Harper's Tories Lead by Nine Points in Canada

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Support for the governing Conservative party remains high in Canada, according to a poll by The Strategic Counsel released by CTV and the Globe and Mail. 36 per cent of respondents would support the Tories in the next election to the House of Commons.

The Liberal party is second with 27 per cent, followed by the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 19 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois and the Green party with nine per cent each. Support for the Tories increased by one point in a month, while backing for the Liberals fell by four points.

Canadians renewed the House of Commons on Jan. 23. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper, who was sworn in on Feb. 6, leads a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party.

In April, Canada and the United States reached an agreement on a framework to end the softwood lumber dispute. Under the proposed deal, Canadian producers would be limited to a 34 per cent share of the U.S. market before taxes are levied on exports. The U.S. would return $4 billion U.S. collected from Canadian firms.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12237

The Cons are only in gov't at the moment because Canadians were so peeved at the Liberals that they collectively decided that the Libs needed a time out in the corner (or, given the season, let's say the penalty box) for failure to own up to the scandals and screwups that occurred under their watch.

But that's what Canadians have always done. We, collectively, vote people OUT rather than vote people IN. It has ever been thus and it will continue to be thus.

Therefore, I am confident that as soon as the party regroups and gets a game plan together for next time around, we will prevail.

Edit to clarify: As much as I hated to see the result in the last election, I wasn't surprised by it at all. It wasn't Paul Martin's fault, but Jean Chretien's - and Chretien knew enough to get the hell out of the line of fire and he put his nemesis in the crosshairs to take all of the blame, and to hell with the party. Chretien thought only of himself and not of the party, and he proved that in spades.

Paul Martin might have contributed to the downfall, of course, but Chretien was the architect of it.

All of that said, though, we will rise again ~ and it won't take long.

Chretien fucked off and left Martin behind to play the role of stooge. Which he did.

I don't understand though why the hell the Liberal leadership won't be decided till friggin' December. Why such a long delay....just git at 'er already. Dion or Dryden or bust.

Liberals are down about 2, while NDP is up about 2, and the Bloc is down 2. A lot of people must be parking their votes with the Greens right now (they were 4.5 in the election, compared to 9 here).

If Harper has gained some support in Quebec, he must have lost some in the rest of the country. Combined with the slight drop in support for the Conservatives in the N.S. election (at least in seats), it doesn't look like Harper is on track for his majority.

The opposition has been, imo, almost non-existent on the major issues yet Harper hasn't moved. The Liberals don't even have a chosen leader yet Harper hasn't been able to capitalize on that which is good news in the long term, imo.

It seems Mr. Harper hasn't been able to improve on his 'trust' factor at all since he took office.

there has been no effective opposition and there is still no Lib leader at this point.

(The snooze fest that led to the Cons' budget motion being passed while the Lib MPs either sat in silence or voted for without even knowing what they were voting for was an awful embarrassment and hopefully a wake up call for them to pay attention to what's going on in parliament and not just what's going on in the Lib leadership race)

But once things come together, the honeymoon that Harper is currently enjoying will end.

And then Lib MPs will get back to the business of paying attention to what's going on and working to unseat the Cons.

I know that they aren't used to being the opposition, but jeez, we elected them (the Lib MPs) to pay attention and I hope they start doing so soon. The longer it takes them to get a grip, the more the general public will start to buy into the Cons' message as it goes unopposed, and it would be disastrous if our side lets the Cons continue unopposed for very long as that could mean it will take that much longer for the tide to turn back.

Not trying to be a gloomy gus here, just saying that the sooner the Libs get it together, the better off we'll be.

like the opposition instead of sitting practically silent while waiting out the time till their leadership convention, it doesn't do much to build any confidence in them. They have an interim leader and he should be out there front and center, imo, nailing the cons every chance they can get.

They've been so long out of opposition status that they are struggling with the realities of that role, but I think and hope that they'll get it together before too long and start doing what we need them to do - i.e. oppose, oppose, oppose, point out the errors and nonsense that the Cons are putting forward and exhibit some forward thinking while doing so, to get the message out to the public that they have a better plan and better ideas for moving forward (instead of letting the Cons go unopposed trying to sell their moving backward plan).

