EKOS

The new EKOS offers quite a bit of intriguing information. Here's a few things that stick out:

- LOWEST Conservative total since 2008 election.

- highest Liberal total since the spring, still not great, but much improved.

- noticeable dropoff for the NDP. Now polling in the single digits in Quebec,mirroring what Harris Decima found just last week. Registry?

- Greens actually 3.5% ahead of NDP in Quebec, only 4% behind in Ontario

- Liberals gaining in Ontario, at both the NDP and Conservative expense.

- Liberals at 39% in Ontario. Haven't seen this level for some time, represents big seat swing

- Conservatives losing more educated voters, base looking more and more like a "Deliverance" extra convention

- Ignatieff's app/disapproval numbers slightly improved over summer, more people have negative opinion of Harper. Ignatieff still has large "not sure" score, opinion hasn't cemented

- Layton's app/disapproval still best, but trendline bad, erosion on app, growing dis. Again, registry?

- Harper's app/disapproval getting worse.

Basically, it's hard to get terribly excited about the Liberals still below 30%. But, since everything is relative in politics, the appearance of momentum is there. What's important, the developing narratives find further oxygen, which can lead to more gains.

EKOS

Fox News North Petition

I've been watching this online petition today, which is growing at quite an impressive rate. The goal is 100000 signatures, and it's already a third of the way there. By my calculations today, it is growing by over 1000 people per hour so far today alone. Give it a look and consider signing and/or spreading it around. Apathy is the enemy:

Canada: Stop "Fox News North"

Prime Minister Harper is trying to push American-style hate media onto our airwaves, and make us all pay for it. His plan is to create a "Fox News North" to mimic the kind of hate-filled propaganda with which Fox News has poisoned U.S. politics. The channel will be run by Harper’s former top aide and will be funded with money from our cable TV fees!

One man stands in the way of this nightmare -- the Chairman of Canada's Radio and Telecommunications Commission Konrad von Finckenstein. And now, Harper is trying to get him out of his job. Sign the petition below to send a wave of support to von Finckenstein and forward this campaign to everyone -- we'll publish full page ads in Canadian papers when we reach 100,000:


To CRTC Chair von Finckenstein and PM Harper:
As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC's refusal to allow a new "Fox News North" channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada's democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.

THE LINK.

As an aside the total is live, so you can see it move up in real time. I think something is afoot.

Fox News North Petition

Does Harper Really Have A Choice?

More digestion of the Conservatives purposeful "framing" of the next election- a majority or a coalition. While I believe some of the arguments have merit, I also think the main impetus for this "stark contrast" presentation isn't really addressed.

I think the main reasoning, behind the "stark choice" theme, is primarily a self interest consideration. The next election will be Stephen Harper's fourth as leader of the Conservatives. Harper has kept the conservative coalition together, no surprise, power tends to bind like glue. However, should Harper fail to get a majority in the next election, the obvious questioning of his leadership will begin, people will ponder the post-Harper era, wonder why he can't get over the hump.

Odds are higher that the Conservatives will receive less seats than more in the next election. Any result that brings a more fragile minority, the clock starts ticking on Harper, questions are raised. In reality, this next election is make it or break it for Harper. Should the government receive a slightly smaller mandate, Harper is weakened, people will openly wonder if he packs it in. In addition, you can expect the fully united Conservative coalition to fracture, as pretenders jockey for position.

I understand that the Conservatives see the "coalition" as a divisive issue that works in their favour. The highest polling the Conservatives have seen occurred during the coalition threat; they've never achieved anything close prior or before. For that reason, you can see why majority dreaming Conservatives want to re-create that formula. That said, underneath this motivation is a very simple calculation for Harper- it's now or never, do it or be doomed. Even if the Conservatives were to win the next election, should it be a smaller caucus, there will invariably be a "dame luck" feel to Harper. Of that, I have no doubt, and this consideration is part of the "stark contrast" rationale.

Does Harper Really Have A Choice?

Why The Wedge Works

I was a bit surprised at first, just how aggressive the Liberals are on this gun registry front. However, the more you digest the possible ramifications, playing hardcore wedge politics with the NDP, on this file, makes perfect sense.

