Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Wafting gently downward

by Paul Wells on Monday, April 27, 2009 8:51am - 60 Comments

Statistically, when you add the numbers from a bunch of different polls with different methodologies and questions together, you get porridge. But since I’ve linked to Calgary Grit’s monthly polling roundup in the past to show that nothing much was changing in voter support, here I am today linking to it to show the opposite. The polls have been an accumulation of discouraging news for the Conservatives.

Three quick thoughts. First, before anyone gets too excited about how far Harper has fallen from his election-day high, they should remember that election day marked a high for him. I’m told the results on election day often have some sort of political significance. And three elections running, the Harper Conservatives ended with a higher share of popular vote (or their opponents with a lower share) than a poll a week before the writ drop would have suggested. He campaigns well.

Second, these results come before the inevitable summer-long multimedia carpet-bombing of Michael Ignatieff. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the theme will be “Hey, look: Weirdo.” Today we’re at the point in the narrative where Liberal supporters hotly declare, “Well, none of that negative stuff is gonna work against our guy, because Canadians see right through it.” Let me ruin your sugar high by cutting right to the next phase, which is dismay and alarm. Negative ads work. That’s why people buy them. (And before Conservative supporters get all weepy because I used the term “negative ads,” let me hurry to add that they’re also perfectly legitimate. They have an effect on voters’ perception of the target and of the group that’s buying the ads, and if you can handle that then go right ahead.)

Finally, a thought that’s not really poll-related. Last week Stephen Harper went into the Conservative caucus meeting and said something clever to take some of the energy out of the little fight he and his staff had decided, a couple of weeks earlier, to pick with Brian Mulroney. I don’t know what he said, I just know it was clever. I also know that while his MPs were looking at him, they were thinking that nothing he said could change the simple fact that this was yet another exercise in putting toothpaste back in the tube, and that Harper sure has been doing a lot of that lately. Damage control may be necessary but it is never great for morale. Especially not when the damage was self-inflicted. And especially not when self-inflicted damage is starting to become routine.

Tags: polls are for dogs, so's blogging, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

Sean Stokholm

I suspect the next election will be all about the manner in which the current house is dissolved. and who can spin that to best advantage.

Matthew Fletcher

That is always what people think the election is going to about the week before an election is called and never ends up actually being what the election is about.

Two Yen

I don’t dispute Paul’s point that Harper campaigns well, especially in English Canada. Unfortunately that was not the case last fall in Quebec and it cost him his majority. Harper can’t afford to that again.

Sean Stokholm

Aren’t there more seats in Ontario, next time around? This could offset the Quebec losses somewhat.

Critical Reasoning

I agree. A Harper majority may be unattainable without Quebec, but the new seats in Ontario and the West could help Harper win yet another minority government.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

The Ontario seats are all in the 905, no? Or is there some new ones in Southern Ontario?

Critical Reasoning

Actually, I’m confused about when the redistribution of electoral districts will happen. It may not happen soon enough to help Harper in the next election. Does anyone know?
Justin

I think it’s with the next census, so not until 2011…
Critical Reasoning

Also, won’t it be quite some time before the census results are published by StatsCan? So the riding changes could happen even later than 2011?

PolJunkie

“I don’t dispute Paul’s point that Harper campaigns well, especially in English Canada. ”

So gagging your caucus and not producing a platform until the very end of the campaign is the way to go, I guess.

Sean Stokholm

To be fair, many of us would gag if we spent time with Harper’s caucus.

PolJunkie

True. That Harper would need to gag his caucus is perfectly understandable. Even Harper can be offensive when he goes off-script. What is troublesome is that he got away with this false the CPC-is-now-more-moderate-and-camera-ready for so long.

Quebecers, with the help of Duceppe, have finally seen through the smokescreen. When will the rest of the country?

