Ignatieff vaults Liberals into tie with Tories: poll

Barts · January 9, 2009

Have the Liberals got their groove back?

One wonders how Ignatieff and the Liberals would fare after serving for 2 1/2 to 3 years as the head of a coalition government.

The Canadian Press
Updated: Fri. Jan. 9 2009 3:12 PM ET

OTTAWA — A new poll suggests the Liberal party has bounced back into contention now that Michael Ignatieff is at the helm.

The Nanos Research survey, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, suggests the Liberals have moved into a virtual tie with the governing Tories.

Liberal support stood at 34 per cent, one point ahead of the Conservatives and up eight points from the Liberals' dismal showing in the Oct. 14 election under the leadership of Stephane Dion.

The poll suggests the Liberal resurgence was particularly pronounced in Quebec, where the party vaulted into the lead with 39 per cent support to 29 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, 17 per cent for the Tories and 14 per cent for the NDP.

The telephone poll of 1,003 Canadians was conducted Jan. 3-7 and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20.

A voter honeymoon with Ignatieff, who was hastily installed as leader last month, appeared to be the driving force behind the Liberal bounce.

Thirty-four per cent of respondents said they had a more favourable impression of the party since the change in leadership.

Moreover, 23 per cent said Ignatieff would make the best prime minister -- double the score previously won by Dion, although still 12 points behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

ToadBrother · January 9, 2009

Have the Liberals got their groove back?
One wonders how Ignatieff and the Liberals would fare after serving for 2 1/2 to 3 years as the head of a coalition government.

And thus will Ignatieff be tempted by the poison fruit; delectable yet deadly. Will he bite, or will he do the wise thing and give the Conservatives six months to a year to fall on their own sword.

DFCaper · January 9, 2009

And thus will Ignatieff be tempted by the poison fruit; delectable yet deadly. Will he bite, or will he do the wise thing and give the Conservatives six months to a year to fall on their own sword.

I don't think Ignatieff is that stupid. The Liberal party is in no financial shape to run an election campain. Even after Harper helped them save money with the leader appointment. Maybe this will finally pressure Harper to do his job, and lead this country. Best political news in a long time. Without it, I was seeing election threats being all that was going to happen in Ottawa.

Barts · January 9, 2009

And thus will Ignatieff be tempted by the poison fruit; delectable yet deadly. Will he bite, or will he do the wise thing and give the Conservatives six months to a year to fall on their own sword.

In my view, if Ignatieff will never be Prime Minister if fails to topple Harper at the end of January.

If Ignatieff lets Harper live, and Harper can control his worst tendencies, he should be able to govern until the economy improves. If he does that, he can legitimately call an election three years from now, run on his record (if he keeps it centrist) and win on the rhetoric that he guided Canada through its worst period since the Great Depression. He'd also likely win a majority. Then we'll see who the real Stephen Harper is. If he wins a majority, he'll govern until perhaps 2016 at least. Ignatieff will be 69 in 2016, getting a little long in the tooth to run again.

If, on the other hand, Ignatieff votes no confidence in Harper, he'll be the next Prime Minister and will govern until the economy improves, say three years from now. At which time, he'll claim credit for the improved times and likely win a majority. He'll govern to 2016 and beyond.

The notion that somehow the Liberals can regroup and rebuild from the Opposition benches is silly. The notion that they will pick the timing of the next election from the Opposition benches is also silly.

For the record, in my view the NDP and Jack Layton don't matter in this because only the Prime Minister matters in Canadian elections.

As for the public's disapproval now of the Coalition, three years from now--if conditions improve--voters who have notoriously short political memories and even less interest in politics will not care, and will vote to stay the Liberal course, as they usually do.

There are risks with whatever decision Ignatieff makes, but his safest course--the one where he has the greatest control over events and the fate of his opponent--is to defeat Harper, be Prime Minister for three years, then seek a mandate. Anything else is political suicide.

Furthermore, if Ignatieff topples Harper, Harper will exit Canadian politics, and there is no one currently in the Conservative ranks who can hold the Conservative Party together.

BC_chick · January 9, 2009

The more I get to know Iggy, the less I can tell the difference between him and Harper.

Seeing Harper's move to the centre after being elected and watching LPC gain support under Iggy, it's obvious that Canada likes its policians to govern from the centre. On an intellectual level, I understand all that.

Still, I miss the days when we had choice, even if the choice was merely an illusion which fizzled away somewhat when it came to implementing ideas into actions. The days when Cons were cons, Libs were libs and you thought your vote actually counted for something. Now our two major politcal parties are officially (for a lack of better expression) the same @#$, different pile.

Even though I've always been a supporter of the LPC for strategic reasons (I'm more NDP ideologically), my conscious no longer allows me to support the party for any reason. I used to support LPC to keep someone like Harper out, but what's the use if the only difference between them now is the packaging?

Seeing Iggy's gains in the polls, my place won't be missed.... but I don't see myself voting LPC for a long time to come.

