurt the Liberals – not necessarily catastrophically, but measurably. And in a first-past-the-post system, this may have the effect of encouraging left-wing voters to abandon the Liberals for the NDP.

So, suppose the Liberals are in trouble this year. Does that mean that they are in danger of disappearing or entering a terminal decline? Not necessarily. Even the rise of the working classes failed to kill off middle-class liberal parties entirely. The last several decades have seen liberal parties encounter widely varying fates. On the one hand, some liberal parties have suffered spectacular collapses. The British Liberal Democrats, having slowly recovered since the 1970s, peaked in the early 21st century, winning more than 20 percent of the vote in 2005 and 2010 and entering government after the 2010 election. The experience was disastrous; in the 2015 election they scored less than 8 percent of the vote and eight seats. The German Free Democrats suffered a similarly precipitous collapse after a stint in government between 2009 and 2013. The Irish Progressive Democrats did so badly in the 2007 general elections that they dissolved themselves two years later.

But these cases of collapse more reflect badly managed stints in coalition governments than they do a secular decline of liberal parties. In fact, many European states are seeing entirely new liberal parties emerge, as I detail here. Ciudadanos in Spain is an excellent example of a new and highly successful liberal party, as is Neos in Austria. Unlike social democratic parties, tied to specific institutions and class structures that are in decline, liberal parties have no such legacy commitments, and may be better placed to adapt to a more individualistic and fragmented social structure.

The Liberal Party of Canada does not look well placed to win the October 19th elections. However, whether that means it will never win another election after that is probably as much up to the party’s leaders and activists as it is to long-term trends in political science. The one lesson they can take from their liberal fellows is probably to avoid a coalition government.

Dr. William Benjamin Margulies received his PhD from University of Essex, and is currently at the University of Warwick. He writes about political parties and elections in Europe and elsewhere.

Federal election 2015: Kathleen Wynne wading into campaign

Published on Aug. 20, 2015, in the Huffington Post Canada.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has frequently waded into federal politics through clashes with Stephen Harper, but in the midst of a federal election campaign she isn’t easing off — she has jumped in with both feet.

“Maybe the personal animosity between Wynne and Harper — whatever triggered it — is governing both their behaviours,” Kay said in an interview.

Read more.

Élections fédérales: les conservateurs pourraient perdre des plumes au N.-B

Published on Aug. 14, 2015, in the Acadie Nouvelle

Si les élections fédérales avaient lieu aujourd’hui, le Parti conservateur du Canada au Nouveau-Brunswick en prendrait probablement pour son rhume, selon la projection de sièges du Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy.

Les conservateurs de Stephen Harper ont presque tout raflé au Nouveau-Brunswick en 2011 en ne laissant au Parti libéral et au Nouveau Parti démocratique qu’une circonscription chacun parmi les dix que compte la province.

Même s’il fera probablement mieux au Nouveau-Brunswcik qu’ailleurs en Atlantique, le parti du gouvernement sortant risque de perdre une partie de ses sièges lors du scrutin du 19 octobre.

Read more.

Is opportunity knocking at Trudeau’s door?

Published Mar. 9, 2015, in the Waterloo Region Record and Guelph Mercury.

Justin Trudeau has no policies.

Justin Trudeau is not ready for prime time. That is to say, he is too young, too inexperienced politically, and just too darned flighty to be taken seriously as a potential prime minister.

Trudeau has been hearing those allegations for months, mainly from the lavishly funded attack machine of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but also from ordinary voters who are attracted to the man but are apprehensive about his qualifications for high office. Continue reading

Of the two sets of allegations, the paucity of policy is the easiest for Liberals to deal with. They don’t know when the election will be, but they do know that if they put their major policies in the window too soon, they will simply attract fire from the Conservatives. So they are proceeding at a deliberate space, advancing concepts more than specifics. In Liberal strategy, details can come later.

For example, speaking at his party’s policy conference in late February, Trudeau sketched a reasonable picture of the economic direction a Liberal government would take. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom (who happens to be an economist as well as a journalist) described it this way: “This is Trudeau’s formula for the economy: Keep resources moving; embrace free trade; don’t raise taxes; spend any surplus on education and useful infrastructure.” As Walkom concluded: “It may or may not be correct. But it is pretty clear.”

The second set of allegations, concerning Trudeau’s lack of experience, are harder to deal with. By conventional political measure, his early resume is thin. He has two university degrees (and dropped out of a couple of other academic programs), taught high school, lobbied on behalf of environmental causes, and chaired the national youth service program, Katimavik.

