Strange Timing

For the past three years, critics have lamented the government's inability to reign in spending. Leave it to the Harper government to suddenly turn off the taps just as the country and economy actually need it:

Government spending growth in Canada actually slowed to below the historical average in the first three months of 2009, even as the recession's grip tightened...

Government spending rose only 0.3 per cent in that period over the previous quarter. This increase even fell short of the 30-year historical average of 0.5 per cent for quarterly government spending growth.

"In a quarter they're supposedly rolling out big stimulus, government spending actually rose less than a typical quarter," BMO Nesbitt Burns deputy chief economist Doug Porter noted.

As Mr. Porter observed, it's a surprise that government spending growth actually softened as the downturn grew.

"We were actually expecting a bit more of a positive impact from government spending."

I've heard a rumor that as we get more mandated disclosure on spending, ending this past fiscal year, we could see a suspicious effort to hold back spending, so that it didn't count against the deficit. The above tends to lend some credence to that belief. It will be interesting to see if the government put the optics of their bottomline presentation above spending that was already allocated, clearly needed.

Attack Ad Impacts

The Angus Reid poll details the possible impacts of the attack ads. The Toronto Star headline reads "Tory Attack Ads Backfiring, Poll Finds". In the spirit of fairness, I should point out a few things that go beyond the soundbite presentation. The Angus Reid poll does show that Harper fars worse, relative to Ignatieff with those that have seen the ads, and with those that have seen the ads and the Liberals You Tube response. However, and this is an important factor that seems to be ignored by the pollster and the piece, Harper's numbers are equally abysmal with those that haven't seen the ad or the Liberal response. Angus Reid breaks voters into these three categories, but Harper's numbers are virtually identical across the board. One could argue, that those who haven't seen the ads or the Liberal response still think less of Harper because of what they've read, but I think this fact shows a wider sentiment, namely that people just don't care much for Harper these days, regardless of these attacks. Harper's numbers:

Seen the ad:

Opinion of Harper improved 10%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 50%

Seen the ad and the Liberal You Tube:

Opinion of Harper improved 9%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 52%

Haven't seen the ads or the Liberal You Tube:

Opinion of Harper improved 7%
Stayed the same 42%
Worsened 49%

I'm prepared to accept that the horrible media response to these ads has impacted the last category, but it's also relevant that Harper suffers equally, no matter the subset. To conclude the ads are the reason for Harper's horrible score isn't quite conclusive. As a matter of fact, previous AR polls asking this question have continually shown Harper with considerable negative momentum, regardless of attack ads, so this makes the final group all the more curious.

When it comes to Ignatieff, the conclusion is the attack ads have had slight impact. This is true in terms of voting intention, as well as relative scores to Harper. One small caveat, and I don't want to overstate this, because I agree with the minimal impact thesis, this AR poll is the first to show Ignatieff with negative momentum since he became leader. Previous AR polls continually showed Ignatieff bucking the trend amongst the party leaders, the more Canadians saw, the more they liked, he the only one with positive momentum. In this poll, Ignatieff scores a -7 momentum score, paltry compared to Harper's -41, Layton's -20, but a first time negative number nonetheless.

What AR does show, Ignatieff's numbers are completely stagnant with those that haven't seen the ads, those that have, but have also seen the Liberal response. But, with those that have seen just the ads, Ignatieff does see some erosion:

Seen the ads:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 24%
Stayed the same 26%
Worsened 42%

Seen the ads, Liberal response:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 29%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 31%

Haven't seen the ads or the You Tube:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 28%
Stayed the same 38%
Worsened 28%

The subset that have seen both the ad and the response is irrelevant, because it isn't representative of average Canadians. Only 30000 people have viewed the You Tube ad, this poll presented it to them, so the general population really falls into two categories, seen or haven't seen. When you factor in the millions of Canadians who have seen these ads, then the first category, wherein Ignatieff takes a slight hit is worth taking seriously. However, I'm not trying to elevate marginal impact, merely taking issue with a few superficial conclusions.

AR also asks a whole range of questions about the party leaders, and it's here that we find Harper takes a real risk. Harper is seen as more arrogant, decidedly more secretive, uncaring, dishonest and out of touch. Ignatieff is seen as more intelligent, open and strong, as well as scoring quite low on the measures that haunt Harper.