If they do that - and I think they will - we'll do fine by the time the next election rolls around.

But it really does have to start NOW, not a year from now. The Cons can gain a lot of ground if they go unopposed for long, and I just think that the Libs should not be ignoring the every day realities while focusing on the leadership fight. We need them to be present NOW and not just later.

It's a start.

lackadaisical view... but the reality is that that's an overly simplistic view in a multi party system such as we have.

I'm sure you know that the Cons won the last election with a whole lot less than 64% (and I'm sure you know that we won the previous elections with a whole lot less than 64% as well).

country (64%) being middle to left. I completely understand how many or how few
votes it takes for one party to win.

that we are, fortunately, a left leaning country.

:toast:

My apologies for misconstruing your prior post. It was not my intent to put down what you said. I tend to react when I see posts like that without any additional context because I think that it is often the case that so many progressives don't bother to vote because they think that the "other 64%" will surely carry the day, etc.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was being snarky. That really was not my intent at all.

thanks for taking the time to respond to my post :toast:

I can't recall if it was in the Globe or my Canwest rag, but essentially the Liberal claimed Harper planned to create a pretext for an election in October, and catch the Liberals just before their leadership convention.

It sounds Machiavellian enough for Harper, but it was based entirely on speculations from the activities of Elections Canada. The Elections Canada spokesman said their precautions regarding a fall vote were strictly routine, though.

I would be more shocked if that wasn't what he had in mind. All he has to do is put forward a bill he knows the opposition parties can't support and make it a confidence vote.

I would be surprised if any leader of a minority government wouldn't at least contemplate something like this, the question is: Will it backfire on him?

Canadian electorates have punished electoral shenanigans in the past - the Peterson Liberals early election call in Ontario, for example. The 1980 election was called after Trudeau had stepped down, but the Liberals prevailed on him to return as leader and he was re-elected. You never can tell.

see as forcing an election for overly crass reasons and, given the polls, Harper is already seen as less than trustworthy.

:)

We do "punishment by voting" very well!

It is a long and honourable tradition :D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060615.wxparlelxn15/BNStory/National/home

Edit to add snip:

<snip>
OTTAWA — The Liberals accused the Conservatives yesterday of preparing an election for this fall, before they have chosen a new leader -- although Canada's chief electoral officer says his October plans are part of his normal preparations and are not based on any indication from the government.

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said yesterday he has heard from local returning officers that they have been told to be ready for an election in October. He said that suggests Mr. Harper wants an opening to "contrive a set of circumstances" for a fall election, even though the Conservatives have proposed fixed election dates for every four years. "If Mr. Harper, in fact, tries that trick, we will know that his proposal on fixed election dates is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.''

Mr. Goodale said that Elections Canada sets elections planning on the advice of the government. "I think you'll find that Mr. Harper has found a way to send the message: 'Get ready, I don't want any administrative reason to stand in my way for an election in October,' " he said.

Not so, Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley said. "I get as much notice from the Conservatives as I got from the Liberals," he said. "None whatsoever."

Canadians always say they are opposed to any "early" election, but once an election is called, I find that this grumbling lasts about two days as a campaign issue.

I note that in debating early election calls, people often cite the defeat of the Peterson government as an example of being punished for calling an early election.

Personally, I think Peterson was defeated not because he called the election earlier than necessary but because he ran a stupid and inept re-election campaign.

Anyway, I think anguish over election timing is quite overstated by politicos and media pundits as a public concern.

- B

Chretien went early too, and he did alright. It may depend on whether people find the politician "slick", which would be a problem for Harper but not Chretien.

Peterson's early call definitely hurt him, although there was more to it than that. I recall some scandal talk (Patti Starr) related to the boom in Toronto. I think very early signs of the 1990s recession were also in the wind. I was working for the Ontario government then, and student assistance rates were already climbing. Some internal analysis showed that they are a pretty good leading indicator of large scale economic trends (e.g. recessions).

Hanging on into a fifth year (late election call) has always been the kiss of death in my memory.