(Canadian) Liberals slip badly in polls - Globe and Mail

[Screaming Lord Byron]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040216.wxpoll0217/BNStory/National/

The Liberals, headed for an easy election win a week ago, have plummeted into minority-government territory in popular support as most Canadians want to hear the results of an inquiry into the sponsorship scandal before they vote, according to a poll.

The survey, done by Ipsos-Reid for The Globe and Mail and CTV, could throw cold water on plans for a spring ballot.

The new survey suggests that the Liberals' 11-year grip on power is in danger despite Mr. Martin's week-long public-relations push to contain the damage. The Liberals have fallen to 35 per cent in popular support, from 39 per cent last week and 48 per cent only four weeks ago.

The Conservative Party has risen to 27 per cent, up from 19 per cent four weeks ago, and the New Democrats are relatively stable at 17 per cent. In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois has surged to 45 per cent, compared to 31 per cent for the Liberals.


- What this poll highlights is that the Tories always benefit from Financial scandals, regardless of whether they 'deserve' to or not. We have not seen much effective criticism from the Tories (understandably, they have other, more pressing matters, such as the leadership election) yet they benefit. This is the challenge for the NDP, who have, unfortunately, not profited from this affair.

[Minstrel Boy]

1. The regional numbers are more encouraging for the NDP, because

the Conservatives made most of their gains in Alberta, which is the one place they don't need them (though not at the expense of the NDP, which holds steady). NDP numbers rebounded in BC and held steady in Ontario and Manitoba/Sask. Only significant drop was Atlantic Canada, and there the sample size was so small it may not be worthy of comment.

BC
NDP: 27%
CPC: 32%
LIB: 27%

Alberta
NDP: 16%
CPC: 58%
LIB: 20%

Manitoba/Sask:
NDP: 32%
CPC: 28%
LIB: 29%

Ontario:
NDP: 22%
CPC: 26%
LIB: 41%

Quebec
NDP: 8%
CPC: 10%
LIB: 31%
BQ: 43%

Atlantic Canada
NDP: 12%
CPC: 33%
LIB: 47%

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Comparing the 2000 results in Ontario compared to now,

I'll take now. :)

Party / 2000 / today
Liberal: 51% / 41%
NDP: 8% / 22%
Con: 38% / 26%

Even after uniting the two right-wing parties, the Conservatives are still down 12%. Liberals down 10%. The only party up is the NDP, which has gained 14%.

Since Ontario accounts for more than a third of the seats in the House, this is pretty darn good news.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

3. I'm not too concerned about our position, as we are holding steady

What is infuriating is that the CPC profits by default.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. But leaderless and without clear policies, the "Conservative Party"

is little more than a familiar-sounding brand disgruntled Canadians can park their votes with. In a month, they'll be led by either Harper, Clement or Stronach, and I doubt they'll be as popular again.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. This poll is a picture of an angry electorate giving its first reaction

to the scandal. Given a couple of weeks, who knows what will happen again. I do get a whiff of knee-jerk here.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Notice the BC figures. Perhaps last week's poll was a blip?

Up 5% from 22% to 27%.

[gator_in_Ontario]

7. I'm just beginning to get a grasp

of Canadian politics, so please excuse my ignorance.

I understand that there was (is) much animosity between Martin and Cretien, although they are members of the same party. The silence of Cretien on this matter is deafening to me. Would Cretien take the fall for Martin for the good of the party? Or is that totally foriegn to Canadian politics?

I have a Canadian friend who insists this would not happen as Canadian politicians are not as "devious and corrupt" as their American counter-parts. I tend to think, jaded American that I am, that "politics is politics".

Any comment or criticism is welcome.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

9. I suspect Chretien left this audit as a nasty surprise for his successor.

However, the other side of the coin is the ironic fact that if Chretien had been allowed to remain PM until the end of February, as he had wished, this report would have come out at the very end of his Prime Ministership, deflecting the blame from Martin, who hounded Chretien in order to get him to leave earlier. Isn't irony a bitch?

