Canadian Political Polls

capricorn · April 29, 2010

The CPC hasn't really recovered the numbers they had prior to the furor surrounding December prorogation.

True. What will it take for the Liberals to finally overtake the Tories in the polls? A new leader might help. Some Liberal bloggers are blaming Ignatieff, who can't seem to connect with Canadians in spite of being leader for over a year.

capricorn · April 29, 2010

Trying to make what amounts to at most a two point spread past the margin of error as a positive sign for the Tories.

Let me spin it another way. It's not exactly a negative sign for the Tories that they're not trailing in the polls, right? I mean, they're still ahead are they not? So if it's not negative then it must be positive. When I think of negative with regard to polls, I think of Ignatieff who seems unsuited for the politics game. With improved leadership, the Liberals would probably have way better numbers.

Jerry J. Fortin · April 29, 2010

Let me spin it another way. It's not exactly a negative sign for the Tories that they're not trailing in the polls, right? I mean, they're still ahead are they not? So if it's not negative then it must be positive. When I think of negative with regard to polls, I think of Ignatieff who seems unsuited for the politics game. With improved leadership, the Liberals would probably have way better numbers.

Iggy has not been tested as a leader yet. He soon will be, and the result will determine his future in politics.

capricorn · April 30, 2010

Iggy has not been tested as a leader yet. He soon will be, and the result will determine his future in politics.

I suppose you're referring to his test as leader in a general election? That will be a test of his mettle when he attempts to sell the Liberals as an alternative to the present government. Speaking for myself, I used to vote Liberal. I won't say support Liberals because I really did not pay attention to politics back then. Life seemed good with the Liberals in charge so why change my vote? Then came Adscam and other Liberal sins. I bolted to the Conservatives and started paying attention to politics. Now what I'm seeing is a Liberal Party and Ignatieff decry every action taken by the Conservatives, including accusations of condoning the torture of Afghan prisoners, but doing nothing to defeat them. What principles would sway the Liberals to at least attempt to deliver the country from the scourge they believe the Conservatives to be? What gives here? At this time there is no compelling reason for me drift back to the Liberals. To the contrary, the Liberals appear to be veering to the left perhaps to win over NDP voters. Quite possibly, my experience is similar to that of many mainstream Canadians and this may be why the Liberals are unable to gain traction in the polls.

ToadBrother · April 30, 2010

Let me spin it another way. It's not exactly a negative sign for the Tories that they're not trailing in the polls, right? I mean, they're still ahead are they not? So if it's not negative then it must be positive. When I think of negative with regard to polls, I think of Ignatieff who seems unsuited for the politics game. With improved leadership, the Liberals would probably have way better numbers.

There is another direction, and that's going nowhere. The Liberals and Tories pop up and down. The only strength the Tories have, such as it is, is Liberal weakness. Their own weakness is a leader who is too clever by half, who takes ridiculous risks with no real pay off. What was the point of last December's prorogation, if, at the end of the day, they're going to release unredacted documents anyways (after forcing the Speaker to hand down a decision they had to know was inevitable)? Prior to the prorogation the Tories were in the high 30s, and they blew it, and now it's clear, they did it for nothing at all.

The problem here is you seem to want to find a winner and a loser, so far as I can tell the only winner here is the Bloc. Way to go Harper and Iggy.

capricorn · April 30, 2010

The Liberals and Tories pop up and down.

I think that is a measure of the volatility that exists presently with the electorate. At this point, it's a toss up as to what an election could bring.

The only strength the Tories have, such as it is, is Liberal weakness.

Ignatieff is a disaster. On the other hand, you're discounting the pluses that the Tories have racked up, such as a rebounding economy. Bread and butter issues are still high in the minds of Canadians.

Their own weakness is a leader who is too clever by half, who takes ridiculous risks with no real pay off.

I too have been confounded by some of Harper's moves. I've stopped trying to make sense of it. The closest I have come to interpreting his motive is that he is going for the long game, i.e. eroding the Liberal brand. That strategy could blow up in his face but he appears to be willing to go for broke.

What was the point of last December's prorogation, if, at the end of the day, they're going to release unredacted documents anyways (after forcing the Speaker to hand down a decision they had to know was inevitable)? Prior to the prorogation the Tories were in the high 30s, and they blew it, and now it's clear, they did it for nothing at all.

Not for nothing I think. He may be wagering that Canadians will buy into the national security angle and forgive him for putting it high on his agenda. Conservative speakers have been talking up national security as their motive for reticence at disclosing the material. Notice how conciliatory they have become on the issue.

The problem here is you seem to want to find a winner and a loser, so far as I can tell the only winner here is the Bloc. Way to go Harper and Iggy.

