Dan McLean, a politician?
 

Federal Liberals courting Dan McLean

June 05, 2009
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/577863

Will former CHCH anchor Dan McLean run for the Liberals in the next federal election?

The word on the political street is yes.

But McLean himself is circumspect.

He's been approached by the Grits; he's mulling it over; but he's also looking at other options.

"Let's put it this way, since retirement there have been a number of different suggestions and offers made, several of which I am considering," McLean said yesterday. "But to say I'm going to do this might be a bit premature."

If he takes the plunge, he's widely expected to do so in the riding of Ancaster-Dundas- Flamborough-Westdale, held by Conservative David Sweet.

But McLean, who lives on the outskirts of Ancaster, says there are other scenarios in play as well.

The search for candidates is heating up now that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is rattling election sabres over the Harper government's handling of the economy.

Though it's doubtful a mid-summer election will happen, the fact the Liberals have crept ahead in opinion polls does suggest they might try to topple the minority Conservative government sooner rather than later.

By any definition, McLean would be a star candidate for them.

After a 28-year career as anchor of CHCH News, he enjoys a high profile, huge name recognition, and deep-seated popularity in the Hamilton area.

When McLean retired in December, he was widely seen to have been forced out by the same cost-cutting wave that saw the departure of on-air host Connie Smith and others.

McLean, who publicly handled his exit with diplomatic aplomb, has been courted to run for more than one political party over the years.

"It's something I've talked about doing for a long time but, again, a lot of things have to fall in line before I make a commitment like that. It's food for thought and that's basically where I am -- I'm thinking."

Meanwhile, a well-placed Liberal source says another former CHCH employee is also considering throwing his hat in.

According to the insider, former Liberal MP and cabinet minister Stan Keyes has expressed interest running in ADFW.

Keyes, who lives in Waterdown, lost his seat in 2004 after 16 years in Ottawa when he contested the redistributed riding of Hamilton Centre with New Democrat David Christopherson.

At the time, Keyes supporters felt the former TV reporter should have avoided Christopherson and tried to win the Liberal nomination in his own back yard.

Be that as it may, Keyes, now president of the Canadian Payday Loan Association, says he has no intention of mounting a comeback, though he has been approached.

"I think it's time younger, fresher faces come on the political scene," he said.

The Liberals, who have been shut out in all five Hamilton ridings in the last two elections, see ADFW as eminently winnable.

They're probably right.

Sweet captured it from Liberal incumbent and longtime municipal politician Russ Powers by a solid 2,874 votes in 2006.

And he easily held on in '08, defeating second-place Liberal candidate Arlene MacFarlane-VanderBeek by almost 11,000 votes. But the largely rural riding also has deep Liberal as well as Conservative roots.

Before Powers came on the scene, it had been held by Liberal John Bryden for more than a decade.

Bryden crossed the floor to the Conservatives in 2004 after falling out with the Paul Martin camp over, among other things, the Quebec sponsorship scandal.

If McLean saddles up, he may very well be the guiding star the party needs to lead the riding back into the fold.

I have nothing against Dan McLean personally, but I don't think Hamilton is well served by continuing electing media personalities.

In what way? Are you saying media personalities are ill suited for elected office. If so, why?

I think Dan as a politican would be a good thing. He's been Hamilton's main voice for daily news for over 30 years. So obviously he knows Hamilton inside and out and has been a great ambassador.

Plus I would love to see Dan beat David Sweet.

o for gawd sakes. what's with Hamilton? we only elect former media personalities? Because we know their name?

We have no idea what his position is, where his opinions lie wrt urban issues? Whether he likes Hamilton or Mississauga? He was just a news anchor that read a script. You think those words he spoke were his words? News Flash!

He would suck. Seriously I've met him and conversed about sh** with him and he's not impressive. He's always just posing.

Well I think that realcity gave an answer I wouldn't disagree with. I never said that a media personality wouldn't be suited for elected office, but rather that Hamilton has had too many media personalities as our representatives and has not been well served by it. I don't know what the word is for rulership by media personalities, but I'm not keen on it.

Plus with Dan McLean, it's like, hey poor Dan got canned at CH, lets make it up to him by electing him MP. That might be enough for a Liberal fanboy like Steeltown, but for me that seems to be a poor way to select our representatives. Although, I suppose I will likely vote for Bob Bratina again so I am a bit of a hypocrite.