Sean Stokholm

Two thoughts: first, I think Quebecers engaged in a knee-jerk nationalist hissy fit, more than seeing through anything. Second, I’m always surprised by the fairly short and simple judgements most ordinary folks make when judging pols and parties. They don’t pay attention to a lot of the stuff that gets blog commenters in a tizzy, and usually sieze upon one or two issues at most (I’m basing this on a lot of conversations with family, friends and co-workers in non-academic circles over the years – so take it for what its worth). I think Harper, via his Reform roots, realized the nature of Canadian voters – for better or for worse – early on, and has capitalized nicely on that.

P.S.: you are of absolutely no help in my pathetic attempts at scatological humour. :)
PolJunkie

“first, I think Quebecers engaged in a knee-jerk nationalist hissy fit, more than seeing through anything. ”

Sean, you are thinking wrong.
Sean Stokholm

How am I thinking wrong? Seems to me gettting into a flap over cuts to culture funding is reflective of nationalist sentiments – I don’t recall his numbers plummeting prior to that.
PolJunkie

“How am I thinking wrong? Seems to me gettting into a flap over cuts to culture funding is reflective of nationalist sentiments – I don’t recall his numbers plummeting prior to that.”

Sean, when were the cuts first announced and publicized? Quebecers didn’t first hear of them during the election.

Perhaps the issue here is that you think (as do many in the ROC) that Quebec was reacting to those cuts alone. I and many other Quebecers will tell you that this is not the case. In fact, there was a much stronger reaction to the CPC’s claim that Quebecers were waisting their votes on the Bloc than there ever were to the culture cuts.
Sean Stokholm

Thanks PJ – I may well be too much of a ROCer.
http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

“In fact, there was a much stronger reaction to the CPC’s claim that Quebecers were waisting their votes on the Bloc than there ever were to the culture cuts.”

Saying that Quebecers were wasting their votes on the Bloc was a central theme to the Conservatives’ 2006 campaign, too, and their vote went up by over 15%.
PolJunkie

“Saying that Quebecers were wasting their votes on the Bloc was a central theme to the Conservatives’ 2006 campaign, too, and their vote went up by over 15%”

Not so. The CPC’s central theme in Quebec during 2006 was the sponsorship scandal.

I’ll say it again, what took place in Quebec in the last election was not a reaction to cuts to the culture sector. Those cuts had been announced and publicized well before the election yet Harper was riding high in the polls when the writ was dropped.

Harper lost in Quebec because Duceppe successfully communicated to Quebecers that Harper is a wingnut Reformer from Alberta who couldn’t understand Quebec values. Duceppe brilliantly used Harper Youth offender policy proposal and his stupid attack on the value of the Bloc to show that Harper was not the moderate pro-Quebecer that he had portrayed himself to be.

It seem that it is just easier for ROCers to view Quebec’s reversal on Harper as a simple-minded reaction to a decrease in funding to the arts. I have yet to encounter a single Quebecer who believes that. ROCers, on the other hand, bought that one hook, line and sinker.
http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

“Not so. The CPC’s central theme in Quebec during 2006 was the sponsorship scandal.”

No, that was *one* of their central themes, designed to attack the Liberals. Their other theme was “The Bloc will never form government and so can never bring about the change that appeals to Quebec voters.”

In Harper’s Team, Tom Flanagan talks about how they made the mistake of only attacking the Liberals in 2004, not realizing that in Quebec, the natural alternative to the Liberals is the Bloc, not the Conservatives. So in 2005/06, they did things like an ad called “débloquer” (“unblock”), showing a bicycle rider pumping hard but not getting anywhere because the front of his bike was attached to a “block” of cement (page 210).

Perhaps there was a problem with the execution of that message in 2008 which made it less palatable the second time around, but your claim that the Conservative’s anti-Bloc messaging was new to that election simply isn’t true.

Also, only 38% of Quebecers voted for the Bloc, so why would the other 62% be offended by the CPC criticizing their effectiveness? Only the hard-core Bloc base would normally be upset by that, and they obviously weren’t going to vote Conservative anyway.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

“three elections running, the Harper Conservatives ended with a higher share of popular vote (or their opponents with a lower share) than a poll a week before the writ drop would have suggested. He campaigns well.”