Edited January 9, 2009 by BC_chick

Moonbox · January 9, 2009

The more I get to know Iggy, the less I can tell the difference between him and Harper.
Seeing Harper's move to the centre after being elected and watching LPC gain support under Iggy, it's obvious that Canada likes its policians to govern from the centre. On an intellectual level, I understand all that.

I'm inclined to agree with everything you said there.

blueblood · January 9, 2009

The more I get to know Iggy, the less I can tell the difference between him and Harper.
Seeing Harper's move to the centre after being elected and watching LPC gain support under Iggy, it's obvious that Canada likes its policians to govern from the centre. On an intellectual level, I understand all that.

Still, I miss the days when we had choice, even if the choice was merely an illusion which fizzled away somewhat when it came to implementing ideas into actions. The days when Cons were cons, Libs were libs and you thought your vote actually counted for something. Now our two major politcal parties are officially (for a lack of better expression) the same @#$, different pile.

Even though I've always been a supporter of the LPC for strategic reasons (I'm more NDP ideologically), my conscious no longer allows me to support the party for any reason. I used to support LPC to keep someone like Harper out, but what's the use if the only difference between them now is the packaging?

Seeing Iggy's gains in the polls, my place won't be missed.... but I don't see myself voting LPC for a long time to come.

It's been same @#$! different pile since Mulroney...

Barts · January 9, 2009

The more I get to know Iggy, the less I can tell the difference between him and Harper.
...

I used to support LPC to keep someone like Harper out, but what's the use if the only difference between them now is the packaging?

What concerns me about Harper--particularly after the fiscal update fiasco when he felt in a secure position--is what he would do with a majority. I think the fiscal update revealed to some extent the real Stephen Harper.

As for Ignatieff, it is difficult to tell the difference between him and Harper. The greater problem is that there is no way to tell who these people truly are until they govern from a majority. In my view, being left of center and socially progressive, the Liberals are the less risky choice.

BC_chick · January 9, 2009

It's been same @#$! different pile since Mulroney...

Kim Campbell and Chretien were the same @#$? How about Stockwell Day and Chretien? Or Martin and Harper? Or Dion and Harper?

Nah, as I said, maybe in actions they were *similar* (not to be confused with the same), but it seems even the official party platforms are now the same.

Besides, if you really believe what you say about them being the same, why are you such a staunch supporter of the CPC? If you really felt you have no choice, you would be ambivalent about things as all disilluioned voters tend to be (myself included).

BC_chick · January 9, 2009

As for Ignatieff, it is difficult to tell the difference between him and Harper. The greater problem is that there is no way to tell who these people truly are until they govern from a majority. In my view, being left of center and socially progressive, the Liberals are the less risky choice.

Excellent point.

DFCaper · January 9, 2009

It's been same @#$! different pile since Mulroney...

I agree... Same @#$!, Different flavour

I believe the parting of the far left from the LPC is a reason for it regaining popularity again. I always thought the NDP were the most important party as it keeps the Left wing wacko's out of a possible ruling party. And After the last election, I have seen the people of Canada prevent it with its strong rejection of Dion's Liberals.

blueblood · January 9, 2009

What concerns me about Harper--particularly after the fiscal update fiasco when he felt in a secure position--is what he would do with a majority. I think the fiscal update revealed to some extent the real Stephen Harper.
As for Ignatieff, it is difficult to tell the difference between him and Harper. The greater problem is that there is no way to tell who these people truly are until they govern from a majority. In my view, being left of center and socially progressive, the Liberals are the less risky choice.

Why not see how the tories govern in a majority? The same risk is involved (I.E. constitution and elections involved being the limits)

A majority is not the keys to the candy store.

BC_chick · January 9, 2009

I agree... Same @#$!, Different flavour

As I asked blueblood... if you really believe what you say about the two parties being the same for quite some time now (as opposed to a recent phenomenon), how do you justify your support for either one?

Is it the hair? The clothes? What exactly if not policy?

Edited January 9, 2009 by BC_chick

ToadBrother · January 9, 2009

As I asked blueblood... if you really believe what you say about the two parties being the same for quite some time now (as opposed to a recent phenomenon), how do you justify your support for either one?
Is it the hair? The clothes? What exactly if not policy?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I couldn't justify support for either one? Both parties are filled with arrogant power-hungry egomaniacs.

blueblood · January 9, 2009

As I asked blueblood... if you really believe what you say about the two parties being the same for quite some time now (as opposed to a recent phenomenon), how do you justify your support for either one?
Is it the hair? The clothes? What exactly if not policy?

THe hope that they follow their election platforms. That and Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitudes towards rural/western Canada were not to my satisfaction.

Barts · January 9, 2009

Why not see how the tories govern in a majority? The same risk is involved (I.E. constitution and elections involved being the limits)
A majority is not the keys to the candy store.

My concern is Harper. Given his performance in Parliament and his abandonment on almost every principle he ever professed, I cannot trust him. Also, his policies seem entirely crafted, not to help Canadians, but to serve his ambitions.

