Harper's in deep

Poll numbers indicate that more Canadians trust Ignatieff’s judgment than the PM’s

by Charlie Gillis on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:42pm - 25 Comments

A poll we commissioned for Barack Obama’s visit this week contained a curiosity for domestic political watchers. When we asked which federal leader—Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper—would maintain a good relationship with the new U.S. President, Ignatieff came out on top. No surprise there: the Liberal leader made a name for himself as a foreign-policy intellectual and his values square nicely with those of Obama, a Democrat. But when we tried the obverse question—which leader would stand up to Obama when Canada’s interests are threatened—Ignatieff still came out on top. Fully 36 per cent of those surveyed by Angus Reid Strategies figured the Grit boss was up to the task, compared to 28 per cent who had faith in the prime minister (14 per cent said neither; 22 per cent weren’t sure).

The finding invites a number of interpretations. Maybe Canadians admire Ignatieff’s credentials as a foreign-policy thinker. Perhaps Harper is unable to shake the Conservatives’ longstanding rep as the aye-aye Uncle Sam party. Or maybe it is a measure of the deep hole Harper has dug for himself.

The PM has faced a lot of this sort of news since Ignatieff—once dismissed as a haughty intellectual—adroitly snared the Liberal leadership in December. In a recent Harris-Decima poll, Ignatieff was the only federal party leader to receive a net positive rating (43 per cent favourable versus 32 per cent unfavourable; Harper’s numbers were 43 and 49, respectively). Respondents to the Maclean’s poll, meanwhile, gave Ignatieff a 42 per cent overall approval rating, compared to 38 per cent for Harper.

For Tories trying to gauge the full impact of the pre-Christmas parliamentary crisis, this is stomach-churning news. A couple of months ago, Canadians’ distaste for another election clearly outweighed their disgust with the Tories for triggering the showdown. But Harper is now in a head-to-head contest with the Ignatieff-led Liberals, rather than with a hypothetical coalition of Dion-led Grits and NDPers. The best he can hope for now is that the approval numbers are misleading. Could respondents be voicing general crankiness, rather than genuine political preference? Are they upset about some specific Conservative policy?

That’s where detailed questions about specific policy areas come in. Our query on relations with Obama, after all, was in essence a question on leadership. That Harper scored badly on both sides of it speaks to serious issues of trust. It’s not just that people think Harper will offend Obama, or that he will cave to the U.S. leader. It’s that they’ve lost confidence in his basic judgment. Or, more accurately, more of them trust Ignatieff’s judgment than trust his. For the Liberals, the danger lies in over-estimating the depth and meaning of that distrust. Does it relate specifically to U.S. relations, or to issues across the board? Is it regionally concentrated, or does it apply equally across the country? Will it hold if the Grits trigger an election?

We have only hints with which to answer these questions, but some are pretty compelling. Ignatieff’s decision to support the Conservative budget two weeks ago, for instance, actually burnished him in the eyes of voters, suggesting broad-based receptiveness to his chosen compromise (a Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey suggested 72 per cent support for his idea of quarterly “updates” on the stimulus package in exchange for supporting the budget). And while Harper’s approval rating has held in Alberta at 59 per cent, the Maclean’s poll suggests it has plunged in other parts of the country. In the former Reform-Alliance-Conservative stronghold of B.C., for example, it has sagged to 45 per cent while nearly one out of two people surveyed in B.C. disapprove of the PM’s performance. In Quebec, his approval rating has plummeted to 22 per cent.

None of this is to say the Tories can’t come back—at least they have some sense of how far they’ve fallen. But they better start climbing soon, because the hole can get deeper still. And the way things are going, the idea of Ignatieff stumbling into it with them seems like a lot to hope for.

Bookmark and Share
  • knick

    Past performance suggests that if there’s one thing to be counted on from the Harper party, it’s that when they find themselves in a hole, their instincts are to keep digging.

  • icemelt

    In my opinion I do think that Mr. Harper’s days are numbered. I don’t think he ever was a Conservative at heart. His beliefs, I think, are something else that slowly began emerging over the course of the last while, but not fully evident. He seemed to have restrained it in the begining, but couldn’t stay there.

    Ralph Klein might have known something about Mr. Harper when he said “unelectable” that the rest of us didn’t.

    It is kind of sad though, here was a man that had everything going for him and then he blew it. Resorting to tactics unbecoming a leader.

  • Gaunilon

    A lot of us despise Mr. Harper, but that doesn’t mean we’d vote Liberal. Be careful about equating poor approval ratings for the leader to poor electoral showing for the party.

    • http://macleans.ca kc

      Better ditch Harper then as he is the party!

    • Lynn

      Theoretically, approval ratings can be an indicator of electoral support – and in many cases, they have. This being said, with the HD Poll approval ratings for both leaders so similar, and both under 60%, I can’t wholly disagree with your point either.

      My questions:
      1) What is the intensity of disapproval with either leader?
      2) How many are saying “it’s too soon to say” when it comes to Iggy?
      3) Since when does 36 per cent make a convincing argument that Iggy is the better leader?