Brad Lavigne articulates the emerging NDP retort (twitter):

"bradlavigne #lpc has lost almost every rural seat it held in 2000. Today it announced it is writing-off what is left"

I've also heard that Layton's press conference yesterday was part of a wider strategy, which I think Lavigne articulates above. To be honest, this supposed "strategy" looks like reactionary damage control, certainly not a preferred thrust.

It could be true, that the Liberals risk further eroding what is left of their support in rural Canada. However, as Lavigne himself notes, the Liberals have pretty much lost their way in rural Canada anyway, so one wonders. It becomes particularly interesting when you counter the potential gains, and it is here that this wedge makes perfect sense.

If you peruse the last election results, riding by riding, you will find that rural seat pickups are mostly a pipedream for the Liberals. On the other hand, when you look at urban, suburban seats, you see dozens in the 5-10% back range- it is these seats that will make or break Liberal fortunes. An added dynamic, vote splitting in those key ridings, which reveals the true wisdom of this wedge play. Even if the overall voting is a wash (lose some in rural, pickup some in urban), it's translates to positive electoral weighting.

In addition, and I believe this facet to be the true kicker- kill Mulclair, kill the NDP in Quebec. Outremont was already setting up to be a herculian battle, but with today's speech by Ignatieff, it becomes even more pointed. A bold move, naming Mulclair, but not a reckless one, that's for certain. If the Liberals can knock off Mulclair in Outremont, the NDP dream in Quebec is dead, we go back to virtual oblivion. On the wider front, if you can shave a few points off the NDP support in Quebec, then that makes the Liberals all the more the defacto federalist option, once again. In Quebec, there is no downside for the Liberals to come out strong on the gun registry, particularly when the upstart is vulnerable.

The Liberals have already been hammered in rural Canada over the gun registry, the damage so clearly done. I suspect the NDP strategy is no such thing, an after the fact, make the best of it reaction. On the other side, the more you think it through, the more it looks shrewd for the Liberals to push this issue with fervor, drive the wedge.

Why The Wedge Works

Bad Ideas

Layton's bizarre presser today (could have done without the juvenile subtitles in this video), which actually brought the gallery to laughter:



I'm not sure why the NDP brain trust put Layton out today. I'd put this decision in the "medium gaffe" binder. Layton parroted the usual hollow lines, offered reforms which the Liberals adopted months ago, and basically did jack(pun intended) to help the NDP position.

This post sums it all up very nicely.

...

Bad Ideas

Beware The "Spring" Strategy

A pretty good read on the Liberals summer, and where they go from here by Joan Bryden. This particular passage was interesting:

Ideally, Liberal strategists would prefer to wait until spring, giving the Harper government more time to accumulate baggage, wrestle with a weakening economy and produce a promised restraint budget packed with painful spending cuts.

One word comes to mind here- NIMBLE. I would argue that the Liberals abandon these long term plans, or more correctly, adapt to events and be pragmatic. The above premise probably sounded wise at one point, but it's now full of risk and uncertainty.

Conventional wisdom holds that the next budget is where the government must make the tough choices, unpopular choices. The last budget, mostly a free pass, the 2011 budget will be where the deep cuts come and with that dissent and dissatisfaction. I believed this theory, but I have serious doubts now as events change.

Most economic forecasts for this year NOW project better growth than Flaherty budgeted for in the spring. As well, we just had the first quarter deficit numbers released, figures which every Liberal should pay attention consider:

Ottawa's budgetary shortfall narrowed in the first quarter of the fiscal year, the federal deficit dropping to $7.2 billion from the $12.5 billion it reached a year earlier.

That puts the government on track to meet its prediction of a $49.2 billion deficit for 2010-11, though there's still plenty of reason to keep an wary eye on the global economy, the Finance department said Friday.

Flaherty is wise to be cautious, politically and philosophically. Three months does not a year make, but it does start to confirm what economists are projecting. Extrapolate the quarter out to the year, and you see a deficit of around 29 billion. Even if growth slows, there is still AMPLE room for Flaherty to come in well below what the government projected. Fast forward to the spring, are Liberals really that keen on a budget which allows a much rosier picture? There is also evidence that the government is already reigning in spending- can Flaherty argue that our position is so much improved, the huge cuts assumed aren't required?

