Election 2010?

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is John Ibbitson’s take on the consequences of Prime Minister Harper’s recent foray into the performing arts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harpers-harmony-ignatieffs-discord/article1311842/

Harper's harmony; Ignatieff's discord
Despite efforts to bring down his government, a confident Prime Minister wows the crowd in Ottawa and calls four by-elections; while Liberal Leader navigates setbacks

John Ibbitson

Sunday, Oct. 04, 2009

Could it possibly be? Could Stephen Harper actually be cool?

The Prime Minister amazed us all with his surprise appearance at a National Arts Centre gala on the weekend, where he sang and played the Beatles' With a Little Help from My Friends.

It was no small gamble to don smart but casual clothes, play the piano alongside renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma, and try to sing in tune – something of which most people are quite incapable.

“It's always high risk to put yourself in the public eye in that way,” said Kory Teneycke, until recently communications director for the Prime Minister, on CTV's Question Period.

But Mr. Harper handled the gig with the same aplomb with which he has navigated this politically perilous autumn. The video of the performance, which has been heavily viewed on the Internet, showed a Prime Minister who is relaxed, confident, and able to poke fun at himself, wryly singing: “I need somebody to love.”

By calling four by-elections yesterday, to be held Nov. 9, the government has signalled it has no wish to force an election, convinced that time works to the Conservatives' advantage and to the disadvantage of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who spent the weekend trying to close the dangerous rift that has emerged between his party's English and French wings.

The Prime Minister has survived a concerted effort by the Liberals to bring his government down, which is lucky for the Liberals, since the Conservatives are sufficiently far ahead in the polls – by 14 percentage points in Ontario, according to the most recent one by Angus Reid – that if Mr. Harper were forced into an election, he would almost certainly win it.

Nonetheless, the Prime Minister has ignored the advice of a plethora of pundits who argue the Conservatives should engineer their own defeat while the polling numbers are favourable.

And the failure of the three opposition parties to force an election means this government will probably survive into the new year, giving it an opportunity to bring down a new budget.

It's usually bad news for the other side when a minority government gets a chance to present a budget, which can be laden with new spending or with tax cuts.

And that budget will arrive at about the same time as the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, brought to you by your federal government and presided over by a beaming Prime Minister, to the extent Mr. Harper is capable of beaming.

Mr. Ignatieff yesterday dismissed Mr. Harper's performance. “It's too late. It's too late,” he told a meeting of the Quebec wing of his party, adding at a press conference later that day that it was the Conservatives who had sought to provoke a culture war.

“This was a Prime Minister who a year ago was trying to make you embarrassed if you like opera, or classical music, or the ballet, or poetry,” he said. “… You can like hockey, you can like classical music. Let's stop playing Canadian against Canadian or taste against taste.”

Indeed, Mr. Harper cost himself votes and seats in Quebec during last year's election when he spoke of “all sorts of people at a rich gala all subsidized by the taxpayer claiming their subsidies aren't high enough.” And there he was: a surprise act at one of the swankest events on the capital's social calendar, and wowing the crowd.

But it wasn't artists and intellectuals the Prime Minister was singing to. He was crooning for middle-aged, middle-class suburban voters in the swath of edge ridings throughout Southern Ontario and the Ottawa region, where the next election will be decided, whenever it is called.

The Conservatives will be hoping, and the Liberals fearing, that these were the sorts of viewers who were clicking on the video on media websites and YouTube. Almost 41,000 page views were recorded on the Globe's website between about 8:30 Saturday evening, when it was posted, and 8:30 p.m. Sunday.

And how does a public intellectual who leads the Official Opposition, and who regularly refers to the Liberal Party of Canada as “I,” respond? Blogger Scott Feschuk predicted on the Maclean's website that “a four-hour one-man play may be the price we pay for Harper's Beatles cover. Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Ignatieff is Michael Ignatieff in Michael Ignatieff.”

While there are trends in politics, there can also be sudden reverses. And questions. How well is Mr. Ignatieff absorbing the lessons of these difficult weeks and growing as a result? What scandal or controversy as-yet-unnamed may lay in wait to trip up the Conservatives, this time, rather than the Liberals? How will a precarious economic recovery, rising unemployment and a sure-to-be-chronic deficit affect voter attitudes toward all parties?

The answers to these mysteries may yet undermine the Prime Minister's stratagems. Still, Mr. Harper seems to know what he's doing. And the man can carry a tune.

The key, I think is that The PM ”was crooning for middle-aged, middle-class suburban voters in the swath of edge ridings throughout Southern Ontario and the Ottawa region, where the next election will be decided, whenever it is called.”

Of course the Conservatives want to keep ALL their Québec seats but they can afford to lose half, five, of them, IF they can pick up 17 or more new seats: one or two in Atlantic Canada; one or two in BC; and 15± (from the Liberals and NDP) in ON; that’s enough for a razor thin majority and it (a big shift in ON) is not out of the question. Such sifts have been, in fact, fairly common in ON.

But, if Ibbitson is right, if Harper does get a little help from his friends, however unwitting, then we are not going into a general election until the spring of 2010, at the earliest.

 

[Rifleman62]

Interesting to note that the Comments to the article as of this time are only six. Usually there are hundreds, especially an article about Mr.Harper.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is another political observer’s assessment that we are not having another election until, at least, 2010:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2065241

Ivison: Harper gets by with a little help from his arts friends

John Ivison, National Post

Sunday, October 04, 2009

It's a tale of two cities and the contrasting fortunes of two political leaders. While Stephen Harper was playing Beatles covers in Ottawa at the National Arts Centre on Saturday night, backed by an up-and-coming cellist called Yo-Yo Ma, Michael Ignatieff was in Quebec City preparing to wrestle the renegade Quebec wing of his Liberal Party to the ground.

While the Prime Minister was in the process of winning over his toughest critics - the wealthy elites who attend black tie galas he so memorably disparaged during the last election - Mr. Ignatieff was cleaning up the fall-out from the Denis Coderre affair.

