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

I would encourage everyone to watch/listen to the Munk Debates on Climate Change today (Dec 1) at 7pm EST (click the ‘live webcast’ link in the upper left to follow online). The debate will revolve around this question: is this the moment for a bold international treaty to curb carbon emissions? Or, are the social and economic costs of reducing C02 emissions too high in a world where a billion people live on a dollar or less a day? Arguing in favour of an international treaty will be Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, while countering their arguments will be Bjørn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson.

By now, it should be clear to everyone that human actions are having a detrimental effect on the environment generally, and climate change specifically. So I would hope the debate isn’t about the science of climate change — and I don’t think it will be. But I suspect the PRO argument will be essentially outlining the apocalyptic scenario if we fail to get an international treaty, and I suspect the CON argument will revolve around the costs that an international treaty would entail. And that’s because the central question pre-supposes that an international treaty is the key to tackling climate change.

This is unfortunate, because the treaty becomes a proxy for underlying ideological views. And this is where the debate gets complicated. For those of us concerned about climate change, it seems natural to want to support another round of global targets. And those more skeptical or concerned about the costs will naturally not want a treaty. But this sets up a no-win, all-or-nothing scenario tied exclusively to whether or not a treaty gets signed or not, instead of a more productive understanding of what practical measures we can and should take now to tackle climate change.

To get to this more productive place, both sides of the ideological divide will need to shift their thinking.

On the one hand, pro-treaty forces will have to shift their thinking from top-down prescriptions (and you can’t get more top-down than global CO2 reduction targets) to bottom-up solutions. Committing to global CO2 reduction targets to some extent gives false comfort to those in favour of addressing climate change. It would certainly represent a political victory, but unless there is an actual implementation plan attached — created in partnership with provincial (or state) and municipal levels of government that have as much or more of a role in reducing CO2, as well as (at least tacit) buy-in from industries that will be most impacted — then the targets won’t be met. We’ve seen this movie before. In 1992 (Rio), the OECD committed to reducing CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels by 2000, yet CO2 actually increased by 12%. In 1997 (Kyoto), we agreed to cut CO2 emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2010, yet CO2 actually increased by roughly 25%. Clearly, it is easier to make promises than to actually implement them.

And on the other hand, the anti-treaty forces will need to shift their thinking from seeing solutions to climate change as having inherently negative impacts on the economy to seeing the vast economic opportunities that moving towards a more sustainable path offers. Those arguing against a treaty are often (though not always) arguing against taking any action, seeing that action as an impediment to economic growth. This is a narrow view. Check out former Green Party leader Jim Harris’s National Post column every week, in which he argues that going green is good for the bottom line. It is clear that changes are coming. Those who deny that will lose. Those who embrace and invest in a more sustainable future will win. Not all growth is good, and not all growth is bad.

I believe sustainability (in the broadest sense) is *the* major challenge of our time. But to tackle it will require us moving beyond simplistic debates about whether or not global CO2 targets are the key. We need to understand that moving to a more sustainable path represents an economic opportunity, not an impediment. And we need to move beyond top-down policy objectives to actual implementation plans that focus on bottom-up actions we can take now at local and regional levels.

UPDATE:
Having just watched the debates, I must admit that I was a bit disappointed. A good portion of the debate was spent arguing about the science, which was futile, especially for the audience. I thought the inclusion of Lawson brought down the quality of debate because he is a climate change denier, which forced May and Monbiot on the defensive about the science. I had hoped the debate would really be about the most effective ways of addressing climate change are, but instead the debate was largely about if we should address it (and I applaud May for making this very point). It seemed the audience was more swayed by the PRO side, with roughly 60% of voters supporting the question and roughly 70% of viewers thought the PRO side won the debate. As for the debaters, Monbiot was the clear winner, with roughly 45% of viewers saying he was the best, Lomborg was second with roughly 25% support, May third with roughly 20% support and Lawson clearly the least favoured at just 10% support. I also thought Monbiot made the most compelling case, largely because he appealed to people’s sense of justice and fairness, rather than rely on statistics (which is frankly not effective as an oral device — most people’s eyes glaze over when so many numbers are tossed around). Lawson rambled far too much and seemed rather dismissive of the other side. As one commenter said, “May seemed to a personal vendetta against Lomborg”, and at one point seemed to have her mike cut as she tried to talk over him and the moderator. Lomborg had at least a plausible argument in that he accepted climate change as real, but argued it would be more effective to spend money solving the problems created by climate change rather than spend money trying to reduce CO2 (which he seemed to think was futile). But I didn’t think he made a particularly strong case to back up that claim. Anyway, it was a useful to watch if only to remind myself of how far we really have to go.

We’ve seen a bit of an increase for the NDP over the past couple weeks. Here are DemocraticSPACE’s latest seat projections:

CONSERVATIVE — 39.1% (143 seats) current: 145
LIBERAL — 26.6% (88 seats) current: 77
NDP — 15.6% (32 seats) current: 37
BLOC — 9.5% (45 seats) current: 48
GREEN — 7.9% (0 seats) current: 0

for complete details see http://www.democraticspace.com/canada2009/

Disturbing news out of the Green Party: the GPC Campaign Committee has recommended to the party’s Federal Council that Elizabeth May’s leadership term be extended (update: to be more precise, the GPC Campaign Committee has recommended to the party’s Federal Council a constitutional change that would result in Elizabeth May’s leadership term being extended), from the constitutionally mandated 4 years (which would require a leadership vote by end of August 2010) to an open-ended “6 months after the next general election.” At issue is the uncertainty of the next federal election and the possibility it might coincide with the GPC’s leadership race. I’m frankly surprised the GPC would even consider doing this for several reasons…

First, it sends a terrible message that the GPC leader is seeking to desperately hold onto power (please note I am not saying that Ms May is desperately seeking to hold onto power, only that changing the rules to extend her term sends that kind of message). There are plenty of examples in the world of people clinging to power and I would think the GPC would not want to be associated with even a hint of that kind of behaviour.

