The latest EKOS poll (June 25 2009) has some interesting general comments, and some gender specific numbers. The news for Ignatieff and our party is a mixed bag, with Ignatieff's negatives now rising, and his popularity showing a definite drop from the January poll. The poll also shows that Harper's position is improving:
"At the same time, the Conservatives are benefitting from rising optimism about the economy among some Canadians – those affected more directly by the economic news or stock and real estate markets than by the labour market, which continues to deteriorate.
"The Liberals may well recover from this short-term political setback,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “At least that has been the pattern of the last six months when purely political events have rocked Canadians’ voting intentions.”
“More hopeful for the Conservatives and worrisome for the Liberals is the rising optimism on the economy, which is clearly behind some of the movement back to the Conservatives from the Liberals in recent weeks. This might have the makings of a more enduring trend.”
The principal movement in this most recent poll took place in Ontario. For several months the Liberals have enjoyed an advantage in the province, often reaching into the double-digits. Now, they are neck-and-neck with the Conservatives in Canada’s largest province.
“The Liberals need Ontario to win an election,” Graves said. “They were gaining ground there, but now that advantage has disappeared.""
The personal popularity shows Harper regaining approval at a fast clip, with Ignatieff sinking into negative territory:
"Michael Ignatieff’s personal approval rating also took a substantial dip last week. Earlier in the year, while many Canadians said they did not yet know him, those who did have an opinion of the Liberal leader approved of the job he was doing by a substantial margin. By the beginning of this month, more people were familiar with him, and his approval rating was essentially neutral.
Now, in this most recent poll, he has slumped into net-negative territory. As with the party’s fortunes more generally, the most wounding change was in Ontario.
“There could be a couple of factors at play here,” said Graves. “It may be that the Tory ad campaign aimed at Ignatieff is finally starting to have a corrosive effect on his reputation. At the same time, Ignatieff was the public face of the Liberal brinksmanship last week, and that may have affected his personal reputation as well as the party’s.”
“Ignatieff’s negatives are not as serious as Stephen Harper’s, but the prime minister has been heading in the right direction in recent weeks, while Ignatieff’s numbers have been heading south. Canadians may not have wanted an election this summer, but they are certainly going to have a campaign nonetheless, as all the parties – and all the leaders – try to move these numbers.”"
Far and Wide has some other interesting conclusions from this EKOS poll.
Also interesting is the gender gap in support for both Harper and Ignatieff.
Both Harper and Ignatieff have more males expressing approval of them than females (for Harper, 39% of males approve and 29% of females, a gender approval gap of 10%; for Ignatieff, 37% of males approve, and 27% of females approve, with the same gender approval gap of 10%).
As for Harper, a whopping 47% of males disapprove of his performance, compared to 40% for Ignatieff (a difference of 7%).
Among females, the gender disapproval gap is 12%, with 46% disapproving of Harper and only 34% of Ignatieff.
There is hope for Ignatieff, in that the poll results show a higher proportion of DK/NR (Don't Know/No Response) for him than for Harper. We can take the DK/NR results as a rough measure of those who have not decided about Ignatieff yet – a kind of 'jury is still out' group. The positive feature is that this DK/NR group probably has many in it who just have not formed a firm opinion about Ignatieff, and who could be persuaded to approve of him. Their absence of an opinion could be because he is still unknown to many Canadians, and because there is not much publicly available information to allow voters to judge him as a politician, supporting specific policies directly applicable to Canada.
Not surprisingly, given his shelf life as an active politician in Canada, far more Canadians have firmer views about Harper: only 14% of males fall into the DK/NR group, and 26% of females.
For Ignatieff, the results are 23% males (almost twice that of Harper), and a sizeable 40% of females.
I could not find any January EKOS analysis of the gender approval and disapproval results, but did find the January EKOS results of the approval of the Liberal-NDP Coalition government (rather than a Harper government) interesting: 50% preferred the Coalition in January (the very clever and very dishonest Tory framing launched late in 2008 had died down a bit by then), and only 43% preferred a continued Harper government. The approval of the Coalition government was 80% amongst Liberal respondents, 86% NDP, 85% Bloc and 70% Greens).
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ignatieff pays a price for bumbling
The Tory framing ads and the recent retreat by Ignatieff on the so-called Harper Report Card have cost the party a few percentage points in support, according to the latest Angus Reid poll.
