Liberals, Conservatives tied for support: new poll
fatbasturd @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:41 am
Liberals, Conservatives tied for support: new poll
Updated Wed. Oct. 18 2006 8:36 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A new poll suggests Liberals and Conservatives are in a dead heat for Canadian support -- even though the Liberal party has yet to decide on its next leader.
The Oct. 12-15 survey covers a number of issues, from who would make the best prime minister to whether Canadians support the Afghanistan mission.
But one of the most surprising results is which political party Canadians would likely vote for -- 32 per cent of those surveyed answered Liberal, while an equal percentage responded Conservative.
What the poll shows, said CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, is the "resilience of the Liberal Party."
"The Liberal Party, even though it does not have a leader, has a lot of solid foundations in the country and people are comfortable with a lot of the values of the Liberal Party," Fife said Wednesday on Canada AM.
With the controversy over the Afghanistan mission, concerns over the Conservative government's environmental policy, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent statements accusing Liberal leadership candidates of being anti-Israel, Fife said "people seem to be gravitating back to the Liberal Party."
The poll, conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV News and The Globe and Mail, also indicates the Green Party has made the largest gain in support since the January 2006 election results.
Here is where the parties now stand (percentage-point change from the election results in brackets):
Conservatives: 32 per cent (- 4)
Liberals: 32 per cent (+ 2)
NDP: 17 per cent (- 1)
Bloc Quebecois: 11 per cent (same)
Greens: 5 per cent (+ 4)
Rae edges Ignatieff
Canadians said they would pick Stephen Harper as prime minister over any of the major Liberal leadership candidates if an election were to be held today.
But among the Liberal candidates, Bob Rae came out tops as the favourite to take on Harper.
Rae faired slightly better than Michael Ignatieff, the perceived front-runner in the race, with 26 per cent of respondents saying he'd make the best prime minister, compared to 23 per cent for Ignatieff.
In Ontario, where Rae was the NDP premier during a tough recession in the 1990s, he had 29 per cent -- a surprising seven-percentage-point lead over Ignatieff. Harper, on the other hand, managed 37 per cent.
In Quebec, Ignatieff had the strongest support at 28 per cent, while Harper received 20 per cent. In Ontario, Harper led with 43 per cent, compared with Ignatieff's relatively low 22 per cent.
Quebec
While Ontarians seem to be comfortable with Harper's Conservatives, the news is much more sobering in Quebec where the party has been sliding in the polls since May.
While the Tories were the first choice for 30 per cent of Quebec voters in May, that number drops to 16 per cent today. The party received 25 per cent of Quebec votes in the Jan. 23 election.
Fife said the fact Harper is doing well in Ontario is significant, "because Ontario has, over the last 15 years, been traditionally voting Liberal. Ontario now seems to be comfortable with the Conservatives -- but Mr. Harper's problem lies in Quebec."
Fife said Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan is affecting Tory popularity in the province. Also working against Harper's Conservatives in Quebec is their position on the Kyoto accord and their insistence on holding a vote on reopening the issue of same-sex marriage.
"This is a problem area for Mr. Harper," said Fife. "It's not to say it can't be fixed, but it is a worrisome one for him."
Environment
Further on the environment, the poll also asked Canadians how they thought greenhouse gas reduction programs should be funded, days before the Conservative government is expected to announce its Clean Air Act.
The vast majority of respondents said industries which contribute to air pollution should bear the brunt of funding, by paying stiff penalties.
Here's a breakdown of which funding options Canadians strongly or somewhat support:
Heavy fines for energy-using industries that fail to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions: 84 per cent
An energy tax based on the total amount of energy used consumers and industries: 55 per cent
Pay tolls on major roads and highways: 37 per cent
Significantly increasing the price of gasoline: 20 per cent
Raising income taxes: 18 per cent
According to The Canadian Press, the government is expected to unveil new fuel efficiencies standards for cars that will mean mandatory regulations for manufacturers.
Afghanistan
Canadians remain largely divided on whether to support the Afghanistan mission, although overall support has increased since August, according to the poll.