  • Weterner

    As I have said before the time has come for Harper to leave before he takes the party down with him. The sooner the better.

  • Wayne

    There is no better way for harper to earn more votes than read some of the posts by harper haters.

    • Derek Pearce

      Er, does the obverse apply then as well? Is there no better way for Iggy to earn votes than to read some of the posts by “Lieberal” haters?

      • Wayne

        possibly I wouldn’t know as I used to be a Liberal (until the Martin putsch) and don’t hate liberals.

        • Ti-Guy

          There is no better way for harper to earn more votes than read some of the posts by harper haters.

          That principle ceased to be effective as a warning when we hit peak wingnut with McCain/Palin.

          It really is just a passive-aggressive demand that people only say nice things about Conservatives.

    • Shenping

      The trouble with this theory is that Harper Haters post much more coherently than anti-LIEberals.

      The reason a lot of the right-wing blogosphere doesn’t speak to me is because I only comprehend English, French & Chinese. I don’t speak drool. Neither, I suspect, does Uncle Iggy.

      For example, Wayne, your post seems to suggest that Harper needs to read more posts by Harper haters, which, being the thin-skinned litigative crybaby that he is, will only cause him to push his head even farther into the sand. Although, given the lack of grammatical clarity (and, well, correctness) of your post, your meaning is nebulous. While I suspect you meant that Harper’s popularity will increase if more voters read the posts in question, that is not what you wrote. And you’re one of the more coherent.

      I have no problem with the right in general. For example, I give Brad Wall in Sask a passing grade so far. It’s just that during the 80′s & 90′s, the right-wing slowly surpassed the left as the larger stupid magnet.

      At any rate, I’m glad to add another post to the oueve of Harper-hating. Lattes away.

      • Critical Reasoning

        Although, given the lack of grammatical clarity (and, well, correctness) of your post, your meaning is nebulous. While I suspect you meant that Harper’s popularity will increase if more voters read the posts in question, that is not what you wrote. And you’re one of the more coherent.

        Shenping, while I’m sure Wayne is dazzled by your intellect and erudition, I hope you realize that you’re coming off as a bit of snob. Wayne’s meaning was clear to everyone. You should save your scorn for those who actually deserve it.

        • Ti-Guy

          You should save your scorn for those who actually deserve it.

          Like those who make the insane claim that speaking critically of Harper will only increase his popularity.

          I agree.

          • Critical Reasoning

            Wayne’s claim was not “insane”, and it applies to all politicians, not just Harper.

            The average citizen is not exposed to the stream of partisan invective that we, as blog readers, have become accustomed to. When the average citizen reads extremely negative political commentary, they are more likely to be repulsed by it than to be swayed by it. Just ask any of those elite political consultants who occasionally grace us with their wisdom.

      • LeenieJ

        lol.

        Shenping thx for the chuckle.

        being an independent never felt so good. and, by my estimation, our so-called Parliamentary democracy seems to have devolved into gangs (so-called parties) of hooligans instead of more independent parliamentarians forming responsible govts or getting rid of “crybaby”, “thin-skinned” “litigative” narcissism.

  • Weterner

    Harper’s actions have made Jim Prentice an obvious well balanced alternative to Harper for Conservatives disappointed with Harper’s judgement and decisions. Harper no longer truly represents the Conservative Party of Canada but Conservatives have yet to fully awake to that fact and probably won’t until he loses an election. Its too bad we can’t have Jim Prentice or someone like him take over with Harper stepping aside the way Bob Rae did for Ignatieff. If Jim Prentice had been leader we would have a majority government by now and that without selling our souls to compensate for Harper’s gaffes both during and after the election. Only the emotional and the weak minded might blindly love Harper the more gaffes he makes and the more criticisms he garners. Where have the strong men have gone that forged the Alliance and Progressive Consrvative Parties together to create the Consevative Party? They seem to have all been neutered by the cult of personality that surrounds Harper and his PMO. It sucks the life out of the rest of the party and apparently the brains as well. We can do better.

  • Liz

    Glad to hear it! Been a long time coming.

    Stephen Harper is not good for Canada.

    There is a deep-seated and abiding disregard for Canadians apparent in everything Stephen Harper does.

    Thank all goodness that Canadians (and a lot of the world) is waking up to just how bad Harper and his past-century(ies) ideas are for Canadians in the 21st century.

    May Harper get Raptured already, see his world crumble and fall away while he hies off to a better place.

    • Critical Reasoning

      Yes, if Harper has demonstrated anything in the past three years it’s that he’s a crazed 19th century religious fanatic.

      • Liz

        He hides it well. He has paid professionals helping him hide it. Taxpayer-paid professionals to boot.

        Harper is abandoning his base and they are waking up to it. Obama’s gonna get ‘em! Harper failed ‘em.

        Hard for someone, anyone, to come from the low minority that Harper counts as his base to a position of dominance in the face of Obama and his brand of realistic thinking and action. Engaging the people, not dividing them. Harper seems only able to divide, cause rifts and problems. Harper should save most of his speeches for his religious venues, not just his scripted photo-ops and staged announcements with only the invited from acceptabled CPC lists. Harper is simply not a man for any great amount of Canadian people.