What is more troubling is that Harper seems to be regaining and cementing his lead over Ignatieff with respect to the vitally important leadership elements, as this extract shows:
"Harper remains ahead of Ignatieff on being a strong and decisive leader (43% to 28%), having a vision for Canada's future (42% to 35%), managing the economy effectively (32% to 22%), and being honest and trustworthy (28% to 25%).
Ignatieff leads on caring about the environment (28% to 21%).
The two leaders are virtually tied on inspiring confidence, understanding the problems of Canadians, understanding complex issues, and generally agreeing with Canadians on issues they care about.
Harper managed to expand on his April numbers on the leadership and vision questions, while Ignatieff underwent a marked decline on inspiring confidence."
A 5% lead over Ignatieff as a strong and decisive leader is not positive, given Harper's series of missteps over the past few months. My guess is that Ignatieff's missteps in talking tough and then caving and propping up Harper's government have cancelled out Harper's errors, and that the Tory framing ads have also contributed to a relative disadvantage for Ignatieff as a leader.
What is really dismaying is that in a time of a world wide recession, with a Tory government which has proven itself woefully inept in anticipating and dealing with our own recession, that Harper should have a 10% lead (almost 50% higher) over Ignatieff when it comes to the best person to manage the economy effectively.
What is happening to cause this?
My best guess is that Ignatieff has been seen as a vacillating politician, given the many changes of position with respect to supporting the Tory government, and that the total absence of an announced, comprehensive Liberal economic plan has simply allowed Harper to set the pace as the best choice to run the country's economy.
Fortunately, both these problems are easily resolved by Ignatieff, if he finds some better advisors, backs off empty threats followed by inaction, and has the Liberal Party unveil a comprehensive set of policies, including economic ones.
If he does these things, I would expect the polls to show a marked improvement in about 6 to 12 months.
Just in time for an election … if the NDP and Bloc should agree,
What is more troubling is that Harper seems to be regaining and cementing his lead over Ignatieff with respect to the vitally important leadership elements, as this extract shows:
"Harper remains ahead of Ignatieff on being a strong and decisive leader (43% to 28%), having a vision for Canada's future (42% to 35%), managing the economy effectively (32% to 22%), and being honest and trustworthy (28% to 25%).
Ignatieff leads on caring about the environment (28% to 21%).
The two leaders are virtually tied on inspiring confidence, understanding the problems of Canadians, understanding complex issues, and generally agreeing with Canadians on issues they care about.
Harper managed to expand on his April numbers on the leadership and vision questions, while Ignatieff underwent a marked decline on inspiring confidence."
A 5% lead over Ignatieff as a strong and decisive leader is not positive, given Harper's series of missteps over the past few months. My guess is that Ignatieff's missteps in talking tough and then caving and propping up Harper's government have cancelled out Harper's errors, and that the Tory framing ads have also contributed to a relative disadvantage for Ignatieff as a leader.
What is really dismaying is that in a time of a world wide recession, with a Tory government which has proven itself woefully inept in anticipating and dealing with our own recession, that Harper should have a 10% lead (almost 50% higher) over Ignatieff when it comes to the best person to manage the economy effectively.
What is happening to cause this?
My best guess is that Ignatieff has been seen as a vacillating politician, given the many changes of position with respect to supporting the Tory government, and that the total absence of an announced, comprehensive Liberal economic plan has simply allowed Harper to set the pace as the best choice to run the country's economy.
Fortunately, both these problems are easily resolved by Ignatieff, if he finds some better advisors, backs off empty threats followed by inaction, and has the Liberal Party unveil a comprehensive set of policies, including economic ones.
If he does these things, I would expect the polls to show a marked improvement in about 6 to 12 months.
Just in time for an election … if the NDP and Bloc should agree,
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Once more to heel
Harper cut Ignatieff off at the knees with a few rather insulting 'concessions', and now the Liberals will support the Harper report card even though it is full of half-truths, misleading definitions, and vagueness.
It is time for Ignatieff to fire his advisors and get new ones; perhaps some who actually have some political sense, an appreciation of what politics is about, who know what framing means, and who are prepared to fight battles rather than recommend retreats.
Harper made Ignatieff look foolish and in turn the Liberal Party looks foolish.
If Ignatieff really wants to lead this party, he must take stock of his political reactions, and figure out what is not working. And most of what he is doing right now is not working. And then figure out how to change it before it is too late.