Would someone please list off all these "former media personalities" that have allegedly underserved us in public office? I can only think of four elected officials, past and present, that could be considered media personalities: Stan Keyes as a former MP, Jennifer Mossop as MPP, Bill Kelly as a former city councillor, and Bob Bratina as a current councillor.

Mr. Keyes was MP for over a decade, and served as a cabinet minister for several years, giving Hamilton a seat in cabinet, something we have been lacking since 2006. Jennifer Mossop served only one term before deciding to leave politics, but was a capable parliamentary secretary for the provincial government during that time. Bill Kelly served his ward well during his three terms as councillor before his unsuccessful run at federal politics. Bob Bratina is serving his consituency well, a better performer than most in our current council.

I guess it bothers me when someone's candidacy is written off because of some pre-conceived notion of what kind of people would serve Hamilton well. It bothers me more when the facts surrounding the preconception is at best weak. Specifically, I don't know enough about Dan McLean's political opinions to pass judgement on his abilities to hold the job. But that is something fleshed out during the electoral process.

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick here. It is possible there are many more media personalities that have held public office here that I am not aware of, and they have been ineffective in their roles. If so, please enlighten me with examples.

Dan McLean over the years has helped raised millions for chairty especially United Way and McMaster Children's Hospital. He has also done countless events in Hamilton, re-opening the Art Gallery comes to mind.

Sometimes he would replace Bill Kelly at CH Talk Live. From that you got to see Dan's personal opinions. I remember one espiode Dan defended Hamilton's image.

PR Stunts

He needed to defend Hamilton. How bad for his career if he didn't?

Bill Kelly was and still is a wreck... he just liked and likes hearing himself talk.

Seem to recall the knock on Mossop being that she was a parachute candidate. She replaced a weak, tainted Liberal candidate and took the riding in part because of her name/face recognition (20 years on local TV) and partly because the Harris/Eves Tories had rather worn out their welcome with voters. So Brad Clark (Harris’ Minister of Transport and Eves’ Minister of Labour during his four years as MPP) got bounced into the nonprofit sector (and, according to Wikipedia, a weekly show on CHML) before emerging in municipal politics. Mossop was a PA to two Ministers of Culture during her four years as MPP. Nerene Virgin, Mossop's intended replacement and another Liberal parachute candidate, is an Ancaster-based journalist (with CBC experience, like Mossop), though she was bested by the NDP's Paul Miller. Those examples don't necessarily speak to ineffectiveness in themselves, but I can see how they might strike someone as a comparative downgrade.

Stan Keyes was 35 when he first made MP. Can you imagine someone of that age representing the city today?

Or 29 -- Sheila Copps worked at the Spec before entering politics (MPP Hamilton Centre 1981-1984, MP Hamilton East 1984-2004).

Longevity makes all the difference in serving your constituents. It's not a guarantee of clout, but it definitely doesn't hurt. Someone who has 16 to 20 vital years to wholeheartedly devote to the game will benefit Hamilton more than someone who spends four chasing votes and taking notes. "Celebrity" candidates, whatever their field of origin, can wrest seats from other parties but they won't necessarily hold them. And single-term candidates don't tend to serve much except the appetite for political change.

Wow, Stan Keyes. Head of the Canadian Payday Loan Association. Awesome. I think part of this just boils down to if you are a Liberal fanboy like yourself and Steeltown. You'd have to be to defend Mossop's political career.

My favourite thing - or should I write "Ryan's favourite thing"? - about Stan Keyes is that he likes to talk about himself in the third person.

I think you are betraying your own personal political bias. Tell me, does your opinion about the effectiveness of media personalities extend to the likes of Peter Kent or Andre Arthur, or do you apply this logic to only one particular political flavour?

McLean files papers to contest Sweet's seat

Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 10, 2009)

Former CHCH anchor Dan McLean is throwing his star power behind the federal Liberals.

Yesterday McLean, 61, filed his papers seeking the nomination in the riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, held by Conservative David Sweet.

McLean, the face of CHCH's nightly newscast for 28 years, left the station in December.

He says he's entering politics because he feels his days of community involvement are far from over.

"If I can't do it on the broadcast side, maybe I can be helpful from the parliamentary side."

McLean, a longtime small c-conservative, says he wants to run Liberal because he doesn't like the direction of the Conservatives.

"I've got a close handle on a lot of things that are going on in our city and we need some representation in government with a voice."