P.S. Don't let anyone tell you our politicians are more moral than US politicians. They are subtler, however.

[iverglas]

27. a question is

-- was Chrétien not "allowed" to remain until February according to his initial plan ... or did he, knowing full well what was going to happen around that time, and who was going to be getting held responsible for it, dodge the bullet by leaving early?

Chrétien may be a tad "liberal" on the social stuff, but he was a Liberal all the way on the corruption/cronyism stuff. I mean, he might not have been a Gagliano, but he was no Ed Broadbent either. ;)

.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

29. I think he pulled a classic fast one on John Turner...sorry, Paul Martin.

[Holly]

12. It's complicated

basically what many are seeing as just corruption is not an accurate description. This whole problem is wrapped up in the National unity issue. It's the elephant in the room, and we're all too afraid to discuss it. Briefly here's the rundown. After the Federal government nearly lost the referendum, Chrétien set up a program to promote Canada and raise the profile of the federal government in Quebec. This was the time honoured way of fighting separatism in Quebec. Chrétien was a tough political animal and he went "bare-knuckle" boxing against the separatist forces. The media at that time was not on the federal government’s side, in Quebec. Money was funneled through ad agencies to "buy" people off. Chrétien would have given the order to promote Canada and his underlings carried it out. He didn't question "how", and he probably didn't care. He had one goal, and that was unity. I'm not going to debate if he was right or wrong, because I'm not sure if the “ ends justify the means anymore”. History will judge that. Chrétien is unapologetic about this, because he believes that it was the right course of action, and it was Trudeau's method before him.
Martin and Chrétien were bitter rivals. Martin was Chretien's only "threat", and he kept him at arms length. I have no doubt that Martin was kept off the Quebec file. Chrétien knew he would succeed at unity, and he wasn't going to let Paul Martin have any credit for it. Martin fought the deficit, but national unity was Chretien's baby. Martin did not support this action and would have fought against the Chrétien loyalists. They committed fraud to cover up how dirty they were fighting in Quebec. This isn’t a case of Liberals with money hidden under their mattress, but something more perverse.
The reality is that the former Conservative government did many of the same things. If Martin can pull this off, people are punished and get re-elected we may have a chance at real unity, honest unity. Quebec deserved better, but Chrétien saw this as a war.

[Jane Roe]

16. Something I have wondered sonce the mid-1990s . . .

why doesn't Canada just let Quebec go?

Why aren't (non-Quebec) Canadians generally neutral on the separatist issue?

There are probably good reasons for the way Canadians feel about the separatist movement as they do -- I am just asking because I am curious.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

17. The simplest answer is that it would leave a very large hole in Canada.

The more complex answer is that Quebec leaving may be like removing the flagstone to the Canadian arch. If Quebec leaves, it may damage the structure of the state beyond repair. Alberta and BC may go next, then the Maritimes. Quebec leaving scares Canadians because it is a genuine unknown. The third answer is that many of us take Quebec Nationalism as a personal insult, a slap in the face to our attempts to reconcile different races and create a multicultural society.
I would bet there are as many answers to this questions as there are Canadians.

[Holly]

19. My Canada

includes Quebec. My Canada includes a Quebec that feels part of us. That wants to be part of a Canada that will protect her language and culture. My Canada includes recognizing that Quebec is distinct and has a long and proud history. My Canada will treat Quebec with respect as a mature, important Province. My Canada will not "blackmail" or "bully" Quebec to stay, but treat her fairly. For every way that Quebecois are different, there is a part of them, their history and culture, in all Canadians.

"Why aren't (non-Quebec) Canadians generally neutral on the separatist issue?"

We aren't neutral about the break-up of our nation. Canada is worth fighting for.

[iverglas]

28. some of us aren't that naive

Although yes indeed, there are two separate issues.


One is the dumping of dollars into Quebec for a good purpose: saving Confederation. That can indeed be a good reason for giving $150,000 to a sports team in Quebec but not to a sports team in Alberta, at least for doing things like that in the short run. As a long-term policy, it's kinda self-defeating ... not much point in making Quebec happy if the rest of the country just gets a whole lot unhappier.

