Newest poll BAD news for progressives

[fellowtraveller]

The Liberals have a real conundrum on their hands....They know now that Ignatieff is unelectable as PM.

Do they:

a) force an election, get whipped and quite likely hand a majority to Harper, then replace Ignatieff as leader in a leisurely manner while the Libs rot in Opposition

or delay an election and replace Ignatieff immediately, then force an election where they may hold Harper to a weaker minority or perhaps oust him with a coalition?

It gets worse for them, since in neither scenario do they have anybody both willing and able to produce a win for them. The only person likely to be able is Frank McKenna, and he does not appear willing.

[capricorn]

The Liberals have a real conundrum on their hands....They know now that Ignatieff is unelectable as PM.

Do they:

a) force an election, get whipped and quite likely hand a majority to Harper, then replace Ignatieff as leader in a leisurely manner while the Libs rot in Opposition

or delay an election and replace Ignatieff immediately, then force an election where they may hold Harper to a weaker minority or perhaps oust him with a coalition?

As far as I know, under the Liberal party constitution, Ignatieff can't be turfed unless they lose an election under his leadership. If that is the case, then (a) would apply.

It gets worse for them, since in neither scenario do they have anybody both willing and able to produce a win for them. The only person likely to be able is Frank McKenna, and he does not appear willing.

Pity. The Liberals are in desperate need a good leader. And so does the country. Our Parliament cannot operate properly without a strong opposition. That was the situation before the Conservative Party was formed where for years the Liberal party with a majority ran amok with its power. No need to look too far for proof of this. A look at their dwindling number of seats in Parliament says it all.

The Liberals cry foul over the poor state of democracy with the Conservatives in Government, yet if they took a serious look in the mirror they'd realize that they share the blame for what ails Parliament now. A leader who can inspire their caucus and their base coupled with attractive policies to cause voters to look their way would go a long way to energizing our democracy.

[nicky10013]

The important thing is that the Harper Tories are crushing everyone else. bring on the election. I cannot believe that the opposition will be that stupid.

That's what Turner said. That's what Mulroney said. That's what us Liberals said with Harper. Will this be the same? Who knows.

One thing I do know is that polls before an election don't matter because no one pays attention before an election. With Ignatieff as the only new guy in the field despite how bad he's polling, he's at least got a fresh start. Everyone knows Gilles, Jack and Stevie wonder. They're going to take a hard look at Ignatieff and if any of his tours which have all recieved great reviews (even from the National Post) he's got a great shot of shocking people.

So please, continue with the hubris, it only helps the Liberals.

[capricorn]

One thing I do know is that polls before an election don't matter because no one pays attention before an election.

Well, I wouldn't say no one pays attention because here you are commenting about them.

With Ignatieff as the only new guy in the field despite how bad he's polling, he's at least got a fresh start.

The new guy? He was crowned Liberal leader in December '08. How many fresh starts are you allowed over the span of more than 2 years and still not garner better numbers? The guy is just not connecting. How hard is that to understand?

They're going to take a hard look at Ignatieff and if any of his tours which have all recieved great reviews (even from the National Post) he's got a great shot of shocking people.

With all his tours and the media he attracted, he had ample opportunities to "shock" people. So far, I can't see any dividends coming from the Liberal Express, or his Open Mikes or whatever they now call his touristic adventures.

So please, continue with the hubris, it only helps the Liberals.

Yeah, there's plenty of evidence of that.

[Bryan]

I can understand people from Alberta voting for Harper but anyone else, I don't. It doesn't bother you of how the Tories have conducted themselves since taking the PMO?

Personally, I'm actually very impressed with their performance.

It doesn't bother you Harper doesn't follow Election Canada rules or ANY rules for that matter?

The Elections Canada witch hunt bothers me, how Harper has dealt with them does not.

So, you don`t care if you pay more taxes because you will with the buying of the F35 and the increase number of prisons and we are talking billions and billions of dollars and the shrinking of the work force as boomers retire, the next generation will be paying for years.

I'm paying a lot less in taxes than I did under the Liberals, and the both the fighters and the jails are badly needed.

We're in very good hands from my vantage point. I'm much better off now than I was 5 years ago. The country is much better off than we were 5 years ago.