In an Aug. 10-13 survey, 37 per cent of Canadians supported sending troops to Afghanistan, while 55 per cent opposed the deployment. But the latest poll shows that 44 per cent now support the mission, compared to 53 per cent against.
However, more Canadians strongly oppose the mission than strongly support it:
Strongly support: 10 per cent
Support: 34 per cent
Oppose: 26 per cent
Strongly oppose: 27 per cent
Almost the same amount of Canadians who oppose sending troops to Afghanistan feel that too many Canadians have been killed in the war-torn country. Since 2002, more than 40 soldiers have died.
When asked if Canadian casualties are too high a price for stability and security in the region, here are the results (percentage-point-difference from the Aug. 10-13 poll in brackets):
That is the price that must be paid: 42 per cent (+ 6)
Price is too high: 55 per cent (- 3 per cent)
On Tuesday, Harper said a difficult security situation has slowed reconstruction efforts in the southern part of the country. British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently called the Canadian mission "a just and noble cause."
North Korea
The poll also asked Canadians how their government should respond to North Korea's nuclear test. Only three per cent felt there should be a military invasion of the communist state, while 40 per cent backed economic sanctions.
Twenty-four per cent felt that Canada should take the opposite approach by offering incentives to North Korea, like food, if they stop their nuclear weapons program.
Slightly more Canadians -- 29 per cent -- said talks should continue, with neither new sanctions nor incentives.
Technical notes
Interviews for the poll were conducted between Oct. 12 and 15. For national results, about 1,000 people were interviewed across Canada, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent.
The sample size for Ontario was 379 respondents, and the margin of error was plus or minus 5 per cent.
Firecat @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:18 am
The term "Natural Governing Party" came into being out of experience, after all. Still I am a bit surprised at these results while the Liberals are without a leader (all due respect to the acting leader)
ridenrain @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:12 am
$1:
They haven't learned a thing
Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Seven months into the Liberal leadership race, the party has at last found its voice. No longer divided and despondent, party members have rallied around a positive, optimistic vision of the country, a message of hope they will take to the Canadian public in the next election. And the message is: We forgive you.
To be sure, Canadians deeply disappointed the party last time out. After 13 years of Liberal rule, they seemed to have forgotten why they had voted for the Liberals in the first place. The public appeared dangerously out of touch, as if they believed they had the presumptive right to elect whomever they please. Clearly, they had lost their way.
But that was then. In the interim, the public have had a chance to do some serious rethinking. They've engaged in a bit of soul-searching, and perhaps shaken off some of that arrogance the Liberals found so trying.
And the Liberals? Not so much.
After nine months in opposition, the party offers little evidence that it has learned anything from the experience. The leadership race, which many had anticipated would be a chance for the party to rethink some of its traditional assumptions, has instead merely confirmed Liberals in the belief that, fundamentally, nothing has changed. The Conservatives may be in power for the moment, but it is clear the Grits view this as a temporary inconvenience.
Fully 81% of Liberals surveyed in a recent Strategic Counsel poll said they expected to be back in power at the next election. Liberals, Susan Delacourt reports in the Toronto Star, "feel they're finally getting their game back. And a faint, though still elusive, scent of power is wafting around them again." At last week's leadership debate, she writes, it was clear: "[T]he federal Liberals aren't interested in electing an opposition leader."
Well, no. That's what opposition parties do. And the Liberals aren't in opposition. They're on holiday. So there's no need to invest much thought, say, in how to spur Canada's moribund productivity growth, or to question whether Canadian content regulations have any relevance in the age of the Internet. All that is required is to find the right leader, and ride that pony all the way to office.
Certainly that was the mood in the hall during the debate. As platitude followed platitude, each candidate emphasizing how right the party was about gun controls, how much they agreed on Kyoto, how awful that man George Bush was, the audience cheered and clapped their approval, in that way that people do when they want to signal how very closed their minds are.