If you wanted to wrap this entire poll into a couple ofsentences, I would suggest the following. Stephen Harper has serious problems with the electorate, his image is cementing in a negative way. Ignatieff had best keep on eye on the attacks, but he still looks a winner beside Harper.

New Polls

Two new polls, that show quite similar results. The Angus Reid poll also looks at the effect of the attack ads and the leaders, but I'll do a seperate post on these, because there is a lot to pour over. Both Angus Reid and EKOS(with a huge, prolonged sample) put both parties in the same range. Angus Reid gives the Liberals a slight edge, within MOE, although it's interesting to note this is the first time I can remember this pollster giving them any lead:

Libs 33%
Cons 31%
NDP 17%
Greens 7%

The last AR poll had a dead heat, so minimal change, but not insignificant, given that everyone is looking to see if the attack ads have moved numbers. These results would tend to show no impact, although some argue that these ads are a long term venture, a position I see as wishful thinking, in the face of lack of immediate return. We shall see, but with the massive ad buy, that is bombarding Canadians at every turn, one would hope to see something tangible. The frequency of these attack ads go well beyond, to the point of exponential, anything launched at Dion.

When Ipsos showed some movement in their poll, I cautioned that nobody should immediately look to the negative ads as symptom. Just as valid to look at the Dhalla controversy, because it was enjoyed intense coverage and it countered any positive momentum the Liberals had enjoyed. Interestingly, the EKO poll, taken over three weeks, suggests that Dhalla did hurt the Liberals, far more than the attack ads. When we compare EKOS results, averaged out over these three weeks, any narrowing relative to their last poll, is largely a function of Dhalla:


You can clearly see the Liberal numbers dive after Dhalla, and you can also see nothing of note after the attack ads aired. EKOS:

Libs 33.5%
Cons 32.3%
NDP 15.1
Greens 10.4%

A close result, but one will note the final week, which provides the most representative numbers, shows a larger Liberal lead. The average effect of Dhalla provides much of the reasoning to explain the apparent narrowing, relative to the last EKOS poll, but after that event, we see a rebound that is relatively similar to past findings.

Both pollsters see a tight race in Quebec. EKOS merely mentions this fact, while AR shows the Bloc 36%, Libs 33%, Cons 10%- the type of numbers that have now become common. AR also gives the Liberals a 7% lead in Ontario, 43%-36%-14%. Other polls have shown the government doing better in Ontario, so this result is just further evidence of real volatility. No matter what the polls show going into an election, one thing is clear, the campaign will decide Ontario, voters haven't parked anywhere.

Hello In There!

Much speculation, about various scenarios that get something done over EI, avoiding a June election. Janke posits that any deal will cause Liberals to "grind their teeth", and then offers some apparent LSD inspired musing about the "Liberal caucus sharpening their knives". Let's clear the air on WHAT exactly is happening here, and this ain't spin.

The media suffer from duplicity. They chastise political parties for perpetual "election" talk, when it's they in fact that pour over every sentence to raise the temperature, so THEY can talk about a possible election. Sometimes they don't even require an idle quote, in amongst a much more telling paragraph uttered, they just see any area of conflict and RUN with it. If the media is tired of election talk, I assure you we are all more tired of their lazy frames that manufacture real election talk (generalizing of course).

The Liberals are pushing in Parliament, no question. The Liberals have made EI reform a pivotal issue. Let's face it, without the Liberals on board Jack and Gilles could bellow forever and nothing would happen, Harper wouldn't move, because he simply doesn't have to. Throw a determined Ignatieff into the midst, the game has changed, there's enough support that the government must respond. The government must respond, because they don't WANT an election- is this really a newsflash to anybody? More the "sky is blue" realities, the NDP and Bloc don't WANT an election. Even if one of them did, it's still irrelevant because BOTH MUST want to, so let's just say an election isn't in the cards, nope, nada. Liberals can add, unlike some people (hey there Jimmer!).

Does everybody think the Liberals are without strategic sense? A pretty self-evident review of the landscape reveals an opportunity to assert ourselves, without much risk of actually pushing Parliament over the edge. Equating a firm stance on EI as "Liberals clammoring" for an election fails to recognize LEVERAGE. Parliament is brinkmanship, you don't get what you want unless you convey strength, committed and your opponents fear you. For the first time in a long time, that's the dynamic the Liberals enjoy. Ignatieff doesn't have to cower, he can push and be forceful, because he knows full well the other parties aren't keen. It's really no different than the NDP exploiting past Liberal weakness to introduce non-confidence this, non-confidence that.

