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.