News   May 03, 2024
 1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 620     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 299     0 

PM unable to elevate Liberals: poll Support stalls

A

Are Be

Guest
PM unable to elevate Liberals: poll
Support for Martin's party stalls as decision looms on spring election

By DREW FAGAN
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

UPDATED AT 2:03 AM EST &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Tuesday, Mar. 9, 2004

Advertisement

Ottawa — Paul Martin's strategy of tackling the sponsorship scandal head-on has burnished his personal popularity but left his party stalled in minority-government territory less than one month before the Prime Minister has been widely expected to call an election, a new poll indicates.

The survey, done by Ipsos-Reid for The Globe and Mail and CTV, puts Liberal support at 38 per cent nationally, with the Conservative Party at 26 per cent and the NDP at 17 per cent.

The brightest spot for the governing party is that Mr. Martin enjoys broad support among Canadians — with almost six in 10 voters saying they approve of the job he is doing.

But, in spite of the Prime Minister's repeated vow to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and his actions in firing the heads of Crown corporations, he has hardly budged Liberal support since it plummeted one month ago after the Auditor-General's report into the scandal.

"The credibility of the party has been put into question," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid. "Despite all the efforts to get back what they once had, they can't seem to get back above 40 per cent."

Mr. Martin, who took over as Prime Minister late last year after Jean Chrétien stepped down, needs to call an election to win his own mandate. But the recent polling figures — including the current result — make that a risky prospect. He could call an election as early as the beginning of April, but some within his party would prefer a vote later in the spring or in the fall.

In mid-January, Liberal support stood at 48 per cent, just as it had when Mr. Martin took office a month earlier.

But party support collapsed to 35 per cent after the Auditor-General's report, and subsequent polling by Ipsos-Reid — this latest one was conducted March 2 to 7 — have found that the party has made up only a little of the lost ground.

"He [Mr. Martin] has arrested the decline, but 10 points were bled off that haven't come back. You could afford to lose five, in their position, but not 10," Mr. Bricker said. "It still looks like they would form the government, but it's hard to see how they get to a majority."

Indeed, a detailed breakdown of the poll by region may make dire reading for Liberal strategists.

Ontario is the key to a Liberal victory; it provided the party in the 2000 election with 100 of its 173 seats in the 301-seat House of Commons. (There will be 308 ridings in the next election as a result of redistribution, meaning 155 seats are needed to form a majority.)

This latest poll shows the Liberals with 47-per-cent support in Ontario, compared with 31 per cent for the Conservatives and 16 per cent for the NDP. (Two months ago, the figures were 57, 18 and 17.)

The lead for the Liberals remains formidable. But the advantage that the party had in 2000, when the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives split the right-of-centre vote, is now gone.

In addition, the resurgence of the NDP means that the Liberals and the NDP could split the left-of-centre vote in many ridings. Each change in circumstances potentially bodes well for the Conservatives and makes another Liberal sweep in Ontario unlikely.

The party, according Mr. Bricker, could lose 25 or more seats in Ontario — especially in Eastern Ontario, through Central Ontario north of Toronto, and in parts of the Southwestern region of the province.

Where would the governing party make up for those losses to keep its majority? The Ipsos-Reid survey suggests that, at least for the moment, the Liberals likely wouldn't be able to do so.

In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois now leads the Liberals by 18 points — 49 per cent to 31 per cent. (In mid-January, the Liberals led by six points.) That puts the Liberals at risk of not being able to reclaim the 37 seats they won in 2000 across the province's 75 ridings — especially since Liberal support is concentrated in parts of Montreal dominated by anglophones and in areas along the Ottawa River.

Liberal support is strongest in Atlantic Canada — at 49 per cent. The Conservatives have 31-per-cent support and the NDP stands at 17 per cent. In these four provinces, Mr. Bricker suggested, the Liberals could end up with a few more seats.

But the prospects of gains in Western Canada, as in Quebec, now appear greatly diminished.

In British Columbia, the three major parties are in a tight race — with the Liberals leading at 33 per cent, and the NDP and the Conservatives close behind at 29 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. (The Green Party, which has 4-per-cent support nationally, is now tracking at 10 per cent in B.C.)

In Alberta, the Conservatives lead the Liberals 57 to 24. The Liberals are, in Mr. Bricker's words, "getting pummelled." (Although the governing party's support is weakest in Alberta, Mr. Martin still has a 54-per-cent approval rating in the province, roughly in line with the national average of 57 per cent.)

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Liberals lead with 36 per cent, followed by the NDP at 31 per cent and the Conservatives at 24 per cent.

Mr. Bricker noted that, across Western Canada, so-called vote-splits — how the vote breaks down in individual ridings — may not favour the Liberals. In many urban areas, the Liberals and the NDP will be in close fights. But in rural areas, the Conservatives appear to dominate.