The nonsensical argument that Canadians do not want an election now is a craven caving in to the Harper framing, and for the Liberals in the House to parrot this is unforgiveable.
A summer election is not the issue.
The issue is whether Canada has the right government for these perilous times.
And most Canadians would agree that we do not have that.
What a sad week this has been.
It is time for Ignatieff to fire his advisors and get new ones; perhaps some who actually have some political sense, an appreciation of what politics is about, who know what framing means, and who are prepared to fight battles rather than recommend retreats.
Harper made Ignatieff look foolish and in turn the Liberal Party looks foolish.
If Ignatieff really wants to lead this party, he must take stock of his political reactions, and figure out what is not working. And most of what he is doing right now is not working. And then figure out how to change it before it is too late.
The nonsensical argument that Canadians do not want an election now is a craven caving in to the Harper framing, and for the Liberals in the House to parrot this is unforgiveable.
A summer election is not the issue.
The issue is whether Canada has the right government for these perilous times.
And most Canadians would agree that we do not have that.
What a sad week this has been.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Canadian MPs (and Senators) and expense accounts
Congratulations to Doug Ward of the Vancouver Sun for digging into the way in which our MPs are compensated for serving as such and for expenses. In the UK the flagrant abuse of the right to have expenses reimbursed has rocked the parliamentary foundations, caused the Labour government's popularity to plunge even further, and lead to many MPs deciding to step down or not run again.
UK MPs were ridiculed for their sense of entitlement; enraged citizens were treated to an exquisite dance of the seven veils by The Telegraph, which revealed on a daily basis the expense claims of presumptuous MPs from all parties.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there was darkness upon the land of disclosure, with Doug Ward being the first to my knowledge to examine our situation in some detail. And he has raised a few interesting matters. Our MPs get paid more than the UK ones do (C$175,000 base salary compared to the UK MPs' $100,000). The living costs of the two sets of MPs are very different. In the UK, many of the abuses arose from the expenses allowed for "second homes". In Canada the system is less generous, as our 308 MPs don't get an equivalent $40,000 allowance; we give our MPs $25,000 to cover their living expenses. And, of course, our MPs get an annual amount for their office budgets, based on their riding's size and population (this can amount to $255,000); they also get 64 free return airline tickets to and from Ottawa.
So we seem far better situated.
However, we are still being given the mushroom treatment as citizens, because we are not allowed to visit a website and see the individual expense claims of our MPs. And the MPs seem determined to cut back on the rights to audit such expenses:
"The House of Commons and the Senate have resisted requests from Canadian auditor-general Sheila Fraser to audit expense claims.
Fraser has been in negotiations with the Board of Internal Economy over a potential audit. But its unclear whether such a review would involve looking at MP’s expense claims or whether it would be a “performance audit” to determine whether taxpayers are receiving value for their money.
Gaudet said that Ottawa’s rules are tighter than those in Britain but that there is still room for abuse. “MPs in Canada can’t pay for house upgrades, for example. But they do get a housing allowance and how they spend it is up to them.”
Gaudet, who previously worked in an MP’s office, said that “transparency breeds accountability.”
“Who knows if MPs are expensing espresso machines in their offices. We can’t know because it isn’t public.”
Gaudet’s comment was in reference to media reports about how Toronto councillor Adam Vaughn used $281 of his $53,100 office expenses allowance to buy an espresso machine.
“Do I think there could be abuses? Possibly,” said Gaudet about Canadian MPs expense claims.
“Do I think they could be as bad as in Britain, probably not. But that would be setting the bar pretty low.”
Come on, MPs and Senators: show some respect for your masters, the citizens of Canada, and set up a website to reveal expenses of individual MPs and Senators, as well as allow proper auditing.
We deserve no less.
UK MPs were ridiculed for their sense of entitlement; enraged citizens were treated to an exquisite dance of the seven veils by The Telegraph, which revealed on a daily basis the expense claims of presumptuous MPs from all parties.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there was darkness upon the land of disclosure, with Doug Ward being the first to my knowledge to examine our situation in some detail. And he has raised a few interesting matters. Our MPs get paid more than the UK ones do (C$175,000 base salary compared to the UK MPs' $100,000). The living costs of the two sets of MPs are very different. In the UK, many of the abuses arose from the expenses allowed for "second homes". In Canada the system is less generous, as our 308 MPs don't get an equivalent $40,000 allowance; we give our MPs $25,000 to cover their living expenses. And, of course, our MPs get an annual amount for their office budgets, based on their riding's size and population (this can amount to $255,000); they also get 64 free return airline tickets to and from Ottawa.