He could have ridden on his name to an easy seat in Parliament. Instead, he challenged an established Bloc Québécois MP in the Montreal riding of Papineau and beat him in the 2008 general election. Now he has been in Parliament for more than six years and leader of his party for two. He is 43.

There are no established prerequisites for political leadership. When his father Pierre entered the Liberal leadership race in 1968, his detractors – many of them in the Liberal caucus and party – argued he wasn’t truly a Liberal and had never had a real job. He was a lawyer by schooling. a university teacher and sometime journalist – none of which added up to “real” work in the skeptics’ minds – before he became an MP, parliamentary secretary and justice minister, all in less than three years as his career was fast-tracked by Prime Minister Lester Pearson.

When he became prime minister, at age 48, he was known to most Canadians as an intriguing “swinger” – a bachelor who loved fast cars and beautiful women – and as the unconventional minister who had declared that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

In comparison to his father, Justin seems conventional, although perhaps not as staid as Stephen Harper, another politician with a skinny early resume. Harper came on the national scene out of the Reform Party in Alberta. A transplanted Ontarian with a degree in economics, he was a policy wonk and an admirer of American Republicanism. He worked with right-wing causes and ran the lobby group, the National Citizens Coalition. If anyone had examined Harper’s credentials back in March 2004, when he became leader of the reconstituted Conservative party, they would not have bet more than a dime on his chances of beating the mighty Liberals. He was not ready for prime time.

Yet two years later he was prime minister – at age 46. He’s won three elections and is on his way to becoming one of Canada’s longer-serving PMs.

The morale in all this: credentials are dandy and resumes are lovely, but opportunity is what turns mere leaders into prime ministers. It worked for Harper and Pierre Trudeau. It might work for Justin, too.

Has the Hill become a daycare centre?

Published Dec. 1, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record

Are there no adults in Ottawa these days?

The question is neither facetious nor entirely rhetorical. There are days when Parliament Hill resembles a giant day care centre more than the seat of serious government.

Where to begin? Well, let’s start with the bizarre episode of Peter Goldring, the Conservative member for Edmonton East, who last week to made his inane “contribution” to the controversy over alleged sexual misdeeds on the Hill by issuing a three-paragraph press release. In it, he referred to the two female MPs (unnamed) from the NDP who have accused two male MPs from the Liberal party (both named, shamed and suspended from caucus) of sexual abuse. Continue reading

The two New Democrats, Goldring suggested, had acted with “shameful indiscretion and complicity,” and he announced he was taking measures to protect his 69-year-old body from unwanted advances from females of socialist or other persuasion. He said he wears “body-worn video recording equipment” (apparently a miniature camera and recorder hidden in a pen in his breast pocket). He advised MPs who “consort with others” to follow his example by wearing similar “risk protection” to “prevent besmirchment when encounters run awry.”

Besmirchment when encounters run awry? I have no idea what idiocy possessed Goldring. He is no newbie; he’s spent the past 17 years buried on the Tory backbench, where he seems destined to remain. Within hours, appalled that one of their sheep had escaped from the flock, the Prime Minister’s Office retracted Goldring’s comments and apologized on his behalf. (Perhaps there was actually an adult on duty in the PMO that day.)

Next, the somewhat related and equally bizarre case of Massimo Pacetti, the Liberal MP from Quebec who stands accused of sexual misconduct by one of the two NDP members who cannot be named. The story is familiar by now. The MP who cannot be named played on a sports team with Pacetti. Afterward, they went for drinks, then she accompanied him back to the hotel room where he lives while in Ottawa. He indicated he wanted to have sex; she says she didn’t really want to, but she handed him a condom anyway.

Afterward, she went to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to complain about Pacetti’s vile conduct. Trudeau dropped the hammer on Pacetti while carefully not identifying the complainant or even her party. Last week, the woman went public, so to speak. She gave a series of media interviews – all on the condition that she, being a “victim” of sexual abuse, not be named. She gave her account of the encounter, including her provision of the condom. She insisted, however, that she did not give “explicit consent” to the sex that followed. (What the condom implied to her, we may never know. Oh yes – and she wants an apology.)

These people are supposed to be adults. They are not fumbling adolescents. They are the people who make the laws that govern our lives and our country. Why can’t they act that way?