Do the Liberals want an election? I'm sure a few do, the polls are positive, but I can say with reasonable certainty, the "hawk" camp is in the minority, most are looking to the fall now as the realistic window. To conclude then, that talk that a compromise on EI will leave the Liberals wanting, is just asinine partisan tripe. If we get a deal on EI, no matter what "coalition" of parties agree, it will be because everyone is trying to get to the summer break. From the Liberal perspective, a few more months to ramp up fundraising, organization, attract a strong slate, etc, etc, that's always been the real gameplan, the majority view. If the EI issue is resolved, to some extent, then the Liberals have succeeded in their demands, they got what they wanted and they didn't have to "prop up" anybody. I fail to see any reasonable observer suggesting otherwise, no matter the final configuration of parties that make "backroom" deals.

"Liberals thwarted", more like Liberals get a concession on their key demand coming out of the convention. Concession that only came about because Liberals were strong and prepared, letting others dance around like they did in the past. And, everybody returns to Plan A, without much fuss. That's the bottomline.

Fraud

Pedigree, accomplishment and choice of beverage don't make one an elitist. Inability to relate to, and participate with ordinary Canadians is a far better measure. One of the most laughable frames is this idea that Stephen Harper is more a man of the people, more in touch with average Canadians, more "regular". In fact, Stephen Harper is probably the most guarded, detached, elitist Prime Minister we've seen in some time. Stephen Harper doesn't like Canadians, in fact he does everything in his power to avoid interaction. Outside of a room full of gushing partisans, Stephen Harper is uncomfortable conversing and interacting with Canadians, the last thing in the world you will see is Harper actually visiting a Tim Horton's. Oh, he might make a tightly scripted appearance in a venue that conveys a sense of connectedness, but that presentation evaporates when one entertains the unthinkable- actually MINGLING.

I've met Ignatieff in a very informal setting, speaking, answer questions, mingling with people who weren't necessarily "fans". I watched the sense of ease, very much like this telling post by Aaron Wherry, Ignatieff is quite comfortable with the "masses". That's really no surprise, because Ignatieff has spent considerable time in his life "diving in", not content to pen observations from a hotel room, but from the streets of the world, in place far less "sophisticated" than our latte loving destinations. I've lost count at how many times Ignatieff has done town halls, taking all comers, including hostile partisan plants. The measure of a man in many respects, when speaking of detachment and "air" is their capacity to relate, a genuine sense of comfort. Education doesn't make you an elitist, worldliness and travelling in intellectual circles doesn't make you an elitist, DETACHMENT and lack of respect and recognition make you elitist.

This brings us to the champion of the people, Stephen Harper. There are certain moments that crystalize the nature of a person. During the last election, all party leaders were invited to take part in CBC's "Your Turn", which basically provides ordinary Canadians a chance to interact with their leaders. It's really a pretty pedestrian affair, the questions are screened and generally they deal with the big issues, no real surprises. All the leader's agreed, except one, who DEMANDED that he take NO question from a Canadian or else he wouldn't APPEAR. Think about that for a second, the man of the people was so concerned about actually interacting with average Canadians, he issued an ultimatum and sadly CBC agreed. In the last election, Stephen Harper didn't answer ONE question from a ordinary Canadian; come to think of it he hasn't answered ONE since. What is Harper afraid of? I mean, this is the guy who could waltz into Tim's and feel at home? Truth of the matter, Stephen Harper would be TERRIFIED at the prospect of an unscripted dialogue with the people he claims to represent.

When Barack Obama visited Canada, people will remember his arrival at Parliament Hill. Harper waited indoors, greeted Obama and then began to walk towards the receiving line of elites. Obama stopped Harper, apparently oblivious, and said "do you mind if we go outside", because he understood the crowd waiting outside, he understood that a simple wave, a recognition, is what a true man of the people does instinctually. Harper didn't give the commoners a second thought, because Harper really isn't a "people" person, that sort of display makes him uncomfortable. Harper has no relationship with Canadians, the only time he wades into a crowd, it's a bunch of party hacks bused in, to convey some presentation. Harper doesn't want to speak with the media, he doesn't want to speak with YOU, he doesn't want your input, he doesn't find it necessary to INTERACT. Stephen Harper is a detached, social misfit that conducts himself like an ivory tower elitist. Meanwhile, the cultured international intellectual, grabs his expresso and heads out week after week speaking with Canadians of all stripes, in a way Stephen Harper never COULD or WILL. An interesting contrast, given all the presumptive talk.