"The Liberals don't have a very efficient vote generally," Mr. Bricker said. "That's how you end up with a minority."

Mr. Martin's decision about whether to call an election soon is complicated by the additional factor that governing parties often lose support during election campaigns. In the 1997 and 2000 races, for example, former prime minister Jean Chrétien's party started out with support in the mid to high 40s but ended up on election day with roughly 40 per cent of the votes cast.

This latest Ipsos-Reid poll suggests that Mr. Martin would have no such luxury; if anything, he'd have to gain support on the hustings to win a fourth successive Liberal majority.

The poll, which was based on a randomly selected sample of 2,111 Canadians, is considered accurate to within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.



© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
The stronger the Conservatives get, the more likely we are to have a minority government, in which case the NDP will call the shots and run the country.

Excellent!
 
"in which case the NDP will call the shots and run the country"

LOL. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives would ever allow the NDP to "run the country". If a minority government were to be formed, it would probably collapse within the first 6 months. Minority governments are all about compromising, and as weve seen many times in the past, the NDP is too radical to compromise on anything. That's the achilles heel of the radical Left. It's why the Federal NDP party can never break past the 12%-17% popularity vote. Canadians want them around on the sidelines to keep the Federal Liberals and PC's in check... but they'd never want them to actually run the show in Ottawa.
 
I have a feeling that once the Conservatives have a leader, their support will crumble. Right now, the Conservatives have managed to create a 'big tent' because as of yet they have no leader and no policy. Once they start to develop a platform, I can see many voters getting scared off by what will likely remain a fairly right-wing agenda. Health care is far and away the primary concern for voters, and yet the Conservatives continue to advocate large tax cuts. This is hard to reconcile....

Quebec, on the other hand, maybe yet be lost to the Liberals. Martin is immensely popular there, though, and he may be able to make up some ground.

If it comes down to it, I think Martin may be one of the few Prime Ministers in history who will managed to make it through a minority government, and forge a majority. If a minority is formed, it will likely collapse within the year. Presuming the Liberal party isn't stupid enough to dump Martin (and they won't), he shouldn't have much problem getting support for a majority. People may want the Conservatives as a strong opposition, but certainly not the government.
 
But is it possible to be further right than the Paul Martin Liberals?
Martin is the willing dupe of big business, and trans national corportations, after all. :tup:
 
Of course it is possible to be farther right than Paul Martin.

While I dislike Martin and his politics, at least he isn't a social conservative (though he is purposely delaying decriminalizing pot and legalizing same-sex marriage) or quite the hard-line fiscal conservative as the Mike Harris slash-and-burn type (though he is quite cozy with business and has preferred tax cuts to needed social and infrastructure spending).

On the other hand, a real far right-winger, like Clement or Harper can be scary.

As for the NDP as a 'kingmaker" that sounds great. Layton will keep Martin's feet to the fire when it comes to cities, the environment, social liberties and other issues that Martin is not strong on. Layton is a pragmatist, as he was able to a lot of good in Toronto, even under a Lastman government.
 
Health care is far and away the primary concern for voters, and yet the Conservatives continue to advocate large tax cuts. This is hard to reconcile....

There's nothing about this hard to reconcile, unless of course you happen to think we should all subsidize bogus quebec ad campaigns. That's what's hard to reconcile. A slowly collapsing health care system, yet hundreds of millions of dollars are being shamelessly given away to liberal cronies. Think about this next time your doctor tells you it's a three-month wait for an MRI.
 
Floodland,

Its rightwing rhetoric to say there is room for massive tax cuts AND the increased funding health care needs.

And, its not as if we spend all that much on health care. We are in the 10 to 11% of GDP range, which is a far cry from the USA's rate of over 15%.

Canadians don't want tax cuts. It's that simple.....
 
I don't think so. There's room to cut taxes but also to cut spending in areas where it's not needed, freeing up funds for healthcare. Canadians do want tax cuts, because it allows greater freedom for individuals to make the decisions they want with the money they made for themselves. The healthcare system is a bottomless pit anyway--no matter how much money is put into it, there will never be enough.
 
The bottomless pit argument is a bit questionable. Undoubtedly, health care needs restructuring, but to say that any arbitrary amount of health care spending will yield the same results in inaccurate.

And just what should be cut to make way for our tax cuts? Don't even bother talking about the sponsorship programme, that was just a drop in the bucket in terms of federal funding. Tell me $15 billion in current spending that is better allocated to tax cuts than to infrastructure spending, health care, improving productivity, making the Armed Forces sustainable, etc. etc. This is what I mean by Canadians not wanting tax cuts. Tax cuts are always nice, all else equal. It is essentially free money. But if the price we pay for tax cuts is worse health care, and continued underinvestment in the public realm, most Canadians will say no thanks.
 