Final example. A week ago, the Harper government, which has been accused of lacking empathy for distressed former military personnel, moved to defuse a scathing report from the Auditor General. A battery of cabinet ministers announced they would spend $200 million in a six-year program to improve mental health services for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other stress-related injuries. Just what the doctor ordered and what veterans groups had been hoping for.

But wait! When opposition MPs got to read the fine print, it turned out that the $200 million is to be paid out over 50 years, not six.

Veterans and opposition MPs were outraged. It wasn’t just the money that won’t be available for today’s veterans. It is also the deception, the attempt to make a great deal out of precious little. The kids would call it putting lipstick on a pig. That’s something they might get away with in day care. In the adult world, in government, it’s called lying.

 

Tories, Liberals unlikely to gain a majority in 2015 vote

Published July 24, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record.

There has been substantial commentary about the implications of late June’s federal byelections on the next general election scheduled for Oct. 19, 2015.

One of the story lines raised by the media was which opposition party is most likely to challenge Stephen Harper’s Conservatives for the most parliamentary seats, and hence the ability to form a government. However, a fairly consistent pattern in public opinion polls has emerged over the past year putting the Liberals in first place since Justin Trudeau ascended to the party leadership.

Despite the New Democrats’ role as official Opposition, and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s dominant role in question period, it appears as if more Canadians see the Liberals returning to their historic role as the natural alternative to the Conservative party.

The particular set of constituencies contested in the recent byelections is in no way representative of the nation at large. Three of the four are safe party sinecures. While Alberta might be changing somewhat from the solid Conservative fortress it has been, that is most likely occurring in urban areas, not rural seats such as Macleod or boom towns such as Fort McMurray.

Read More.

Barry Kay in Hill Times: Tories, Libs trying to knock NDP off their ethical ‘high horse’ over free partisan mailings: pundits

Published June 9, 2014, in the Hill Times.

Dr. Barry Kay was mentioned in a Hill Times article which discusses how the federal Tories and Liberals are trying to knock NDP off their ethical ‘high horse’ over free partisan mailings. Full article can be round here.

Will fear trump loathing on election day?

Published June 9, 2014, in the Waterloo Region Record.

“In a very real sense, a vote for Andrea Horwath is a vote for Tim Hudak” — Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, writing in the Toronto Star, June 8.

There, in a nutshell, is the issue that will, in my view, determine the outcome as the ugly Ontario election campaign — a wretched excuse for a democratic exercise — lurches to a finish this week. Someone will win on Thursday, although it can be argued that no one deserves to win.

Continue reading

For the Liberals, who seem to have a bit of wind in their sails in the closing days, the key to success is fear — fear of what would happen to Ontario if Progressive Conservative Leader Hudak (the man with “The Plan”) comes to power. For Wynne, this fear is a tool to make sure her Liberal supporters turn out to vote. And the same fear is a weapon to persuade wavering New Democrats to jump to the Liberals or, failing that, to stay home on Thursday lest they split the anti-Hudak vote.

Wynne did not mince words as she addressed voters in her Toronto Star commentary: “Like you, I am convinced that if Tim Hudak is given the slightest opportunity, he will destroy and dismantle so much of what you and I care about in this province.”

Strong stuff that, but this has been an election scarred by negative emotions — loathing of the Liberal legacy of scandals pitted against fear of the Hudak alternative. From this vantage point, it seems that fear may trump loathing.

I think Hudak made two mistakes. He played the scandal card too hard and too long without managing to convince very many Ontarians that Kathleen Wynne was culpable for the scandals that occurred on Dalton McGuinty’s watch. People wearied of all the scandal talk. Second, Hudak bet his political future on his “million-jobs plan” — an economic plan that experts panned and that Hudak himself was never able to explain to anyone’s satisfaction. All that the average voter could see was that Hudak planned to fire 100,000 public-sector employees, reduce some essential services, cut taxes on corporations and somehow pay off the deficit. It made no economic or political sense.

The NDP’s Andrea Horwath also made two mistakes. Having joined forces with Hudak to defeat the Liberal budget, she did not have an exit strategy to disengage her party from the Tories once the campaign began; she found herself playing second fiddle to Hudak’s attacks on Liberal scandals. Second, and more important, she lost her political bearings. By moving to the right (traditionally barren ground for socialist parties), she allowed Wynne to take over the entire left and centre-left of the spectrum.