So we seem far better situated.
However, we are still being given the mushroom treatment as citizens, because we are not allowed to visit a website and see the individual expense claims of our MPs. And the MPs seem determined to cut back on the rights to audit such expenses:
"The House of Commons and the Senate have resisted requests from Canadian auditor-general Sheila Fraser to audit expense claims.
Fraser has been in negotiations with the Board of Internal Economy over a potential audit. But its unclear whether such a review would involve looking at MP’s expense claims or whether it would be a “performance audit” to determine whether taxpayers are receiving value for their money.
Gaudet said that Ottawa’s rules are tighter than those in Britain but that there is still room for abuse. “MPs in Canada can’t pay for house upgrades, for example. But they do get a housing allowance and how they spend it is up to them.”
Gaudet, who previously worked in an MP’s office, said that “transparency breeds accountability.”
“Who knows if MPs are expensing espresso machines in their offices. We can’t know because it isn’t public.”
Gaudet’s comment was in reference to media reports about how Toronto councillor Adam Vaughn used $281 of his $53,100 office expenses allowance to buy an espresso machine.
“Do I think there could be abuses? Possibly,” said Gaudet about Canadian MPs expense claims.
“Do I think they could be as bad as in Britain, probably not. But that would be setting the bar pretty low.”
Come on, MPs and Senators: show some respect for your masters, the citizens of Canada, and set up a website to reveal expenses of individual MPs and Senators, as well as allow proper auditing.
We deserve no less.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How Ignatieff could mark the Harper report card
Harper, hoping to avoid being felled as prime minister of a 'do little' government by getting a failing mark from all three opposition parties on his economic report, offered a voluminous study which did more to muddy the waters than to clarify matters. In fact, despite his positive spin, the report gave broad hints of the relative inaction of this non-believing government in actually spending the stimulus package funds:
"In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, Ont., he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented."
Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.
In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over - something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)
Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway." Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow - which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party."
The NDP has said that they will vote against the Tories if the Liberals introduce a non-confidence motion over the report. The Bloc has said it will as well.
That leaves the choice squarely in the laps of the Liberals.
And, as Ignatieff said, they have been watching the Tory government like hawks.
What to do?
Pull the plug now and plunge the nation into another inconclusive election, or back off and support Harper yet again, giving voters the impression that the Liberals are best suited to play backup in the band of governance, rather than to be lead singer.
The Cat thinks that Ignatieff and the Liberals have one way to solve this classic dilemma, in a manner which benefits ordinary Canadians.
The secret to untying the Gordian knot facing the Liberals is to revisit the test which Ignatieff himself imposed on the Tories when he destroyed the NDP-LPC coalition government by supporting the Harper government.
Back then, he said this:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
That is the key: how to make sure that the Tory government actually spends the billions allocated in their budget so as to create jobs fast.
The report card is a whitewash exercise, designed to spin the line that the Tories are moving expeditiously in pushing money out the door. The facts clearly indicate the opposite: the control-freaks in this government are not really committed to spending money to create jobs but in spending money as public relations exercises, designed to wring out the maximum political value for the party.
It's as if Santa has decided to take six months to hand out Christmas goodies so that he can bask in the thank-yous of the grateful recipients.
So, what should Ignatieff do?
My suggestion is that he tables in Parliament a Liberal paper which sets out conditions. If Harper agrees to the conditions and acts on them forthwith (before the Liberal date for a non-confidence motion), then the Liberals will support the government.
If Harper refuses, then he will be faced with the Liberal non-confidence motion, and will have brought down his own downfall.
So what will the Liberal paper contain?
Simply these items:
1. A multi-party committee will be formed, with representatives from all four parties in the House, proportional to their seats there, to oversee the spending of the stimulus funds. This committee will be called the Economic Implementation Committee.
2. The committee will make decisions by majority votes.
3. All projects over a threshold value ($5 million?) which would fit into the category of projects qualifying for federal stimulus funds under the Tory budget, will be approved by and expedited by the committee.
4. The committee will have legislated fast-track power to overrule any existing laws or regulations which impede the speedy beginning of and funding of the projects.
