• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

Abacus Data Poll: Big Conservative Lead Stabilizes as Evaluations of Trudeau Government Performance Drop - March 10, 2024​


From February 29 to March 6, 2024, Abacus Data conducted a national survey of 1,500 adults exploring several topics related to Canadian politics and current events as part of our regular national omnibus surveys.

In this edition of our Canadian politics tracking, we report on our usual metrics along with some updated data comparing perceptions of the Trudeau government’s performance in areas such as housing, healthcare, managing the economy, and managing government finances.

Conservatives lead by 18 over the Liberals. It’s been 658 straight days that the Conservatives have led the Liberals in Abacus Data polling.

If an election were held today, 42% of committed voters would vote Conservatives with the Liberals at 24%, the NDP at 18% and the Greens at 4%. The BQ is at 34% in Quebec.

Since our last survey, the Conservatives are up 1, the Liberals are unchanged, and the NDP is down 1. Since the beginning of the year, we have seen stability in vote intentions with the Conservatives consistently in the low 40s and the Liberals stuck in the low to mid 20s.

Regionally, the Conservatives are well ahead in the Prairies, lead by 22 in BC, and 13 in Ontario. In Atlantic Canada, the Conservatives are 15-points ahead of the Liberals while in Quebec, the BQ leads by 8 over the Liberals with the Conservatives just two points back and statistically tied with the Liberals for second.

If we isolate British Columbia, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada only, we find the Conservatives holding at 43%, the Liberals up 1 to 27%.

Demographically, the Conservatives lead among all age groups with the Liberal vote share correlated with age. The Liberal vote share rises as the age of the respondent increases. The opposite is true for the NDP.

The Conservatives continue to capture a larger share of the vote among both men and women. Liberal vote share is the same among men and women while the NDP does 9-points better among women than it does among women. For a deep dive on the differences between men and women, check out this analysis by my colleague Oksana Kishchuk released on Friday.

When we ask people if they would consider voting for each of the main political parties, 50% say they are open to voting Conservative (down 2 since earlier this month) while, 39% are open to voting NDP (down 1), and 39% are open to voting Liberal (unchanged) and the lowest we have measured for the Liberals since they were elected in 2015.

We continue to measure voter motivation by political party.

We find that Conservative supporters are more likely to say they would vote than Liberal or NDP supporters. Enthusiasm for voting NDP is down 5 from last month while Liberal enthusiasim is up slightly by 3 points.
 

Attachments

  • 10 Mar 24.jpg
    10 Mar 24.jpg
    185.9 KB · Views: 11
  • 24 Mar 2.jpg
    24 Mar 2.jpg
    139.9 KB · Views: 11
Jarnhamar said:
People got high off CERB. Even public servants at the CRA were claiming it. Trudeau will dangle guaranteed basic income if people vote Liberal. And by October 2025 people will be quite desperate.
Click to expand...
They aren’t doing a guaranteed basic income though. They are taking the idea and corrupting it to basically be welfare.

The whole point is to get rid of EI, CPP, OAS, disability, welfare, etc. and all the bureaucracy that goes with it. Have it always be deposited into everyones bank account and just raise the tax to suit.

What they are proposing is in addition to all those programs and basically is just a higher income welfare. Which requires a huge bureaucracy to administer as there is tons of conditions to it.
 
Redistribution of wealth. A cornerstone of communist policy.

Take from the well off and give it to the not so well off.

Except they collect it, but don't give it out. They keep it and distribute some dribs and drabs to make it look like it's working. The majority stays in the government coffers.

Just another tax on the middle class, who make just enough to be taxed, but not enough to recieve the payment. Just like the carbon tax.
 
Remius said:
UBI as a concept and at its core is a Conservative concept. The issue is that the left wants it on top of the other stuff.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I am a huge proponent of UBI to level the field in social support. Flat fee, one size fits all approach; where everyone is taken care of that needs it and can afford the necessities of life. Elimitate the 7 overcostly bureaucracies that strive to do the same but fail miserably.

The cost savings in overhead alone makes it a viable option. Where we see the Liberal approach to it fail is that they need to justify that 40% increase in Public Service employees.
 
I think it was @Edward Campbell that quite some time ago in a different thread mentioned a "Negative Income Tax" system as opposed to a "Guaranteed Annual Income" system.