I think the situation NOW allows for the possibility that the 2011 budget won't be the "meet your maker" budget everybody assumes. Instead, it could well be a relatively positive presentation, that puts the government in a favourable light, able managers. Canadians are expecting huge deficits. While Flaherty would be foolish to predict anything, I'm sure the government is pleased and sees upside. Something like "because of our sound management and prudent policy, I am pleased to tell Canadians that our fiscal house is much improved since the 2010 budget..."

The key thing for the Liberals is not to get tunnel vision with this spring strategy, but keep a fluid perspective. As the picture unfolds, nobody should be surprised if, in fact, the spring budget is the preferred election scenario for the Conservatives, not the Liberals.

Beware The "Spring" Strategy

Quebec "Boosts Liberal Fortunes"

Remember when the Liberals were polling in the mid 20's, talk of mergers, leadership, complete disarray? That debate was all the way back in June. At the time, I posted that at the heart of the problem, where all the negativity originated, boiled down to Quebec:

Turning our gaze to Quebec, we see another pathetic 18.9% score for the Liberals, a number which is now commonplace. I would submit, that most of this merger, Liberals in free fall conversation, would be muted if the party was simply doing better in Quebec. The Liberals were in the 30's for more than a few months, then drifted back to the high 20's and its been downward since. Even if the party had MODEST numbers in Quebec, you can add a couple points nationally, and SUDDENLY you've got a close horse race and most of these "story lines" run basically as background noise.

Fast forward today, and we are starting to see those "modest" Quebec numbers, nothing spectacular, nothing to get excited about, but just enough that the Liberals suddenly look viable:

Nationally, the Tories were at 33 per cent, to the Liberals' 30, the NDP's 16 and the Greens' 10.

In Quebec, the Bloc stood at 37 per cent with the Liberals in a solid second at 28 per cent. The Tories were at 15 per cent, the Greens at 10 and the NDP at nine.

Returning to when the Liberals were polling in the high teens in Quebec, you can shave 2-3% off the national numbers, and I guarantee the negative narratives find more oxygen. If you look at the regional numbers- comparing the June bloodbath with the latest batch of polling- you find the Liberals haven't really moved in Ontario, haven't really move anywhere. And yet, suddenly we have "narrowing leads", "Liberals off the mat", "race tightening", all because the Liberals have merely returned to a half decent showing in Quebec, nothing more, nothing less.

Quebec "Boosts Liberal Fortunes"

Free Votes And Optics

The release of the RCMP report on the long gun registry is another powerful tool for the pro-registry side. The frame is starting to gel, in a general sense another expert vs ideology debate. While I see no direct consequence for the government, primarily because many Canadians agree with their position, the gun registry is another example of a negative narrative. Supressing reports, not listening to the advice of those in the know, that theme is a dangerous one for Harper, and in that sense this debate could bite. However, the party with the most to lose here is clearly the NDP, and that conclusion raises a host of questions.

I have always supported free votes, more power for individual MP's, because that better reflects democratic will, constituent wants. When I say the NDP will pay a political price for not supporting the gun registry, this isn't a commentary on free votes, merely the OPTICS, which are undeniable, based on past experience. The Liberals are generally the party that suffers from the "internal" policy division presentation. I've always believed that dissenting debate is healthy, but I've watched time and again how the slightest prospect of division becomes a negative headline. When I say the NDP will pay politically if the gun registry falls because of a free vote, this isn't a criticism, it's a recognition. If people believe otherwise, then there is some new reality in Ottawa, which I've never seen.

We aren't talking about what is fair, reasonable or philosophically attractive, we are talking about the optics, important not to confuse the two. People will notice pretty much ZERO in the way of critical thought, when it comes to the supposed united Conservative front on the registry. Do people really believe every single Conservative MP favours killing the gun registry, no dissenters, no one that would vote to save it, if a true free vote allowed? Bullocks. But, the appearance is that of a monolith, no cracks, no division, unanimous and for some reason strong. In Ottawa, any second guessing is pure poison, you want the most seamless, consistent presentation.