The consensus in Ottawa last night at the National Arts Centre, including among some Liberal MPs, was that Mr. Harper's surprise appearance at the annual NAC gala was a political masterstroke. In the event it wasn't a complete surprise - someone had tipped CTV to the possibility, so at least one network had live footage - but even minutes before the black tie event began, Laureen Harper, the Prime Minister's wife and the gala's honourary chair, could be heard downplaying the rumour, saying as far as she knew her husband was home watching Hockey Night in Canada.

The surprise to those Canadians who see Mr. Harper as the arch-political tactician was that it was Mrs Harper who pushed an idea, which caused much chewing of fingernails among political advisors. Everyone could see the potential upside of neutering the impression that the Prime Ministers is a cultural cro-magnon. But they could also see the massive downside if his version of "With a Little Help From My Friends" supplanted William Shatner's Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds as the worst Beatles cover of all time and became a Youtube classic. That opposition is said to have melted once they heard the Prime Minister sing and tinkle the ivories - he isn't Joe Cocker but he hits less bum notes than Ringo Starr. Mrs. Harper said she knew she had her man when he said "maybe" to the idea.

It is a considerable way to row back from his comments of last year, when he said "a bunch of people at a rich gala" didn't resonate with ordinary people (this was in response to a number of Quebec TV stars, who had protested about government funding cuts to the arts at a glitzy black tie ball). But the lack of artifice and blatant political spin is likely to be greeted with acclaim by "ordinary people". This is not a man who puts himself "out there" and it must have taken considerable guts to have stepped onto a stage with one of the greatest musicians of our time.

Mr. Ignatieff and his advisors must have watched the coverage, head in hands, through gaps in their fingers, and wondered what else can possibly go wrong for them.

The Liberals decided to try to force an election last week because their record of voting alongside the government made a mockery of their claim to be the official Opposition.

Yet even before their own vote of non-confidence was taken, they had already resolved that the new approach of all opposition, all the time was not working. Now, the search is on for a new, new approach and everything is on the table.

Senior Liberals suggest the party may even go so far as to be frank with voters and admit that future governments, even future Grit governments, are going to have to make huge spending cuts to balance the budget. The rationale is that the cuts are coming and that the Liberals would enjoy them less. "We could ask: 'Would you trust Harper to cut healthcare?'" said the Liberal insider.

What is clearly on the cards is a longer term approach to bringing down the Conservatives that could even see the Liberals support the government on matters of confidence, if it became clear that the NDP would not.

"We will not blunder into an election," said the Liberal, which suggests that the apparent racing cert of a spring vote has just become less than certain. This, after all, is a party that claims to be ready and willing to go to the polls at any time, yet is in the throes of organizing a major policy conference in Quebec early next year.

It seems it's the best of times, and it's the worst of times, but it all depends on which city and which party you're in.

jivison@nationalpost.com

As an aside, I think Harper displayed uncharacteristically reckless courage; he could, as Ivison points out, have made himself into a laughingstock and done serious harm to his election chances – I know he’s a skilled pianist and an accomplished “performer” but remember that Robert Stanfield displayed considerable football drop kicking skills, making long punt after long, well aimed punt, (I believe he played rugby at Dalhousie in the 1930s) before being photographed fumbling the ball, a fumble that played a HUGE role in his electoral failure.

 

[Infanteer]

...and if you want to see the PM try out his hand at the newest version of Rock Band....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt2Qp0H9G8

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is more on the recent polls in which it is noted that voters are not so much liking Harper more as they are liking Prince Michael less:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-support-in-perilous-slide/article1313066/

Liberal support in perilous slide
New poll for Strategic Counsel/Globe and Mail/CTV shows Tories at 41-per-cent support, to 28 per cent for the Liberals

John Ibbitson

Ottawa
Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009

To what depths can Michael Ignatieff sink in unpopularity before he begins to climb back?

A new Strategic Counsel/Globe and Mail/CTV poll puts the federal Conservatives within range of a majority government, with 41 per cent support, compared to 28 per cent for the Liberal Party, a yawning, 13-point gap.

Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are ahead of the Liberals among voters regardless of age or education, among both men (46 per cent to 28 per cent) and women (36 per cent to 28 per cent), and in every income level except for those with a household income of less than $50,000 a year.

But hold your horses. The public has not swung suddenly behind the Prime Minister. Rather, it has reacted to opposition antics in which the Liberals tried to force an election last month.

Voters are not rewarding Mr. Harper. They are deepening their funk with Michael Ignatieff, who has seen his support steadily decline since last May.

“The Conservatives have done a terrific job of branding Mr. Ignatieff as: ‘It's all about him, he's just in it for himself,'” said Peter Donolo, a partner at Strategic Counsel. When Mr. Ignatieff decided that the Liberals would no longer prop up the government, Mr. Donolo believes, he confirmed the negative impression that the Conservatives had helped voters to form of him, through a relentless campaign of negative advertising.

Add the worsening blood between the French and English wings of the party, and the situation of the Liberals becomes very dangerous.

“This could become entrenched,” Mr. Donolo warned. “And that would be very bad for the Liberals and very good for the Conservatives.”

Despite these rosy numbers, the Conservatives continue to insist they do not want an election and continue to court the NDP, who are at 14 per cent in popular support.

Mr. Harper may know that, were the public to believe he was trying to engineer his government's defeat, his popularity could evaporate.

In other words, the Prime Minister enjoys majority-government levels of support, provided he does nothing with it.

The Tories remain in desperate straits in Quebec.

“The Conservatives bombed the bridge” in Quebec, Mr. Donolo observed, by condemning the proposed coalition last December as a union of socialists and separatists, which infuriated Quebeckers. Though the margin of error is high, the Bloc Québécois continues to lead comfortably, with 40 per cent support, compared to an encouraging 33 per cent for the Liberals and a dismal 15 per cent for the Conservatives.

At these levels, the Conservatives don't have a safe seat in Quebec.

In Ontario, however, the situation is hugely encouraging for the Conservatives, who are at 46 per cent compared to the Liberals' 30 per cent.