Quebecers, especially francophone Quebecers, are a hot tempered lot. I'm French Canadian so I can relate. :lol: They seem to react more viscerally and quickly when rubbed the way than folks in the ROC. The Bloc may score 45% in the polls today but in the voters booth, Quebecers are more pragmatic.

Handsome Rob · April 30, 2010

I suppose you're referring to his test as leader in a general election? That will be a test of his mettle when he attempts to sell the Liberals as an alternative to the present government. Speaking for myself, I used to vote Liberal. I won't say support Liberals because I really did not pay attention to politics back then. Life seemed good with the Liberals in charge so why change my vote? Then came Adscam and other Liberal sins. I bolted to the Conservatives and started paying attention to politics. Now what I'm seeing is a Liberal Party and Ignatieff decry every action taken by the Conservatives, including accusations of condoning the torture of Afghan prisoners, but doing nothing to defeat them. What principles would sway the Liberals to at least attempt to deliver the country from the scourge they believe the Conservatives to be? What gives here? At this time there is no compelling reason for me drift back to the Liberals. To the contrary, the Liberals appear to be veering to the left perhaps to win over NDP voters. Quite possibly, my experience is similar to that of many mainstream Canadians and this may be why the Liberals are unable to gain traction in the polls.

I fit that mold precisely, I agree with you're analysis.

Call it FisCSoL, I'll defend you're right to do it, but don't expect me to pay for it.

Jerry J. Fortin · April 30, 2010

I was a Liberal for years. Then I woke up. I am an avowed independent now, I support no specific party and will vote for whomever I chose to.

Keepitsimple · April 30, 2010

I was a Liberal for years. Then I woke up. I am an avowed independent now, I support no specific party and will vote for whomever I chose to.

....and that for the most part, is the way it should be. Although we get a lot of partisanship on this board, I'd like to think that the majority of Canadians are not exclusively tied for life to one party and could consider themselves independent or at least non-partisan. Having said that, I think that many Canadians, as they get older (45+), start to feel more comfortable with the basic philosophies of a particular party. But even with that, there can be fundamental changes to parties that could shake a partisan loose. With the Liberals, it's simply that they have lost their way - too many "leaders", too few policies and principles. With the Conservatives, some might think they are drifting too far to the center - although luckily for them, those on the Right have nowhere else to go. The NDP seem to have recovered from Buzz Hargrove's defection to the Liberals - but that was a potential game-changer for them in losing the vote of the Unions. In summary, I think it's safe to say that more and more Canadians are starting to cast their vote with a "what have you done for me/us lately" attitude.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Keepitsimple

Jerry J. Fortin · April 30, 2010

....and that for the most part, is the way it should be. Although we get a lot of partisanship on this board, I'd like to think that the majority of Canadians are not exclusively tied for life to one party and could consider themselves independent or at least non-partisan. Having said that, I think that many Canadians, as they get older (45+), start to feel more comfortable with the basic philosophies of a particular party. But even with that, there can be fundamental changes to parties that could shake a partisan loose. With the Liberals, it's simply that they have lost their way - too many "leaders", too few policies and principles. With the Conservatives, some might think they are drifting too far to the center - although luckily for them, those on the Right have nowhere else to go. The NDP seem to have recovered from Buzz Hargrove's defection to the Liberals - but that was a potential game-changer for them in losing the vote of the Unions. In summary, I think it's safe to say that more and more Canadians are starting to cast their vote with a "what have you done for me/us lately" attitude.

My generation are now retiring in droves. There will be a paradigm shift in political policies because of it. The danger of course is steady swing left or a steady swing right. Ideologies are fun to consider and play with, but the reality of politics is far different. Once the elections are over, its just a government doing day to day things to keep the lights on and the citizens happy.

I think that the future of politics in this nation will be focused on provincial politics. The rise and evolution of confederation "Canadian style" is where things are going. Quebec was the leader in this, but they will not be alone. Alberta is making lots of noise already and more will follow over time.

Smallc · April 30, 2010

Alberta is making lots of noise already and more will follow over time.

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the two most whiny provinces emulate each other. The rest of us will just keep living our lives, not thinking we're hard done by.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Smallc

Jerry J. Fortin · April 30, 2010

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the two most whiny provinces emulate each other. The rest of us will just keep living our lives, not thinking we're hard done by.

There are indeed lots of sheeple in Canada. You know the kind, the blind followers who take the easy road because they can. The folks that take this path lack courage and foresight. These are the people who would have a nice and safe static political environment. They are the same group of folks who argued against Churchill in the 30's. Appeasement is a foolish policy direction to take that can and has cost lives.