The stronger the Conservatives get, the more likely we are to have a minority government, in which case the NDP will call the shots and run the country.

...or the Bloc will call the shots and run the country.
 
If we want a competitive economy with innovative industries with the most talented Canadians having opportunities right here in Canada then we'll simply have to reduce taxes. There's nothing right wing about this. It's just a simple business reality. Right now we have high taxes and an awful health care system (even by socialist standards). If we're going to have an awful health care system then at least we should have lower taxes, but that clearly isn't the case.
 
mimicocreek:

Actually polls have consistently suggested that lower taxes isn't the highest priority for Canadians.

Floodland:

"If we want a competitive economy with innovative industries with the most talented Canadians having opportunities right here in Canada then we'll simply have to reduce taxes."

Not necessarily true. Many European countries (particularly Nordic ones) have high taxes and very innovative industries.

I think a good chunk of the problem is that we are fed on the export model to the US - why be innovative when we can simply export our way down south to success? What impetus is there then to be innovative? It's almost like a case of dependency.

And our "awful" healthcare system (which might not provide the most high tech of all treatments, but do you really want to spend a zillion dollars on a single patient?) cost us less, proportion wise to the GDP, than most G-7 countries.

GB
 
Many Nordic countries have massive tariff walls, thus excluding goods from 3rd world countries-- quite frankly, this is a very good idea, and we should do the same. We need massive tariffs on Chinese made goods. And Nordic nations, unlike Canada, test for AIDS before they allow people to live in the country. Those screwball Europeans discriminate against those with AIDS: "You have AIDS? You're not living here!" (Naturally, as AIDS affects all, and the policy applies to all AIDS carriers, this is not homophobic.) They have refugee camps --you're a refugee? Live behind this fence, and we'll process your application quickly. We know where you live. And we're not afraid to send you home." I wonder how many people loose their passports on flights to Stockholm? I wonder how the Swedes deal with it? Let's be clear: we can learn a lot form Nordic countries. Let's set up refugee camps in Canada. Let's porotect our workers from the China.


But, at the end of the day, we need to reduce taxes in Canada. We should stop this war on the poor, and we should allow the poor the job security provided by lower business taxes.
 
We have to stick together

By DONALD RIEGLE

UPDATED AT 11:18 AM EST &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Tuesday, Mar. 9, 2004

Advertisement

In 1989, I joined a majority of U.S. senators who voted in favour of the U.S.-Canada free-trade agreement. Yet in 1994, I not only voted against the North American free-trade agreement, I led the Senate floor fight against that agreement as negotiated.

This is not as contradictory as it may seem. The fact is that the U.S. and Canada are both modern, industrialized nations with high living standards, buttressed with strong legal protections for workers and the workplace environments in which they are employed. Worker safeguards, rights to organize unions and environmental protections are roughly comparable when the U.S. and Canada are put side by side.

Mexico, the third partner in NAFTA, on the other hand remains, regrettably, a Third World country -- with corresponding low wages and a profound lack of workplace protections. For this reason, jobs leaving Canada or the U.S. for Mexico often do so for the lower worker and environmental costs
-- which has done little to lift Mexico.

As this loss of Canadian and U.S. jobs to Mexico -- and increasingly China, India and elsewhere -- accelerates, it is time to recognize and do more to strengthen the healthy and mutually supportive level of bilateral trade between Canada and the United States.

Continuing the long positive history of shared circumstances between our two countries requires recognition on both sides that mutual self-interest and goodwill are needed now more than ever to successfully resolve new challenges.

I'd like to offer a few specific ideas on how to start improving, or even rebuilding American-Canadian relations:

1) Bring back the firmly scheduled quarterly meetings between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs to address carefully prepared agendas of pressing and anticipated problems;

2) Include subcabinet officials in the main sessions so that nobody can plead ignorance of decisions, if any, and of what needs to be done as follow-up;

3) Institute similar meetings between leading American and Canadian business groups -- for example, delegated committees of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Manufacturers Association, and their Canadian counterparts;

4) Energize the existing interparliamentary exchanges and ensure that any findings or recommendations will

receive serious attention at the highest levels;

5) Consider implementing, in both countries, a sustained effort of public diplomacy designed to reverse the decline of civility now evident in international relations the world over, and in exchanges even between and among governments.

As this is a big election year in the United States, and seemingly in Canada as well, it is important that we remember the close and vital ties between our two countries -- and look for ways to solidify the relationship despite occasional

differences.

In a troubled world, one continuing bright spot is the nature of the long-term relationship between the United States and Canada, and it is time we work even harder to extend and deepen those mutual bonds that will lead to a brighter future for citizens in both our countries.

A three-term Democratic senator from Michigan, Donald W. Riegle served as chairman of the U.S. Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs from 1989 through 1994. He currently is senior vice-president and chairman of government relations for APCO Worldwide, Inc.



© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 

Back
Top