If you caught Question Period yesterday, you saw Tim Powers make an appearance. The topic was election speculation, namely the stronger language coming from the NDP, less likely they will support the budget. Powers reaction, was one of disappointment, you could see it, he said it, unless you believe it a ruse to look apprehensive when really hawkish, quite telling. Have you noticed, this latest ramp up in the polls for the Conservatives hasn't come with the usual bravado? My memory is clear, in the past, any hint of momentum and Conservatives instantly gloat, taunt, puff out their chest and yell from the rafters "BRING IT ON!" I see little evidence of past posture now, no matter the anecdotal reference. In fact, my read of body language tells me unequivocally that the Conservatives really don't want an election, they genuinely would prefer to govern rather than go to an election. Powers another example of apparent hesitation.
It is understandable why the Conservatives wouldn't want an election if it would merely reinforce the status quo. Trouble is, these poll numbers represent the biggest swing for the government since the Dion coalition, a sustained move, on the cusp of majority, targeting certain seats, it looks within grasp. Heck, EKOS has put the Conservatives ahead in Toronto, TWICE now in the last three offerings. We are almost at unprecedented regional potential, and I'm sorry but I still don't see any real enthusiasm. Ready, of course, laying the groundwork for a call, absolutely, preferred, not sensing it in the least.
Posture is everything, rhetoric just that. I would submit, something doesn't quite jive here, the Conservatives obviously see some pitfalls that the polls aren't addressing or reading properly. These Conservatives poll more than any in history, they know the mood, shifts, potentials, down to a microscopic level. With all this data available, it is curious that the Conservatives don't seem to share the euphoria that polls possibly present. Here it is Conservatives, right there in front of you, within your grasp, look poised to roll over the Liberals, and people like Powers still look sullen when processing the fact the NDP apparently backing away from budget support. It is fair to say the numbers won't get any better, fair to see this budget won't have to make tough choices, it will be attractive, and still the macho taunts are absent. Why? Why, the break from the pattern seen previously? To say it is a clever strategy to look "kicking and screaming" while quietly wanting one, doesn't pass the smell test for here.
I think it all speaks volumes...
25 comments:
Did you see the CARP poll? Seniors don't like what they're seeing in the past few weeks, and seniors are the ones who vote...
The tide has already turned. Polls are a trailing indicator.
Cons fluffing off that poll, but I see as first evidence that things aren't all smiles on good ship Harper.
In the 2008 election, Dion made himself the central focus with the Green Shift. By having to explain a very complicated change to Canada's taxation system, the Liberals were on the defensive throughout the campaign. By not keeping the spotlight on the government, it was really no wonder why they finished so poorly.
This time the election will be about Harper. The Grits have two very clear policy differences that are easily explained; NO to $28 billion for jets we can't afford, and NO to a corporate tax cut when we have a structural deficit. Likewise it is easy to label the Harper Government as secretive, unaccountable and abusive of power, and again they will be the ones who have to spend the energy to defend their actions.
No, regardless of the polls it certainly is not all smiles on the good ship Harper. They will be taking a pounding once campaign advertising limits kick in.
not to get all pedantic on you, but the word is not 'Jive" it is "Jibe" - the word is originally a nautical term meaning to change direction suddenly when sail with the wind - the implication being that all ships in a formation change direction together in a uniform manner, that they "jibe" together. As a result it has come to mean "to agree" or "to correspond with a pattern".
Jive is the language of jazzmen, beatniks and other hepcat, you dig?
In other words the rhetoric doesn't jibe with reality, because the rhetoric is mostly jive.
Good poker face?
The Cons are just in no hurry.
They know that after the full $26 million dollar govt ad buy is spent and after their own multi-million dollar ad buy is spent and even some of the $4 million after budget govt ad buy has been spent they can have an election and spend another $18.3 million plus.
They may also know that the numbers now are, in part, the result of that massive, virtually unopposed ad buy and in an election things could change but I bet they are just happy to spend govt and CPC money now to hammer Ignatieff and fluff up themselves for as long as they can before the election.
Correct Rev!
Steve,
I saw QP as well.