It fell to Scott Brison, at the end of the debate, to remind them that no one had said a word about the economy. And while Gerard Kennedy took up the cause of party "renewal" (read: cleaning up our act) in his closing statement -- since it was not one of the themes organizers deemed worthy of formal debate -- you got the feeling this was not a message party activists wanted to hear. Much nearer the mark was Stephane Dion: "Liberals, we need to get back to power as soon as possible."
Well, all right, but how? What are the issues the party is going to make its own? Health care? No one's so much as mentioned it in the campaign. Afghanistan? The party has no position, or none that differs in the essentials from the Conservatives. The environment? After what they did, or didn't do, on Kyoto? Quebec? The front-runner, Michael Ignatieff, has endorsed the provocative idea that the province should be recognized as a "nation" in the Constitution. The others have demurred, but no one has made an issue of a proposal they must know is toxic in the rest of the country.
Which region is it that will form the basis of the next Liberal majority? The West? Don't make me laugh. Quebec? A grand total of 3,700 votes were reportedly cast across the province in last month's leadership ballot -- and that's including the dead. Ontario, perhaps, assuming the party is led by someone whose first and last names are not Bob and Rae.
Which takes us to their leaders. Is there a breakout choice, a candidate who is likely to take the country by storm? Mr. Ignatieff, with his dropped bricks and Vulcan charm? Mr. Rae? A "failed one-term premier" (I'm quoting the leader of his former party, here) from another century? Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dion, who between them have mastered both official languages? And hovering over all of them, the awful spectre of Joe Volpe, the Trust Issue personified, who may be expected to spend the convention extorting promises from each of the candidates in return for a pledge not to endorse them.
Look: There are some good candidates in the running, and the party has some enduring strengths. But the idea that Liberals need only offer up their august selves to be returned to power, unreformed, unchastened, and seemingly unaware of how the world has changed, is -- well, that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?
[email protected]
Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Seven months into the Liberal leadership race, the party has at last found its voice. No longer divided and despondent, party members have rallied around a positive, optimistic vision of the country, a message of hope they will take to the Canadian public in the next election. And the message is: We forgive you.
To be sure, Canadians deeply disappointed the party last time out. After 13 years of Liberal rule, they seemed to have forgotten why they had voted for the Liberals in the first place. The public appeared dangerously out of touch, as if they believed they had the presumptive right to elect whomever they please. Clearly, they had lost their way.
But that was then. In the interim, the public have had a chance to do some serious rethinking. They've engaged in a bit of soul-searching, and perhaps shaken off some of that arrogance the Liberals found so trying.
And the Liberals? Not so much.
After nine months in opposition, the party offers little evidence that it has learned anything from the experience. The leadership race, which many had anticipated would be a chance for the party to rethink some of its traditional assumptions, has instead merely confirmed Liberals in the belief that, fundamentally, nothing has changed. The Conservatives may be in power for the moment, but it is clear the Grits view this as a temporary inconvenience.
Fully 81% of Liberals surveyed in a recent Strategic Counsel poll said they expected to be back in power at the next election. Liberals, Susan Delacourt reports in the Toronto Star, "feel they're finally getting their game back. And a faint, though still elusive, scent of power is wafting around them again." At last week's leadership debate, she writes, it was clear: "[T]he federal Liberals aren't interested in electing an opposition leader."
Well, no. That's what opposition parties do. And the Liberals aren't in opposition. They're on holiday. So there's no need to invest much thought, say, in how to spur Canada's moribund productivity growth, or to question whether Canadian content regulations have any relevance in the age of the Internet. All that is required is to find the right leader, and ride that pony all the way to office.
Certainly that was the mood in the hall during the debate. As platitude followed platitude, each candidate emphasizing how right the party was about gun controls, how much they agreed on Kyoto, how awful that man George Bush was, the audience cheered and clapped their approval, in that way that people do when they want to signal how very closed their minds are.
It fell to Scott Brison, at the end of the debate, to remind them that no one had said a word about the economy. And while Gerard Kennedy took up the cause of party "renewal" (read: cleaning up our act) in his closing statement -- since it was not one of the themes organizers deemed worthy of formal debate -- you got the feeling this was not a message party activists wanted to hear. Much nearer the mark was Stephane Dion: "Liberals, we need to get back to power as soon as possible."
