A very interesting little poll by Nanos (June 6 2009) has a few nuggets of interesting information for us as our MPs debate whether they can attract support from the NDP and Bloc on a non-confidence motion, and defeat the Harper Tory government.
The overall results of the latest poll are positive for Liberals, but show we have not opened up a large enough gap over the Tories to ensure a minority government, much less a majority government.
The voters clearly reject the thought of an election over unemployment insurance, by large majorities. If Liberals ride this one-horse wagon into an election, we can expect voters to revolt and punish us by either staying at home (the Dion-syndrome), or voting for the Dippers or Tories. That much is clear.
But examine the graphs closely, and another two patterns become apparent.
The first is that neither the Liberals nor the Tories have shown since 2002 that either party can break out into majority territory. Note that the Tories have clawed their way into the plus 30% of total votes territory at the time of the inept 2004 Liberal election campaign, and since then have bounced around between roughly 30% of the vote and 38%. The graphs do not show much upward momentum for them beyond their high water mark of 38%.
The Liberal vote has shown a massive loss of 12% of total vote from Q202 to today. Since the 2004 election the Liberal vote has dipped below 30% twice, and reached a high today of 37%.
If you examined the two segments (2002 to 2004 and from 2004 to today, 2009), you could assume that the Liberals have much more growth potential than the Tories. However, this begs the question: why did the Tories increase their share in the polls over that period, and then stabilize in the 30% plus range? The Cat believes a lot has to do with two things – the consolidation of the Tory party as the sole party of the right, and the higher favourability of the Tory leader compared to the various Liberal leaders in recent years.
The second interesting inference one may draw form the trend lines in the Nanos graph is that the Tories beat the Liberals when it comes to campaigning during an election campaign. If you take the election results, and move back a calendar quarter or so along the graphs showing each party's support, you see that the Tories pick up about 4% of the vote, while the Liberals drop around 4% and the Dippers around 2%.
This seems to indicate that the Tory election machine is better than the NDP and LPC at fighting elections.
So, if this is true, how can the Liberals overcome the better Tory election machine in the next election (most likely to be held next year some time)?
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Using 2002 as a measure is a pretty useless exercise. The Liberals benefitted from a divided right, we had Ontario to ourselves, those were unique times. Comparing those days to now is actually intellectually dishonest.
I heard yesterday, that the Liberals historically poll lower than actual vote turnout in Quebec, so that's something to consider too.
Maybe the answer is in the ballot question, asking for the undecided responent to rank 2 parties. Libs are likely the second choice of both Dippers and Cons.
Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice)
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/131
Steve V - on the contrary, there is a school of thought in Liberal circles which refuses to consider (and learn from) the lessons of the past. That includes 2002 - we now have a mirror image of that situation, with the Tories flipped into the Liberal position (one united right wing party) and the Liberals into the Tory position of that year (a divided left wing opposition). The significance is that the Harperites learned from that, and moved heaven and earth to unite the right. Now we can ask if the Liberal leadership will do the same with respect to the left. If they don't, they will not have learned from history and will face the prospect of being able, at most, to become a minority government.
Good analysis. I think the surge in support was initially provided by the centrist movements of the Conservatives that gathered in soft liberal support still upset about the sponsorship scandal. The support surged for the first two years of the Conservative mandate, and then started to wane. Liberal support was also tanking under Dion. He was the single worst choice for leader I think they could have had, but I digress.
Now that Ignatieff is leader, I think we'll see another surge but now the levelling off stage as the parties struggle to find a compelling vision. All the Conservatives can do is attack the credibility of Ignatieff; clearly they have no vision of their own, particularly with such a massive deficit gnawing at their heels. The Liberals will need to find relevance as well, as they move back toward the centre from the leftwing journey Dion took them on.
What you're witnessing is the core conservatives abandoning the left-diving Conservative Party, and the centrist Liberals returning to the flock as they move back to a more traditional place in the centre. This E.I. thing they're driving at, however, really won't do much for them in the long run.
The significance is that the Harperites learned from that, and moved heaven and earth to unite the right. Now we can ask if the Liberal leadership will do the same with respect to the left. If they don't, they will not have learned from history and will face the prospect of being able, at most, to become a minority government.
On the contrary, they are acting on the historical precedent and moving to the centre. That is what made the 1990s a success for the Liberals and helped them keep the lid on the Progressive Conservatives returning.
In fact, what you suggest has no bearing to history. Unlike the conservative side of the spectrum, the NDP and the Liberals were never in the same party, never had a common front or common purpose except on an issue-by-issue basis. There is no "left" vision of the country and the NDP and the Liberals have vastly different visions of the country and always have (though you could argue that in the Trudeau years they came closer).
The reason for the Liberal failings in the last few elections is pretty clear: internal rot and external disgust with corruption.
The corruption is gone with the old Liberals who were involved. The internal rot is not cured but certainly for the first time in probably since 1992, there is a dedicated focus within the party on getting the party apparatus fixed up and policies re-jigged, not just trying to figure out the problem and make recommendations, but actually implement change. And they have accomplished so much already after only a few months under Ignatieff.
(though you could argue that in the Trudeau years they came closer)
Interesting that that is almost universally considered to be the apex of the Liberal party, no?
Um, no, it is certainly not "almost universally considered to be the apex". For some, certainly, but for most, no. Pearson would hold that title and I think I've even seen polling of Liberals on that.
Other than King-St. Laurent, I don't think any Liberal leader has been very much like another in terms of policies and priorities and vision. But certainly, Trudeau was the outlier and Chretien moved the party back to its roots.
Post a Comment