The CPC has noticed that when they smile broadly after good polls, those polls drop. When they look serious and insist it is "stay the course" they look appropriately humble and the citizens respect it.
I think that explains why the CPC is staying under the radar.
They will let the opposition bang the drum and open their mouths.
The CPC has to be quietly delighted that the opposition is wary but continuing to walk forward into what might be an electoral trap.
For example, apparently the Liberal's would consider putting federal money into a hockey rink in Quebec City. This may be regionally popular but we all know the backlash effects.
For example, apparently the Liberal's would consider putting federal money into a hockey rink in Quebec City. This may be regionally popular but we all know the backlash effects.
Yes I read that and thought that was a silly topic to wade in on at this point. In Ignatieff's defense, he generally supported this in the past though I don't know why, almost everyone else outside Quebec City does not. However if anything sinks the Libs, it will not be the Quebec arena issue.
Tomm, the numbers are certainly very good for Harper. However keep in mind that in the 13 federal elections held since 1960, in 11 of them the most popular party going in always saw their numbers drop when the actual ballots are cast. Anyone want to guess the 2 years they did not?
BTW - my point is Harper's numbers will more than likely go down once the only poll that matters is over. The only question is by what margin.
TofKW said...
Grits have two very clear policy differences that are easily explained; NO to $28 billion for jets we can't afford [...]
I thought the LPC's position on the jets was that yes, we do need to replace the CF-18's, but if we use an open bidding process, we *may* get a cheaper option (bearing in mind that even a cheaper option will presumably cost several billions of dollars over the lifetime of whatever jet we end up getting).
TofKW's quote isn't the opposite of my understanding, but unless I'm not understanding the LPC position - and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong - the Liberals would still spend billions on replacements for the CF-18s at some point, just hopefully an unspecified smaller amount of money than what's currently on offer.
(Presumably, if we assume for a minute that the LPC gets a chance to put that policy into action and has an open, fair analysis, it's at least possible that we'll be back to where we are viz the F-35s, no?)
Tof KW said...
The Grits have two very clear policy differences that are easily explained; NO to $28 billion for jets we can't afford,
It's not 28 billion, and it was a Liberal initiative.
and NO to a corporate tax cut when we have a structural deficit.
That tax cut will do good things for our economy...and was also a Liberal initiative.
(also to be avoided: Afghanistan, climate change, G8/G20, UAE, UN Security Council seat, etc...)
It's not 28 billion, and it was a Liberal initiative.
It's not $16 billion either. A military purchase that came in at the amount quoted would be a major miracle.
And the "Liberal initiative" was to join in in a small way on the R&D effort of what, 10 years ago, was to be a leading edge aircraft. They did this so as to qualify for purchasing them if they were the ones we wanted to replace the F18s and to allow Canadian aerospace companies to participate in their development.
So it was an insurance policy (a non-refundable "downpayment" to get on the potential list of buyers) and an industry subsidy.
Fred
That's such bull, the Libs agreed to participate, it was not a commitment to buy the plane.
As for the figures, you guys have none, so SHHHHHH!!!
That tax cut will do good things for our economy...and was also a Liberal initiative.
A carbon tax, a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels, would also do good things for our economy but how did that work out?
Let alone that the evidence to support any benefit from a continuing lowered corporate income tax by itself is scant. The only decent evidence is that shifting from an income tax on both people and corporations to consumption taxes, like a carbon tax and the GST/HST "will do good things for our economy". And we won't be seeing that tax shift.
Also, when you have a surplus as the Liberals did you can do a number of things with that surplus. You can pay down the debt, you can fund new programs and/or you can cut taxes. The Liberals did a mix of all three.
We now have a deficit. A cut in corporate taxes with be an increase in the money borrowed by the govt. That borrowed money will be paid back with interest by individual Canadians. A cut in corporate taxes while we're in a deficit is a tax shift from corporations to individual Canadians.
Timing is everything.
Taylor, Pataquin, Smith and that Milner-Casgrain fellow. It's the absolute mother of all useless Power Panels coming up. I'm going to Zellers..
It jibes perfectly.