And that is what is likely to happen when it's done under the counter and behind the back of the rest of the country as this seems to have been done anyhow. Transparency was not exactly the watchword of this program. If people aren't going to like something they know about, how likely is it that they will like it when they find it was concealed from them?

If saving Confederation is a good goal, and if Quebec has legitimate complaints, the public discourse should address both issues openly. That doesn't preclude a few symbolic gestures of goodwill from the ROC (that's rest of Canada, for the neighbours), but the people whose goodwill is being donated ought to maybe know about it.


The other is the dumping of dollars into Liberal cronies' pockets.

Money was funneled through ad agencies to "buy" people off.

It's the "funneling" through ad agencies (how many funnels also skim the creamy 10% on the way through?) that's the problem even to people, like good NDPers, who support the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers for self-determination (without agreeing that this necessitates secession).

Chrétien would have given the order to promote Canada and his underlings carried it out. He didn't question "how", and he probably didn't care. He had one goal, and that was unity.

Uh, gimme a break. I've seen Chrétien think on his feet, very up close and personal. He is really not a dummy. And while he wasn't a micro-manager like Martin, he also wasn't either arrogant enough (like Trudeau) or stupid enough not to know very well what goes on in Quebec when it comes to the Liberal Party, and how important what was going on was to his and the party's fortunes ... and his supporters' bank accounts.

This isn’t a case of Liberals with money hidden under their mattress, but something more perverse.

Yup, that's absolutely what it is -- Liberals with suitcases full of money drained from the public purse, under cover of lofty ideals. Those are always the best cover for corruption, after all.

.

[Holly]

8. Not an accurate poll

first, this is a knee-jerk poll. The NDP numbers are solid, in a position to rise. Conservative numbers aren't real. With no leader, they've been left alone. As soon as they choose a leader from the useless three, and trot out their "loony" policy they'll nose dive in Ontario. Layton and Martin will point at the Right and say "neo-con, homophobic, Iraq enabler, Bush lover" and the games over for them here. As the Parliamentary committee begins to wrap-up, the Liberal numbers will re-bound. Soon the budget will be presented and the swing voters will do what they always do, vote with their wallets. I don't really see good days for the Right ahead, east of Manitoba. Anyway you look at this they won't rise in the east. If they pick Belinda or Clement as leader , it's the return of Harris and Mulroney. If they pick Harper, it's the Alliance part three.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. I am inclined to agree. It is a knee-jerk. Perhaps numbers will stabilize

for the Liberals, perhaps not. I don't know, as it is too early to tell. Stronach will not be able to capitalize due to her inexperience, Clement is dull, Harper is an intelligent man who can debate well, but is deeply uncharismatic and will not appeal to the centre. We shall see.

[Minstrel Boy]

11. I agree. Until the Conservatives select a leader

polling is meaningless with respect to forecasting an election.

Also, Ipsos-Reid polling tends to inflate the "other" column, by prompting those polled with the name of the Green Party. Such a measure of support for the Greens is, I think, illusory.

Ipsos-Reid pegs the Greens at 5% nationally, plus another 6% for other. Just who is this "other"? That's 11% right there, and that's absurdly high. Election day, Green and "other" votes will account for no more than one or two percent.

Saw this suggestion on rabble.ca this morning, and I think it's generally sound:

what we really need to do is redivide the results out of a base of 90 (deleting the ridiculously overestimated Green/Other vote). If we divide that vote proportionately, we get

Libs. 39
Cons. 30
NDP 20
BQ 11

Of course in reality most of that Green/Other vote is probably a generalized anti-government vote and most of it is in English Canada so I expect in reality it will be split between the NDP, the Cons and non-voting.