There have been anecdotal and unconfirmed reports that Conservative support is increasing in the suburban ridings of the City of Toronto, as well as in the Greater Toronto Area. Numbers such as these would bolster that speculation.

In the West, the Conservatives outpoll the Liberals by better than three-to-one, 58 per cent to 18 per cent.

Which sets up the dispiriting prospect that in the next election the Conservatives could win with virtually no support in Quebec, and the Liberals wiped out west of Ontario.

In which case, neither major party could claim the title “national,” once again testing the resilience of the federation.

The question now is whether these numbers entrench, regionally and nationally, or whether some new alarum sends voters stampeding in one direction or another.

“The electorate has never been this volatile,” Mr. Donolo believes. “That's the real story.” He notes also that Mr. Ignatieff's decision to withdraw support from the Conservatives may benefit the party in the long term, allowing it to define itself as something other than a crutch propping up the government.

If so, Mr. Ignatieff may be able to re-brand himself on his own terms, and the numbers could move again.

The Strategic Counsel polled 1,000 adults between Oct. 2 and 4. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points nationally. The margin of error increases to 6.3 per cent in Quebec, five per cent in Ontario, and 5.7 per cent in the West.

With regard to Québec, and at the risk of repeating myself, Harper wants to keep all his seats and even pick up a couple but he needs to hold just a handful – maybe as few as just five – primarily in Francophone ridings.

Equally he needs to hold just a handful of seats, again five will do, in Atlantic Canada.

If he can, then, get 145 of the 201 seats (72% of the seats from about 50±% of the vote) in “New Canada” (Ontario plus the West and North) he can have a majority government and a “national” party.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site is a (Liberally) biased but quite plausible scenario for Prince Michel to become Prime Minister of Canada in 2010:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-deep-breath-time-for-liberals/article1313942/

It's deep-breath time for the Liberal Party
There's hard work to be done, but don't start writing Ignatieff's political obituary just yet

Greg Fergus

Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009

The pervasive reports of Michael Ignatieff's imminent political death, his last days in politics, his demise as the Leader of the Official Opposition or whatever apocalyptic metaphor you can imagine are, to be the most charitable, premature. There are at least four reasons why Mr. Ignatieff's bid for the keys to 24 Sussex still remains viable, albeit with a lot of hard work and near pitch-perfect delivery.

First, he has successfully transformed the Liberal Party into Her Majesty's Official Opposition, voting against the government as parliamentary tradition dictates. This is a significant and welcome development. It forces the Liberal caucus and membership to start thinking like folks in the wilderness. No one is entitled to be in power and this perspective necessarily leads to new ways of thinking, new paths to follow. From this vantage point, Mr. Ignatieff and his team have to think of innovative policies that resonate with Canadians in order to earn their votes. Seeing things from the outside is a good start.

Further along this path is the second reason Mr. Ignatieff may yet emerge prime minister after the next election: his international perspective. Notwithstanding Conservative attack ads, Mr. Ignatieff has an international career path that is the envy of many. He must start drawing on his background rather than politely avoiding it. Seeing Canada from abroad offers him a unique vantage point from which he may better able to recognize the issues to which those who have lived only in Canada have become house-blind. There are many worthwhile policy initiatives from other countries that should be debated here.

This does not mean that he should throw out the entire tried-and-tested playbook. In order to optimally package his fresh vision, Mr. Ignatieff must adroitly marry his worldly perspective on Canada with the valued experiences of the battle-scarred veterans of our political wars. Simply put, Mr. Ignatieff must play to his strengths in order to distinguish himself while drawing upon the depth of the Liberal Party's political heritage.

When he became leader in May, Mr. Ignatieff promised to hold a thinker's conference to challenge the conventional views of the Liberal Party and, to a larger extent, those of Canadians. Mackenzie King, Pearson, and Jean Chrétien each successfully parlayed their respective thinker's conferences – all organized during their times in opposition – into bright new and winning policies for the Liberal Party. It is time for the Liberals to do so again. Mr. Ignatieff's international experience is an invaluable resource to tap into innovative world-class thinkers and their ideas. If Canadians want pedestrian politics, they already have plenty of choices. If they want new and fresh ideas, the thinker's conference could be Mr. Ignatieff's best opportunity to corner the market.

The last reason why Mr. Ignatieff's road to government is still open is perhaps the most obvious, but it is the one that is the least within his control: the record of the government of the day. Stephen Harper can don a blue sweater and impressively tickle the ivories, but like all prime ministers he knows that lurking behind each good headline is a potential disaster that can rock his government. The old adage is true: each day in politics is like walking on a tightrope without a safety net. It only takes one misstep to fall into the abyss. Success in politics is largely due to one's timing. This works equally well for Mr. Ignatieff as it does for Mr. Harper. Only time will tell on that score.

If the Harper government survives into 2010, it could be facing a Liberal Leader with some freshly minted ideas generated from some of the top minds from across Canada and around the globe, adapted by an Official Opposition that fully understands its traditional Parliamentary function. Furthermore, Mr. Harper will have a record to defend. So before we accept unquestioningly the breathless commentary about the perilous state of Mr. Ignatieff's political future, let us think of that great Quebec expression: “Respirer par le nez” – let's all start breathing calmly.

Greg Fergus is the former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada

Fergus is right, Iggy Iffy Icarus can turn it around; he can “redeem” himself with Canadians and draw them out of their “funk” as Ibbitson put it. But, mainly, Fergus is right that Harper can defeat himself – and that, rather than Ignatieff doing things right, is the biggest threat to the Conservatives.

 

[GAP]

I think Greg Fergus is either off his meds or has found some strange new ones.......he's whistling in the dark...

 

[Journeyman]

I think Greg Fergus is either off his meds or has found some strange new ones.......he's whistling in the dark...

Sadly, I think he may be right.....but for no reason other than Canadian voters have short attention spans, and seldom (if ever) vote for rational, policy-based reasons.

Harper "defeating himself" falls into the short attention span catagory of "10 'atta-boys' trumped by one 'aw sh1t'."