The Nasty, Divisive Patriot

Strategic Counsel, asks a series of questions, comparing attitudes toward Ignatieff and Harper. Some of the conclusions, Quebecers HATE Harper, Ignatieff has work to do on the patriotism front, people would have a coffee with Harper, even though he's a nasty piece of work. Buried in the numbers, probably the most important stat, the Liberals are now statistically tied on managing the economy, a finding which towers above all other considerations:

Michael Ignatieff is seen as starkly less patriotic than Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a new poll that suggests the Tories accurately put their finger on the Liberal Leader's vulnerabilities with a series of recent attack ads.

But while the survey comparing the two leaders reveals chinks in Mr. Ignatieff's armour, it also shows the public finds fault with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who voters say is more divisive, nasty and partisan in his approach than Mr. Ignatieff.

The Globe and Mail-CTV News survey shows opportunities abound for both sides to take advantage of the other's weaknesses among regions, gender and income groups.

The general mood of all the answers paints Harper as a more down to earth common man, and he does get the edge with the all important middle class. On the ad front, this poll confirms why the Conservatives chose this line of attack, as Ignatieff trails badly on patriotism. Interestingly, and this plays into something I've argued, these ads tend to feed the negative narratives about Harper, he is seen as far more partisan, nasty and political. It's an fascinating dynamic, while the ads could highlight an Ignatieff weakness, these findings show considerable risk for Harper, reinforcing his own achilles heel.

Generally, we've seen the Conservatives hold an edge on the "economic manager" front, although the Liberals have chipped into this advantage the past few months. It's natural for the governing party to hold an edge on this measure, because they are in charge, whereas the other party is simply theoretical. When you start to see the opposition party even with the government, it represents a serious problem:

When it comes to party preference, the two parties are close in who is viewed as best able to manage the economy, with the Tories ahead 26 per cent to 24 per cent, a gap that has narrowed from 11 points last August.

Even more than the Liberal number, the very low score for the Conservatives tells us they are really losing credibility with Canadians, on the most crucial of files. A full 50% didn't pick either party, which speaks to a real uncertainty. Given the pessimistic economic news we have been bombarded with, it's noteworthy that Ignatieff leads when it comes to ability to inspire. When Canadians see a pretty bleak outlook, challenges ahead, Ignatieff edge on this score could be an asset, as he might best be able to convey a better reality for the future.

One part of this poll omitted from this link, was an intriguing finding on where Canadians think Ignatieff sits on the political spectrum:



I would categorize the above as optimal positioning for Ignatieff moving forward.

"Sucking And Blowing"

When the Liberals attack the government's fiscal mess, the common counter is that we are "sucking and blowing". It's a refrain the media is starting to ask as well, because on the surface there is an air of opportunism. How can Liberals stand up day after day demanding more money for stimulus, EI, etc, and then chastise the government for taking us into a massive deficit? If the government cowered to the opposition demands, the deficit would be bigger, so it's a confusing dual criticism.

Right now, everybody is primarily focused on the government, and their lack of competency. However, that temporary fact shouldn't allow a false sense of security, because the Liberals need to stay ahead of the data curve. It's a pretty simple argument, that Canadians will understand- you say we're spending too much, but you want us to spend more, huh? I think it's wise to counter this argument right now, rather than let others frame what it means.

Given the size of this deficit, beyond responsibility and competence, the question will turn to how we get out of this mess, who has the solutions. The Liberals do have an out, when it comes to the "sucking and blowing" counter. When we were demanding more stimulus money, more expenditures, it was with the understanding that the deficit was at a certain level. Now, with the ballooning debt, a prudent party must re access previous demands, because we were mislead on the deficit. In this way, the Liberals are pragmatic, without letting the government off the deficit hook.