The Liberal Party has been in steady decline for a decade. It has continued under Ignatieff. It's a defenseless party that has just came under an advertising blitz the likes of which have never before been seen in Canada. If Harper himself weren't so unpopular he'd be controlling the most powerful political organization in modern Canadian history. Maybe he still is.
And like it or not, not enough Canadians care about the recent Tory ethics problems.
All this equals a massive Harper lead.
The question about the next election isn't whether Harper will win again, but by how much? And will the Liberals remain the official opposition or drop to third or fourth party status. Remember that the only thing that's kept the NDP down nationally is no presence in Quebec. That's changing.
A lot of people say Harper's main goal is to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but he's the closest political leader in history to doing so.
We're staring into an abyss, and things don't look like they're getting better anytime soon.
Probably only a matter of time before the Liberals are running third in the polls.
Venting felt good. Ahhhhh
that sounded like a concern troll vent to me
I'm not sure if I agree with that, but he's the closest political leader in history to doing so.
Mulroney reducing them to 40 seats was way more impressive than anything fratboy Harper could pull off. One big difference, people actually liked Mulroney.
Doing that crazy hand jive.
The reason they don't want an election is that hundreds of thousands of Americans are starting to protest the neo-con agenda in America, Michigan is going to be on the streets tomorrow.
They called the election in 2008 so that Canada wouldn't get swept up Obama's democracy movement. Now is the worst time for them to have an election because they are on the wrong side of history.
Well no one asked, but as per my post from 3:21 PM, March 14, 2011 - the only two elections (out of 13) since 1960 where the party leading in the polls maintained or increased their numbers at the ballot box were:-
1974 - This was the election with Stanfield's wage & price controls, also where he 'dropped the ball'** Trudeau actually increased his numbers over the course of the campaign ...and the Liberals ultimately adopted wage & price controls anyways.
1988 - The 'free trade' election. Mulroney had reduced numbers going into the election from 1984, enough so that the Liberals looked to make substantial gains, even the possibility to knock the PCs into minority status. However the dynamics of a one-issue election campaign, coupled with a good sales job by the PCs, ultimately resulted in Mulroney managing to finish the election with the same poll numbers from when it began.
And to restate, every one of the other 11 federal elections since 1960 saw the party leading in the polls lose their numbers by the end. Some by a little (Harper in 2008) and some by massive amounts (Campbell in 1993, Turner in 1984).
If I were betting on this, with all these mini-scandals floating around Harper’s head right now, any of them potentially exploding during a campaign, and all of them together painting a portrait; I can’t see him beating the odds and maintaining or increasing his popularity. I doubt the CPC can beat the odds, their numbers will drop from the 40% by the end of the campaign, the only question is by how much.
- - -
**BTW - I know the photographer who took that famous photo (among others you may know) and he said out of a couple-dozen throws that was the only football-pass Stanfield had dropped. He regrets taking the shot.
Do you happen to know the voter turn-out numbers for the elections you mention? Because while I think those facts and figures are valid, they will be skewed against any upcoming federal election which will more than likely see a pitiful number of Canadians even bother to show up at the polling booths.
You need to update those figures, T of KW: you're using a dated study for those totals.
There's actually been 16 fed. GE's since 1960, now, not 13, so you'll either have to qualify that claim or look at the before & after poll no's for the last 3 elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections
Steve V said...
Fred
That's such bull, the Libs agreed to participate, it was not a commitment to buy the plane.
Sorry, Steve. They didn't 'participate'...they invested (150 million USD , if memory serves). And rightly so. There seem to be a lot of people around here who slam the government for buying this next-generation aircraft but don't understand military aircraft very well (talk of the ultra-advanced Chinese warplane that's going to KILL US ALL! is especially amusing..). The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft that can be configured in different ways depending upon our needs; it's the right choice and the best choice.
(...okay, just kidding about 'kill us all'. Chinese hi-tech? Are you kidding me? Wanna buy a bridge really cheap?)
As for the figures, you guys have none, so SHHHHHH!!!
Maybe we do, and we're saving them...;)
Post a Comment