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is the conventional wisdom in Canada, based on pretty solid historical evidence, that, "opposition parties don't win elections, governing parties lose them," or "opposition parties don't defeat governing parties, governments defeat themselves."

 

[Old Sweat]

The following article by John Ivison in today's National Post is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act. On reading the opening paragraphs, one could be excused for thinking that the Scottish-born Mister Ivison had been flavoring his porridge with Drambuie, but he soon gets back on track.

Parliament Hill was abuzz with rumours about Liberals crossing the floor to join the Conservatives yesterday - a mystery all the more intriguing because no one could track down the identity of the potential defectors.


Here's a thought -- maybe the apostate is Michael Ignatieff himself. How's that for a plan so cunning, in the words of Blackadder, you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel? The Liberal leader pursues a scorched earth policy, reduces the party's support to sub-Stephane Dion levels and then deserts his post for the Tories. Far-fetched admittedly but it's the only account that adequately explains the leadership's apparent infatuation for self-immolation.


Okay -- not really. But the words "amateur hour" are being whispered by even the most senior members of Mr. Ignatieff's shadow cabinet.


The latest gaffe defies rational explanation. Mr. Ignatieff nearly blew his own toes off last week in his spat with Denis Coderre, the former Quebec lieutenant who resigned after finding his authority undermined by his leader.


Mr. Ignatieff limped back from Quebec City on Sunday and you might have thought he'd try really, really hard to rally his party around the Liberal standard. Instead, he took aim at his other foot and let loose both barrels. An unprompted press release issued by Judy Sgro, the Liberal seniors critic, said the leader and the party would vote against a private members' bill that proposes to shorten the residency period required before seniors can claim partial payment of old age security to three years from 10.


The bill's merits, or lack of, need not concern us. The head-scratching aspect was that it was sponsored by a Liberal MP, Ruby Dhalla, and seconded by foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae. No one on the Hill can remember a party publicly nuking a private members' bill brought forward by one of its own MPs.


The incident was handled with a cack-handedness that is becoming characteristic. For one thing, the bill is not likely to reach debate stage for another three years. For another, private members' bills are considered sacrosanct by everyone in politics, with the apparent exception of the Opposition Leader's Office, since they are the one chance that MPs have to bring forward their own legislation, without regard for party discipline. Ms. Dhalla's bill was built on older legislation supported in previous sessions by members from all parties and was an attempt to curry favour with a key Liberal constituency, the immigrant community.
Quite why Mr. Ignatieff felt the need to create new divisions within his own party is unclear. The Liberal leader displayed the political sophistication of a bull -- which is appropriate given his office is starting to resemble a china shop.


The Sgro press release was likely issued in response to rumours that Ms. Dhalla is set to cross the floor and join the Conservatives. There appears to be no substance to that one -- or to related speculation that other MPs like Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy or Keith Martin are also bound for the government benches. The Conservatives have been trying to make the most of the chaos on the Liberal side of the House by tempting the disaffected. But one suspects that the big fish won't bite and any who do make the trip across the two swords length in the Commons' chamber will be minnows or bottom-feeders. 


Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Martin and Ms. Hall Findlay all ruled themselves out. "I have said publicly many times that, even if someone is no longer happy in their original party, they must sit as an independent until such time as they can put themselves to election under the banner of their new party," said Ms. Hall Findlay, who lost the 2004 election to Belinda Stronach, only to see her defect to the Liberals.


Still, if the floor of the House of Commons is unlikely to be sullied with Liberals crossing the aisle, that does not mean that anyone - anyone - is happy with the leadership's performance.


Mr. Ignatieff has been the very antithesis of grace under pressure in recent days, commenting sourly in a Newstalk 1010 radio interview that Stephen Harper's singing "is not all that much better than mine".


Mr. Ignatieff was walking the line he himself drew -- that everything Mr. Harper does is inept, including his ability to carry a tune.
Since he called time on the government at the Liberal caucus meeting in Sudbury last month, Mr. Ignatieff has been adamant that his party will oppose the Conservatives in Parliament.


The Liberals insist that they will stick with this strategy and vote against all confidence measures in the House. But there is heavy pressure from his caucus for Mr. Ignatieff to declare he will consider legislation on a case by case basis and even support the government on matters of confidence, if the alternative is an untimely election. 


"We've been too ardent in our opposition and that has to change. Sure [Mr. Ignatieff] would lose face, but he'd save a lot of skin," said one Liberal.


Mr. Ignatieff's best, perhaps only, hope is to repeat to himself the consoling advice of Abraham Lincoln that "this too shall pass", learn good judgment from his bad experiences and resign himself to an extended period in the wilderness of opposition.
If the recovery withers, and fear turns to anger, he may be able to re-invent himself as a credible alternative to Mr. Harper, in the same way that opposition leaders who disappointed early -- like Dalton McGuinty and even Jean Chrétien -- took advantage of the changing tide of events.


But this would require Mr. Ignatieff to show patience, competence and a compelling slate of policies. There are few signs to date that the Liberal leader has any of those attributes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Another poll, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News web site, which, I think means no election before Spring 2010, at the earliest:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/07/ekos-poll-federal-conservative-liberal-ndp-green-bloc.html

Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals

Thursday, October 8, 2009

CBC News

The federal Conservatives have widened their lead over the Liberals when it comes to voting intentions, a new poll suggests.

As the Tories' support shows signs of growing, disapproval ratings for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff are also going up.

The EKOS poll, released Thursday exclusively to the CBC, found that 39.7 per cent of respondents supported the Conservatives, while the Liberals had 25.7 per cent backing. The New Democratic Party had the support of 15.2 per cent of respondents, with the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois both at 9.7 per cent.

Conservative support was up 3.7 percentage points from a poll released last week, while Liberal support was off by four points. The NDP's support was up by 1.3 points, the Green Party was off by 0.8 points and the Bloc slipped by 0.1.

Since early September, when the Conservatives and the Liberals were in a virtual dead heat in the polls, the Tories have pulled ahead.