Well, all right, but how? What are the issues the party is going to make its own? Health care? No one's so much as mentioned it in the campaign. Afghanistan? The party has no position, or none that differs in the essentials from the Conservatives. The environment? After what they did, or didn't do, on Kyoto? Quebec? The front-runner, Michael Ignatieff, has endorsed the provocative idea that the province should be recognized as a "nation" in the Constitution. The others have demurred, but no one has made an issue of a proposal they must know is toxic in the rest of the country.
Which region is it that will form the basis of the next Liberal majority? The West? Don't make me laugh. Quebec? A grand total of 3,700 votes were reportedly cast across the province in last month's leadership ballot -- and that's including the dead. Ontario, perhaps, assuming the party is led by someone whose first and last names are not Bob and Rae.
Which takes us to their leaders. Is there a breakout choice, a candidate who is likely to take the country by storm? Mr. Ignatieff, with his dropped bricks and Vulcan charm? Mr. Rae? A "failed one-term premier" (I'm quoting the leader of his former party, here) from another century? Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dion, who between them have mastered both official languages? And hovering over all of them, the awful spectre of Joe Volpe, the Trust Issue personified, who may be expected to spend the convention extorting promises from each of the candidates in return for a pledge not to endorse them.
Look: There are some good candidates in the running, and the party has some enduring strengths. But the idea that Liberals need only offer up their august selves to be returned to power, unreformed, unchastened, and seemingly unaware of how the world has changed, is -- well, that's the problem in a nutshell, isn't it?
[email protected]
Tricks @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:57 am
Rediculous.
Clogeroo @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:23 am
Good article ridenrain. Liberal support really has nothing to due with the party itself or any policy it stands on. It is more like a brand label everyone just wants to say they voted liberal. They probably know nothing about politics, other parties, or even the party they voted for but they will just vote liberal anyway. I'm sure people do that for all parties to some degree but I think the liberals take in the most.
Last election I asked 30 different people who voted for liberal party and why did they vote for them. I got responses such as I like the name “liberal”, Its better for Canada to just have one party governing the country, ummmm?, The Conservatives stole tax payers money in the sponsorship scandal, We must stop the Conservatives George Bush American agenda from taking power (While eating his meal from McDonalds). Out of 30 people I got 6 that said they voted for the liberals because they liked some policies.
I asked about the same number of people why they voted for the Conservatives and most of their answers were quite different. They started naming their policies of lowering taxes, tougher sentences for criminals, childcare plan, and smaller government. A few also said because the liberals are corrupt but the crazy votes as I call them made up 5 people in my little poll for the Tories. While the crazy liberals made up 80% of their voters.
This is probably in no way the most accurate poll for the small sample I looked at but it is just some food for thought why people even vote for the liberal party. It’s interesting how we keep telling everyone to vote but we seem to never ask them why they are voting. I hope less of these retarded voters don’t come out to vote or maybe should educate themselves on everyone’s platforms before making their decision. I wonder whom the 35% of registered voters who don’t vote would vote for? I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
Delwin @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:24 am
With the way the cons are pushing their right wing agenda, I was beginning to think that their support had somehow jumped to 50%, when it is actually shinking. Wow, they are in for a shock come December. Once the leverage afforded to them by the Lib Leadership race is gone, an election is sure to follow.
fatbasturd @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:28 am
Coming this spring 
-Mario- @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:52 am
Libs and Cons are tied because NDP and Green Party are gaining Strenght 
EyeBrock @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:41 am
I'm just looking forward to good old Bob Rae getting in as Lib leader.......that will be GREAT!
TheGup @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:57 pm
$1:
Canadians said they would pick Stephen Harper as prime minister over any of the major Liberal leadership candidates if an election were to be held today.
But among the Liberal candidates, Bob Rae came out tops as the favourite to take on Harper.