The NDP are without question providing the best expression of democracy on this issue. While that allows a moral, ideological argument, it doesn't do much in the real world translation. The headline will read that renegade NDP MP's didn't follow the stated party policy, and in turn the gun registry died. In places like Quebec, nobody will applaud the allowance of a free vote, the overriding frame will be that the NDP helped Harper kill the gun registry. Is that right, is that fair? No, and it's also true that doesn't matter in the least, when it comes to the optical game. And, before anyone feels to bad for the NDP predicament, one must remember how partisan have RELISHED past opportunities to jump on the same, even though the same principles apply. All the parties know how events are reported, how certain facts override all other consideration, how it all comes down to the most superficial of analysis. It is that knowledge that doesn't generate any contradiction in the fundamental belief in the free votes, and the recognition that this vote could be a negative politically.

Free Votes And Optics

Never Poke A Bear

John Ivison has a very good piece on the manufactured Russian threat. Ivison expands on a point raised by the Liberals today, namely that this government is jeopardizing international relations, in the name of political expediency:

This is understood only too well by Canada’s bureaucrats in the Department of Foreign Affairs, many of whom have been left holding their heads in their hands in despair after the latest intervention by the PMO.

Sources inside the department said there is increasing frustration at a hostility toward Russia that is manufactured for entirely domestic political purposes. The relationship between this government and its bureaucracy is showing signs of fraying to breaking point. Conservative politicians might joke that a public service strike would bring government to a standstill, if it were not for the fact that it is already. They might not be laughing so hard if they tested the theory. “More and more, the system is starting to resist,” said one senior Conservative, who lamented the aggressive approach taken by the PMO.

...But it is fair to suggest that there should be a more mature, sophisticated approach taken by the Prime Minister’s Office. To speak in the style of a wannabe Top Gun is not grown-up government.

It is entirely reckless and irresponsible for Dmitri Soudas to issue a provocative press release, just so this government can justify their F35 fighter expenditure. If we really need these planes, then a reasonable case can be made, and Canadians will accept the purchase. What is entirely offside, the notion that this government can manufacture a threat, and in so doing offend the Russians needlessly. Where is the diplomatic upside, creating tension where no reasonable person says exists?

This is the second time the government has pushed Russian bombers close to our airspace. Quite something, that in between these two "incidents", Canada and Russian planes took part in joint exercises, making the "threat" presentation all the more unnecessary.

Rather than get sucked into this debate about the F35's, the real issue here is the behaviour of this government, who so easily use Russia as a pawn to sell their domestic agenda. Not only is it ill conceived, but it is a bit dangerous and denotes ZERO comprehension of foreign relations- a fact which will surprise no one, given the abysmal track record of the Conservatives. Today's press release bordered on tacky and bizarre. It would be comical, if not for the simple fact there could be real reprecussions, that could actually setback Canada/Russia relations.

Never Poke A Bear

Ignatieff On B.C. HST

A really good substantive news item with Ignatieff, on a host of topics. Ignatieff was asked about the HST, during his British Columbia tour, and his comments were refined, but the message was clear:

“We’ve always believed that tax harmonization is a good thing. But the way you do it is absolutely crucial. And the way it was done here has given every politician pause for reflection. The issue is not the tax, in my view. It had to do with democratic accountability and whether trust was broken. That’s an issue for the provincial Liberals, it’s not an issue for me. We’ve been clear on HST all along. But you have to do it right. If you lose the consent of the people on this, that’s a problem for Premier Campbell.”

Dressed in jeans and a casual shirt, Ignatieff spoke without notes or a lectern in front of a packed room in the West Vancouver Community Centre.

Ignatieff is clearly speaking to the fact that Campbell ran an election campaign, without any mention of the HST, only to announce it mere weeks after he won. That he brings the argument down to a question of broken "trust" is an interesting characterization, one I'm sure Campbell doesn't welcome. Not a particularly political answer, but a fairly honest one.