[waldo]

...and the both the fighters and the jails are badly needed.

apparently... to you, at any cost, hey? Care to comment on the fighter's 66% cost estimate discrepancy... or better yet... does being a rabid member of the booster club afford you additional insight into the actual costs of those jails (better yet, the actual costs associated with the trumped up "get tough on crime" facade of the Harper Government™). Alternatively, if you're as much in the dark on those costs as the rest of Canadians are, care to comment on why the non-transparent and unaccountable Harper Government™ refuses to provide those costs to Canadians? Contempt of Parliament, indeed!

[no1ninja]

I don't understand why these jails are badly needed? To go after pot heads? Wasn't there a study that showed that with adherence to bill C10 the female prison population would increase by 225%. (We are not talking 5-10%, which in itself would rise the costs)

With bill c10, every 3rd person in BC is a criminal.

I don't know about you guys, but being Canadian and going through university I have seen more than one friends grow up. LOL, all of them had more than 5 plants and none of them I considered criminals that should be locked up on our dime. These were engineering students, compsci and folks that would help you change your tire if you were stranded. Sorry people, I just think pot laws are so Nixon. I honestly don't know who is going to pay for this.

One of the things I liked about Canada is that we weren't such losers when it came to drugs like our friends to the south. I just don't get why the conservatives are so intent on mandating US policies in Canada.

Edited March 12, 2011 by no1ninja

[punked]

That's what Turner said. That's what Mulroney said. That's what us Liberals said with Harper. Will this be the same? Who knows.

One thing I do know is that polls before an election don't matter because no one pays attention before an election. With Ignatieff as the only new guy in the field despite how bad he's polling, he's at least got a fresh start. Everyone knows Gilles, Jack and Stevie wonder. They're going to take a hard look at Ignatieff and if any of his tours which have all recieved great reviews (even from the National Post) he's got a great shot of shocking people.

So please, continue with the hubris, it only helps the Liberals.

Yah Turner never ran an election as leader Harper has. Mulroney never lost an election as leader. You really have to get history right here.

[nicky10013]

Yah Turner never ran an election as leader Harper has. Mulroney never lost an election as leader. You really have to get history right here.

You're right about Mulroney, but you might want to check about Turner. He ran against Mulroney in 1984. He took over the party leadership from Trudeau.

[no1ninja]

You're right about Mulroney, but you might want to check about Turner. He ran against Mulroney in 1984. He took over the party leadership from Trudeau.

Nicky is correct, that was one hell of a dogfight.

[punked]

You're right about Mulroney, but you might want to check about Turner. He ran against Mulroney in 1984. He took over the party leadership from Trudeau.

I should have said Turner never ran as leader before 1984. He got killed in the debates Harper isn't Turner he has been through it all before. It is a much different situation. Iggy is closer to Turner which is not a good thing.

[nicky10013]

I should have said Turner never ran as leader before 1984. He got killed in the debates Harper isn't Turner he has been through it all before. It is a much different situation. Iggy is closer to Turner which is not a good thing.

Harper has never been a good debater. The fact that Harper has been through it before and the last time I checked only had a 26% approval rating I think speaks to a great problem Conservatives don't want to face.

To say Ignatieff won't be a good debater is premature. We haven't seen him in one. Though, he has considerable skill in public speaking and was a professor at Oxford and Harvard tells me that he should be ok.

Edited March 12, 2011 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

To say Ignatieff won't be a good debater is premature.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that he will be. His fake outrage and his attempts at talking like he thinks people want him to are so transparent it's amost painful.....plus, he doesn't seem to ever have a point to make.

[punked]

Harper has never been a good debater. The fact that Harper has been through it before and the last time I checked only had a 26% approval rating I think speaks to a great problem Conservatives don't want to face.

When was the last time you checked? The poll in this thread says Harper is at a 32% approval, I mean it is no Jack Layton who is at 36% but it is almost 20 points ahead of the Liberal leader who is at 14%. Seriously you think he hits rock bottom then you find out the Liberals have a little more to fall.

Here from the poll what Canadians think of the leaders:

• Stephen Harper – Secretive (39%), arrogant (38%), intelligent (33%), dishonest (30%), out of touch (29%)

• Michael Ignatieff – Arrogant (44%), out of touch (38%), boring (32%), inefficient (31%), dishonest (28%)

• Jack Layton – Intelligent (32%), down to earth (29%), honest (28%), compassionate (27%), open (27%)

• Gilles Duceppe – Arrogant (30%), out of touch (24%), intelligent (20%), boring (18%), inefficient (16%)

Seriously it looks to me like Canadians just hate Ignatieff and I don't know if their is anything that can be done at this point to change that.