The only thing certain in politics is change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not, yet it is in fact certain. That is how the world works. Change is certain, you can bank on it.

It is interesting to see people calling others whiners for simply stating their views. Rather arrogant and even delusional in the view that they can sit in judgment of others for speaking their mind. Not exactly a shining example of the Canadian ability to respect the differences of people and revel in them as a positive diversion from the norms of our insulated lives.

Yet that is their right, and I respect that.

bloodyminded · April 30, 2010

There are indeed lots of sheeple in Canada. You know the kind, the blind followers who take the easy road because they can. The folks that take this path lack courage and foresight. These are the people who would have a nice and safe static political environment. They are the same group of folks who argued against Churchill in the 30's. Appeasement is a foolish policy direction to take that can and has cost lives.

The only thing certain in politics is change. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not, yet it is in fact certain. That is how the world works. Change is certain, you can bank on it.

It is interesting to see people calling others whiners for simply stating their views. Rather arrogant and even delusional in the view that they can sit in judgment of others for speaking their mind. Not exactly a shining example of the Canadian ability to respect the differences of people and revel in them as a positive diversion from the norms of our insulated lives.

Yet that is their right, and I respect that.

I see what you're saying, but I think many Canadians share the perspective that two of our big provinces whine a lot. We saw it with Quebec for years (and Albertans happily joined in--and still do--in criticizing this phenomenon), and now we're seeing it with Alberta as well.

Jerry J. Fortin · April 30, 2010

I see what you're saying, but I think many Canadians share the perspective that two of our big provinces whine a lot. We saw it with Quebec for years (and Albertans happily joined in--and still do--in criticizing this phenomenon), and now we're seeing it with Alberta as well.

In my mind each province is distinct. I like that! Each has their good sides and their bad. Then there is the federal government, it is suppose to be the bridge that provides the means for like minded folks to form a union that makes us a nation. The bridge is old and need of repair, we can all see that but we don't seem to do much about it. I would prefer a newer bridge, but I can live with just fixing the old one. It would be cheaper and it would preserve a political landmark which is something else I can live with. This nation was once proud and free, and I would like to see it that way again. Yet I am ready to pull up stakes and move to greener pastures if need be.

The nation requires care and attention, which some people declare to be whining. A nation is not a static feature, it is a dynamic relationship that like any other relationship requires maintenance. The rise of vocal opposition to programs, policies and services should be viewed in a light that is positive, not negative. Those voices seek to not merely preserve and protect but enhance and strengthen the nation. Those voices do not seek to tear down but instead to build up. It is far easier to destroy something than to create it, and those voices desire to create.

bloodyminded · April 30, 2010

In my mind each province is distinct. I like that! Each has their good sides and their bad. Then there is the federal government, it is suppose to be the bridge that provides the means for like minded folks to form a union that makes us a nation. The bridge is old and need of repair, we can all see that but we don't seem to do much about it. I would prefer a newer bridge, but I can live with just fixing the old one. It would be cheaper and it would preserve a political landmark which is something else I can live with. This nation was once proud and free, and I would like to see it that way again. Yet I am ready to pull up stakes and move to greener pastures if need be.

The nation requires care and attention, which some people declare to be whining. A nation is not a static feature, it is a dynamic relationship that like any other relationship requires maintenance. The rise of vocal opposition to programs, policies and services should be viewed in a light that is positive, not negative. Those voices seek to not merely preserve and protect but enhance and strengthen the nation. Those voices do not seek to tear down but instead to build up. It is far easier to destroy something than to create it, and those voices desire to create.

All of this sounds excellent, sincerely. But unless we're going to say that Albertans are correct and everybody else is wrong--which certianly isn't building any bridges to anything--I think Albertans should take these perceptions seriously...rather than seeming to ignore them, Quebec-style, or to angrily denounce the vast majority of the country.

So when I hear (and it's not at all rare) Albertans using terms like "ROC"...well, we can only imagine that

1. Albertans consider themselves superior, and

2. That the "rest of Canada" is some homogeneous block that only exists to screw Alberta over.

It's a victim mentality (or appears to be, I should say in clarification) that a lot of Canadians seem bothered by.

Jerry J. Fortin · April 30, 2010

All of this sounds excellent, sincerely. But unless we're going to say that Albertans are correct and everybody else is wrong--which certianly isn't building any bridges to anything--I think Albertans should take these perceptions seriously...rather than seeming to ignore them, Quebec-style, or to angrily denounce the vast majority of the country.