Interesting. Not just that he campaigns well, perhaps, but that he ends up in that sweet spot where the undecideds decide he’s the best (safest? most trusty?) bet. That’s when image matter most, maybe: when poor Joe Voter is standing there with his pencil thinking, “God, has it come to this? Well, who’s the least freaky?” and picks . . . the Rt. Hon. S. J. Harper.

Did the Liberals have that Rasputin fellow, what’s his name, Kinsella somebody, on-side last campaign? Because if the Tories are going to unload on Iggy, methinks they might find that what comes around goes around.

William

You don`t seriously think Kinsella is an asset. Iggy will dump him over the summer.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

I don’t know much about these things, but there do seem to be few people around who are genuinely ruthless and, I dunno, if they keep him out of the spotlight what’s the downside? In terms of Realpolitik, I mean; not asking for your opinion of Kinsella himself.
Wascally Wabbit

I must say – I too was surprised that Warren the K got in bed with the former Earnscliffe apparatchiks clustered around Iggy that he claims to despise.
More likely, if he has any sensitivities / principles – he will walk rather than be pushed!
Either that – or have another Bourrie moment!

Ted

What Earnscliffe apparatchiks clustered around Iggy?

Apps, Davey, etc. were all Manley men.

Canuckistanian

“Manley by name not by nature”

gotta love 22mins ;-)

dan in van

You don’t think Giorno or who ever the CON version of Kinsella is — Hannibal Lechter? Simon Cowell? — is an asset, do you? No doubt Harper’s already having to dump him this summer…

Kat

There has been so much talk about these negative ads that the conservatives are apparently going to unleash. Any day now. Really. Keep holding your breath ‘cuz here they come and boy, don’t you look good in blue.

So, where are they? We’ve been hearing about these ads for weeks, if not months. Does anyone really have any proof or is it just speculation. Are we running on the notion that it’s “the conservative way therefore…”

Negative ads work so they will happen during elections but we won’t be having an election any time soon so why all the paranoia from the left?

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

That’s true, eh? And meanwhile Ignatieff has been busily self-defining. Perhaps the spectacular success of the anti-Dion ads has led us to overestimate the power of the dark side of the force.

PolJunkie

The negative ads against Iggy won’t have the same effect that they had on Dion because, unlike what happened with Dion, Iggy won’t have to contend with a steady stream of anonymous-senior-super senior-liberal insiders attacking him in the press.

Sisyphus

Not to worry. Ignatieff will clench his fists, squint his eyes, talk out of the side of his mouth, threaten with scorn. He is tough.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

Insiders who were totally unconnected with Ignatieff, at that.

The damaging internal leaks are much less of an issue because the leakers won.

peter

The good news for the Conservatives is they will find an abundance of “damning” verbiage from Iggy under his own by-line, in dozens of op-eds and papers. His recent conversion to populism will likely be questioned vigorously.

TdotLib

Harper has the same amount available to explore his chameleonic move from the FAR-right to the center.

dan in van

Oh but Harper’s words can’t be used against him obviously because he neither said them, meant them or will stand behind them. It’s all John Howard’s fault!

Canuckistanian

“Oh but Harper’s words can’t be used against him obviously because he neither said them, meant them or will stand behind them”

and the difference with Iggy is??? he looks more like Kerry?

Jason Hickman

The difference is that the next election would be the fourth time for the Libs to try and point at Harper and say, in effect, “Ooo! Look! Scary right-wing man!”.

I would think that the successive CPC results from ’04, ’06 and ’08 would show how well that tactic has aged over time, but maybe that’s just me. And while the Libs *may* get mileage out of attacking what the Harper govt has done/not done re: the economy, it is harder and harder to imagine a “hidden agenda” tack being all that effective.