This proposal means the Tory government stays in power until the next report card is due, and their budget is the governing instrument, but that the boost to the economy takes place as fast as is feasible, through the actions of the committee.
If Ignatieff takes The Cat's advice, it will be up to Harper to decide whether to form the Economic Implementation Committee, or to take his chances.
And if he takes his chances, he will have to explain to Canadians why he decided to have another costly election, over the issue of how to implement the stimulus funding so badly needed by jobless Canadians in a faster, more feasible way.
That would be a tough argument for Harper to make. Not even a rather stout and very partial former television personality could help Harper make that work.
"In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, Ont., he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented."
Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.
In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over - something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)
Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway." Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow - which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party."
The NDP has said that they will vote against the Tories if the Liberals introduce a non-confidence motion over the report. The Bloc has said it will as well.
That leaves the choice squarely in the laps of the Liberals.
And, as Ignatieff said, they have been watching the Tory government like hawks.
What to do?
Pull the plug now and plunge the nation into another inconclusive election, or back off and support Harper yet again, giving voters the impression that the Liberals are best suited to play backup in the band of governance, rather than to be lead singer.
The Cat thinks that Ignatieff and the Liberals have one way to solve this classic dilemma, in a manner which benefits ordinary Canadians.
The secret to untying the Gordian knot facing the Liberals is to revisit the test which Ignatieff himself imposed on the Tories when he destroyed the NDP-LPC coalition government by supporting the Harper government.
Back then, he said this:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
That is the key: how to make sure that the Tory government actually spends the billions allocated in their budget so as to create jobs fast.
The report card is a whitewash exercise, designed to spin the line that the Tories are moving expeditiously in pushing money out the door. The facts clearly indicate the opposite: the control-freaks in this government are not really committed to spending money to create jobs but in spending money as public relations exercises, designed to wring out the maximum political value for the party.
It's as if Santa has decided to take six months to hand out Christmas goodies so that he can bask in the thank-yous of the grateful recipients.
So, what should Ignatieff do?
My suggestion is that he tables in Parliament a Liberal paper which sets out conditions. If Harper agrees to the conditions and acts on them forthwith (before the Liberal date for a non-confidence motion), then the Liberals will support the government.
If Harper refuses, then he will be faced with the Liberal non-confidence motion, and will have brought down his own downfall.
So what will the Liberal paper contain?
Simply these items:
1. A multi-party committee will be formed, with representatives from all four parties in the House, proportional to their seats there, to oversee the spending of the stimulus funds. This committee will be called the Economic Implementation Committee.
2. The committee will make decisions by majority votes.
3. All projects over a threshold value ($5 million?) which would fit into the category of projects qualifying for federal stimulus funds under the Tory budget, will be approved by and expedited by the committee.
4. The committee will have legislated fast-track power to overrule any existing laws or regulations which impede the speedy beginning of and funding of the projects.
This proposal means the Tory government stays in power until the next report card is due, and their budget is the governing instrument, but that the boost to the economy takes place as fast as is feasible, through the actions of the committee.
If Ignatieff takes The Cat's advice, it will be up to Harper to decide whether to form the Economic Implementation Committee, or to take his chances.
And if he takes his chances, he will have to explain to Canadians why he decided to have another costly election, over the issue of how to implement the stimulus funding so badly needed by jobless Canadians in a faster, more feasible way.
That would be a tough argument for Harper to make. Not even a rather stout and very partial former television personality could help Harper make that work.
Is a 33% score by Harper on his probation report good enough?
Harper delivered his second probationary report to the opposition parties, called the Second Economic Report, and managed to grab headlines by saying that his government was doing a wonderful job and had managed to commit 80% of the funding required for the 2009/2010 year.
"This report indicates that 80 per cent of the measures are either flowing, or there are commitments in place that will allow the funds to flow to specific projects and initiatives."
And, what is more, Harper's guys have moved heaven and earth to get the money out of the door and into the economy, as Table 1.2 claims:
"Canada’s Economic Action Plan is designed to get stimulus out as quickly and effectively as possible in order to have the maximum impact on jobs. That is why the Government moved aggressively to deliver budget spending up to 14 months faster than the usual process."
Remember the NDP-LPC coalition which forced Harper's hand?
"The Liberal leader announced he’ll move an amendment to the budget which will require the government to table three detailed progress reports to Parliament starting in March. If the amendment passes, Liberals will not vote against the budget. But Ignatieff said the Liberals are prepared to defeat the government later should any of the progress reports show that the Tories had failed to implement some budget measures or that the budget wasn’t working.