Sweet says he works hard for Hamilton and he looks forward to debating McLean if he wins the Liberal nomination, which is still open to other contenders.

Life skills and experience
 

I don't care where they come from. Just as long as it's not another lawyer.
For too long you had to be a lawyer from Quebec to run this country and what did that do. Not to argue about today as the whole world is in trouble no matter what you have in place.
Oddly enough it was a media type that helped Alberta along (Ralph Klein).:cheers:

Kent ran the first time and lost. If McLean runs and loses and runs again at that point I would withdraw any objections. On Arthur, I don't know enough to comment.

It's not necessarily a bad thing to have training in law when your job is to help draft laws. :)

If not for its abundant oil reserves, Alberta would be a much different place. Thanks to its oil revenue, the provincial government can spend like a drunk sailor, maintain really low tax rates and still play at being economically conservative.

The downside, of course, is that Alberta is utterly dependent on its oil industry, no matter the environmental cost (and if you want an idea of what the apocalypse looks like, you need look no further than the Oilsands).

To the extent that the devastation being visited upon Northern Alberta (and the world through the Oilsands' extremely high CO2 production per barrel of oil extracted) is externalized, the bargain of Alberta oil is one big false economy. If they actually had to pay the real cost of extraction instead of dumping it on others and on the future, Oilsands production would be far less lucrative.

Watch for the fireworks once the US government finalizes its CO2 cap-and-trade system and Canada, as America's biggest foreign source of imported oil, is forced to participate.

Basic Life skills
 

I guess maybe some legal experience COULD be an asset. But just think for a minute how convoluted and dysfunctional our legal system is becoming. So many lawyers looking for so many loopholes to advance the gains of their client. Justice is not in the equation anymore. It not about justice for the people it's about gettting my client off, no matter what. Truth is not a factor anymore. So you can see that, maybe, at least my faith in the system is not so strong.
We need local leaders we can trust with basic leadership attributes and INTEGRITY. We over I. A whole lot of common sense would be nice. This I rate higher than any legal training.
A return to customer service over party loyalties could redeem any faith we have in our representatives.
Just for a minute put some thought into all the jokes about lawyers and politicians.
I thinks farmers and successful business owners have transferable skills, if you can run a farm year-round and manage all the planning, you can run any thing. If you can have a business and be responsible to generate a profit and look after your employees, you can run a department.
Just consider again the mismanagment of the ehealth issue. An outside consultant hired and awarded bonuses did not meet the obligations and was paid handsomely. So where was the common sense or proper supervision.
So to return; Dan McLean, may be a fine choice with all his community commitment/involvement. Not because he was a talking head. :tup:
So no matter what the background, may the best man(person) win.

LOL.... really

just like Chris Ecklund

A lawyer isn't in politics for the money can make $ more then politics

Dan McLean off and running for Liberals

News
Aug 21, 2009
http://www.hamiltonmountainnews.com/news/article/185726

Dan McLean was nominated last week in Dundas to carry the banner of the Ancaster- Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale Liberal riding. The former CHCH anchor said he would give the area what has been lacking since incumbent Conservative MP David Sweet was first elected in 2006.

“You have not had a strong voice in Ottawa,” said Mr. McLean.

Mr. McLean, after he met with most of the 75 people who turned out for the early evening event, said Mr. Sweet has been far too quiet over the years in his representation of the riding.

“Have you heard of him doing anything?” asks Mr. McLean in an interview. “The reality is I don’t hear from him at all. And I haven’t seen him in the riding.”

Mr. Sweet couldn’t be reached for comment.

Great news! This is my riding. Hopefully a 'name' politician can over ride the complacency that got Sweet re-elected.

Ummm ok, really outstanding Mr. McLean. Rather than stating why you would make a good representative, you simply make a generalized accusation of ineffectiveness. At least you could come up with something like "He didn't succeed in bringing the Southern Ontario Development Agency here". Instead just a generalized, but personal attack.

News flash for you Mr. McLean: David Sweet is not a "nobody" he does not "do nothing". He is chairman of the Veterans Affairs. Last Parliament he was vice-chair (ranking government member) of the Public Accounts committee (the committee that has oversight over government spending) and still sits on that committee. He also also helped many constituents, as well as securing funding for many local projects. He has done quite well on this front, despite the fact that cities like K-W has elected all tories, and yet he is the only government member to be primarily an advocate for our city.