Let's keep it real here, playing with GDP percentages aside, this deficit is HUGE and STRUCTURAL. The deficit will haunt government for years, the latest figures will obliterate any nonsense about temporary, any excuses, any general argument that all will be well in the end. The Liberals need to adapt to the new numbers, and I would argue we should abandon any talk of further stimulus, given the new updated figures and the prospects of worse numbers to come. Within that argument, we can abandon the idea of further stimulus, because the initial stimulus is still sitting in the bank waiting to be spent. Highlight the inability to deliver with a sense of fiscal restraint. Liberals will focus on getting this money out the door, not arguing for more, particularly within the new reality.

Liberals can be smug this week, as we watch Flaherty and Harper self implode. This deficit will HAUNT the government, their credibility is a very real issue, that will be a central theme for the Liberals. That said, the Liberals actually lessen the damage, when fair minded observers turn to their arguments and see competing and contradictory themes. In a sense, we let the government off the deficit hook, if we're seen as the party that wants more, if we don't understand the inherent duplicity.

The latest figures have given us a chance to do the "blank slate" routine. Whatever we've argued the past few weeks is largely irrelevant, if we use the new deficit projections as basis for a policy rethink. It's one thing to argue for further stimulus when we're at 34 billion, quite another when it's 50 billion PLUS. Within rapidly changing events, the Liberals need to be nimble and responsible. I've sensed two things this week, one the obvious lack of competence on the government's part and two, the alternative seems equally out to lunch in it's demands. If we really want the government to wear this circumstance, then it's imperative that we present a consistent message as an alternative. Otherwise, the Liberals own mixed messages effectively alleviate some of the real criticisms directed at the government. These new figures don't just provide an opportunity to hammer the government, they also allow the Liberals to drop some baggage and get ahead of the data, which in the end will win them favor.

Gerard Kennedy And Friends

Gerard Kennedy will be hosting a series of seminars on June 9 and June 14, with an impressive list of speakers, including Bob Rae among others. There will also be speeches by Michael Ignatieff and Dalton McGuinty. Kennedy And Friends:

Welcome Friends,

Please join us for a series of enlighting seminars and inticing dinner events in June at two of our favourite Toronto venues.


Outreach Seminars (Seminar Speakers) (Schedule)

On Tuesday, June 9th and Sunday, June 14th, I will be hosting a series of interesting talks by my friends Bob Rae, Bonnie Crombie, Mark Holland, Kirsty Duncan, Omar Alghabra, and the Honourable George Smitherman.

Following these seminars, we will enjoy cocktails and sit down for an exceptional dinner, highlighted by speeches by Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff and Premier of Ontario, the honourable Dalton McGuinty.


Special Dinners (Guest Speakers) (Schedule)

Guests wishing to attend only the dinner events may do so. I hope that you all can make the time to come out to these very special engagements.

Follow the link for more details, and spread the word :)

Sign Of The Times

Below, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff instructs staff at Stornoway to sweep the compound, looking for any suspicious listening devices:



Zsuzsanna Zsohar expresses happiness, when staff inform her that the flowers are "clean":



Ignatieff points to a tiny white wire running from the chandelier:



You can never be to careful, Ignatieff reverts to sign language during a strategy meeting:

Harper Unplugged

Harper should never freelance, much better when he keeps to his tight scripted persona. See, when Harper does speak freely he tends to reveal too much, he tends to look every bit the mean hyper-partisan, low ball personality, that really isn't Prime Ministerial or worthy of any leadership role in this country. Today, in QP, Harper offered a threat, but in so doing he highlighted EVERYTHING that is wrong with him:

"Mr. Speaker, I can't fire the leader of the opposition. With all of the tapes i've got on him, I don't want to."

What a juvenile response first of all, even worse Harper seemed proud of his "witty" retort.

I though Ignatieff had the perfect response after QP:

Question: Mr. Harper said he has tapes on you.

Ignatieff: That's the other thing. He said in the house that he had tapes on me. That is the most Nixonian of Mr. Harper's many remarks. Every day that goes by he's more like Richard Nixon. We're in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since the second world war, and the prime minister of canada is wasting his time listening to tapes of me? And then, not content with that, he says it in the House of Commons so he'll intimidate me. I will not be intimidated by the prime minister. I've got a job to do which is to hold him to account. The public finances of our country are in freefall, and he's wasting time with tapes of me? It's a joke.