The pollsters and pundits remain confused. Most pundits, though not all, declared Hudak the winner of last week’s leaders’ debate. He and Horwath kept Wynne on the defensive throughout the 90-minute encounter. Hudak stayed on message and he performed better than most pundits had expected him to. But he did not come across as being as likable as the besieged Wynne or even the aggressive Horwath, who lived up to her “Steeltown Scrapper” nickname.

It wasn’t much of a debate, and it failed to address such important issues as health care. In the end, I thought Hudak lost. He played well to his base, but he did not broaden it. He failed to dispel the perception that he can hardly wait to start slashing and burning at Queen’s Park. Kathleen Wynne comes across as a more sympathetic political leader, and that’s worth something at the polls.

The opinion polls are still unclear. There seems, however, to be some movement — although not a stampede, to be sure — toward the Liberals. Seat projections suggest another Liberal minority with a majority government, perhaps, being within the realm of possibility. If enough voters agree that a vote for Horwath is the same as a vote for Hudak, Kathleen Wynne will have a very pleasant Thursday evening.

Barry Kay Appears on the Morning Show on Global

Published May 26, 2014, on Global News.

Associate Barry Kay makes an appearance on the Morning Show to talk about the 2014 Ontario election. More specifically, Dr. Kay breaks down the Ontario election numbers and how the debate will affect the election. Podcast can be viewed here.

Barry Kay mentioned on CBC News

Published May 22, 2014, on CBC News.

Associate Barry Kay is interviewed on CBC Kitchener-Waterloo to discuss the importance of the Kitchener Centre riding in the 2014 Ontario Election. The Kitchener Centre riding is almost always on the side of the party that wins Ontario, both federally and provincially. Full article can be accessed here.

Building a Supreme Court with the ‘right’ view

Published May 26, 2014, in The Waterloo Region Record.

When someone comes to write the history of the Harper government, he or she will have to save a chapter for the strange saga of Stephen Harper’s clumsy attempt to pack the Supreme Court of Canada with conservative-minded jurists. Or, you might say, to turn the Supremes into a choir of the right.

I am indebted to Sean Fine, the very good justice reporter at the Globe and Mail, for pulling aside the curtain that normally shields the judicial-selection process from public scrutiny. Working with sources independent of the Supreme Court – no leaks there! – Fine uncovered two crucial lists.

One was the long list, prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Justice Department, of six potential candidates for a Supreme Court vacancy from Quebec. Early last summer, that list went to a five-member selection panel of parliamentarians – three Conservative MPs, one New Democrat and one Liberal. The panel did its due diligence, consulting with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, studying judgments written by the six jurists, and traveling to Montreal to seek the advice of leaders of the Quebec bench and bar.
Continue reading

The panel then trimmed the long list to a second short list of three names to be placed before the prime minister.

It was the second time in less than a year that the panel had been through this routine. The first time was relatively easy because there was a consensus choice, Justice Richard Wagner, a well-regarded, conservative-minded jurist from the Quebec Court of Appeal, and Harper appointed him.

This time, PMO/Justice looking for someone who could be counted on to support their anti-crime agenda, were unable to find a reliable prospect among the judges of the Quebec bench or in the ranks of the province’s senior lawyers. The most impressive candidate from the Court of Appeal was Justice Marie-France Bich, a former law professor, who was valued for her strong judgments and her streak of independent thinking. But was she sufficiently conservative?

The strategists at PMO/Justice could not ignore Judge Bich. They put her on their long list, but made possible for Harper not to appoint her by loading their long list with the names of no fewer than four members of the Ottawa-based, government-friendly Federal Court of Canada. This meant that when the selection panel cut the long list of six to their short list of three, there would have to be at least one candidate from the ranks of Federal Court.

And that’s how it played out. Judge Bich made it to the short list, along with two judges from the Federal Court of Appeal. One of them was Justice Marc Nadon, an expert in maritime law. Although the prime minister is not obligated to choose from the short list, convention dictates that he should. He bypassed Judge Bich to choose the semi-retired Judge Nadon.

The Constitution guarantees Quebec three seats on the nine-member Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Act accommodates the need for expertise in Quebec civil law by setting out special qualifications for these three. It was not at all clear last summer that judges from the Federal Court were even eligible for the Supreme Court; as it turned out, they were not.

When Chief Justice McLachlin saw the long list with its names of four Federal Court judges, she anticipated the problem. Following protocol, she contacted Justice Minister Peter MacKay. She did not, as Conservative MPs have alleged, lobby against Judge Nadon. Rather, she warned MacKay that four of his six candidates might be ineligible.