Ignatieff On B.C. HST

Gun Registry Poll

The most frustrating part of this entire long gun registry "debate" is the lack of any middle ground, as proponents and detractors distort and present one sided arguments, that can't even entertain any evidence which doesn't fit nicely into the preconceived bias. As a matter of fact, the long gun debate is really symptomatic of a larger commentary on how discourse seems to unfold in the modern political world.

For the life of me, I still don't know how much this gun registry actually costs? If you're in favour of the registry, it apparently costs next to nothing, if you're against, it is an obscene waste of taxpayer money. For anyone trying to decipher the dueling the exaggerations, you're left with nothing but confusion and frustration. How many times a day do police officers actually use the registry for "real" applications? Again, I haven't the slightest and I basically give up on anyone providing a detached review of the true facts. Do police officers unanimously support the gun registry or does every single one of them hate it with a passion, can't wait for the day that it's gone? You're guess is as good as mine.

There's one more question, that thankfully is outside of the confusion- what do Canadians think of this gun registry, and do they believe it worth saving? Today, Angus Reid releases a poll, which seems to be in line with previous findings. The bottom line conclusions- Canadians don't see much value in the registry and more of them want it scrapped then saved:

44% support scrapping the long gun registry; 35% oppose such a move

The only province where people support keeping the registry is Quebec, and by a large margin. In the rest of the country, sentiment is clearly in favour of scrapping the registry. It is worth noting, that 1 in 5 Canadians is unsure, and I suspect part of that is due to the confusing presentations criticized prior.

Maybe more troubling for those on the pro-registry side, Canadians really don't see it as a useful tool. An embarrassing low 13% of Canadians think this registry successful in preventing crime in Canada, while 43% think it unsuccessful. A further 29% think the registry has had no effect whatsoever. The only caveat here for the anti-registry side, people believe crime is increasing, gun crime a serious issue(as outlined in this poll), so one would expect a negative response to any question on effectiveness. However, it is fair to say that Canadians don't see this registry as a meaningful tool.

So, there you have it. I don't have a clue what is what with this gun registry, but it would appear that once again, a sampling of opinion shows a "two solitudes" divide, but an overall negative impression of the registry and its usefulness. And, that's the no spin reality...

Gun Registry Poll

What A Stupid Poll, What A Stupid "News" Organization

We've all seen some shit polls in our time, but this latest QMI/Leger "offering" might be the worst yet. If this is indicative of the new Kory Teneycke reign, it would seem the term LAME has found new relevance. Intellectually dishonest, it reads more like a PMO press release, than a supposed news organization.

"Iggy's summer tour a flop: poll" reads the headline. Did you know that Ignatieff had been on the road for 3 weeks when this poll was taken? Did you know that Ignatieff has been on the for 3 weeks SINCE this poll was taken? Did you know that Ignatieff will be on the road for another 3 weeks?

I expect absolutely nothing (except for David Akin- run David run!) from the new Sun Media manifestation, but the pollster here is insanely disappointing:

Dave Scholz with Leger Marketing. "Now near the end of the summer tour, we're finding that only 8% of people know more about him now than they did before. That's a pretty small number.

Good grief, "near the end" eh Dave? Try 1/3 through the tour when you took the poll. Scholz goes further, citing Ontarians as disproportionately aware of the tour and having their views impacted. Well golly gee Dave, might have something to do with the fact the tour was primarily in ONTARIO during the small subset of the tour you've used to extrapolate over the full calendar. I guess the sad part, clients actually pay for this "analysis". Absolutely astounding that the pollster makes definitive comments when he knows the poll is THREE WEEKS OLD! Take heart Liberals, using the above logic and statistics, we can conclude that 24% of Canadians will know more about Ignatieff by tour's end- of those by a 3 to 1 ratio they will have an improved opinion. Sounds like success I say, thank you Sun Media!

More from Scholz:

"I think the Liberal Party would like to forget the summer of 2010."

Dave, Canadians are going to be mightily pissed when they find out that Leger Marketing has unilaterally cut SUMMER IN HALF! Kory Teneycke wants to take away your summer Canada, he really is that scary.