A joke of the highest order. We've just learned Canada is adding an extra 5 billion a month to our deficit, unemployment claims are skyrocketing, and Harper finds it necessary to give Canadians the visual of him sitting in the basement with headphones on, listening to old musings of a political opponent. That Harper VOLUNTARILY tied himself directly to this smear campaign, and essentially promised more, is a real indictment of his priorities.

Hey Kory, you better get a leash on your guy, because he's had a BAD couple of days in Parliament.

UPDATE

Jeff does the heavy lifting with the visual presentation:

Girls and Boys

My only quibble, the video actually shows Flaherty has changed his tune in FIVE WEEKS not four months, which I think emphasizes the incompetence even more. But, who am I to tell Grit Girl ;)

Jeff with a great video today, on the same theme:



Jim Flaherty, showing Canada what Ontario already knows.

CROP Poll

New CROP poll for Quebec, which shows some movement between the Liberals and Bloc, further confirmation that the Conservatives are in big trouble, now third in their supposed "stronghold". The numbers, with last survey in brackets:

Bloc 36% (31%)
Libs 32% (37%)
Cons 15% (15%)
NDP 12% (12%)

The last CROP poll might have been a bit ambitious for the Liberals, a lead outside of the margin of error. The pollster attributes this movement to mere "stabilization", noting that the last poll took place during a very high profile sequence of events for the Liberals and Ignatieff. Moving forward, we can expect to see some vacillation in the numbers, but the dynamic remains the same- Liberals and Bloc relatively close, Conservatives consistently looking irrelevant.

What is particularly worrisome for the Conservatives, CROP now has them running third in the Quebec City region. The Liberals are actually running first at 33%, which hasn't happened since before the sponsorship scandal. If the Conservatives are losing hold of their incumbent region, it's getting very ugly.

Speaking of ugly, no direct attack ad information, but Ignatieff towers above Harper on the PM score:

Ignatieff 39%
Layton 21%
Harper 15%

The pollster notes, the last federal leader to achieve such a low score was Stephane Dion.

The Harper government also achieves the worst satisfaction result since a poll done days prior to Martin's defeat.

From the Liberal perspective, it's important to remember that not ever poll is going to bring new heights, we've been a bit spoiled lately. Expect to see more jockeying around, but the fundamentals are there and that's what matters moving forward. From the Conservative perspective, the battle now seems to be one of merely staying relevant.

"may be hurting the Tories more than the Liberal leader"

It's raining polls today. Harris Decima with another attack ad specific poll finds the attacks are having an effect. Problem for the Conservatives, the ads seem to be reinforcing negative impressions of themselves more than the target:

The Conservative attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, which began on the Internet and then moved to TV, may be hurting the Tories more than the Liberal leader, a new poll suggests.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll found that about half the respondents said the ads had no impact on their impression of the Liberal leader, with 30 per cent reporting a negative effect on their attitude toward him. However, just over half of the respondents said the ads have a negative effect on their feelings about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories.


"The effect seems to cut both ways,'' said Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima. ``There is evidence that these ads are having a negative effect on Mr. Ignatieff, but an even greater negative effect on Prime Minister Harper."

May 14-17

Early days to see how this all shakes out. However, with the AR poll in Quebec showing nothing significant, now HD showing a net negative for the Conservatives, it's fair to say the "roll out" phase hasn't exactly been successful. I've argued this before, but given the chief liabilities for the Conservatives, one had to wonder if these ads wouldn't play into the worrisome narrative of a hyper-partisan, nasty operation, who isn't focused on the real issues. You might dirty your opponent, but you also tell Canadians that YES, you really are all those things we don't like about you. This poll would tend to confirm that thesis.

UPDATE

Jeff has more, particularly on the "early in the game" front.

Attack Ad Poll: Quebec

Angus Reid has conducted a Quebec only poll, to gauge the potential impact of these attack ads. The poll was setup as follows:

800 adult Quebecers were asked for whom they would vote if a federal election were held today. Half of the sample (400 respondents) was then randomly selected to watch several advertisements, including a recent Tory attack. The other group was not shown any ads.

Voting intention, with opinion taken before and after half of the respondents shown ads:

Bloc 40% before 39% after
Liberals 33% before 34% after
Conservatives 13% before 13% after
NDP 11% before 10% after

In terms of voting intention, absolutely no impact, if anything the gap between the Bloc and Liberals narrows, the Conservatives receive no benefit.