On the other hand, we haven’t seen how Ignatief holds up under a similar negative ad campaign. Maybe it’ll have no effect at all. But Iggy doesn’t have the benefit of having dealt with it before.

DianeG

The Conservatives will probably say Ignatieff is, well, too darn high falutin’ for John and Jane Canuck.. Too intellectual and too aristocractic. Ignatieff will have to visit more farms. :)
Sean Stokholm

I disagree, but cannot say more until Wells clarifies how I should feel about it and what to say.

Paul Wells

Sean: Be happy. Turn around three times and then recite the Baghavad Gita. NOW!

Sean Stokholm

Yes sir. That will mean delaying my daily meditation on a passage from Right Side Up, though…

Paul Wells

You think it’s easy making zombie followers?
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Why not do both? (Warning to Hindu comrades: mild blasphemy ahead.)

Sean Stokholm spoke:
When they were in the field of polling, the field of Nanos | assembled together, eager for combat
The Liberals, and the sons of Tory, | what did they do, O Wells?

Wells spoke:
Indeed beholding the host of the Tories | arrayed, then Kinsella
Approaching the Leader, | as the Prince of Darkness spoke forth:
“Behold this now, the Tories’ | huge army, Lord,
Arrayed by the heir of Flanagan, | wise as thou art;
Here are the spinmeisters, glorious combatants | equal to Camp and Davey in combat,
Teneckye and Giorno | and Kenney, whose chariot is great,
And Clement and Prentice | and the sleek Member for Okanagan—Coquihalla,
And Flaherty and Finley | and Baird, bull among men;
And Strahl the sagacious | and raging Goodyear,
And the son of MacKay and the sons of Manning | all indeed potent charioteers . . .”
etc.!
Sean Stokholm

Very nice, Jack!

Wayne

This is getting interesting and turning out to be a better fight than what I originally thought it would. I give a few poltical cookies to Iggy for having played his cards right the last while especially his wandering around the west telling the usual tales of homespun aw shucks I’m a farmer boy at heart sort of thing. Not to mention the standing up and defending the oil sands (in the strongest possible terms) … while my boy Stevie seems to be rope a dopin. I think the fall is shaping up as time for Iggy’s first hurrah providing of course Jack and Gilles want to come to the dance, else it is going to be very frustrating for the LPC as under no circumstances do the Lib’s want to go next year starting with photo op of Stevie at the Olympics here and ending the year with starting to prepare for bringing the soldiers home and god forbid the economy picking up as well . So I would say Iggy’s window of maximum opportunity is narrow indeed.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Don’t you think it depends on the economy too? Which, of course, we don’t have much in the way of entrails for, but if things still look so bleak in September would Iggy want to win? Or would he want to fight and lose? Seems to me that, as you say, Harper’s on the ropes and Iggy’s not punching all that hard; you think the Olympics could give PMSH a big boost? My guess is that Iggy will show up for those too . . .

Wayne

good points Jack and I agree : I have been getting the strangest feeling of late that Iggy and Steve have considerably more in common than what appears to be on the surface. Indeed would anyone really want the PM’s job right now? If anyone did I would seriously doubt their judgement. If Canada did very well come the Olympics, which it looks like own the podium is going full tilt boogie, I do think there would be a picking up of the national mood a few bumps heading the spring and if the economics have any good news at all or at the very least no more bad news – then heading into the spring may give a little gust of wind to the CPC and by then Iggy will have sat on hands a few more times than what they already have and that is not good. But a year is a lifetime in Canadian politics and in the meantime Stevie is still PM and more than likely not going anywhere else soon.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

I feel like we’re waiting on events, post-FUFU: all four armies have withdrawn to winter quarters and we’re waiting for some Sign for things to start up again. And nobody seems especially eager to fight. The Tories are in the best shape, it seems to me, but really, what’s the point of fighting a third election in which you end up with a minority government, when you’ve got that already? I wonder how many election cycles we can all stand, if there’s never any change in the results. On the one hand, this next decade will be really interesting politically; on the other hand I bet we’re all supremely tired with minority governments by 2015.