So when I hear (and it's not at all rare) Albertans using terms like "ROC"...well, we can only imagine that

1. Albertans consider themselves superior, and

2. That the "rest of Canada" is some homogeneous block that only exists to screw Alberta over.

It's a victim mentality (or appears to be, I should say in clarification) that a lot of Canadians seem bothered by.

Well said, and I agree. Here in Alberta we have let bad events in the past colour our views of the present and future. I think that the proper way to go is to seek the changes we desire through cooperative efforts during First Ministers meetings. To date our efforts at the fed level have proven to be far less than what we desire. We need to try something different. All Canadians share much common ground from coast to coast to coast and there is no reason to believe that we cannot work together to make things better. There is no doubt in my mind that many Canadians feel the feds are just not doing what needs to be done and that is reflected in the reality that nobody seems to trust any of the party leaders to any substantive degree. That tells me that the way forward is not through the traditional federal channels but instead through the back door of equal partners in the First Ministers format.

bloodyminded · April 30, 2010

There is no doubt in my mind that many Canadians feel the feds are just not doing what needs to be done and that is reflected in the reality that nobody seems to trust any of the party leaders to any substantive degree.

Yeah, this certainly seems to be the case. It's why Harper's Cons remains unable to attain a majority. And it's why Iggy's Libs (in my opinion, but lots of people share it) remain unable to gain enough public support to replace the Cons. First they have to convince Canadians that they should be in power; and even those who dislike the Conservatives quite a bit are clearly less than convinced.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

ToadBrother · April 30, 2010

I think that is a measure of the volatility that exists presently with the electorate. At this point, it's a toss up as to what an election could bring.

It means, in practical terms, that an election would likely return a near-identical Parliament.

Ignatieff is a disaster. On the other hand, you're discounting the pluses that the Tories have racked up, such as a rebounding economy. Bread and butter issues are still high in the minds of Canadians.

Yes, that's a common mantra, but fails to explain how the Tories were within spitting distance of majority numbers in the polls last fall, prorogued Parliament, and now find themselves circling the 29%-31% line perpetually. There's no way to spin it. The Tories damaged themselves with the prorogation, and now, as it becomes clearer that they'll abide by the Speaker's ruling, it shows ten points are gone for nothing.

I too have been confounded by some of Harper's moves. I've stopped trying to make sense of it. The closest I have come to interpreting his motive is that he is going for the long game, i.e. eroding the Liberal brand. That strategy could blow up in his face but he appears to be willing to go for broke.

I'm not confounded at all. After the last prorogation I abandoned any notion that he's some sort strategic wunderkind.

Not for nothing I think. He may be wagering that Canadians will buy into the national security angle and forgive him for putting it high on his agenda. Conservative speakers have been talking up national security as their motive for reticence at disclosing the material. Notice how conciliatory they have become on the issue.

Conservative speakers have been inventing out of whole cloth a constitutional arrangement that hasn't effectively existed in our system of government since the time of Charles I. They're conciliatory now because, I'm sure, their own constitutional experts are telling them they can't win this battle.

Quebecers, especially francophone Quebecers, are a hot tempered lot. I'm French Canadian so I can relate. They seem to react more viscerally and quickly when rubbed the way than folks in the ROC. The Bloc may score 45% in the polls today but in the voters booth, Quebecers are more pragmatic.

Even in the worst of times since the rise of the Bloc they've still captured a lot of ridings. I'd say the time has come to admit that the Bloc is a part of the landscape for good.

And that may explain the sudden willingness to get along with the Opposition again. The growing unpopularity of the Charest government is going to have serious repercussions for the Tories and the Liberals, and I'm sure that Harper and Iggy are both cognizant of the fact that an election now would be far too dangerous and unpredictable.

I'll give Harper credit for this, whether it's his own abilities or simply the fact that the Liberals still can't find their sea legs, but we may end up with the longest serving minority government in history. Wouldn't it be a laugh if the damned thing went a full term!

bloodyminded · April 30, 2010

It means, in practical terms, that an election would likely return a near-identical Parliament.

Yeah, of course it's anyone's guess, but I think this would be the educated guess.

Yes, that's a common mantra, but fails to explain how the Tories were within spitting distance of majority numbers in the polls last fall, prorogued Parliament, and now find themselves circling the 29%-31% line perpetually. There's no way to spin it. The Tories damaged themselves with the prorogation, and now, as it becomes clearer that they'll abide by the Speaker's ruling, it shows ten points are gone for nothing.

You know, I simply don't get this. You pointed out elsewhere that it's likley Harper knew he couldn't win this battle, and I'm inclined to agree. So what the hell?

