After a slip after the 2007 budget, which raised taxes, the Liberals have returned to the astronomical polling numbers they enjoyed shortly after taking office. The Liberals currently stand at 60% in the quarterly CRA poll, compared to 30% for the Tories.
The Telegraph-Journal has extensive reporting on the poll, which has not yet been posted on CRA's website.
The trend looks pretty good for the Grits... Maybe the Tories should think about picking a leader sometime soon?
UPDATE: The Gleaner article has more detail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
I would think the Liberals are worried about this. Based on the PC's performance, how could you possibly be under 80%?
Frank McKenna facing the Richard Hatfield meltdown only got 60% (and won every seat with it), I think its a pretty good number.
It always helps to have your own newspaper. You know the one that isn't biased.
If there is any bias, it's towards the PC's here. How could 30% actually say they'd vote PC? They are the equivalent of a fringe party right now.
Good post, nbpolitico. As I see it, the only thing this (new found popularity) may do is prevent government action on many files which need to be addressed immediately.
You may remember this happening to the Chretien government early in their mandate when they almost dragged their heals into a constitutional crisis because of a lack of opposition and voter ennui. It easy to do, but one should not base their decisions (and not move forward) based on lack of scrutiny. They must look past the politics of the legislature and start making the tough decisions that need to be made. If not, they may lose a golden opportunity.
Taxpayer, I couldn't agree more. In my view, having an advantage in the polls should, as the news articles suggested, present the Liberals with the opportunity to do hard but wise things to advance the province. Something they couldn't do if the legislature was still 29-26, the opposition had a leader and they had little political capital to spend.
Point taken.
However, I would argue that, historically, most activist governments make most of their tough and unpopular decisions early in a mandate (usually the first six months) --- as long as they they have somesort of majority to work with. Think accountability act under Harper (he was even in a minority parl), free trade under Mulroney or income tax cuts, labour law repeals, education and welfare reforms under Harris.
They were all implemented immediately after an election was won.
Last I looked, 29-26 is a workable majority and "interim leader" still means what it means. Which is why I'm surprised there were so many studies and task forces implemented by Graham's government to look at problems instead of actually solving them with thought out policy?
Well first on a semi-irrelevant tangent, 29-26 is no clear majority. Counting the speaker, it's 28-26, which means one defection is a tie, two defections means you're done.
However, regardless of the stength of the legislative majority which, since April, has been a strong 32-23, other governments haven't been as quick to act as you suggest.
Mulroney propsed the US-Canada FTA in 1987-88, in the fourth year of his mandate. Graham explicitly promised studies of the big issues during his campaign and I would expect the action going forward.
I prefer a bit of study out of the gate compared to the Bernard Lord model which was a bunch of reactionary, illthought initiatives in the beginning of both his 1999 and 2003 terms followed by snail-paced b.s. in response to pressing issues that warranted aggressive and decisive action.
Graham explicitly promised studies of the big issues during his campaign and I would expect the action going forward.
That's interesting. Can you provide a link to a quote where he promised as you say "to study big issues" before moving forward?
Summer of '85. That's the year Brian Mulroney announced his government's intentions to seek negotiations. Not even a year into his first mandate.
The fact that an issue went from nowhere to the top of the national policy agenda in two short years is an intriguing tale of power of entrenched interests to steer the ship of state, as well as their determined leadership and ability to turn fortuitous events to their advantage.
Remember, he did not campaign in '84 on free trade. Which is why he felt more comfortable with a negotiation stage first ('86-'87) and then running on it after ('88).
Unlike Mulroney, the [liberals] did a great job studying it, but did very little to advance the idea into policy. What can I say, you guys love your commissions. ;-)
I think a valid question to this poll, is - which party is more responsible for the number? Is it really a Liberal victory based on sound policy and good governance? or is it a Tory defeat because the have completely melted down, are leaderless and are next to useless as an opposition ?
Is the Graham government effective or lucky?
kit - I think I would have to say a little bit of column a and a a little bit of column b.
Taxpayer, I shall quote from the Liberal platform:
- "Undertake a feasibility study regarding the expansion of the Belledune Generating Station;"
- "Undertake a feasibility study as a first step to bring natural gas to Northern New Brunswick."
- "Undertake a comprehensive review of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission"
- "Appoint a Commission on Post-Secondary Education that will examine the higher education needs of New Brunswickers."
- "Explore best-practice options for a voluntary, province-wide After-School Program."
- "Explore best-practice options for literacy and math recovery programs to help low-performing students."
- "Examine opportunities to partner with health advocacy groups, non-profit organizations and others to introduce activity-oriented programs for students, such as the Pedometer Challenge."
- "Examine the feasibility of a second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau."
- "Explore hydrogen fuel cell opportunities in relation to increased generation capacity at Point Lepreau."
I would also suggest that entering into negotiations is similar to doing a study, you are studying what the other side will agree to and, as a result, what the benefits will be. One cannot negotiate with an economy and one cannot negotiate with the power grid, thus you have to do a bit of a more academic exercise but the ends are the same - you are determining what you can get and whether it is worth doing.
I guess one lie is as good as another they lied thats the truth see ya at the polls
Oh ya, 47% undecieded hmm.;.
That answers my question on studies. thx nbp
Here to serve ;)
Post a Comment