[waldo]

Seriously it looks to me like Canadians just hate Ignatieff and I don't know if their is anything that can be done at this point to change that.

Harper Government™ attack ads, for years now, have portrayed and projected an image... only an election campaign will undo... or cement... that portrayal, that projection.

in any case, I'm quite disappointed you never took my bait - I'm quite astonished that such an ardent NDP partisan, as yourself, would choose to distinctly separate the NDP... from "progressives"

[Saipan]

apparently... to you, at any cost, hey?

What price tag do YOU put on YOUR life and the existence of your country?

Care to comment on the fighter's 66% cost estimate discrepancy...

Not very pleasant. Happen even with Olympics. Just GAMES where no one dies.

Care to comment on the Allan Rock's 1000% cost estimate discrepancy, lying to Parliament???

[punked]

Harper Government™ attack ads, for years now, have portrayed and projected an image... only an election campaign will undo... or cement... that portrayal, that projection.

in any case, I'm quite disappointed you never took my bait - I'm quite astonished that such an ardent NDP partisan, as yourself, would choose to distinctly separate the NDP... from "progressives"

Their are Liberal progressives I know this so in this case I think this poll is bad for everyone on the left. The problem is those progressives in the Liberal party have been told to sit down and shut for to long and we see the result. The Cons have grabbed some Liberal support on the right and the Greens have taken it on the Left to leave us with a Harper majority.

I think the Liberal leader is defined now, he is John Kerry in 2004 nothing he can say or do can change the publics opinion now, in everything he does they will be looking at him to reinforce their opinions. Remember they said in 2004 the campaign would change the publics opinion as a Flip Flopper but the only thing the media and public focused on were his perceived flip flops. The Liberals did not get out in front fast enough, they didn't spend enough money fighting the image war and now they are stuck.

BTW this is fine with me because Ignatieff does a disservice to the progressive movement. The Liberals need a real leader who has values which are not Conservative ones so that there will be a true opposition leader. Right now their best opinion for this is to move to Jack Layton until or if ever a true progressive leads their party.

Edited March 12, 2011 by punked

[ToadBrother]

I should have said Turner never ran as leader before 1984. He got killed in the debates Harper isn't Turner he has been through it all before. It is a much different situation. Iggy is closer to Turner which is not a good thing.

I don't see either Harper or Iggy being like Turner. For one thing, Harper and Iggy appear to be sober most of the time. I worked for a guy who was a die-hard Liberal in the 70s and 80s, even worked as a campaign manager for one of the few Liberals to ever be elected in my riding, and he had some delightful stories to tell, but one of the best was the rumor going around that Turner was very rarely completely sober.

[ToadBrother]

Harper has never been a good debater. The fact that Harper has been through it before and the last time I checked only had a 26% approval rating I think speaks to a great problem Conservatives don't want to face.

To say Ignatieff won't be a good debater is premature. We haven't seen him in one. Though, he has considerable skill in public speaking and was a professor at Oxford and Harvard tells me that he should be ok.

There are debates and there are debates. Political debates are very rarely cerebral exchanges like one gets in an academic setting. They're down in the much brawls, verbal cage matches if you will.

But this is Iggy's chance to prove himself, if it comes to an election. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will distinguish himself, he has proven a most awkward and ineffectual leader, and more to the point lacking the kind of reckless daring that Harper shows. For all his flaws, Harper is willing to take big risks, and while they sometimes backfire (the 2008 prorogation comes to mind), at the same they sometimes prove fortuitous.

The sad fact is that the Liberals need another Chretien, a streetfighter who is willing to give as good as he gets. I've observed for some time that the true Son of Chretien is Stephen Harper. I have a feeling as much as Harper disliked Chretien's policies and political ideology (such as it was), I think he must have been taking notes, because both men are insanely bold and have no problem with using the tricks, dirty or otherwise, available to them through their office to bully allies and send chills through opponents.

Frankly, I think Iggy would make a very good Minister of Foreign Affairs. I don't think he has the least little bit of Prime Minister in him.