Lastly, until he was forced to ask the GG to prorogue Parliament by the Opposition parties, he was either in ignorant denial about the economic situation or a liar, perhaps both. In my view, Harper has shown he's not fit to govern.

In my view, it would be the height of folly to see how the Tories might govern in a majority.

Barts · January 9, 2009

THe hope that they follow their election platforms. That and Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitudes towards rural/western Canada were not to my satisfaction.

Trudeau is dead, Chretien as good as, at least politically. You need to judge the Liberals by the current leader and MPs. It's as silly to judge the Liberals by the Trudeau era as it is to judge the Conservatives by the Reform Party or the old Progressive Conservative Party. Times and people have changed.

madmax · January 9, 2009

...... judge the Conservatives by the Reform Party or the old Progressive Conservative Party. Times and people have changed.

Not much have people changed. Harper is same person who was in the Reform Party, Brian Mulroney and Harper were playing footsie not long ago, Chretian appeared with Ed Broadbent on TV, and Paul Martin was showing his face again.

The old guard is always around and politics doesn't change that much. Times haven't changed that much.

jdobbin · January 9, 2009

And thus will Ignatieff be tempted by the poison fruit; delectable yet deadly. Will he bite, or will he do the wise thing and give the Conservatives six months to a year to fall on their own sword.

As I've said a couple of times, Harper would have to go way out on a limb and act like a horse's ass to bring down his government. If he did that, I don't know that he could count on winning as confidently as he was with Dion. There might be anger towards the Opposition for the election but there should would be just as much toward the government and Harper if it looked like he engineered his own defeat.

Ignatieff has already made a move to shore up the organization with someone who can beef up small donations. This critical weakness will soon be addressed. The threat of losing the public subsidy might not draw an election but is likely to show that Harper is an ass with a bloated cabinet who has spent like crazy from 2006 till now and the only cuts they can manage is ones directed at their enemies.

Barts · January 9, 2009

As I've said a couple of times, Harper would have to go way out on a limb and act like a horse's ass to bring down his government. If he did that, I don't know that he could count on winning as confidently as he was with Dion. There might be anger towards the Opposition for the election but there should would be just as much toward the government and Harper if it looked like he engineered his own defeat.
Ignatieff has already made a move to shore up the organization with someone who can beef up small donations. This critical weakness will soon be addressed. The threat of losing the public subsidy might not draw an election but is likely to show that Harper is an ass with a bloated cabinet who has spent like crazy from 2006 till now and the only cuts they can manage is ones directed at their enemies.

I find it interesting that while Harper's fate will be decided by Ignatieff after the budget, he's not acting as if an election is one of the options. He hasn't ordered his party to prepare for an election. I suspect in the 2 1/2 hours he spent with the Governor General he was told that if he doesn't regain the confidence of the House of Commons, the GG will ask the Liberals to try and form a government.

jdobbin · January 9, 2009

One wonders how Ignatieff and the Liberals would fare after serving for 2 1/2 to 3 years as the head of a coalition government.

My thinking is that the party would still have been doing a lot of infighting over leadership. It might have been a rough time no matter who won the leadership.

One thing seems clear: Ignatieff seems better accepted by the party now than he might have been in 2006.

BC_chick · January 9, 2009

THe hope that they follow their election platforms. That and Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitudes towards rural/western Canada were not to my satisfaction.

Notwithstanding your concession that there was, indeed, a difference between the two parties, I guess I could safely assume that you would now consider voting LPC? After all, Iggy no longer represents the "Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitude" and according to you the two parties have pretty much been the same since the 80's, correct?

Edited January 9, 2009 by BC_chick

Vancouver King · January 9, 2009

Have the Liberals got their groove back?

Absolutely astonishing numbers. The same gamble of demonizing the Bloc in the course of saving his govt from certain parliamentary defeat has, as predicted here, blown up in Harper's face with an incredible Liberal surge in Quebec.

Let me be the first to spell this situation out: Harper is finished, his anti Bloc rhetoric has morphed into anti Quebec sentiment in La Belle province. Acting out his pathological hatred of the opposition during an unprecedented downturn now takes its toll everywhere.

It will soon be time for Tories to make the grim adjustment to life on the Opposition benches.

Barts · January 9, 2009

My thinking is that the party would still have been doing a lot of infighting over leadership. It might have been a rough time no matter who won the leadership.

I disagree for the reason that as Prime Minister, Ignatieff would have all the levers of power necessary to maintain party discipline and increase party support.

Ignatieff can do much more as Prime Minister to control and rebuild the Liberal Party than he could as Opposition leader.

Moreover, from a fundraising standpoint, a party in government can raise more money than a party in Opposition.

blueblood · January 9, 2009

Notwithstanding your concession that there was, indeed, a difference between the two parties, I guess I could safely assume that you would now consider voting LPC? After all, Iggy no longer represents the "Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitude" and according to you the two parties have pretty much been the same since the 80's, correct?

Except the Liberals have fools like Justin Trudeau and Pablo Rodriquez as MP's.

Still no LPC votes from this cowboy, the CPC still appeal to me.