Beyond voting intention, AR used a series of leadership questions to see if the ads had any impact on Ignatieff's standing. The conclusion was interesting, because while AR noted "slight" impact for Ignatieff, he still towered above the other leaders, the only one with positive momentum:


People will note, that there was no change in the "worsened" number, with slight change in the "improved column" moving to "stayed the same". From the pollster:

Respondents who had seen the Conservative ad were also less likely to say their opinion of Michael Ignatieff had improved (30%, compared to 39% for those who did not see the ad).
Regardless of whether respondents had seen the ad or not, the overall proportion of respondents who say their opinion of Michael Ignatieff has improved in the past four months (35%) is three times higher than any other federal leader (Layton 11%, Duceppe 10%, Harper 4%). The findings suggest that Ignatieff’s positive momentum in Quebec will likely withstand the current ad campaign by the Tories.

In sharp contrast, views on Stephen Harper continue to worsen in Quebec. Most Quebecers (56%) report that their opinion of the Prime Minister has worsened in the past four months, and strong majorities describe Harper as uncaring (60%), out of touch (59%) and arrogant (58%).

The pollster concludes the ads may "slow Liberal momentum, but don't stop it in Quebec".

There are many different questions asked, on various traits. The pollster notes that Ignatieff falls 7% on "openness" before and after. Noteworthy on one hand, but then again Gilles Duceppe also falls 7% on the same question, and last time I checked he wasn't in the Conservative attack ads. That type of quibble aside, the impact of these ads is catergorized as "slight". That small impact is magnified when one considers people were asked their response IMMEDIATELY after viewing the ad. People can argue the scientific worth or bias in that type of structure, but even with that, there isn't anything significant.

AR also polled where the Liberal vote surge is coming from, and they've found the vast majority comes from the Conservative and NDP support, with little inroads from Bloc voters:

The federal Liberal Party’s growth appears to be coming in large part from its ability to consolidate the federalist vote in Quebec. One-in-three respondents (35%) who voted for the Conservatives in the October 2008 federal election say they would vote Liberal this time and a quarter of NDP voters (24%) feels the same way. The Bloc Québécois appears to be doing a better job of retaining its vote share, with 91 per cent of respondents who voted for the Bloc in the last federal election saying they would do so again today.

In conclusion, the fact that Ignatieff enjoys a very positive momentum score, even after the immediate viewing of the ads, means the impact to date is marginal at best.

That's A Shame

It would appear the rumors that "Politics" will likely be cancelled by the CBC are true. It's pretty sad that our public broadcaster would even entertain killing the only show that offers in depth analysis of our political circumstance, both national and provincial. I don't know the monetary considerations, but Newsworld is supposedly devoted to giving viewers coverage beyond the normal soundbite level which now plagues regular broadcasts. Cancelling a show, which delves deeper into the issues, offers detailed discussion with experts, partisans, across the spectrum, represents a pretty significant loss. The public is worse for this decision.

I've already sent an email to CBC to voice my concern, and I would encourage others to do the same under "complaint" at "Newsworld":

Here

New Poll

A new Ipsos poll out, which shows some slight variation in the Conservatives favor. The change is entirely due to Ontario, with the parties now virtually deadlocked. First, the national numbers, with the last Ipsos poll in brackets:

Cons 35% (33%)
Libs 33% (36%)
NDP 14% (13%)

Ipsos shows a swing in Ontario, which speaks to a pretty self evident volatility:

Cons 39% (34%)
Libs 37% (44%)

No NDP total released yet, but one assumes a slight uptick from the last result of 12%.

In Quebec, more of the same:

Libs 36% (32%)
Bloc 36% 34%)
Cons 14% (14%)

British Columbia, not much change from the last poll:

39 per cent support in British Columbia, while the Liberals garnered 27 per cent and the New Democrats 24 per cent.

In a testament to how national numbers can be somewhat misleading, a point I have made often, the pollster still sees a Liberal victory:

The seat distribution in Canada means that although the Conservatives and Liberals appear to be in a close contest, the Liberal vote is "more efficient" and would likely lead to a victory if an election was held today, Bricker said.