The latest poll was conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6. The polling period included the Oct. 1 vote on the Liberals' motion of no-confidence in the minority Tory government — a motion the Conservatives defeated as the NDP decided to abstain. The NDP has vowed to keep the government in power to ensure passage of legislation extending employment insurance benefits.

Liberals lose ground with voter base

EKOS president Frank Graves said the Liberals have lost ground with voters in traditional strongholds, including in Toronto and among women, university graduates, visible minorities and recent immigrants.

"Even visible minorities and recent immigrants who were like almost an automatic vote for the Liberals, have shifted," said Graves.

"They're running about equally now with the Conservatives. All these other groups are lining up more on the conservative side of the equation."

As his party has slipped in the polls, Ignatieff's disapproval ratings have grown.

The percentage of respondents who disapproved of the way Ignatieff is handling his job was 51 per cent, up from 38 per cent in August.

Ignatieff's approval rating was 19 per cent, down from 29 per cent two months ago.

Ignatieff addresses poll numbers

Graves said it is difficult to pinpoint why Ignatieff's popularity has plummeted in such a short time.

"Perhaps some of the framing that was put in place by the Conservatives and some of the so-called negative ads have stuck with Mr. Ignatieff," he said. "Because it's hard to line up anything he's said or done specifically."

Ignatieff, speaking Thursday morning in London, Ont., after addressing the local chamber of commerce, said there is "no question" the Conservatives have characterized or "framed" him in a certain way.

"I've got to lift that big frame off and let Canadians see who I really am, and we will be doing that," he said.

"If there are things I need to do better, I am certainly going to be ready to try, because I want to listen to Canadians and improve my performance any way I can," he said.

Harper approval rating rises

As for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his disapproval rating was 42 per cent, compared with 47 per cent in August. The percentage of respondents who approved of how Harper was doing his job was 39 per cent, for a gain of three percentage points.

NDP Leader Jack Layton had a disapproval rating of 31 per cent, an improvement from 33 per cent in August. Layton's approval numbers held steady at 34 per cent.

The poll randomly sampled 3,333 Canadians aged 18 and over. The margin of error associated with a sample of that size is plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

At the risk of repeating myself: do not count Ignatieff out; not yet; not so soon. And, as Harold Wilson said

“A week is a long time in politics.”

Six months, then, until Spring 2010, is an eternity and a lot can go right for Prince Michael and wrong for Prime Minister Harper in an eternity.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an important column/book review by Neil Reynolds:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/canadas-downward-path-from-nation-to-fiction/article1280143/

Canada's downward path from nation to fiction
'Canada is no longer a community of strongly held principles. It's as simple as that'

Neil Reynolds

Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009

The population of Quebec will shrink to barely one-fifth of Canada's by 2031 - implying, according to economist Brian Lee Crowley in an important new book, "a big drop in the province's relative weight in the House of Commons." In fact, he calculates, Quebec's influence will fall from 75 out of 308 MPs to 75 out of 375. The political implications would be profound.

British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario together would have roughly 250 members," Mr. Crowley says. "Winning three-quarters of those seats would give a political party an overall majority in the Commons without a single Quebec seat, or indeed a seat in any other province." Ottawa's long bidding war with Quebec for the loyalty (and votes) of Quebeckers would end - and an historic transformation of Canada would begin.

Mr. Crowley's book – Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values - argues that Canada went disastrously off track in the 1960s and the 1970s for two reasons. The first was the rise of Quebec nationalism. The second was the population explosion following the Second World War. The need to appease Quebec separatism, Mr. Crowley says, warped federal policies and federal politics for two generations. The baby boomers, he says, provided a dubious justification for a rapid expansion of the welfare state.

Didn't governments have a responsibility to find jobs for the baby boomers - and especially for Quebec's baby boomers? Without federal jobs, wouldn't these rebellious young people opt for separatism? Separately and in combination, these self-reinforcing influences induced successive federal governments (beginning with Liberal prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau) to abandon Canada's traditional laissez-faire governing principles and to substitute the statist assumptions favoured by intellectual elites in Ottawa and Quebec City. The federal government's obsession with finding work for the baby boomers, for example, led to the creation of vast numbers of federal and provincial "pseudo-jobs"- which inexorably corrupted the work ethic for which Canadians had, in earlier years, been famous.

The consequence was predictable, Mr. Crowley says. Canadians had prospered as a society of makers. They became a society of takers - and Canadian productivity inevitably faltered. The Canadian state became an intellectual conceit, "a great fiction through which everybody endeavoured to live at the expense of everybody else." Mr. Crowley's citation of this famous aphorism, crafted by the famous 19th century liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat, is persuasive. Bastiat's corollary is corroborative: "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone."

Mr. Crowley's unique interpretation of Canadian history rings loudly with clarity and conviction. Perhaps intuitively, many Canadians appear to sense, with profound regret, the radical changes that have taken place in this country in the past 50 years. This sentiment is more than nostalgia; it is a growing awareness of personal loss. Canada was once a community of strongly held principles - principles shared by French-speaking Canadians as well as English-speaking Canadians. They included a profound commitment to limited government, personal responsibility and the rule of law. Canada is no longer a community of strongly held principles. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Crowley tackles the mythology that Canadians are natural statists, that the welfare state is the product of a collective preference. Before the country began to change in the 1960s, he says, Canadians were "resolutely North American." In some ways, he says, the British tradition made Canadians even more leery of the expansive state than the American tradition did south of the border - notwithstanding "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

He is absolutely correct. For much of the country's existence, governments needed less than 10 per cent of Canada's GDP to fulfill their obligations - because these obligations were narrowly defined by universal consent. Government was limited because Canadians wanted it limited, a fact attested by innumerable witnesses. In his memoirs, for example, J.A. Corry, principal of Queen's University in the 1960s, observed that Canadians were as alert historically to government aggrandizement as Americans.