As an government MP who has endorsed Light Rail, he is also a valuable individual to have in Parliament as we seek funding for our LRT project.

So to Dan McLean I ask: "How would you be a better representative from that".

It's one thing to challenge someone on policy, but baseless character attacks are just wrong.

please send this to the spec

Talk about vague generalities. Name one project, please. And no, not CANMET. That was a holdover from the Liberals. Do you live in his riding? I do, and I can tell you he has done SFA for our riding. He is also all but invisible, barely mustering the energy to show up to community events and gladhand people.

Good Lord, it's going to be a long campaign. Accusing your opponent of ineffectiveness is hardly a "baseless character attack".

No I don't live in his riding (and I dislike that term anyways, just because he represents it doesn't mean he owns it). And FYI I do know people in ADFW, some of whom have been helped in the course of his constituency work, and also another individual whose own MP did sfa for her, yet Sweet helped.

As for projects, where have you been for the past 3 years? Is CANMET seriously the only federal project you can think of? For example, three construction ready affordable housing projects in Hamilton just got 7.1 million in funding, the 3 million dollar investment in Redeemer University College (which despite being a private university, still has a role to play in our post-secondary system), 22 million also at the same time for McMaster University and the Eastgate Transit terminal funding (1.6 million) just to mention a few recent items for the riding and the surrounding areas.

Dan McLean would be hard pressed to do better. As a white-male from Ontario, he would be hard pressed to find a cabinet post, especially as there are many more Liberal MPs ahead of him, especially those who haven't alienated their own party by calling themselves a "small-c conservative". He will also have to spend the next three years building a rapport with his fellow MPs, just like Sweet did. (Sweet being chair of a fairly important committee speaks to the respect he has earned from his fellow MPs). In other words, Mr. McLean's influence will likely be less than Sweet, especially if the Liberals do not form government. (Or form government in a coalition with the NDP in which case "small-c conservative" liberals will be even more alienated from the mainstream of the party).



It is if you don't back it up with facts. For example: Tyler Banham accused Chris Charlton of being ineffective. He backed it up with her short office hours among other things. That had a base. Meanwhile Mr.McLean's attack (the way it was reported) had no base. It is the same as calling someone a liar, but not giving a single example of HOW he is a liar. I gave an example of something he could have used, but instead of bringing specific accusations and letting them stand or fall on their merit, Mr.McLean chose dirty politics. There's too much of that on every side this day, and I'm tired of it.

Even if we had no Conservative MP in Hamilton we would still get those money from the infrastructure stimulus money. Eastgate transit came from the Public Transit Capital Trust, which Hamilton got $1.6 million out of the $500 million pot, that's hardly a percent.

I do agree McLean won't likely become a cabinet minister if the Liberals form a government. That's why I'm kinda disappointed to hear Maria Pearson as a possible candidate for Hamilton East - Stoney Creek. I respect her as a councilor and I agree a lot with her stands.

But if we have a Liberal goverment it's likely Hamilton won't have any cabinet ministers from Hamilton. Should have a well known intellectual candidate for Hamilton East, it's the best chance for a cabinet minister.

Sweet was also at bat for Hamilton's quest for CBC Radio.

McLean just needs to keep talking like that and he'll lose.

Certainly didn't produce any result and he's on the side of the majority at the committee.

It takes a lot to get results. Some cities have many more MPs with the right connections working for them. For example K-W has 4 CPC MPs, including a junior minister. Whether intentional or not, due to the number of MPs in the government lobbying for them, K-W will get attention whenever it comes time for the Finance Minister to make a decision because he has four MPs including a Minister begging him, rather than just one. That's not to say that opposition MPs do not count, but rather that their words don't carry nearly as much weight with ministers as that of government mps.

It was that way under the Liberals (anyone remember PET giving the west the finger after not winning many seats out there?) , and it will be that way under the Conservatives. If the NDP got elected it would be the same under them.

You can't win them all. But all I was saying is that Sweet has not been absent or particularly ineffective, and I fail to see how stating that he is, as a fact, without any particular example, constitutes legitimate debate. If this is Mr. McLean's idea of debate then I suspect he'll have a hard time building connections and making friends on the hill outside of his own party.

Ever since the 60's, whenever the Liberals were in power, there was always a Hamilton MP at the cabinet table. If there is an election resulting in the Liberals forming government, and if there is a Hamilton-area Liberal MP, then Hamilton will have representation in cabinet, guaranteed.