Rae faired slightly better than Michael Ignatieff, the perceived front-runner in the race, with 26 per cent of respondents saying he'd make the best prime minister, compared to 23 per cent for Ignatieff.
In Ontario, where Rae was the NDP premier during a tough recession in the 1990s, he had 29 per cent -- a surprising seven-percentage-point lead over Ignatieff. Harper, on the other hand, managed 37 per cent.
In Quebec, Ignatieff had the strongest support at 28 per cent, while Harper received 20 per cent. In Ontario, Harper led with 43 per cent, compared with Ignatieff's relatively low 22 per cent.
But among the Liberal candidates, Bob Rae came out tops as the favourite to take on Harper.
Rae faired slightly better than Michael Ignatieff, the perceived front-runner in the race, with 26 per cent of respondents saying he'd make the best prime minister, compared to 23 per cent for Ignatieff.
In Ontario, where Rae was the NDP premier during a tough recession in the 1990s, he had 29 per cent -- a surprising seven-percentage-point lead over Ignatieff. Harper, on the other hand, managed 37 per cent.
In Quebec, Ignatieff had the strongest support at 28 per cent, while Harper received 20 per cent. In Ontario, Harper led with 43 per cent, compared with Ignatieff's relatively low 22 per cent.
So, the thing is, the Liberals are tied with the Conservatives, but Canadians would much rather see Harper as Prime Minister than any other Liberal.
The thing is, right now, with the Liberal leadership campaign, a media saturation is happening. Every person thinks either Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, or Gerard Kennedy will win - the Liberal party has four different faces, if you will. One of these four faces appeal to Canadians, and the other three generally don't.
Everyone percieves that the Liberal Party reflects their guy's view - once they have selected a leader, watch for poll numbers to drop, while support funnels from the Liberals to both the NDP and the Conservatives.
hwacker @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:30 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Good article ridenrain. Liberal support really has nothing to due with the party itself or any policy it stands on. It is more like a brand label everyone just wants to say they voted liberal. They probably know nothing about politics, other parties, or even the party they voted for but they will just vote liberal anyway. I'm sure people do that for all parties to some degree but I think the liberals take in the most.
Last election I asked 30 different people who voted for liberal party and why did they vote for them. I got responses such as I like the name “liberal”, Its better for Canada to just have one party governing the country, ummmm?, The Conservatives stole tax payers money in the sponsorship scandal, We must stop the Conservatives George Bush American agenda from taking power (While eating his meal from McDonalds). Out of 30 people I got 6 that said they voted for the liberals because they liked some policies.
I asked about the same number of people why they voted for the Conservatives and most of their answers were quite different. They started naming their policies of lowering taxes, tougher sentences for criminals, childcare plan, and smaller government. A few also said because the liberals are corrupt but the crazy votes as I call them made up 5 people in my little poll for the Tories. While the crazy liberals made up 80% of their voters.
This is probably in no way the most accurate poll for the small sample I looked at but it is just some food for thought why people even vote for the liberal party. It’s interesting how we keep telling everyone to vote but we seem to never ask them why they are voting. I hope less of these retarded voters don’t come out to vote or maybe should educate themselves on everyone’s platforms before making their decision. I wonder whom the 35% of registered voters who don’t vote would vote for? I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
Last election I asked 30 different people who voted for liberal party and why did they vote for them. I got responses such as I like the name “liberal”, Its better for Canada to just have one party governing the country, ummmm?, The Conservatives stole tax payers money in the sponsorship scandal, We must stop the Conservatives George Bush American agenda from taking power (While eating his meal from McDonalds). Out of 30 people I got 6 that said they voted for the liberals because they liked some policies.
I asked about the same number of people why they voted for the Conservatives and most of their answers were quite different. They started naming their policies of lowering taxes, tougher sentences for criminals, childcare plan, and smaller government. A few also said because the liberals are corrupt but the crazy votes as I call them made up 5 people in my little poll for the Tories. While the crazy liberals made up 80% of their voters.