"Jeffersonian democrats," he wrote, "littered the ground in Canada." Mr. Corry regarded the centralizing federal state as the biggest threat to Canadian democracy. Mr. Crowley quotes iconic Canadian essayist Stephen Leacock to illustrate the strong aversion of Canadians to intrusive government well into the 20th century: "We are in danger of over-government; we are suffering from a too-great extension of the functions of the state."

Leacock wrote this judgment in 1924, when governments spent 11 per cent of Canada's GDP - roughly one-quarter what they spend now (which is modestly less than in 1992, when government spending peaked at 50 per cent). A couple of generations later, Montreal economist William Watson concluded that Canada finished the Great Depression as "probably the most laissez-faire country going." In a word, as Mr. Crowley amply demonstrates, Canada got mugged - and never recovered its valuables.

Founder of the Halifax-based Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Brian Lee Crowley has written a courageous book with absolutely unique analysis and interpretation. Part lament, part celebration, Fearful Symmetry is most of all a profoundly optimistic book. Why? Rush to read it as soon as you can.

More about Brian Lee Crowley can be found here.

Everything wasn’t perfect or right or even pretty good prior to Pearson/Trudeau but they, Trudeau especially, did, indeed, overturn the socio-economic/political applecart and they, again Trudeau especially, did create a corrosive, destructive culture of entitlement taking us from being a ”society of makers” and turning us into a ”society of takers.”

If we cannot fix the (relatively few) really important bits that Trudeau broke – and I’m not convinced we can – then Canada, as a modern, prosperous, sophisticated, wealthy, capitalist nation-state is doomed.

Now here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is an idea from a Liberal strategist to use Fearful Symmetry as the base for the BIG Idea that so many people say Prince Michael and the Liberals need:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/its-still-not-us-its-him/article1321702/

It's still not us, it's him

Robert Silver

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 election, I wrote the following in this space:

"But this is a long-term project; our base is broadening and deepening," says a Tory strategist discussing the Conservative Party increasing its vote total in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal but failing to win any seats.

"Long-term project"? Looking beyond one election? Pish, pusha. Terrible Tory spin - what kind of a political party actually has a plan to grow its base even if it may take two, three - even four elections?

Not us Liberals! No, sir! We either get instant gratification or it's of no interest to us.

Oh sure, Keith Davey and Jim Coutts and their ilk thought that way a generation ago when they built the "big red machine," but that was then. That's old school.

Not in today's Liberal Party! We have 10,000 unnamed campaign strategists, campaign chairs, MPs, candidates and Air Inuit flight attendants who all know that the only problem with the Liberal Party is Stephane Dion. Once he's gone, Canadians will beg us to return to power again. They are desperate for us to be there, us being Liberals other than Stephane Dion...

When I see overly simplistic and self-serving explanations for what just happened to the Liberal Party in Ontario in particular... I'm saddened. Well, not really saddened. It makes me mad, but knowing the direction the party is likely headed in, my anger quickly turns into sadness and then my attention floats elsewhere.

You read accounts of the post-mortem that Stephan Harper did after the loss of 2004 and the changes he made and then contrast it to the accepted Liberal interpretation of what just happened (it was all Dion and the Green Shift, change those two things and we're back, baby!) and you have all you need to know about the current state of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

Just as GM now deserves what is happening to it because it refused to evolve and innovate, the Liberal Party of Canada deserves what is happening to it unless it realizes its real problems go way deeper than a face on a poster. "

Well GM is turning itself around, how are things going for my political party?

Just like Dion booked his own Air Inuit plane, ran his own tour, drew-up the Green Shift in a room by himself and was otherwise responsible for 100 per cent of the bad things that happened to the Liberal Party in 2008, so too Michael Ignatieff is an out of control, lone-wolf, shooting down tens - nay, hundreds - of policy proposals emanating from his caucus and grass-root Liberals and is ultimately responsible for everything that currently ails the Liberal Party, right? Oh, ok, his downtown Toronto advisers get some of the blame too. But really, it's all Ignatieff.

Right.

But as my anger subsides and my attention floats elsewhere, all hope is not lost.

I finally found time to read Fearful Symmetry [hyperlink in the original] over the weekend (you can't keep your Canadian pundit card this fall unless you've consumed it whole). As others have written, it is a striking, important, profound book about Canada, our history and our future. It also provides a potentially exciting answer for how the Liberals could redefine itself to once again be relevant to a larger swath of the country. I will discuss the book and its potential implications for the Liberal Party in much greater detail in a future post.

For now, let me just assure you that my arguments on why the party should consider the policy prescriptions in Fearful Symmetry will have nothing to do with House of Commons tactics, nothing to do with which date the election will be called or today's polls and frankly, have nothing to do with who our leader happens to be or all the dreamy alternatives that could one day replace him.

Weird thought: a strategy for a political party not based on short term tactics or leader-centric considerations? One that may take a number of years to fully execute on. I know, post-Thanksgiving hangover crazy talk.

Liberals! They boggle the mind. Fortunately for us Conservatives the vast majority of Liberals will shrug off this (excellent) idea.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is Don Martin’s take on why we are heading for a 2010 election:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/13/don-martin-harper-s-year-of-governing-dangerously.aspx

Don Martin: Harper's year of governing dangerously

October 13, 2009,

A year ago today a charismatically challenged Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seeing no recession and vowing no deficit, accepted his second minority mandate with a promise to play nice in Parliament, the better to avoid another election for a few years.

Well . . . oops.

After a year of constant election speculation, Harper's fuzzy warmth ratings are soaring thanks to his piano man routine, the unforeseen recession is starting to ease and his no-way Conservative deficit has ballooned to a red-ink record of $56-billion.

If nothing else, Stephen Harper has given besieged Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a bizarre form of faint hope: In the wacky world of Canadian politics, everything can change in a year.


After all, a prime minister who crawled before the Governor General for a stay of execution from a mutinous trio of misfit party leaders in a power-sharing coalition is flirting with majority-mania popularity after being featured in a chart-topping You Tube video.

Predicting that sort of scenario would've been straightjacket-worthy just ten months ago when the death-defying Conservatives wiped out the massive Liberal surplus to post the first deficit federal budget in a dozen years.     