“We are putting this government on probation,” he told a news conference. “Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.”
Ignatieff said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in.
“And now the job of a responsible Opposition is to hold them to their word, to force them to deliver and, if they don’t deliver, to replace them.”
The amendment specifies dates for tabling the status reports — March 26, June 23 and Sept. 10. They are timed to coincide with supply bills, which are automatically considered confidence votes."
More specifically, Ignatieff said he would be watching Harper's Tories "like a hawk."
What exactly was Ignatieff going to be watching like a hawk?
In Ignatieff's words:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
Ignatieff put his finger on the issue: what Canadians needed was cash – hard cash – actually flowing into projects which created jobs.
Not promises.
Not "commitments to fund", which is what Harper's report card talks about.
Let's match Harper's report card against what Ignatieff says was obtained from him.
Note that Ignatieff said the NDP-LPC coalition "forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in."
Now let's take the actual progress to date – the amount "committed" in Harper's report card.
That's $13.2 billion (if we exclude the GM/Chrysler rescue package). Check it yourself – go to Table 1.3 on page 14 of the report card.
And that makes only 33% "committed" of the total amount of $40 billion that Ignatieff was so pleased by.
Now, ask yourself: if your kid came home and started crowing about how well he or she had done because they scored overall 33%, what would you say?
"Nice job, here's some cash, off to celebrate you are!"
Or would you say: "That's just not good enough. That is a failing grade. You are grounded."
Let's see if any of the Bloc, NDP or Liberal parties will give Harper a pass on his 33% score.
"This report indicates that 80 per cent of the measures are either flowing, or there are commitments in place that will allow the funds to flow to specific projects and initiatives."
And, what is more, Harper's guys have moved heaven and earth to get the money out of the door and into the economy, as Table 1.2 claims:
"Canada’s Economic Action Plan is designed to get stimulus out as quickly and effectively as possible in order to have the maximum impact on jobs. That is why the Government moved aggressively to deliver budget spending up to 14 months faster than the usual process."
Remember the NDP-LPC coalition which forced Harper's hand?
"The Liberal leader announced he’ll move an amendment to the budget which will require the government to table three detailed progress reports to Parliament starting in March. If the amendment passes, Liberals will not vote against the budget. But Ignatieff said the Liberals are prepared to defeat the government later should any of the progress reports show that the Tories had failed to implement some budget measures or that the budget wasn’t working.
“We are putting this government on probation,” he told a news conference. “Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.”
Ignatieff said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in.
“And now the job of a responsible Opposition is to hold them to their word, to force them to deliver and, if they don’t deliver, to replace them.”
The amendment specifies dates for tabling the status reports — March 26, June 23 and Sept. 10. They are timed to coincide with supply bills, which are automatically considered confidence votes."
More specifically, Ignatieff said he would be watching Harper's Tories "like a hawk."
What exactly was Ignatieff going to be watching like a hawk?
In Ignatieff's words:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
Ignatieff put his finger on the issue: what Canadians needed was cash – hard cash – actually flowing into projects which created jobs.
Not promises.
Not "commitments to fund", which is what Harper's report card talks about.
Let's match Harper's report card against what Ignatieff says was obtained from him.
Note that Ignatieff said the NDP-LPC coalition "forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in."
Now let's take the actual progress to date – the amount "committed" in Harper's report card.
That's $13.2 billion (if we exclude the GM/Chrysler rescue package). Check it yourself – go to Table 1.3 on page 14 of the report card.
And that makes only 33% "committed" of the total amount of $40 billion that Ignatieff was so pleased by.
Now, ask yourself: if your kid came home and started crowing about how well he or she had done because they scored overall 33%, what would you say?
"Nice job, here's some cash, off to celebrate you are!"
Or would you say: "That's just not good enough. That is a failing grade. You are grounded."
Let's see if any of the Bloc, NDP or Liberal parties will give Harper a pass on his 33% score.
Why an election is most unlikely
Threehundredandeight has the reasons summarized, based on the latest polls:
"The NDP's result isn't horrible, and is in fact a little better than what we've seen lately, but Jack Layton would be taking a huge gamble if he supported a non-confidence motion, as he will surely see his caucus fall to under 30 seats. He could even lose as many as half of his MPs. The Bloc has nothing to gain in an election, except maybe a return to areas that the Conservatives have won in the last two elections. But they are likely to see their caucus drop by a handful of seats, their portion of the vote drop by a few points, their finances to drop by a few million dollars, and their political capital to take a big hit."