        Stephen Harper works for very few Canadians. The majority of Canadians desire someone who can work for many Canadians. Canada wants its own Obama and hope and change.. Harper is decidedly not.

        It’s just that simple.

        • LeenieJ

          Liz, well put. glad to know that i’m not alone in my thoughts. $12,000/month personal grooming & astrology services? and ppl think he’s religious? well, perhaps his true g-d is a lot less spiritual and a lot closer to earth–say like when he looks in the mirror. Christians are supposed to rely on G-d not the stars.

  • Sarah

    Harper won by using the Liberals stumbling and bumbling as a leg up in the election and I personnally don’t favour him, though his Liberal competitor wasn’t much to write home about either. I’m going to remain neutral until I see more from Iggy. I’m not going to jump and say he’s Canada’s Obama before I see what he’s really about. My concern is what kind of a politician he’d be after he wins an election; in short, despite all these polls and surveys, I’m not holding my breath.

    • LeenieJ

      i believe Bob Rae or Justin Trudeau more befit the Obama-type example of charisma; but from the recent shackling and muzzling and leashing of the conservatives by Ignatieff, i’m willing to give him some consideration. but he should have assumed governance; ppl are fed up. i guess he had to get the conservative ring-kissing NDP leader to reveal himself as the self-serving position seeker he really is–afterall the NDP helped to usher in the era of Stephen H; remember?

      something i posted elsewhere: (inspired by the credit card commercial)
      the cost of economic mismanagement by the conservatives who went from $13B of our surplus plus Billions of cash to $0 in less than 3 years?
      $64Billion deficit…

      getting to see Stephen H. and the conservatives muzzled, shackled, and leashed by the opposition led by Mr. Ignatieff?
      ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS…

    • LeenieJ

      as for the unusual, perhaps awkward, Dion; do you know that on CNN the US is talking “just society” (President Obama), Green Shift/Green Jobs, carbon tax (Exxon), and ratifying Kyoto (mayors in Washington)? Dion was suckerpunched and politically assassinated by the conservative party; remember they hijacked Dion’s ideas on how to deal with the economic crisis that Stephen H said didn’t exist after they “won” the illegitimate broken law election?

      Canadians didn’t insist on fair play; they probably expected to see in Dion a continuation of the examples of corruption we’ve been subject to for the past 3 years but unexpectedly got more of a fair-minded and less political person and didn’t want to believe it–witness his insistance that Elizabeth May be included in the leader’s debate, something even the NDP opposed in a year old pact with the conservatives beforehand (that was reported on either CBC or CPAC). did you buy into his French heritage as a good enough reason not to vote for his ideas/his party? my appreciation for Dion did not translate so much into admiration for his party though.

      Now President Obama has caused Canadians to realize what we’ve lost. Dion’s ideas were brilliant, economical, and socially responsible; backed by real economists (about 70 or 80 if i recall correctly). the US has the Green Shift and is forging ahead. and the conservatives, having derided and campaigned hard against Dion’s idea are not the ones to bring in any environmental, social or economic policy (witness the $64B deficit they try to figleaf as a stimulus package); they have shown themselves to be incapable of integrity in this regard; imho.

  • Georgia

    You know what I think we need? Another Liberal-Conservative Coalition, like the one back in 1854.

    If the Liberals are the centralist party, they should be able to form coalition with the Conservatives as well as the NDPs, especially considering how many Conservatives are in the Liberal tent now, if only they can put aside their differences.

    George Brown and John A. Macdonald absolutely loathed each other, everytime John A was drunk because of his emo private life, Brown would print a ‘sick’ notice in his papers. Yet, those two still manage to sit down at the same table and pull Confederation through, because they all put the country first.

    I don’t think we are at risk of another American invasion, except economical, though the horses have pretty much left the barn at this point. What universal crisis we face that parties should be able to put aside their differences are;
    - The Arctic; if we let other people take our passage, that sets a precedent. We need to protect the route, the Inuit, and the minerals or whatever resource is up there, surely this is something everyone can agree on? We can increase military presence, that ought to please the Conservatives, and put a scientist post up there for global warming or whatever, it’ll have our flag on it. We can also sign a treaty that let Americans use our route within limits…that way our neighbour is happy, and we have recognition.
    - Senate Reform; the fact Mike Duffy is in there should be enough to convince the Liberals that we need Senate Reform, in regards to the rights of appointment especially, I think. I believe we need the Senate as our sober house of second thought, which is why I don’t agree with them being elected, that defeats the point, we already have the MPs…rather, their appointment must be ethically screened first, and required majority approval of the house, and only so many appointments per time, and an age minimum.
    - Canadian Business; no matter how we do it, we need more Canadian Businesses in Canadian hands, in whatever way that doesn’t Break NAFTA, but hey, we never got all our softwood lumber money back.
    - Transportation system; I think getting struck in a traffic jam is something every party can hate on.

  • Derek Pearce

    Goodie! We can all start another round of “when’s the next election?” !

From Macleans