Considerable credit for this startling reversal of fortunes sits across the Commons aisle on the Official Opposition benches.

As one disgusted former strategist confided recently, the Liberals traded a Stephane Dion leadership liability for a John Turner disaster and are likely guided by the first Liberal leader in history who will leave politics without holding a cabinet position.

That might be a tad harsh. As noted above, with the prospect of another election fading to spring or even next fall, a lot can change before Canadians vote in a Harper vs. Ignatieff popularity contest. 

But there's no doubt the prime minister's current approval spike inversely reflects the growing disenchantment with Ignatieff, whose miscalculation meltdowns would take a textbook to properly document.

He's overplayed a lousy parliamentary hand, underestimated a formidable opponent and bet the farm his charisma would carry an election even while his meet-Michael persona drove down support across all gender, geographical and ethnic lines.

Nobody's quite sure who to blame in his organization, but Ignatieff's tactical responses have all missed their strategic target.

His demand for a quarterly report card gave the government a dream opportunity to boast of his achievements in high-gloss pamphlets every three months.

His placing of Harper ‘on probation' followed up with a sheriff-like warning that the prime minister's ‘time is up' has proven so flaccidly laughable given Harper's thriving survival that one wag suggests the Conservatives attack the Liberals for being ‘soft on crime'. Tee hee.

OK, I promised not to write a book on Ignatieff's misfortunes, although his headscratching Toronto attack on the Conservatives for hating taxes still boggles my meagre mind. Don't we all? I'll stop now.

This is a rambling way of getting around to the one post-election promise Stephen Harper seems likely to keep, even though it took him a year to deliver. 

There are, thankfully, encouraging signs this minority Parliament is finally getting its act together.  With the Liberals softening their rhetoric on taking down the government at any opportunity and the New Democrats proudly advertising their role as the balance of power, a workable minority is taking root in the rich parliamentary fertilizer.

The only hiccup is that nasty harmonized sales tax. But nobody can explain how the federal Liberals would defeat this government over a blended tax being implemented by provincial Liberals in Ontario and British Columbia. If this becomes the election-triggering issue, provincial Liberals would be forced to sit out the federal campaign in the two provinces where Michael Ignatieff desperately needs every foot soldier.

Should that incendiary legislation be pushed aside as a confidence tester, there's little to prevent the current government from steering a more predictable course with improved finesse into 2010.

It won't make up for a lousy first year of governing dangerously when the billion-dollar parliamentary operating budget delivered poor value except as a stimulus for public anger and apathy. 

But with the performance bar set snake-belly low as this Parliament moves into its second year, it's almost impossible for MPs not to exceed expectations.

National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

Martin appears to be suggesting that Harper might even survive 2010, too.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail website, is a Blog by former Decima (polling firm) CEO Bruce Anderson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bruce-anderson/blue-sky-ideas/article1323618/

Blue-sky ideas

Bruce Anderson

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

It’s an easy criticism of our political system to say that it focuses too much on the tactical and short term, and too little on the most critical choices facing the country. In post-Thanksgiving mode, thankful for the general state of our democracy and the relative health of our economy, I hesitate to restate this criticism.

Instead, a few suggestions of issues where I think a vigorous public debate among our political leaders about policy alternatives would restore some lustre to our political system:

1. Governments in the United States and other parts of the world are pouring money into the transformation of their economies creating new energy alternatives and seeking better carbon outcomes. Biomass based energy is one of the most rapidly developing areas, one that will have potentially major repercussions on demand for energy as well as supply of biomass feedstock, such as forest fibre. Canada’s stake, as the world’s largest exporter of forest products, and one of the world’s biggest suppliers of energy to the United States, could hardly be more material. We need our leaders to chart a course for the country, one that exploits our comparative advantage and embraces our environmental responsibilities.

2. By many accounts, the U.S. dollar may weaken compared to other currencies for a long time. Whether a function of brutal fiscal problems, or a deliberate plan to stimulate American exports, the challenges for Canada may be without precedent. If not a typical cyclical swing, but a fundamental shift, it will demand creative policy and concerted focus. How much to worry is easy, what to do is hard - especially if the most obvious tool is hiking interest rates. This is a leadership question, one that calls out for clear positions.

3. Our involvement in Afghanistan is a matter that is growing increasingly uncomfortable, as the United States openly debates the likelihood of failure in that country, unless significantly more troops are involved. We have gone from justifying our role as a trusted ally of the Americans in the fight against terror, to stalwarts in nation building and human-rights protection, to preparing to depart regardless of what we can say or not about the efficacy of our mission. Lately, the U.S. Administration has opened the door to the prospect that the Taliban could remain in positions of some authority for the long term, and there are rampant concerns about the legitimacy of the recent election. For the sake of our forces and their families, and for the idea of letting Canada have a clear and notable voice about a cause on which we have lost lives and spent treasure, we need our leaders to deliver fresh, clear assessments of where we are, and what we will or might not be able to accomplish.

It’s curious, and perhaps good news that these are not really matters of hugely charged partisan division, at least not yet. But maybe we’d be better served if they became that way. Politics is at its best when parties are competing to offer the best solutions to the biggest problems. In the last few days, we’ve seen signs that Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff are raising these issues. Let’s hope for more of the same going forward.

It would be nice to hear/read some grownup ideas debated by Duceppe, Harper, Ignatieff and Layton, in the run-up to an election, wouldn’t it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regarding point (1) above, all pundits must learn: do the arithmetic, do the arithmetic, do the arithmetic.  Show that the contribution of the "alternative" can amount to more than a few percentage points of net consumption without requiring ridiculous sums to initiate or wholesale destruction of the resource which provides the energy.  In short, do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to determine whether the proposal is practical or asinine.  Failure to do so amounts to selling Dr Quack's Cure-all Ointment on a say-so.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterdays Globe and Mail, indicates to me that Prime Minister Harper is unconcerned about a quick election in 2010, or he is less worried about Québec than we might think, or he believes that he can offset losses in Québec with gains elsewhere:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/securities-case-a-battle-that-will-test-the-nation/article1327827/

Securities case a battle that will test the nation

John Ibbitson

Saturday, Oct. 17, 2009

In asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether the federal government has the power to create a national securities regulator, Stephen Harper is taking up a fight from which every prime minister before him has fled.