Second, I would think that such a recommendation lies well beyond the Campaign Committee’s mandate which is to plan and execute campaigns, not change the governance of the party:

Understanding that a “campaign” includes a general election, a by-election, and any ad-hoc political campaign to build support for issues that further the strategic interests of the Party, the Campaign Committee plans and executes those campaigns. (GPC Campaign Committee Mandate)

Third, the GPC constitution is quite clear that the leader is elected to a four-year term (as May was elected in August 2006, her term expires in August 2010; she is of course free to stand for re-election):

2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected.
…
2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter. (GPC Constitution)

Fourth, extending the leader’s term would require a constitutional amendment and that requires a vote of membership at a general meeting (not a mail-in ballot, as is being proposed) (update: the GPC claims this gives them license to hold a special meeting for the sole purpose of extending the leader’s tenure, although I would be surprised if they went that route, since it would be poorly attended and thus seen to lack legitimacy, never mind the party doesn’t have spare funds to pay for a special general meeting)…

10.2.3 Amendments shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast by Members in good standing at a General Meeting. (GPC Constitution)

Fifth, how many times has Canada had a federal election in August?

Answer: Only 1 of 40 Canadian federal elections took place in August and that was 56 years ago (in 1953). So the odds of an election in the middle of summer are extremely low. Indeed, historically, August has been the least likely month of a federal election (tied with April and May). Two-thirds of Canadian elections have been held in June or the fall (Sept-Nov).

January: 2 times – 5% of the time
February: 2 – 5%
March: 3 – 7.5%
April: 1 – 2.5%
May: 1 – 2.5%
June: 9 – 22.5%
July: 2 – 5%
August: 1 – 2.5%
September: 5 – 12.5%
October: 7 – 17.5%
November: 5 – 12.5%
December: 2 – 5%

That there is so much uncertainty about the timing of the next GPC leadership race is puzzling, given how clear it is in the Party’s foundational document. Likewise, it has already been announced that the next biannual general meeting (BGM) will be in Toronto (Aug 20-21 or Aug 27-28, 2010 are the most likely dates), and traditionally, leadership votes are held at BGMs. So it falls to GPC Federal Council to re-affirm its commitment to the GPC constitution and announce/make plans for a leadership vote to be held at the August 2010 BGM in Toronto. Of course, it would be prudent to have a contingency plan in the highly unlikely event that an August election is called — and that’s pretty straight forward — if an election is called, the BGM and the leadership race would be suspended (in part, due to Elections Canada finance laws), in which case the vote could be held by the end of 2010.

But in any case, Federal Council would be wise to reject the Campaign Committee recommendation to extend Elizabeth May’s leadership term to the open-ended “6 months after the next general election”.

What do the 4 by-elections tell us? Generally, not much. The results are a mixed bag. The Conservatives, NDP and BQ can all point to positives (although not universally — while they improved in some places they went down in others), while there was no good news for the Greens and Liberals.

Pundits and media like to see by-elections as tests of party momentum, but this is largely fiction, since the deciding factor in how people vote is so much less about party (as is the case in general elections, when an average 80-85% of votes are party votes) and more about the local candidate, how many resources ($ and people) are put into it, and how effectively each party’s on-the-ground apparatus is mobilized. Moreover, the extremely low turnouts (from a low of 22% in Hochelaga to a “high” of 36% in Montmagny) are not a good indication of what happens when 60 to 70% of people turn out. We’ll have to wait to see how much money (and by association, people) each party put into each race, but I suspect we’ll see a wide range that roughly reflects the results. Below is a comparison of the % vote in the 2008 election (the first number) vs the 2009 by-election.

Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup
Conservative — 30.6 vs 42.7 (+12.1)
Bloc — 46.0 vs 37.7 (-8.3)
Liberal — 15.4 vs 13.2 (-2.2)
NDP — 5.4 vs 4.8 (-0.6)
Green — 2.2 vs 1.7 (-0.5)

Hochelaga
Bloc — 49.7 vs 51.2 (+1.5)
Conservative — 9.2 vs 10.1 (+0.9)
Liberal — 20.7 vs 14.3 (-6.4)
NDP — 14.4 vs 19.5 (+5.1)
Green — 4.3 vs 3.3 (-1.0)

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley
Conservative — 8.8 vs 45.8 (+37.0)
NDP — 12.3 vs 25.7 (+13.4)
Liberal — 8.4 vs 21.3 (+12.9)
Green — n/a vs 3.3 (+3.3)
(note: independent Bill Casey won with 69.0 last time)

New Westminster—Coquitlam
NDP — 41.8 vs 49.6 (+7.8)
Conservative — 38.8 vs 35.8 (-3.0)
Liberal — 11.3 vs 10.3 (-1.0)
Green — 7.2 vs 4.3 (-2.9)

The Conservative did well in Montmagny, while the Bloc under-performed, but the other 3 parties were not far off their 2008 results. The NDP improved in Hochelaga, while the Liberals dropped. The comparison in Cumberland-Colchester is not especially meaningful given Casey’s overwhelming victory in 2008, but it tells us that Conservatives came home to roost while the Liberals and NDP improved by roughly the same amount. The NDP (who generally out-perform their general election results in by-elections) did well in New West, while the Conservatives and Greens under-performed. That the Liberals (who generally don’t do well in by-elections) under-performed their 2008 results in all 3 of the “normal” by-elections (excluding Cumberland) is not welcome news for Ignatieff, but probably the Hochelaga result is the only truly worrying one.