This is probably in no way the most accurate poll for the small sample I looked at but it is just some food for thought why people even vote for the liberal party. It’s interesting how we keep telling everyone to vote but we seem to never ask them why they are voting. I hope less of these retarded voters don’t come out to vote or maybe should educate themselves on everyone’s platforms before making their decision. I wonder whom the 35% of registered voters who don’t vote would vote for? I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
Are you saying Liberal voters are stupid and conservative voters really know what's going on?
Banff @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:45 pm
I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
might be the only way to solve the historical trade off between the two losers
ridenrain @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:50 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
Good article ridenrain. Liberal support really has nothing to due with the party itself or any policy it stands on. It is more like a brand label everyone just wants to say they voted liberal. They probably know nothing about politics, other parties, or even the party they voted for but they will just vote liberal anyway. I'm sure people do that for all parties to some degree but I think the liberals take in the most.
Last election I asked 30 different people who voted for liberal party and why did they vote for them. I got responses such as I like the name “liberal”, Its better for Canada to just have one party governing the country, ummmm?, The Conservatives stole tax payers money in the sponsorship scandal, We must stop the Conservatives George Bush American agenda from taking power (While eating his meal from McDonalds). Out of 30 people I got 6 that said they voted for the liberals because they liked some policies.
I asked about the same number of people why they voted for the Conservatives and most of their answers were quite different. They started naming their policies of lowering taxes, tougher sentences for criminals, childcare plan, and smaller government. A few also said because the liberals are corrupt but the crazy votes as I call them made up 5 people in my little poll for the Tories. While the crazy liberals made up 80% of their voters.
This is probably in no way the most accurate poll for the small sample I looked at but it is just some food for thought why people even vote for the liberal party. It’s interesting how we keep telling everyone to vote but we seem to never ask them why they are voting. I hope less of these retarded voters don’t come out to vote or maybe should educate themselves on everyone’s platforms before making their decision. I wonder whom the 35% of registered voters who don’t vote would vote for? I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
Last election I asked 30 different people who voted for liberal party and why did they vote for them. I got responses such as I like the name “liberal”, Its better for Canada to just have one party governing the country, ummmm?, The Conservatives stole tax payers money in the sponsorship scandal, We must stop the Conservatives George Bush American agenda from taking power (While eating his meal from McDonalds). Out of 30 people I got 6 that said they voted for the liberals because they liked some policies.
I asked about the same number of people why they voted for the Conservatives and most of their answers were quite different. They started naming their policies of lowering taxes, tougher sentences for criminals, childcare plan, and smaller government. A few also said because the liberals are corrupt but the crazy votes as I call them made up 5 people in my little poll for the Tories. While the crazy liberals made up 80% of their voters.
This is probably in no way the most accurate poll for the small sample I looked at but it is just some food for thought why people even vote for the liberal party. It’s interesting how we keep telling everyone to vote but we seem to never ask them why they are voting. I hope less of these retarded voters don’t come out to vote or maybe should educate themselves on everyone’s platforms before making their decision. I wonder whom the 35% of registered voters who don’t vote would vote for? I’m glad we don’t force them too who knows what kind of government they would be electing.
Are you saying Liberal voters are stupid and conservative voters really know what's going on?
Well, if he won't then I will! Or they see a direct finantial connnedtion to the Libs being in power.
grainfedprairieboy @ Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:50 pm
TheGup TheGup:
The thing is, right now, with the Liberal leadership campaign, a media saturation is happening. Every person thinks either Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, or Gerard Kennedy will win - the Liberal party has four different faces, if you will. One of these four faces appeal to Canadians, and the other three generally don't.
Everyone percieves that the Liberal Party reflects their guy's view - once they have selected a leader, watch for poll numbers to drop, while support funnels from the Liberals to both the NDP and the Conservatives.
Everyone percieves that the Liberal Party reflects their guy's view - once they have selected a leader, watch for poll numbers to drop, while support funnels from the Liberals to both the NDP and the Conservatives.
Excellent point.
ridenrain @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:14 am
Different poll, different numbers.
Conservatives- 37%
Liberals- 28%
NDP- 18%
Bloc Quebecois- 9%
Green- 7%
Environics poll