Here's an overview of a NIT (in an American context) and a dated (but still interesting) overview of NIT/GAI systems in a Canadian context that was tabled in the NWT Legislature in 2014.

Personally I've been a fan of a Negative Income Tax system since I first learned about it as it requires less initial outlay of cash by the Government since it only goes to those that earn less than the target amount (as opposed to a GAI system where everybody gets paid the same amount but gets taxed back from the higher income earners).

Like any system though the devil is in the details.
 
.... progressives and conservatives....

People want to achieve the level they perceive others achieving. They want to progress.
If they achieve that goal they want to hang on to their gains. They want to conserve.

Some of the most conservative people I knew were members of progressive parties because they felt that their party had closed their perceived gap and relied on the party to conserve their new position.

Gladstone liberals are conservatives now.
Tommy Douglas progressives are also conservatives now. They wish to conserve labour rights and public health.
 
All the positive analyses I've seen of UBI and NIT are just based on simple numerical assumptions and mathematics.

Unaccounted are the effects on behaviour, which in economics is like studying physics without accounting for gravity. UBI/NIT is a plan; people are the enemy. Change on contact of the first with the second will disrupt the assumptions of the first.

Trials can't selectively winnow participants to achieve positive outcomes, or they are worthless. (There was one a while back which did just that.)
 
Personally I am against UBI. It will fail miserably and create unintended consequences. I will propose Rick's alternative.

If UBI is there and for everyone these are what will happen
-Initially people will be well off (for a few months or a few years if we are lucky)
-However eventually, everything that collects money on a monthly basis will up their rates or interest or fees, because "hey they are getting 2G extra a month, they can afford it now" (I am talking insurance, rent, credit card/loan fees, fuel, etc)
-Eventually, they will hit a peak where the UNI benefit becomes negligible (Think if your car insurance is say $500 a month for 2 vehicles, then 2-3 years on UBI knowing everyone has it, for some "mysterious" reason car insurance is now $1200 a month for two cars)
-The tax payer still has to pay for it (In other words the money must be created in the first place)

So enter the Lefty in me (Yes I have a left leaning streak). First I have no tolerance for corporate or private sector greed and corruption and I have witnessed it. As a business owner, it sickens me.

I present Selective Basic Income. For this example of March 2024, we will say SBI is max rate $2200. You can opt for it by anyone Canadian citizen (So foreign students and workers, no) on a month by month basis or annually
-You can select 1/4 ($550), 1/2 ($1100), 3/4 ($1650) or full ($2200)
-You are automatically taxed at maximum rate (Unless your on a senior citizen or disability exemption), any returns felt owed, cleared up at tax return filing
-If you are found to have taken the annual SBI amount full ($26,400) and earned the same amount or higher, you will receive an additional penalty (Disabled and senior citizens are exempt due to an inability/limited to work)
-For those who DON'T file SBI will get a tax rebate (and it will increase each year to a maximum of 5 years consecutive) exact amount? Haven't worked that out (need a numbers guy to help me)
-To go hand in hand with this, I would incentivize employers by offering them more tax breaks for every dollar above minimum wage they pay their employees (To a limit)
-Who selects SBI must kept VERY confidential, only the government and justice system is allowed to know. The banking, financial, cash grabbers must not only NOT be allowed to know, but penalized if they ask or are caught trying to find out.
-For those who do work and eventually retire, I would allow a SBI + workers bonus (Like CPP) to reward those that worked (Not sure but maybe an additional $1600 maximum per month in todays bucks)
-Disabled and senior citizens with medical backing, can apply for an additional support to meet expenses

My idea is SBI replaces EI, Disability, OAS, etc, etc. One department (probably under CRA).

Still looking for more ways to incentivize people NOT to take it to avoid abuse.
 
Where is the money coming from? Who's paying for this? We're broke. When every tax or user fee we pay is combined, working people are giving over 50% of their income to the government. Now we're going to hand $20+/hr to every person that currently makes minimum wage and those that are on the dole. We have millions of new immigrants, many who will work, but move into a new tax bracket and then we have all the illegals aliens, who the government will also pay. They are already stretching and stressing our social programs. Governments don't have money and companies will pass their new net loss onto consumers. Higher prices and taxes on those who keep the system floating.

Please tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I won't lose more of my income that I worked hard for. That I don't have to give more of that income to pay for those that don't work.