For the record, PET did not finger 'the west' after not winning many seats out there. His famous salute was given during a train trip with his sons when, during a stop at Salmon Arm, a small group of protestors were shouting anti-French slurs at him and his family. Political opportunists manipulated this event to fuel anti-Liberal sentiment in the west during the runup to the 1984 general election.

Sorry I don't see Maria Pearson, Tyler Banham or Dan McLean cabinet minister material. Put a stronger candidate in the Hamilton East - Stoney Creek riding than perhaps.

Sweet's party has a majority at the Heritage Committee and it wasn't enough to get his own party members to support expanding CBC Radio speaks about his ineffectivness as MP.

Neither Pearson nor Banham have secured the Liberal nomination for any Hamilton ridings. I don't even think Pearson has indicated whether she is going to seek the nomination in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

Doubt it. Hamilton got Liberal cabinet ministers because we delivered 5 MPs or more (when you count the area that falls in our media market) to the Liberals consistently. If there is a Liberal-NDP coalition we might stand a small chance of getting a Minister, but regional representation might mean that Christopherson would not get a post either. Right now Hamilton suffers from being ringed by Cabinet Ministers (Diane Finley, Gary Goodyear, Lisa Raitt, and Rob Nicholson), so that until one leaves, we do not stand a chance for one.

Oh and for the record. I was not JUST talking literally. Anyone recall the NEP? Among many other things the westerners had good reason to be pissed at PET and the Liberals for ignoring their interests.

First off: Sweet does not sit on that committee. That is a handicap to start with, when lobbying for it to expand the CBC to Hamilton.

Second: The CBC is currently under review on many fronts with respect to what it's future holds, likely we would not see any decision being made on a Hamilton station until after it is known what shape the CBC will take in the future.

Third: Your counting is wrong. The Committee is 6 Government and 6 Opposition MPs. The Chair of the committee is a government MP and therefore voting membership of the committee is 6-5 in favour of the opposition. None of the MPs on the committee are remotely close geographically to Hamilton either.

While for the above reasons I disagree with you assessment, I'm happy that at least your statement had some logic to it rather than Mr. McLean's.

When the house is in session you have weekly meetings with the caucus, you have retreats, and of course parties. I'm sure he had plenty of time to meet and discuss with committee members about supporting CBC Radio, which they voted down. I've heard more from Christopherson on this front than I did with Sweet.

Likely a much smaller CBC. http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=1426856

All the conervatives voted down expanding CBC Radio. A party Sweet is with. It's no secret the Conservatives, especially Harper, look down at the media, including CBC.

I'm afraid it is your counting that is wrong in this case. The committee chair is Marlene Catterall, a Liberal MP. It is common in minority government situations for committees to be chaired by a member of the opposition so that the governing party retains majority votes in a committee. Voting membership for this committee is in favour of the current governing party.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusi...&Parl=40&Ses=2

Not true. In 1974 Hamilton area had only two sitting Liberals, and one was appointed to cabinet. In 1980, Hamilton delivered only one Liberal, who was appointed a cabinet minister. In 2004, while only three Liberals were elected in Hamilton, two were appointed to cabinet. Since the start of the Trudeau era, practically every Liberal government has always had a Liberal MP from Hamilton in its cabinet. End of.

Chair
Gary Ralph Schellenberger

Vice-Chairs
Carole Lavallée Pablo Rodriguez

Members
Charlie Angus Rod Bruinooge Dean Del Mastro Ruby Dhalla Shelly Glover Nina Grewal Roger Pomerleau Scott Simms Tim Uppal

I don't know which committee you are talking about, but the Heritage committee membership is listed on the Parliament's site is what I have posted above.

While you have selectively chosen low points for the Liberals in declaring their high priority for Hamilton Cabinet ministers, you ignore that many times in close proximity to these elections, solid Liberal slates were returned. Witness the 90's and early 00's. Now that the Liberals know they only have decent chances at a maximum of two local ridings (ADFW and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek) they might not be so willing to hand over a cabinet post (especially if Liberal veterans and stars win in nearby ridings).