So far, the only "flop" I'm sensing is the new Sun Media. What a disgrace, if not entirely surprising, given the quality of new management.

Anyways, I missed the Leafs game last night, so off to the PVR to see if they can continue this early season winning streak...

UPDATE:

BCL had a similar reaction. Impolitical with more.

What A Stupid Poll, What A Stupid "News" Organization

Go Time?

There seems to be an assumption, that a fall election is very unlikely. This prediction is largely based on Conservative fortunes, down in the polls, no real apparent upside or realistic prospect of the coveted majority. Within this mindset, an almost after the fact analysis of the Liberal situation. Surely, the Liberals wouldn't consider an election, given what happened prior, given where they are in the poll, even entertaining the possibility sure madness. I would submit, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Liberals should seriously consider a fall election.

It always seems to come down to the polls. I believe there is much more to the equation, but on this score, the numbers are actually encouraging. If you isolate yourself to the Liberal support, then the idea of an election is somewhat laughable, but that is to narrow a view. The fact that this government sits well below their tally in the last two elections, closer to their 2004 LOSS to Martin, is a very powerful indicator that they are ripe for defeat. Some voters are clearly bypassing the Liberals, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there is no love in the land for Harper and company. The polls tell me, on a personal level Harper has never been less popular, as a party, the Conservatives show more vulnerability, than at any point since they came to office. Rather than a "where we are" exclusive consideration, one should be well aware of "where they are" and then decide if we can capitalize. At the very least, I don't see the polls as the great dissuader that some to, in fact I see opportunity.

Beyond the polls, I sense a real change on the narrative front. There are two storylines here, both of which work in the Liberals favour. Harper is getting hammered, the most negative narratives are cementing in a very coherent, easily understood way. At the same time, Ignatieff is gaining a certain measure of respect from the media class, as he completes an almost flawless tour, proving he is up to the challenge of a campaign. While the numbers have yet to show a seismic change, there is no question Ignatieff is better off today, than he was at the beginning of the summer. My political instincts see a certain momentum, that might serve us well when Parliament returns. Eliminate the self inflicted wound, internal divisions routine, and you might just keep the focus on the government and start to look the credible alternative.

Some Liberals are waiting for that day when the Liberals are well ahead in the polls and victory looks almost assured. I would argue, that day may never come UNTIL we have a campaign, unless of course people are prepared to wait for a couple more years, even that offering zero guarantees of anything. A campaign offers the Liberals the best high profile opportunity to bring the soft support back into the fold. Should we wait until the budget, we might be surprised when the government announces the deficit fight is ahead of schedule, a relative "good news" feel, the Conservatives look competent. No one should assume the future is always brighter, timing is everything and this moment has many attractive attributes.

I think it's "go time". I would very quietly and cautiously move in that direction come the return of Parliament.

Go Time?

Ice Age

In a democracy, different points of view are not only tolerated, but ENCOURAGED. This core belief explains why people protect the most egregious or offensive viewpoints, in the name of freedom of speech and expression. What does it say then, to have a government, which tramples, suppresses and actually punishes any person, or organization which DARES to disagree.

I'm sure when the dust settles on the latest example of Conservative "chill", we will be left with a confusing mess of conflicting arguments. There will be no real smoking gun(pun intended) that this government actively suppressed opposition to their gun registry policy, but given past patterns and KNOWN tactics, those with half a clue will conclude the obvious. You see, with government, if you dissent, you now know full well that you may face consequences.

These are the supposed people that champion the whistle blower, believe that government can't be trusted and checks must exist, to ensure full light is cast in all corners. And yet, in practice, this Conservative government is the most secretive, least transparent, patently hypocritical manifestation that has graced the federal scene. Fall in line, don't challenge, a thread of fear to keep opposition stifled. One wonders what else is going on behind the scenes, on a host of files, that will never reach the light of day, because of the current climate in Ottawa?

I'm sure it's all coincidence that the biggest pro-gun registry advocate in the RCMP is suddenly brushing up on his French, at the critical moment. I'm also sure it takes a certain degree of willful ignorance to believe the above is the full story.