ToadBrother · April 30, 2010

You know, I simply don't get this. You pointed out elsewhere that it's likley Harper knew he couldn't win this battle, and I'm inclined to agree. So what the hell?

In part it's probably simple arrogance. Politicians avoid mea culpas like the plague. Any sort of an apology or admission of bad judgment is viewed as a declaration of utter weakness. So I think, to some degree, Harper couldn't allow himself to back down from a position that his Government had advocated since last December. They got their back up against the wall and didn't want to lose face by backing down. They may have hoped the Speaker could find a way to let them off the hook, which he did, to some extent, by laying some of the blame at the Opposition's feet. Milliken may very well prove to be one of the finest Speakers who has ever occupied that most venerated position for giving the Tories an out.

The other aspect is that there may very well be some information there that could embarrass some Ministers, in particular Mackay, and, whether we like it or not, parties look after their own, until their own become so toxic there's little choice but to drop them (think Guergis here). But Mackay isn't just any MP and he isn't just any Minister, he is the defacto leader of the Progressive wing of the CPC. Losing him means losing one of the key linchpins that keeps the whole pie together, so it may very well be that Harper views this is a much greater threat to the coalition he's built than just simply a few embarrassing memos in a sea of documents.

bloodyminded · April 30, 2010

In part it's probably simple arrogance. Politicians avoid mea culpas like the plague. Any sort of an apology or admission of bad judgment is viewed as a declaration of utter weakness. So I think, to some degree, Harper couldn't allow himself to back down from a position that his Government had advocated since last December. They got their back up against the wall and didn't want to lose face by backing down. They may have hoped the Speaker could find a way to let them off the hook, which he did, to some extent, by laying some of the blame at the Opposition's feet. Milliken may very well prove to be one of the finest Speakers who has ever occupied that most venerated position for giving the Tories an out.

The other aspect is that there may very well be some information there that could embarrass some Ministers, in particular Mackay, and, whether we like it or not, parties look after their own, until their own become so toxic there's little choice but to drop them (think Guergis here). But Mackay isn't just any MP and he isn't just any Minister, he is the defacto leader of the Progressive wing of the CPC. Losing him means losing one of the key linchpins that keeps the whole pie together, so it may very well be that Harper views this is a much greater threat to the coalition he's built than just simply a few embarrassing memos in a sea of documents.

Well. I would call this reply...awesome! Good stuff.

Dave_ON · April 30, 2010

I'll give Harper credit for this, whether it's his own abilities or simply the fact that the Liberals still can't find their sea legs, but we may end up with the longest serving minority government in history. Wouldn't it be a laugh if the damned thing went a full term!

Given the current state of things I wouldn't at all be surprised if it did. The question remains will Mr. Harper call it at the end of legislated 4 year duration or push it to the constitutional 5 year limit?

Wild Bill · April 30, 2010

Given the current state of things I wouldn't at all be surprised if it did. The question remains will Mr. Harper call it at the end of legislated 4 year duration or push it to the constitutional 5 year limit?

My money says that if the mood of the moment suggests its better to drag it out then he will. After all, he has proven to be Chretien's protege.

ToadBrother · April 30, 2010

My money says that if the mood of the moment suggests its better to drag it out then he will. After all, he has proven to be Chretien's protege.

I always thought the legislation was meaningless populist grandstanding. And, as I've seen here in BC, even where majority governments are concerned, all you do is extend an election campaign from the normal 30-60 days to basically a year, with the last year of a government's term spent in one long series of pre-election announcements. In other words, there's no advantage.

Jack Weber · April 30, 2010

In part it's probably simple arrogance. Politicians avoid mea culpas like the plague. Any sort of an apology or admission of bad judgment is viewed as a declaration of utter weakness. So I think, to some degree, Harper couldn't allow himself to back down from a position that his Government had advocated since last December. They got their back up against the wall and didn't want to lose face by backing down. They may have hoped the Speaker could find a way to let them off the hook, which he did, to some extent, by laying some of the blame at the Opposition's feet. Milliken may very well prove to be one of the finest Speakers who has ever occupied that most venerated position for giving the Tories an out.

The other aspect is that there may very well be some information there that could embarrass some Ministers, in particular Mackay, and, whether we like it or not, parties look after their own, until their own become so toxic there's little choice but to drop them (think Guergis here). But Mackay isn't just any MP and he isn't just any Minister, he is the defacto leader of the Progressive wing of the CPC. Losing him means losing one of the key linchpins that keeps the whole pie together, so it may very well be that Harper views this is a much greater threat to the coalition he's built than just simply a few embarrassing memos in a sea of documents.

That,sir....Is a spectacular assessment of the potential nature if the current situation!