On a side note the Liberal prospects in 3 of the 5 Hamilton ridings are very low. Hamilton Centre will stick with Christopherson for the foreseeable future, and likewise with Niagara West-Glanbrook and the Conservatives. Hamilton Mountain would normally be fertile ground, but a strong NDP MP and a surprisingly resilient Conservative campaign forced Banham into third place last time, despite extensive friendly media coverage. It is for that reason I seriously doubt liberal fortunes on the Mountain.

See now you're debating policy rather than whether or not he's effective.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of the government run CBC anyways. I'd much prefer to see a PBS style system, with some for-profit speciality channels subsidizing the community channels. And I'm not a fan of the media as a whole. Surveys have consistently shown that journalists in the US and Canada tend to be left wing much more than your average citizen. While most do try and maintain a balanced reporting, this bias makes them liable to buy into garbage such as the "hidden agenda" purported by Liberal Party (anyone remember that Stephen Harper was supposed to be imposing martial law on us?) and the Waffer-gate scandal (which was repeated by journalists who never bothered to fact check and notice the original article was doctored). To their credit, the journalists I'm talking about, don't originate this crud but merely jump on the bandwagon as it conforms to their preconceived notions as to who Stephen Harper is and what the CPC is.

Apologies I was looking at a previous committee list and got the chair wrong. Nibbling on a crow's wing as I type this...

With regards to cabinet representation under a future Liberal government, we can bounce comments back and forth on this one continuously. From historical observation, I am certain that there will be a seat for Hamilton in a future Liberal Cabinet as long as there is one Liberal elected in a Hamilton riding. Guess we'll need to wait a few more months before we get a definitive answer on this one.

As far as Liberal 'winnibility' goes, the results of the past election should not be treated as an influencer on the next election. The 2008 Liberal campaign was an anomaly marked by an ineffective leader, a lack of campaign finances, and an extremely disorganized Liberal campaign team. None of those elements will be present for the Liberals in the next campaign. And none of the Hamilton seats should ever be considered 'safe' seats for any party.

No problem about the confusion, at first I was worried that I had looked at the wrong list until I checked things.

With respect to winnability, personally I feel that Hamilton Centre is just too solid. It's truly a "safe" NDP seat. (Ditto for NWG for CPC). Hamilton Mountain I just consider very unlikely. Simply put, Anderson and Charlton are strong candidates. Considering that Anderson was basically ignored by the media last time (who looked to the previous election and predicted a Banham-Charlton battle), he should stand a better chance this time. That said, the Liberals have a better chance to improve this campaign. But I think the hurdles on the Mountain are too great to overcome unless the Liberals move close to majority territory (and vice-versa for Anderson's chances of actually winning the riding)

From Canada Press

Conservatives and Liberals might want to think twice before plunging the country into another fall election, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates the two main federal parties remain locked in a dead heat, neither within range of winning a majority.
According to the poll, the parties were in a statistical tie, with 32 per cent support for the Liberals and 31 per cent for the Tories.
The NDP were at 16 per cent, the Greens at 11, and the Bloc Quebecois at nine.
------------
Where is the Green base coming from? The NDP always are at the 12-19% range. Either way it's comforting to know that the NDP will never win, not now with a growing Green even if it sustains double digits.

The Greens are experincing a surge of popularity in BC right now, with 24% of the popular vote in this poll. BC is a political four-way tie in the polls right now, with the Conservativs at 28%, the NDP at 26%, The Greens at 24% and The Liberals at 20%, all within the margin of error for the sample size. This is pushing up its overall numbers nationally. However, the Greens are also up to 10% in Ontario and Quebec. In Quebec, they are in a statistical tie with the CPC and NDP for that province's popular vote.

The next election is going to be very interesting. Majority governments look to be a thing of the past for us. With five significant political parties nationally, I expect coalition governments to become the order of the day for Canada. IMO that's a good thing.

WOW BC

So the Greens are taking votes from the NDP and Lib base. Yah!

The Liberals will still get slaughtered in the West. Their focus is Ontario and history has shown that whenever we have a Liberal Premiere, Ontario votes Tory Federally and visa versa.

I'd say the Greens are also taking base votes from Cons, particularly Red Tories.

Don't know if the Lib/PC Fed/prov relationship still exists. Hasn't really played out the last couple elections to the degree it used to. This same poll has the Libs over the Cons in Ontario by a 6-point spread. Ontario's polling at Libs 40%, CPC 34%, NDP 13% and Greens 10%. NDP is tanking in Ontario, which is why I maintain that no Hamilton seat is a safe seat for the incumbant.