Ice Age

Loons

Heading up to northern Ontario for a few days....

Loons

Taking Notes For The Book?

I'm not sure what's more disturbing and patently absurd, Cherry's suit or that the other guy actually leads a modern nation:

Taking Notes For The Book?

Some Evidence Ignatieff Gaining Traction

A small bit of "evidence" that this summer's tour is helping Ignatieff's fortunes. I'm sure the trends below would have given Mario Lague a small measure of satisfaction, with the summer tour he helped orchestrate.

First, the horserace numbers, which show a 9 point Conservative lead, down to 4, poll to poll:

Cons 33%(-3)
Libs 29%(+2)
NDP 19%(-1)
Greens 9%(+2)

Another pollster shows a closing trend. Of note, for Angus Reid, this result is the closest the two parties have been this year.

What is also noteworthy about this poll, the party leader numbers. At first blush, Ignatieff's numbers are objectively dismal, but using relativity and the all the important trendline, room for optimism is warranted:

Ignatieff's momentum—on the heels of his cross-country tour and appearances in the barbecue circuit—has increased markedly.

Ignatieff has ranked last on the AR momentum score for months and months. For this poll, Harper is noticeably weaker than Ignatieff, an entirely new dynamic.

When you drill down into the various questions, you see that more Canadians now see Harper as arrogant, compared to Ignatieff(42-35%) While Harper's number continues to rise, Ignatieff's are heading lower. The trend is important, when one considers a chief attack line revolves around this criticism. Overall:

The silver lining for Liberal supporters is the apparent recovery for Michael Ignatieff, who no longer is the de-facto third place finisher in the momentum category. His approval rating remains low at 14 per cent, but the numbers suggest that some people are starting to change their mind about him. For Stephen Harper, the summer did not provide a boost. A third of Canadians now have a worse opinion of the Prime Minister.

Ignatieff`s disapproval is down 6% in just one month, his approval remains unchanged. While still third on this measure, interesting to note Ignatieff is the only federal leader who showed no erosion. Reviewing some of the more detailed questions, you see a very noticeable move on a crucial point. Ignatieff is up 3% on the "in touch" measure, down 5% on "out of touch". This 8 point swing is important, because it represents Ignatieff's chief appearance hurdle. Harper NOW leads Ignatieff on this score.

A long way to go, but it's a good start.

Some Evidence Ignatieff Gaining Traction

There's A Word For It

There's a term used to describe the behavior of knowing one truth, but telling others something entirely different.

I guess the most fascinating part of these census emails, the concerted effort by the government to sanitize their ideological push, and make it appear as though Statistics Canada was on board. We see emails, wherein government references are removed and replaced, part of the "communications strategy" to sell these census changes.

Tony Clement completely misrepresented the position of Statistics Canada:

Industry Minister Tony Clement was well aware that Statistics Canada had little use for a voluntary census when he was telling Canadians that StatsCan was onside with his decision to scrap the mandatory, long-form survey, internal government documents show.

In an email to the minister’s advisers in March, a StatsCan official says a self-administered voluntary survey “provides a response rate of 50 per cent.” The email goes on to say that, with follow-up and interviewer support, the response rate can be increased to 65-70 per cent, “which is still not an acceptable outcome for a census.”

Yet Clement publicly gave the impression that the respected federal data collecting agency supported the Conservatives’ move to scrap the mandatory nature of the 40-page, long-form survey that has traditionally gone out to one-in-five households at census time.

“We’ve come up with a way that is statistically valid, that StatsCan feels can work,” Clement said during an appearance at McGill University last month.

StatsCan didn't feel the changes "can work", IN FACT they argued the exact opposite, expressive grave concerns that the government's changes wouldn't work. Clement tries to hide behind StatsCan, consistent with other requests to remove government references in press releases.

Obviously, it is entirely predictable that any government would try and sell their policies, nothing unusual there. However, to purposely cite support from the bureaucracy, where NONE exists, in fact the opposite, raises serious questions about the moral fitness of the Minister.

If you ask me, looking at the sequence of events, the wrong person was forced to resign.

There's A Word For It