The man who has offered one concession after another to Quebec, and to all provinces, is asserting a potent claim: that Canada is an economic as well as a political union, and that the federal government has the right and duty to preserve that union.

Quebec, which sees the country as a condominium of sovereignties, with Quebec given special authority to protect the French nation, will react with fury. Premier Jean Charest, who must prove he is as willing as any separatist to fight in defence of his province's interests, will howl. That howl will be echoed in Alberta, which is no less fiercely determined to preserve provincial autonomy.

This will test the nation. Previous references to the Supreme Court have asked whether Ottawa could unilaterally patriate the Constitution; in what circumstances Quebec could secede; whether the federal government could legalize same-sex marriage.

They were battles royal, and this one will not be pleasant either. But Mr. Harper is committed to shaping Canada as a single economic space. And he will enter the ring knowing that he is almost certain to win.

“It is legally wise and politically astute for Ottawa to do this,” said Ed Morgan, an authority on constitutional law at the University of Toronto.

Traditionally, the provinces have controlled their securities markets, on the grounds that they are constitutionally responsible for regulating industry. This has led to the cumbersome patchwork of 13 different securities regulators in the provinces and territories from which companies must seek approval (although there has been some harmonization).

But many constitutional experts, including Prof. Morgan, believe Ottawa could create a national regulator using its powers to regulate commerce. Previous governments have shied away from such a federal-provincial confrontation.

Mr. Harper is hardly a Trudeauesque centralizer. He is the prime minister who recognized Quebec as a nation. He has gone further than any of his predecessors to end the so-called disequilibrium between the federal spending power and the provincial spending responsibilities.

But whether it is harmonizing sales taxes or regulating the markets, this government is committed to reducing barriers to trade and investment.

And since Quebec had already asked its Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a national regulator, it makes sense for the federal government to trump that by framing the question in its own terms before the highest court in the land.

There is another reason to move now. Canada is host of the G8 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., next year. This country promotes itself as a model of responsible financial regulation that allowed it to escape the debacle of the banking crisis that brought on a global recession.

But the existence of a Nunavut securities registrar hardly squares with such an enlightened, efficient image. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will at least want to be able to say that Canada is moving toward creating a national commission when he makes his pitch for regulatory reform at G8 or G20 meetings.

This move will not be without political cost. Mr. Harper has given Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Québécois a potent political weapon. See, the Bloc will tell Quebeckers, nothing is safe. Only sovereignty will protect us from the predatory federal power.

Mr. Harper will reasonably respond that Quebec, Alberta or any other province can decide not to join the national commission. The fear, though, is that companies will be given a choice to be regulated by a provincial or federal commission. Bigger companies in Quebec or Alberta might well opt to be nationally regulated, leaving the Quebec and Alberta securities commissions a rump authority.

(Manitoba, which is in a leadership race for a new premier, is also not onside, although that could change.)

The contest will be neither pleasant nor brief. The fights over the Constitution, the Clarity Act and gay marriage pitted Canadian against Canadian, region against region, politician against politician. This won't be quite that intense – most people have no strong feelings about which jurisdiction should regulate securities – but more than enough rhetorical blood will be spilled before this is ended.

 

[GAP]

Ah...empires bloom/flourish/die.....as does this one need to.....Securities control needs to be consistant for the entire country...Harper may well get his majority without Quebec, so now is the time to strike....(and a whole lot of other considerations/politics/etc) 

 

[The Bread Guy]

From an e-mail newsletter (highlights mine):

"Our latest Nanos poll shows that support for the Conservatives continues to increase while Liberal support is in decline. With the Tories holding a ten point advantage over the Liberals this represents the widest gap between the two parties since the last federal election.

Of note, since last months polling, the Liberal Party's support in Quebec has noticeably decreased - from 32.5% in early September to 24.6%.

The number of undecided voters, nationally, has dropped in the past month from 24.6% in early September, down to 17.5%, likely owing to the subdued election buzz.

(....)

Methodology

Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,005 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between October 10th and October 18th. A survey of 1,005 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 829 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.

Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between August 28th and September 2nd, 2009.

National (n=829)
Conservative 39.8% (+2.3)
Liberal 30.0% (-3.4)
NDP 16.6% (+1.8 )
BQ 8.9% (-0.8 )
Green 4.6% (NC)
Undecided 17.5% (-7.1)

More on latest numbers in a news release here (PDF).

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is the latest from Ekos Research, done fo rthe CBC:

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/21/ekos-polls-conservative-liberal-ndp-green-bq.html

The CBC says (same source) that: "The latest EKOS poll was conducted by phone between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20. EKOS asked 3,270 Canadians how they would vote were an election held tomorrow. Both landline and cellphone users were included. The results have an error margin of plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

The trend, according to Ekos, since 3 Sep 09, is that Conservatives have moved up (from 32.6%) and maybe plateaued at 38.3% and the Liberals have declined (also from 32.6%) and maybe bottomed out at 27.1%. For reference: at the last general election the popular votes was:

Cons:    37.65%
Libs:      26.26%
NDP:      18.18%
Greens:  6.78%
BQ:          9.98%

The latest poll would seem to indicate that the mudslinging over the Conservative cheques and the disparity in stimulus spending between Tory and other ridings is not doing much, if any, damage to the Conservatives and only the tiniest bit of good to the Liberals.

 

[Rifleman62]

From your link:

"A detailed analysis by The Globe and Mail of more than 750 projects funded by Ottawa's Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) program showed that Tory ridings received an average of $2.1-million, compared to $1.5-million on average for opposition constituencies. RInC funds the building or renovation of recreation infrastructure, from rinks and recreation centres to playgrounds and pools".

A good comeback would be that these long term Liberal constituencies have had so much federal money over the years, that hardly anything new is required!