[bubblesby2002]

13. Oh I absolutely agree with your post.

In fact my sister and I were saying the same thing this weekend. Once this is over, and it will blow over, and the election is called most middle leaning (if you can say that) Canadians will NOT vote for the crazy right wing Conservatives - especially if Harper becomes leader. Your earlier post re why the money was spent is also brilliant.:hi:

ps Maybe Jack Layton will be a king maker?

[Holly]

14. Very possible

wouldn't Jack Layton as the king maker be interesting. And thanks. :hi:

[Minstrel Boy]

15. I think it was yesterday in the Globe that John Ibbitson called Jack

Layton potentially the second most powerful politician in Canada. That'd be fine by me. (Then, come next election, we can make him the most powerful. :D )

Nice piece by Judy Rebick today on rabble.ca, reflecting on the NDP, Jack and his nomination meeting last Sunday:



Change was reflected on the stage. The first three speakers representing the riding and the party were women: local MPP Marilyn Churley, former leader Alexa McDonough and House Leader Libby Davies. When Jack spoke he said, “I'm proud to be in a party that welcomes progressive women instead of driving them out.” Of course, the males were also present, with Ed Broadbent, who introduced Jack, getting the second biggest applause of the evening. A friend I was with whispered, “See, they still need the patriarchs.” The left of the party represented by Libby and Svend Robinson had pride of place but there was unity and a real enthusiasm from everyone.

While you won't read it in the newspapers, there are several progressive people running and being elected candidates. In Toronto this week Michael Shapcott, a long-time housing activist was nominated in Toronto Centre and Peggy Nash, a feminist leader from the Canadian Auto Workers won the nomination in Parkdale-High Park. Kim Fry, an anti-globalization activist, is running for the nomination in Davenport. “I signed up some of my anarchist friends in Parkdale to vote for Peggy,” she told me, “and they went to the nomination meeting and just loved her speech. They are totally committed to working for her during the elections.”

...

While the NDP is slowly creeping up in the polls, its membership has almost doubled since Jack became leader and the hope, optimism and energy so necessary to a left-wing party's ability to mobilize support is higher than I've ever seen it.

...

For me, Jack's strongest quality and the one that gives me the most hope that he can really change something is his character and his commitment to positive democratic process. He has not an ounce of the sectarianism and egotistical pettiness that plagues the party and the labour movement. He values criticism and does not demand the kind of loyalty that prevents engaged dialogue within the left. Moreover, he is a genuine feminist and values and respects collective process, the contribution of women and young people.

http://www.rabble.ca/in_your_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=3ce791d299dd049fb0b8137db2cbb9b2&r=1

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. There's a poll on canada.com. Shall we DU it?

[Minstrel Boy]

20. looks like it's getting freeped

Currently:

Liberals: 20%
Conservative: 57%
NDP: 21%
BQ: 2%

http://www.canada.com/national/

[Screaming Lord Byron]

21. I have an e-mail account at Canada.com. It's pretty right-wing

being Southam and all.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

26. Update - Lib 15.5%, CPC 48.9%, NDP 26.2%, Bloc 9.4%

That's a lot of Bloc supporters for a monolingual website!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

22. Having thought about it, this scandal could be critical mass for the Grits

The financial scandal is irrelevant, but it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. At some point, the electorate decides that a government has been in long enough, and they've seen too many mistakes and scandals. This may be it, or it may be the next one. Historically, governments have reached critical mass at this point - Mulroney after nine years, Trudeau after eleven, Thatcher was ditched at the eleven year point, the Liberals fell in 1957, twelve years after World War Two (which stifled criticism of the government of course). Martin's challenge is to stave this off. Who knows if he can.

[Holly]

23. The Liberals have

some advantages though. A very good economy, and the unknown Conservative factor. Speaking to some Liberal voters today. They are mad, but in the same breath they think "abortion and religion", out here. Perhaps a minority government, not a bad idea. One interesting part of the poll. 65% want more info before an election. That says to me, we'll give you a chance, just prove your clean.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

24. Martin may be able to use Tory division to win another term.

It is a very fluid situation, and I would not bet on anything today.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

25. Here are some articles on the subject from The Hill Times

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2004/february/16/persichilli/

Will the federal Liberal Party survive this mess? Not likely
It started with the fight between two people: Paul Martin and Jean ChrŽtien. The question now, however, is not whose reputation is on the line, but how far this fight will go. But one thing is deadly certain, this fight is beyond the personal and nasty dispute between two political titans and now involves the entire political organization and perhaps the entire democratic system upon which our country is based.