Dennis Prouse

One complicating fact for Michael Ignatieff is the NDP anger at the collapse of the coalition. The NDP will no doubt spend all of their time and energy putting out their traditional message that the Libs and Tories are interchangable, as opposed to just attacking the government. That will make it harder for Ignatieff to gather votes on his left flank. Jean Chretien was pretty successful at protecting the left-leaning votes in his coalition, while still leaning slightly to the right economically. This is largely because Chretien had some street cred as a progressive from a long political career. As a newcomer, that is going to be a difficult trick for Michael Ignatieff to replicate.

Stephen

Granted, but at the same time people seem to like the NDP more when they’re fighting for power, rather than decrying the other two parties as interchangeable (1988, the last election). By protesting against the similarities of the other two parties, they risk being written off as nothing more than a protest vote party, which causes their always-soft support to go over to a party that they perceive has a shot at power.

I agree with whomever said above that the Conservatives’ ad message will likely be anti-intellectual. Common sense good, book learning bad, etc., etc. It won’t play in urban markets, but it may not need to.

Paul Wells

Hmm. Weird. I blame Paul Zed.

Honestly, Andy can be picky about his writing. Maybe he didn’t expect a big audience for this post? Just a guess.

Paul Wells

Oops. That comment was supposed to go over on the milkshake thread.

Beatrix Kiddo

Started drinking early today Mr. Wells?

John W

Ignatieff must be ready fight back when the attacks begin. Paul is right; they do work.

I think the Republicans went a bit easy on Obama because of race and did not give him the full Kerry treatment. So a strategy to float above it all,as Obama appeared to be doing, may be attractive but also foolish.

The Liberals should have hard, tough, response attack ads aimed right at Harper ready the minute the Conservatives start. Harper likes dishing it out but not so good on the receiving end.
It will bring Ignatieff down a bit in public estimation as a regular politician more at Harper’s level. That’s a risk that has to be taken. A tough call though.

Derek Pearce

This is what I’m waiting for– Harper’s reaction when Kinsella and co. fight back just as nastily. Harper’s buttons are easily pushed and if they press the right ones, he’ll likely lash out, do or say something very self-wounding and send shivers of glee up the Libs’ spines. And all the while the Libs will have the fig leaf of “they started this, not us, we have to defend ourselves somehow.”

John W

I’m concerned they have not responded to the PMO scripted member’s statement attacks in the House. I suppose they think they are not significant enough to bother with.

Wascally Wabbit

Jack Mitchell:-
“and Baird, bull among men;”

Mea Culpa – I hope the Dell warranty covers coffee exhaled via the nostrils!

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Ah, um, just translating “narapungavah” (nara = man, pungavas = bull).

kc

PW – negative adds work, as you say. However, do they work all the time? The Dion adds worked
[imho] precisely because there was more than a grain of truth in them, aannd… people had a perception of Dion aass… less than competent…and he didn’t fight back adequately, or soon enough.
I have no idea what will work against Iggy, but i suspect…”heh look! There’s a weirdo”, wont do it! Now if they can just get Iggy to say: ” Now i plan to infandulously incentivize you all;” they just might be on to something. Although that would make him interesting, in my book.
khai

Quote:
> Let me ruin your sugar high by cutting right to the next phase, which is dismay and alarm. Negative ads work.<

Negative ads work up to a point — the point where people get tired of them. There was the Conservatives’ “Chretien face” ad, Reform’s “Canada has been governed too long by Quebec” ad, and Paul Martin’s “Troops in Canadian cities” ad (among a slew of others the Libs had from that election that didn’t resonate).

So, yeah, the negative stuff works, but it stops sticking when you throw too much of it. Canadians are too familiar with Harper’s “smear the Liberal” strategy and I expect the schtick has worn thin.