Tell me how this is going to work?
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Where is the money coming from? Who's paying for this? We're broke. When every tax or user fee we pay is combined, working people are giving over 50% of their income to the government. Now we're going to hand $20+/hr to every person that currently makes minimum wage and those that are on the dole. We have millions of new immigrants, many who will work, but move into a new tax bracket and then we have all the illegals aliens, who the government will also pay. They are already stretching and stressing our social programs. Governments don't have money and companies will pass their new net loss onto consumers. Higher prices and taxes on those who keep the system floating.

Please tell me I’m wrong. Tell me I won't lose more of my income that I worked hard for. That I don't have to give more of that income to pay for those that don't work.

Tell me how this is going to work?
Click to expand...

I'll tell you.

The more tax you pay, the more money the government gives back to you. That is straight from our PM, so how could you doubt that?
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Redistribution of wealth. A cornerstone of communist policy.

Take from the well off and give it to the not so well off.

Except they collect it, but don't give it out. They keep it and distribute some dribs and drabs to make it look like it's working. The majority stays in the government coffers.

Just another tax on the middle class, who make just enough to be taxed, but not enough to recieve the payment. Just like the carbon tax.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the beginnings of the communist state in Russia. The term “Soviet” referred to a so-called localized governing council of workers. Okay…except for the fact that those heading the Soviets were the ones getting rich…often super rich…from controlling the monies and power allocated to them. Same old, same old.
 
ArmyRick said:
Personally I am against UBI. It will fail miserably and create unintended consequences. I will propose Rick's alternative.

If UBI is there and for everyone these are what will happen
-Initially people will be well off (for a few months or a few years if we are lucky)
-However eventually, everything that collects money on a monthly basis will up their rates or interest or fees, because "hey they are getting 2G extra a month, they can afford it now" (I am talking insurance, rent, credit card/loan fees, fuel, etc)
-Eventually, they will hit a peak where the UNI benefit becomes negligible (Think if your car insurance is say $500 a month for 2 vehicles, then 2-3 years on UBI knowing everyone has it, for some "mysterious" reason car insurance is now $1200 a month for two cars)
-The tax payer still has to pay for it (In other words the money must be created in the first place)

So enter the Lefty in me (Yes I have a left leaning streak). First I have no tolerance for corporate or private sector greed and corruption and I have witnessed it. As a business owner, it sickens me.

I present Selective Basic Income. For this example of March 2024, we will say SBI is max rate $2200. You can opt for it by anyone Canadian citizen (So foreign students and workers, no) on a month by month basis or annually
-You can select 1/4 ($550), 1/2 ($1100), 3/4 ($1650) or full ($2200)
-You are automatically taxed at maximum rate (Unless your on a senior citizen or disability exemption), any returns felt owed, cleared up at tax return filing
-If you are found to have taken the annual SBI amount full ($26,400) and earned the same amount or higher, you will receive an additional penalty (Disabled and senior citizens are exempt due to an inability/limited to work)
-For those who DON'T file SBI will get a tax rebate (and it will increase each year to a maximum of 5 years consecutive) exact amount? Haven't worked that out (need a numbers guy to help me)
-To go hand in hand with this, I would incentivize employers by offering them more tax breaks for every dollar above minimum wage they pay their employees (To a limit)
-Who selects SBI must kept VERY confidential, only the government and justice system is allowed to know. The banking, financial, cash grabbers must not only NOT be allowed to know, but penalized if they ask or are caught trying to find out.
-For those who do work and eventually retire, I would allow a SBI + workers bonus (Like CPP) to reward those that worked (Not sure but maybe an additional $1600 maximum per month in todays bucks)
-Disabled and senior citizens with medical backing, can apply for an additional support to meet expenses

My idea is SBI replaces EI, Disability, OAS, etc, etc. One department (probably under CRA).

Still looking for more ways to incentivize people NOT to take it to avoid abuse.
Click to expand...
@ArmyRick, I lean towards your ‘SBI’ or NTI, vs UBI, but inside my own small-c leanings, I believe like you, is a socially empathetic part that feels a responsibility to assist those truly deserving…not people highly adept at maximizing the briberous and beyond-reasonable committing of taxpayers’ money that many governments, Trudeau’s in particular are wont to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Decline of the Liberal Party- Swerved Into a Confederation Topic
26 27 28
Replies
558
Views
219K
Fishbone Jones
Fishbone Jones
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
Replies
15
Views
37K
medicineman
medicineman
Back
Top