What MacKay should have done was to halt the process, tell the PM that their devious court-packing scheme hadn’t worked, and advise him either to appoint Marie-France Bich (the only eligible name left on the short list) or start the selection over again, thereby leaving the Supreme Court short-handed for another year or so.

But Harper would not have been amused at being told it was beyond his power to make the Supremes sing right.

Barry Kay appears on Global News

Published May 23, 2014, on Global News.

Barry Kay appears on Global News to discuss the Ontario election and how scattered the polls have been in the first few weeks of the election campaign. Podcast is available here.

LISPOP mentioned in the Waterloo Region Record

Published May 20, 2014, in The Waterloo Region Record.

The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP) was mentioned in an article related to the 2014 Ontario Election. Full article can be accessed here.

Public is conflicted, pollsters are bewildered

Published May 12, 2014, in The Waterloo Region Record.

The Ontario election on June 12 is one of the most unpleasant — and unpredictable — contests in recent memory.

There is no excitement in this campaign, no sense that a brighter future lies ahead. The emotions generated by the three principal parties are negative. There is disgust with the Liberals — disgust both with the scandals of the previous Dalton McGuinty regime and with the lack of contrition displayed by the Liberals currently clinging to power under Kathleen Wynne. Why can’t they say they are sorry, tell us how much their malfeasance has actually cost Ontario, and ask forgiveness for treating public funds with such contempt?

Disgust with the Liberals is matched by fear of Tim Hudak and his merry band of Tory slashers who would return Ontario to the days of Mike Harris — the era of cutbacks that produced the Walkerton tainted water tragedy, along with decaying infrastructure, hospital closures, shortages of nurses and doctors and the layoff of teachers at a time when what the province’s schools needed most was more teachers. No one — not even hardcore Progressive Conservatives — believes Hudak can create the 1 million new jobs he promises. But everyone fears he will do his darndest to eliminate 100,000 public servants, regardless of who gets hurt in the process.
Continue reading

To disgust with the Liberals and fear of Hudak, add nervousness and incomprehension about Andrea Horwath and her New Democrats. We used to think we knew what that party, as social democrats, stood for. Not any longer. In a seeming fit of political insanity, Horwath rejected a Liberal budget that was skewed so far to the left that it could have been dictated by NDP Central. What was Horwath thinking? Did she want to make Tim Hudak premier? Surely, she didn’t think she could win Queen’s Park herself.

We know Hudak has staked out the hard right. Having experienced Mike Harris, we can anticipate what to expect if Hudak wins — a Conservative administration wedded to austerity and minimal government. We have seen Wynne seize the progressive left, offering activist Liberal government more than willing to intervene in the economy. And Horwath and the NDP? They are now somewhere in the murky middle.

If the public is conflicted, the pollsters are bewildered. They are chasing their tails all over the electoral map.

Three major polls were published last week. At midweek, Forum Research reported that the Liberals had jumped ahead of the Tories (38 per cent to 35), apparently a reaction to Hudak’s promise (or threat) the week before to rid the province of those 100,000 civil servants. But a second polling company, Ipsos Reid, must have been talking to different Ontarians, because the next day it reported that the PCs were on the cusp of a majority, with 40 per cent to the Liberals’ 33 per cent.

On Saturday, however, a third pollster, Ekos Research, reported that the Liberals had opened a seven-point lead over the Conservatives — 37 per cent to 30. Ekos found that the Liberals had significant leads among baby boomers and among women voters while the Tories continued to hold an edge among pre-boomers (age 65-plus) and among male voters.

The various pollsters agreed on one thing: the NDP is out of the race. “Horwath’s party has cratered,” says Frank Graves, president of Ekos.

So if the race is down to two parties, how tight is it? Eric Grenier, the analyst who runs a poll aggregator called ThreeHundredEight.com, says when the three new polls and others are merged, they show a dead heat in popular vote with the Tories and Liberals both at 36 per cent, followed by the NDP at 22 per cent. Grenier’s seat projection, based on the regional distribution of this support, gives the Liberals 49 of the Legislature’s 107 seats, to 44 for the Conservatives and 14 for the NDP.

With the electorate so uncertain, the leaders’ debate on June 3 — nine days before the vote — assumes unprecedented importance.

Barry Kay appears on Global News

Published May 14, 2014, in Global News.

In an interview with Global News’ James ArmstrongLISPOP associate Dr. Barry Kay talks about the 2014 Ontario election campaign strategies. The full article is available here