The only thing the Liberals can do right now is attend to the fleshing out of our policies, make sure that members get a chance to review them before they are cast in stone by the elite, and gather in as much cash as possible in preparation for an election in, say, a year's time.
Oh, and they can consider another course of action: cut a bargain with the Dippers and the Bloc. This would have to commit the three parties to not run candidates against each other in ridings now held by each party, and for both the Bloc and NDP to have some kind of say over what a minority Liberal government would do once in power.
If this is anathema to Ignatieff and his advisors, the alternative is as I laid out above: get ready and wait until the Tory mandate expires and they are forced to call an election.
"The NDP's result isn't horrible, and is in fact a little better than what we've seen lately, but Jack Layton would be taking a huge gamble if he supported a non-confidence motion, as he will surely see his caucus fall to under 30 seats. He could even lose as many as half of his MPs. The Bloc has nothing to gain in an election, except maybe a return to areas that the Conservatives have won in the last two elections. But they are likely to see their caucus drop by a handful of seats, their portion of the vote drop by a few points, their finances to drop by a few million dollars, and their political capital to take a big hit."
The only thing the Liberals can do right now is attend to the fleshing out of our policies, make sure that members get a chance to review them before they are cast in stone by the elite, and gather in as much cash as possible in preparation for an election in, say, a year's time.
Oh, and they can consider another course of action: cut a bargain with the Dippers and the Bloc. This would have to commit the three parties to not run candidates against each other in ridings now held by each party, and for both the Bloc and NDP to have some kind of say over what a minority Liberal government would do once in power.
If this is anathema to Ignatieff and his advisors, the alternative is as I laid out above: get ready and wait until the Tory mandate expires and they are forced to call an election.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The folly of the Liberal default choice
Recent polls (especially today's breakdown of the 905 wipeout of Harper's 'suburban' votes) have shown the Liberals edging ahead of the Tories, in both of the vote-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
If an election was called right now, these polls mean we will get more votes than we did last time (a paltry 26% of total votes across Canada), and win more seats.
However, two things make a minority Liberal government (let alone a majority one) a long shot right now.
Firstly, past polls have shown that the Tories do better once the writ is dropped and can boost their numbers by around 4% (with a similar 4% reduction in Liberal votes) during the campaign. So any margin which is less than 4% means that the Tories might still be able to change the dynamics of the game through their better campaigning, and eke out a minority government.
Secondly, Jack Layton would need to have his head read if he in any way voted with the Liberals on any non-confidence motion so as to throw the Tories out of power. His polling numbers are being badly hit, and waiting is better for the NDP than doing a lemminglike lateral arabesque off the cliff edge. Likewise, Duceppe needs to walk wide of the cliff edge, given the resurgent Liberal numbers in Quebec.
What does this mean?
Simply that an election in the next 12 to 18 months is highly unlikely, unless Jack Layton develops a Joe Clark-electoral death wish, and steps off the cliff to personal (and party) oblivion.
So where does this leave us?
With time.
Time for Harper to get his act together. This is the man who understands discipline (usually), and who lusts for power. He united the right; pulling his shell shocked troops together is not an impossible task for him.
Time for the economy to start turning around, with many indices showing positive and rising improvements.
Time for the Tories to spend a few more millions defining (framing) Ignatieff.
Time for the Liberals to spend their precious time in Parliament pounding the Tories on relatively insignificant issues (the tapes, for example) while avoiding telling voters what the party stands for and why the voters should vote Liberal.
At the moment, without any comprehensive Liberal set of policies announced and laid before the voters, the party, under its new leader, seems to be banking on becoming the next government by default. If you don't like Harper and his Tories, try us.
This default-choice strategy relies on voters thinking that they have been presented a blank cheque, which voters can fill in. It relies on voters – having tired of Harper's political mean spiritedness – deciding that the devil they don't know is better than the one they do.
But this is really an insult to voters, and courts disaster because, as the pollster pointed out, the Tories have still maintained a 30% grip on the electorate nationwide, and have the luxury of time because the NDP is unlikely to decide to (voluntarily) transform themselves into lemmings.