[waldo]

punked, at the end of the day, you and I won't agree over the labeling and 'progressiveness' of Ignatieff. Given your reference to the oft discussed vote-splitting and implications towards a potential Harper Government™ majority... I might suggest a bit of 'inward searching' on your part. In the most evident and glaring matter-of-factoid, you know the NDP will never inherit the keys from Canadians... you also know (you must recognize) it is not MLW Liberal proponents that, typically, take on the NDP at every 'drop of the hat'. Your ardent, typically most selective, attacks belie your concerns over vote-splitting and possibilities of a Harper Government™ majority.

[punked]

punked, at the end of the day, you and I won't agree over the labeling and 'progressiveness' of Ignatieff. Given your reference to the oft discussed vote-splitting and implications towards a potential Harper Government™ majority... I might suggest a bit of 'inward searching' on your part. In the most evident and glaring matter-of-factoid, you know the NDP will never inherit the keys from Canadians... you also know (you must recognize) it is not MLW Liberal proponents that, typically, take on the NDP at every 'drop of the hat'. Your ardent, typically most selective, attacks belie your concerns over vote-splitting and possibilities of a Harper Government™ majority.

Waldo the Liberals have given him a Majority for the last 5 years. Yes once and while we get an election from the process but I am not sacred of a Harper Majority. After reading Mr. Ignatieffs writings from before he came to Canada I am more scared of him winning then Harper. Seriously I know the Liberals have always tried to scare the left with "what if the Conservatives win" stuff but really if that is your only reasons to vote Liberal then man are they in trouble.

No way will I be voting for Ignatieff, firstly I think I know where he truly stands on issue while he waffles a lot I don't think it has to do with him not having an opinion I think it is because the Liberal wont left him speak his opinion. Second he in many ways is more to the right then Harper on a lot of things. I am reminded on his position in early 2000 on how to solve the Israel problem. Which was the US drop troops in the area and force states at gun point. Third there is a progressive options and I think a lot of Liberals and NDPers would be better served if they voted that way.

[waldo]

Frankly, I think Iggy would make a very good Minister of Foreign Affairs. I don't think he has the least little bit of Prime Minister in him.

dance with the one that brought you... and you can't go wrong!

[nicky10013]

There are debates and there are debates. Political debates are very rarely cerebral exchanges like one gets in an academic setting. They're down in the much brawls, verbal cage matches if you will.

But this is Iggy's chance to prove himself, if it comes to an election. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will distinguish himself, he has proven a most awkward and ineffectual leader, and more to the point lacking the kind of reckless daring that Harper shows. For all his flaws, Harper is willing to take big risks, and while they sometimes backfire (the 2008 prorogation comes to mind), at the same they sometimes prove fortuitous.

The sad fact is that the Liberals need another Chretien, a streetfighter who is willing to give as good as he gets. I've observed for some time that the true Son of Chretien is Stephen Harper. I have a feeling as much as Harper disliked Chretien's policies and political ideology (such as it was), I think he must have been taking notes, because both men are insanely bold and have no problem with using the tricks, dirty or otherwise, available to them through their office to bully allies and send chills through opponents.

Frankly, I think Iggy would make a very good Minister of Foreign Affairs. I don't think he has the least little bit of Prime Minister in him.

He's definitely got fight, to think that he doesn't isn't being fair. The reason why there hasn't been much of a response is due to money. Why spend money and end up in an ad war that you'll get trounced on because you don't have the money? Why do that especially when you won't have money to fight a campaign that's going to start a week monday (especially since they've got just enough money to run a campaign with no debt)? Why do it when you'll never actually move the polls outside the writ?

I just ask the question how visible is Ignatieff really? I've never seen him on local news. He's only really on cable news which no one really watches and he's in the papers far less than Harper is. No one knows who the guy is. He's doing as much as he can with the exposure he's got. Your view is completely understandable but you'll never get the entire story until you actually see him out on the stump. To say that he's not Prime Ministerial - not ready for a fight - at this point is ridiculous. Wait 2-3 weeks into the campaign and then let's revisit the issue.

Edited March 12, 2011 by nicky10013

[betsy]

From Power and Politics, latest poll from Ekos show Conservatives have 7 points lead. Apparently Harper is getting solid support from Ontario.

Edited March 12, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

From Power and Politics, latest poll from Ekos show Conservatives have 7 points lead. Apparently Harper is getting solid support from Ontario.

Still, it does show some serious backing off from polls showing the commanding majority lead. This has happened before.