New Ipsos Reid Poll

There is yet another poll out. I thought last night's spin on Global that this represented much worse news for the Liberals was wrong. Paul Wells had a post out this morning that gets it about right.

The Case for Tony Blair

I, like many others have been more than put off by Blair’s support of the war in Iraq, but there is a strong domestic case for his re-election in the UK election coming on May 5th. This case is put very well here, with additional evidence of Blair’s positive domestic record here.

The Prime Minister’s Television Appearance

The PM’s TV appearance last night was not about making a live television pitch to the nation nor was it about putting off the election until the dead of next winter.

As a live television appearance it likely did not garner much of a direct audience. We live in a 70 channel (or more) television universe, not to mention such distractions as video games, the internet and the Ipod. What it did accomplish was generating frenzy on the part of the media – bold headlines this morning, the lead on all electronic newscasts, etc. This was the idea, and it succeeded. The Liberals were able effectively to deliver their message.

As for the message itself, the chances of the Liberals’ avoiding an election are slim to none. However, by firmly committing to an election post-Gomery the Prime Minister put himself unequivocally on the side of the majority in all the polls – for example, question 7 here, and here, and here – who don’t want an election now. It is a line he can replay during the inevitable spring election campaign.

And, in the end, an election will not likely be influenced by such considerations. So the gambit was a success, but of limited consequence.

June Election

A June (or July) election now seems inevitable. Psychologically, with Liberals seemingly on the ropes, the opposition Tories and Bloc can't resist the temptation.

There have been numerous polls since the release of the Brault testimony at the Gomery inquiry. What to make of them?

Most have had sample sizes in the 1000/1200 range meaning the regional sub-samples are subject to large errors. I have aggregated and averaged them, and then done a seat calculation. I have noticed wide variance within the polls, especially regionally, and the averaging is about the only way of making sense of it.

Once averaged, the poll numbers are: Liberal - 28, Conservative - 34, NDP - 19, Bloc 13, Green 4 and Other 2. The produces the following seat distribution:

Liberal 79
Conservative 122
NDP 40
Bloc 66
Other 1

At the moment we seem headed for a weak Conservative minority. However, if these numbers held, the Conservatives would only have to cut a deal with one other party to achieve a majority on any matter before the House.

With the Liberal parliamantary moves to postpone a confidence vote, no doubt there will more numbers to crunch in the days to come.

The Decision to Appoint Gomery

The recent hearings of the Gomery Commission in Montreal have produced testimony damaging to the Liberal Party, particularly those in it associated with Jean Chrétien. It also led to the following by no means unique observation from Lawrence Martin in the March 24, 2005 edition of the Globe and Mail:

“It has become clear to every Liberal in the party that one of the worst decisions made by Prime Minister Paul Martin was the calling of an inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.... When Auditor-General Sheila Fraser’s report came out last year, Mr Martin had an option. He could have - to use his own words - swept it under the rug. He could have said it’s old era stuff, the police are investigating, no inquiry is needed. He would have been hit with a week or two of scathing headlines, but not much more.”

This argument has been advanced by many journalists before. It is not new. But whenever I see it again, I am reminded of just how utterly stupid and clueless most of our Ottawa commentariat really is.

Paul Martin made mistakes when he responded to the sponsorship scandal, but appointing the inquiry itself (Gomery himself was a very poor choice for Commissioner) was not one of them. He was lucky that he responded as quickly as he did. So far the scandal has not dragged down his government in part because he was able to distance himself very quickly from the Chrétien government when the scandal broke . The danger for Martin is that some fact rooted out by the investigation will still somehow link him personally to the scandal, although there is no sign of that so far.

He has been and will continue to be hurt by Quebec’s hostile reaction to the very idea of using federal money to intervene in the sovereignty debate, and to that society’s embarrassment over the presence of scandal in a social and political system most had to come to regard as very clean.

Most now forget, but the AG’s report came out on Tuesday, February 10, 2005. By the following Saturday, the Globe published a Reid poll showing a collapse in Liberal support. That means there was an instantaneous and overwhelmingly negative public reaction the government could not ignore. With the opposition smelling Liberal blood, the notion that they and the headline writers would have given up on this story after a “week or two of scathing headlines” is absolutely, completely crazy. Not appointing an inquiry communicates that you have something to hide, not exactly a message designed to restore public trust.

What baffles me is how often this contention of Lawrence Martin seems to be repeated as a kind of self-evident truth. The Reid poll numbers, relased just three days after the scandal broke, flatly contradict this lunacy.

Ontario Liberals Deficit Experiment

A poll released on March 17 by Léger marketing preceded by one day an announcement by the McGuinty Liberals an accounting change would mean that the the 2004-05 deficit would be much higher than forecast last spring. The poll gave the Ontario Liberals a big lead: L - 44, PC - 31, NDP -19.

This gives us an interesting real time political experiment. It is considered a given of our political economy, that balanced budgets are a sine qua non of political success. The McGuinty Liberals have just opted for higher deficits of some order of magnitude, rather than a slash and burn approach to budget-making. How high a political price might they pay? Their $23 billion gap campaign is clearly designed to offset some of the expected damage. But the public reaction to this year’s budget will be most interesting given all the bloodletting of a year go. Stay tuned.

On the Left Coast

The new Ipsos-Reid poll out today gives the B.C. Liberals 46% to 39% for the NDP and 12% for the Greens. This would produce a lopsided 51-28 win for the governing party. This confirms recent trends and is no surprise given the province's improving economy and fiscal position (which let them have an election style budget last month). There is still evidence in the polls that Gordon Campbell is not a much beloved personality (he has only a 42% approval rating), so I think there is still the possibility that the election will have some interesting sparks. But it seems to me the ultimate outcome is not in much doubt.

The most interesting bit of news this week was that ex-CBC chair Carole Taylor will run for the Liberals. Norman Spector says "Carole Taylor's entry into provincial politics changes the dynamic of the election campaign. It will narrow the gender gap and strengthen Campbell's "Liberal" credentials..." Taylor gives me the initial impression of someone who may have excellent political skills, and therefor may eventually make a significant impact. However, as a new candidate I don't think she will make much difference to this campaign. And the gender gap is driven by issues not personalities, including the fact that the NDP is led by Carole James.