For us to regain power, we need to place before the voters a comprehensive, liberal set of policies and programs, so that Canadians may know what we stand for, and what they will get if they decide to change from the Tories to another government.
If an election was called right now, these polls mean we will get more votes than we did last time (a paltry 26% of total votes across Canada), and win more seats.
However, two things make a minority Liberal government (let alone a majority one) a long shot right now.
Firstly, past polls have shown that the Tories do better once the writ is dropped and can boost their numbers by around 4% (with a similar 4% reduction in Liberal votes) during the campaign. So any margin which is less than 4% means that the Tories might still be able to change the dynamics of the game through their better campaigning, and eke out a minority government.
Secondly, Jack Layton would need to have his head read if he in any way voted with the Liberals on any non-confidence motion so as to throw the Tories out of power. His polling numbers are being badly hit, and waiting is better for the NDP than doing a lemminglike lateral arabesque off the cliff edge. Likewise, Duceppe needs to walk wide of the cliff edge, given the resurgent Liberal numbers in Quebec.
What does this mean?
Simply that an election in the next 12 to 18 months is highly unlikely, unless Jack Layton develops a Joe Clark-electoral death wish, and steps off the cliff to personal (and party) oblivion.
So where does this leave us?
With time.
Time for Harper to get his act together. This is the man who understands discipline (usually), and who lusts for power. He united the right; pulling his shell shocked troops together is not an impossible task for him.
Time for the economy to start turning around, with many indices showing positive and rising improvements.
Time for the Tories to spend a few more millions defining (framing) Ignatieff.
Time for the Liberals to spend their precious time in Parliament pounding the Tories on relatively insignificant issues (the tapes, for example) while avoiding telling voters what the party stands for and why the voters should vote Liberal.
At the moment, without any comprehensive Liberal set of policies announced and laid before the voters, the party, under its new leader, seems to be banking on becoming the next government by default. If you don't like Harper and his Tories, try us.
This default-choice strategy relies on voters thinking that they have been presented a blank cheque, which voters can fill in. It relies on voters – having tired of Harper's political mean spiritedness – deciding that the devil they don't know is better than the one they do.
But this is really an insult to voters, and courts disaster because, as the pollster pointed out, the Tories have still maintained a 30% grip on the electorate nationwide, and have the luxury of time because the NDP is unlikely to decide to (voluntarily) transform themselves into lemmings.
For us to regain power, we need to place before the voters a comprehensive, liberal set of policies and programs, so that Canadians may know what we stand for, and what they will get if they decide to change from the Tories to another government.
Look to Canada for your Constitution, Mr. Brown …
Having narrowly escaped being turfed out as leader of the Labour Party by revolting backbenchers, Gordon Brown has come up with constitutional reform as his battle cry.
And as part of that, he suggests that Britain actually discuss using a written constitution!
"Second, setting out the rights that people can expect but also the responsibilities that come with those rights as a British citizen is a fundamental step in balancing power between Government, Parliament and the people. Mr Speaker, it is to some people extraordinary that in Britain we still have a largely unwritten constitution. I personally favour a written constitution but I recognise that changing this would represent an historic shift in our constitutional arrangements so such proposals will be subject to wide public debate and ultimately the drafting of such a constitution would be a matter for the widest possible consultation with the British people themselves."
Well, Mr. Brown, you can learn from the masterpiece which we created when Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the last great Canadian prime minister, brought home the constitution and included a gem of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in it.
Feel free to borrow our Charter, Mr. Brown: you could do a lot worse!
And as part of that, he suggests that Britain actually discuss using a written constitution!
"Second, setting out the rights that people can expect but also the responsibilities that come with those rights as a British citizen is a fundamental step in balancing power between Government, Parliament and the people. Mr Speaker, it is to some people extraordinary that in Britain we still have a largely unwritten constitution. I personally favour a written constitution but I recognise that changing this would represent an historic shift in our constitutional arrangements so such proposals will be subject to wide public debate and ultimately the drafting of such a constitution would be a matter for the widest possible consultation with the British people themselves."
Well, Mr. Brown, you can learn from the masterpiece which we created when Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the last great Canadian prime minister, brought home the constitution and included a gem of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in it.
Feel free to borrow our Charter, Mr. Brown: you could do a lot worse!
Saturday, June 06, 2009
When battle is joined, Tories do better than Liberals
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)?
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)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