The question now is: Will the Liberal Party survive this mess? I'm not optimistic.

Canadians are a very tolerant lot, but also they're focused and pragmatic. They know that democracy works only if you have an honest government and a healthy opposition. For 10 years, we have proven to the world that you can have a democracy even without an opposition. Now we are going to take this experiment to a different high: we are going to show the world that a democracy can exist also without a government.

This is a dangerous game.

If our country is still sound and safe after 10 years of a democratic dictatorship, it's only because Canadian people are responsible and did not take advantage of the vacuum at the top. If Liberals were able to govern for 10 years, it's only because Canadian people parked their confidence in the only spot available, hoping that the other organizations would act responsibly.

What we see today, is a replay of what we saw after Brian Mulroney's government.

The Conservative Party was not destroyed by Canadian people. Yes, it's true, they would have delivered a sound defeat to them, like the one suffered by the Liberals in 1984. But after a couple terms in purgatory, they would have been back in government. In fact, Canadian people started wondering about Liberals already in 1997; definitely they were ready to dump the Liberals in the 2000 elections. It was the litigious, personal revenge, petty politics of the Conservatives that allowed Jean Chretien to be returned to power.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2004/february/16/francoli/

Sponsorship inquiry to 'rip open the underbelly' of Liberal Party

The new Paul Martin government will live to rue the day it called a judicial public inquiry into the Quebec sponsorship scandal, predicts Jean Chretien's biographer Lawrence Martin.

"It will rip open the underbelly of the party and all its patronage operations. There is a lot of really smelly stuff in there," said Mr. Martin, who is also a columnist for The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Martin completed last fall the best-selling second and final volume of his biography of former prime minister Jean Chretien's life and 40-year political career called, Iron Man: The Defiant Reign of Jean ChrŽtien. The veteran journalist and best-selling author who has written extensively about the scandals that dogged the former prime minister throughout his three Liberal governments, said that Liberals should be especially worried if the inquiry widens the scope of its probe.

The Martin government announced it was striking an independent Commission of Public Inquiry the same day Auditor General Sheila Fraser tabled her damning report into the $250-million sponsorship program on Feb. 10.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2004/february/16/rana_2/

Federal Grits joining NDP, say NDP MPs, strategists
Disgruntled federal Grits feel shut out by new Paul Martin team, joining federal NDP
Federal Liberals, who feel shut out of the new Paul Martin government, are starting to join the federal NDP, working on some NDP incumbent MPs' campaigns, and sending in rŽsumŽs to work for the left-leaning party, says NDP MPs and strategists in Ottawa.

A top NDP strategist told The Hill Times that the NDP office in Ottawa has received "about 15" resumes from Liberal political staffers who now want to work for the NDP since Paul Martin (LaSalle-ƒmard, Que.) became Prime Minister.

"We are inundated with interest from Liberals because the more people see Paul Martin as Prime Minister, the less they like that party.... unsolicited resumes for no jobs, we just get them. We have received probably about 15 or so since Paul Martin became Prime Minister," said Jamey Heath, director of communications and research for the NDP Caucus.

And last week, Ian Capstick, a former legislative assistant to former minister of Canadian heritage Sheila Copps (Hamilton East, Ont.) joined the NDP as its caucus media officer. Mr. Capstick will start his new job this week.

Mr. Capstick had worked for Ms. Copps since 2003 and prior to working for her, he worked as a summer student for former minister of defence Art Eggleton (York Centre, Ont.). He also volunteered in the 2000 election campaign of Minister of International cooperation Aileen Carroll (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Ont.).