i have no memory of 1988. but my understanding is that john turner was widely reviled by his own base and the inflated ndp support was more of a reflection of people not liking the liberals as an option, and swinging to the ndp by default. i think that might be more directly comparable to the 2011 election, which had the liberal vote collapse under widespread disgust with ignatieff. the difference was really quebec, right? if the tories swept quebec in 2011 like they did in 1988, the house would have looked very similar (i think the ndp did better out west in 1988 than they did in 2011). of course, it's absurd to suggest the tories can sweep quebec today, and it was an inevitable result of patriation in 1988.

and, i do think we're setting ourselves up for a sweep in 2015 that is going to look somewhat similar to the sweep in 1993. it won't be as bad. the right is not split (yet). and it's not clear if the sweep is going to be primarily ndp or joint liberal-ndp, within a certain range (the liberals are severely restricted outside of urban areas in central canada). but it's a similar dynamic.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/03/tbt-ndp-had-a-pre-election-poll-surge-in-1987-too/

Promich
Based on their records, shared appreciation for entitlement and corruption, and distain of climate science, the Lib-Cons are merging in the minds of many voters.

One could readily conclude that the right vote is indeed split between the Lib-Cons, thereby putting a lot of Ontario and BC seats in play for the NDP.

Election day will be interesting.

deathtokoalas
see, i think that narrative is about ten years out of date. in that period, the ndp has positioned itself as harper-lite, while the liberals are regaining their focus on what it is to be a liberal. but, as i've pointed out elsewhere, i suspect that we might see a lag in public perception that doesn't entirely correspond to the political realities of the ndp moving into the space previously occupied by the progressive conservatives.

promich
Ridiculous, unsupported claims with zero credibility.

Justin has a Big Oil lobbyist as a chief of staff (Cyrus Reporter), voted for weakening the Navigable Waters Act and is on record saying he supports the Keystone project without a proper environmental assessment.

Like Martin and Chretien, what it means to be Liberal is to wage a war on climate science. And yes, that is what Justin stands for, clearly. Why ignore the obvious evidence?

In no way have the NDP moved to the space of the Progressive Conservatives. The Bay Street media spin was that running a deficit is leftist somehow, ignoring the fact that Mulroney, the real Trudeau and Harper (in that order) created the biggest debts in history. It's an idiotic spin that you should be smart enough to see through.

Justin is also on record saying that an affordable national daycare plan is an unobtainable dream. Such a policy was promised in the LPC's Red Book from 1990 of course. There's a reason it's known as the "Red Book of Lies." What the LPC really stands for is hypocrisy, entitlement and corruption - that's the banner Justin carries. Every value the NDP is opposed to.

In his memoirs, Justin's father stated that his values aligned with more progressive parties like the NDP, but he joined the Liberals to access power and make change. Justin decided not to follow his father's footsteps, sadly. In the same position, Pierre would have run for the NDP.

You come across as a Bay Street media troll. I'm guessing their Lib-Con puppets pay your salary?

deathtokoalas
no. i'm an anarchist. i've voted for the ndp in the past. i've refrained from voting at all fairly frequently. i don't align with any specific party, and am leaning heavily towards the greens in this election, primarily on their opposition to the tpp. if i end up voting for the liberals, it will be because i conclude that the race between the liberals and ndp in this race is close, and i'd rather see marijuana legalized quickly. it's really the only meaningful difference in their policy positions, from what i can see. if it looks like the ndp is too far ahead for it to matter, i will likely vote green - or not at all.

chretien's government was one of the prime architects and drivers of the kyoto agreement. they put forth a lot of resources into studying how to deal with the problem, and came out with a fairly environmentally focused platform in 2008, if you'll recall. or perhaps you don't recall. trying to get off carbon is not a simple problem. it's something you have to study carefully before you can come up with ideas. that exchange between dion and ignatieff was very costly to the country, but what it really demonstrated was ignatieff's utter buffoonery. maybe we could solve world hunger over a latte this afternoon, and disarmament before supper, while we're at it.

i don't agree with the liberal position on these pipelines, but i believe that mulcair has what is essentially the same position (insofar as it's important to me - i don't care about refinery jobs in new brunswick). they're both going to try and build these pipelines. they're both fronts for the same interests. mulcair has openly stated that he wants to put environmental review processes in place so he can use them to reduce opposition. it's a pr strategy. trudeau is moving along with it because he's being told to, but he's also promising a lot of infrastructure to move forward. the ndp has not promised a dime for green infrastructure. they're just looking to maximize revenue from the dirty oil so they can spend it on the programs they want.

as a leftist, i understand that artificial scarcity in the money supply is a tool of class warfare, and while i'm aware that the ndp has brandished this tool what that implies is that they are not a party of the left, rather than that leftists balance budgets. i think we can print as much as we want. literally. i have no patience for austerity, or this argument that we have to live within our means. i'm interested in what our resources actually are, not the arbitrary resources that are placed on us by banking institutions. and, so when i see the ndp say things like that they're going to put off the increase in the health transfer until the budget is balanced, that upsets me - because i care about health care, and i don't care about budgets.

the provincial wings of the ndp under romanow, rae, selinger and others have taken positions that are punitive of workers and citizens in order to help bankers. the cuts in saskatchewan were very deep. the disaster in ontario was so bad that every major union in the province supports the ontario liberal party. the ontario ndp ran the last election trying to outflank the conservatives, by running on corruption scandals and tax cuts. it's a pattern. and, on issue after issue we see mulcair lining himself up in the same space on the spectrum.

but the big issue is tony blair. not thatcher, exactly. tony blair.

because, this is exactly what blair did: he positioned himself an inch to the left of the tories. just, almost indistinguishable differences across the board. and, he won on it, and then carried on thatcher's economic policies - and swapped out the faulklands for a much more damaging war in iraq, one he deserves to be tried as a war criminal for.

when thomas mulcair stands up and claims that he is trying to position the ndp as a new labour party with blair's "third way" as it's guiding principle and blair himself as his icon, that should be cause for dramatic concern to all ndp supporters, historical or present. because you know what?

tony blair was to the right of brian mulroney on almost every issue you could imagine.