The change in this poll is entirely a Ontario consideration. Bricker mentions the economy, possibly stabilizing, which is helping the Conservatives. That is a consideration, as are the attack ads. However, I see the Dhalla controversy as particularly relevant, the story received massive coverage, particular in Ontario, for a weak, the optics were quite poor and it could have trimmed Liberal support. That could part of the equation here, or just natural volatility in the numbers. If one is inclined to believe this is evidence of attack ads working, then you would expect to see movement throughout the country, not just in one province. The fact this is Ontario specific leads me to discard that causal relationship.

Ultimately, it might just be over analyzing for explanation, when really the Ontario numbers are doing what they always do, move around with regularity.

Reality Check

If you read and heard today's story, you'd be inclined to think that Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan was at odd with federal Liberals over the EI debate. Duncan doesn't want an election over EI, that is the way the story is being covered, and then interpreted to strangely put the Liberals on the defensive. CTV did just that to Martha Hall Findlay today, as though the pressure is on the Liberals to climb down, using Duncan as reference point.

Here is what Dwight Duncan ACTUALLY said today. You be the judge, because I don't think it takes much to see where the real PRESSURE lies:

Tom Clark

"You did say very clearly today, that you don't think there should be an election over EI reform. You're calling on your federal brethren not to call an election over EI."

Duncan:

"What I'm calling on is for the WILL of Parliament to be done. And, if the majority in Parliament says the Employment Insurance rules should be changed, I don't believe the federal government should force an election. Our preference is to get those changes, if it's the WILL of Parliament."

The WILL of Parliament, the MAJORITY in Parliament and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not FORCE an election. CTV, although it was the widespread interpretation today, heard these words, but then ignored them later on, only to act as though Duncan was warning his "brethren". Seems to me, Duncan was telling the government to listen to the three opposition parties and quit saber rattling. Maybe the "Reality Check" section on Clark's show should come with a MIRROR.

"deficit will be substantially higher than we thought"

The above quote comes as no surprise to anyone, but it's nice to see Jim "behind the curve" Flaherty catching up to what economists told him right after he delivered his "rosy" budget projections. Apologists will argue that this admission is nothing more than a recognition of the changing landscape. That rationalization aside, it raises a legitimate question- why can the Parliamentary Budget Officer, independent economists, bank forecasts, international agencies, better predict Canada's fiscal situation than Canada's Finance Minister?

If you go back to last year's election, move forward to today, and trace Flaherty's "analysis" of the economy, you will find the most consistent of patterns. This government has a tremendous LAG, relative to reality. When economists warned of recession, Flaherty said there would be none. When economists warned of deepening recession, Flaherty only saw a "technical" one. When economists started using the D word, Flaherty then conceded recession. When economists spoke of deficits, Flaherty said Canada would remain in surplus. When economists argued for stimulus measures, Flaherty argued we didn't need additional expenditures. When economists said the budget forecasts were too "optimistic", Flaherty said his projections were sound. Now today, in the latest example, Flaherty comes in three months later and concedes that the deficit will be every bit as large as previously told.

The inability to display the most rudimentary of foresight, to never see anything coming and to continually be the last one to accept conventional wisdom, one has to wonder, is Jim Flaherty still shovelling his walkway, comforted in the knowledge that spring is just around the corner? Is he telling friends that the Leafs have a mathematical chance to make the playoffs? LAG is not leadership, making it up as they go.

Quebecers Seem To Like "Parisian" French

Pretty remarkable when you think about it, we now have both big Quebec pollsters not only showing a Liberal resurgence, but a lead over the BQ. The last CROP poll, with a large sample, gave the Liberals a 37%-31% lead over the Bloc, and now Leger nearly replicates those results, further cementing the trend. Leger:

Libs 37%
BQ 33%
NDP 14%
Cons 13%
Greens 3%

The last Leger poll in March gave the Bloc a 9% lead over the Liberals, so this new result represents a significant swing. This type of swing also speaks to soft support, but the important thing for the Liberals, people are clearly giving the party another look. What's also encouraging, the Liberals score 32% with francophones, while the Bloc receives 40%.

As for the Conservatives, while Stephen Harper pledged last week to "not give up on Quebec", it would appear that proclamation is irrelevant, because Quebecers have already given up on him. It would appear Quebecers don't have a problem with "Parisian" French, but do with right wing, nasty partisans.

UPDATE


Note to self, read Liblogs prior to posting

Land Of The Lost

This one is pretty clever: