Ekos-ting on fumes: Hey, at least the stuff about the Afghanistan mission is interesting!

by kadyomalley on Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:31am - 51 Comments

Just as ITQ feared, the latest numbers for Ekos show virtually no movement in the ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of what Frank Graves describes as a “mainly indifferent public”.

The Conservatives are back in front place, with 34.1% – up from 31.8% last week, which, at just over 2%, represents the most substantial change for any of the parties, which ought to tell you something about the rest of the results. The Liberals creep up a teeny tiny twentieth of a percent, and now sit at 32.4% as the NDP drop by .8, from 16 to 15.2%, and in Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois falls from 37.1 to 34%. With the exception of the Conservative uptick, every single change is — say it with me, now — Within The Margin of Error (1.9%).

Okay, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, here’s the interesting part of this week’s release:

Canadians have turned decisively against Canada’s participation in the military mission in Afghanistan, according to the latest weekly poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates exclusively for release on CBC.ca.

“We have been polling on this question since the mission began,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “The public outlook on Afghanistan has undergone a steady and radical transformation. From overwhelming public support at the outset of the mission we have seen an inexorable reversal to overwhelming public opposition. Opposition has grown from a trivial mid-teen level to nearly well over 50 percent. Support has collapsed from more than 2 in 3 at the outset to just 1 in 3 now. And none of this is an ephemeral, excited response to news headlines; it has been a steady and gradual shift in public judgment of the mission.”

In Quebec, where support for the mission has never been strong, it is now only barely above single digits. In this poll, opponents outnumber supporters in every region except Manitoba/Saskatchewan, where the sample size is too small to be conclusive.

“Nonetheless, there is little reason to suspect that the Afghanistan mission is an especially heavy load on the Conservative government, since it has already agreed with the opposition Liberals to bring the mission to a close in 2011 and the debate has largely fallen out of the media discourse,” said Graves.



You know, usually when ITQ finds herself trapped by someone who goes on and on and on and on and on about All The Stuff The Media Should Be Covering, she rolls her eyes and points out that, actually, we are covering most of it, just not in the way that the speaker seems to think it should be covered. That’s not the case when it comes to Afghanistan — or, more specifically, that “steady and gradual  shift” in public opinion on the mission — which, notwithstanding today’s pollblitz, is probably the most consistently underreported story in Canadian politics today, and there’s really no satisfactory explanation for it, so she won’t try to fob one off on you.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    I think part of the problem is that, put simply, most canadians don't know what, exactly, we're doing there.

    What was the original purpose of the mission?
    What is the purpose now?
    What tangible results can be attributed to our presence?

    None of these questions have gotten much play since the original deployment and the ensuing government changeover. There was a brief flurry of coverage following the parliamentary process around the vote to extend/not to extend the deadline, but since then, the coverage we get is all about the trip down the 401 to the provincial coroners office.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JPro JPro

    My theory is that, politically speaking, because the Conservatives and Liberals basically agree on the mission, then everyone knows it's going to end in 2011, and not before, so what's the point in thinking about it. the public is resigned to it.

  • Hanging Out

    Sorry M_A_N, but that just doesn't hold up. The selling of the Afghanistan war has been a sustained bi-partisan effort for the past eight years, and none of it has worked on Canadians, who have gone from discomfort with the mission to outright opposition.

    This popular opposition to the war cannot, in any way, be blamed on media coverage, since the media (especially the CBC) has been reporting uncritically about the war for years now.

    And who on the antiwar side gets the same opportunity to promote their views on TV and in print as defense industry spokespeople like David Bercusson and Jack Granatstein? No-one I can think of. If anything, people who support the majority view in opposition to the war have been marginalized in media coverage of the war.

    Maybe there is a more fundamental reason why Canadians have opposed the war, which is that participation in this kind of aggressive, offensive war simply does not, in any way, despite the urgings of both major parties and most media commentators, reflect the role we think Canada ought to play internationally.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

      Hey, I wasn't arguing the whole thing can be blamed on media coverage or lack thereof, I'm just saying the results of the mission are being lost in the flag waving, the Highway of Heroes stories and the cheesey photo-ops of politicians and surprise visits to the war zone.

      I know a lot about the Tim Horton's franchise in Khandahar, I even know about the life stories of the civilians who went over to work there. What I have to dig to find is anything relating to schools being established, public order being restored, or even stories from the folks who live there, telling me what's changed. I love the CBC's coverage, but even that is lighter than it should be, getting bumped by swine flu, michael jackson and communion wafers.

    • Stephen

      Well said, Hanging Out.

      And to digress if I might, I note a common pattern. When the public began to turn against the government's plans to fully cooperate with US plans for Missile Defence, and the Martin government was forced to back away, supporters of BMD began to say the government had never clearly made the case, even though there had been a sustained–sometimes outright deceptive–campaign to do just that in speeches, op-eds, media appearances, etc.

      To return to the Afghanistan conflict, when the NDP formally adopted an anti-war resolution in Quebec three years ago, they were sharply criticized by the usual suspects in a clear attempt to marginalize this anti-war viewpoint, just as you describe happening in the media, where Granatstein or Bercuson are far more likely to get an op-ed in the Globe than Steve Staples or someone representing a view closer to that of the mainstream of public opinion.

      Despite the sustained best efforts of political, academic, media and other elites to manufacture their consent, Canadians aren't giving it.

  • Calgary Junkie

    This week's numbers (with changes from last week)

    Conservative: 34.1% (+2.3)
    Liberal: 32.4% (+0.2)
    NDP: 15.2% (-0.8)
    Green: 9.6% (-1.1)
    BQ: 8.7% (-0.6)

    Last week's EKOS can be found here:
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/08/f-ekos-…

  • Tridus

    Honestly I think it's just standard war-wearniess. Back when the mission started, it sounded like one of those feel good type things where we go in for a while, hand out supplies, and leave. The reality has been different, and this type of mission NEVER gets more popular as time goes on.

    • Hanging Out

      If your theory is that this is just "standard war-weariness" associated with "this type of mission", can you tell me when was the last time that Canada engaged in an offensive war that involved toppling a foreign government and the long-term subsequent occupation of a country, and how did public opinion play out in that case?

    • Stephen

      Back when the mission started, it sounded like one of those feel good type things where we go in for a while, hand out supplies, and leave.

      Good grief.

      When the war started, with Canadian JTF troops on the ground back in late 2001/early 2002, it was nothing like you describe here.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Torybaiter Torybaiter

    The Afgan war reminds me a lot of of the movie, "The Odd Angry Shot." It's the story of a group of Austrailians soldiers in Viet Nam. Life is generally pretty tedious except when the Viey Cong take a bridge down the road. The Austrialian's repeatedly attack the bridge and dislodge the Viet Cong, then return to their barracks, and wait for the Viet Cong to retake the bridge.

    Today, we see Canadians repeatedly head down the same stretch of Afgan road. Sometimes the enemy IED's work, sometimes not. At the end of the day, the Canadians return to their base.

    It seems pointless to many of us to sacrifice brave Canadian lives in what too often looks like a remake of "Groundhog Day."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    The Liberals seem to be doing an excellent job of building and sustaining a narrative of Conservative competence. They've managed to get government right-track/ wrong-track numbers to their largest net right-track gap yet: 10 points. Even among Liberal voters, there's only a six-point net wrong-track gap, i.e. 42% of Liberal voters think the Conservative government is on the right track, vs. 48% who think it's on the wrong track. Perception of government action is net positive in every province except Quebec. This shows the effectiveness of the Liberal communication machine.

    Unless they're trying to put out a narrative of Conservative government incompetence. In which case they are failing miserably.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

      ahahahah. I don't want to revel in anyone else's misfortune, but its kind of reassuring that canadians have cottoned on to the fact that Ignatieff *never actually says anything*. That or he consistently advocates irreconcilable ideas. His whole strategy of not being Stephane Dion is really arrogant, and kind of mean spirited.
      Iggy really needs to get in touch with his Liberal base (oxymoron?) and fast. His platform should also be canadian'd up to the max… its the only way he'll be able to get rid of all his political baggage– its cool that he's trying to win back business Liberals, but his support for the Iraq war is still a huge liability no matter what party stalwarts say. And their recent support of mandatory minimums for drug offences was sooooo the exact wrong direction he needs to be going in.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

      ahahahah. I don't want to revel in anyone else's misfortune, but its kind of reassuring that canadians have cottoned on to the fact that Ignatieff *never actually says anything*. That or he consistently advocates irreconcilable ideas. His whole strategy of not being Stephane Dion is really arrogant, and kind of mean spirited.

      Iggy really needs to get in touch with his Liberal base (oxymoron?) and fast. His platform should also be canadian'd up to the max… it's the only way he'll be able to get rid of all his political baggage– it's cool that he's trying to win back business Liberals, but his support for the Iraq war is still a huge liability no matter what party stalwarts say. And their recent support of mandatory minimums for drug offences was sooooo the exact wrong direction he needs to be going in.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hardmouth hardmouth

      ahahahah. harsh. I don't want to revel in anyone else's misfortune, but its kind of reassuring that canadians have cottoned on to the fact that Ignatieff *never actually says anything*. That or he consistently advocates irreconcilable ideas. His whole strategy of not being Stephane Dion is really arrogant, and kind of mean spirited.

      Iggy really needs to get in touch with his Liberal base (oxymoron?) and fast. His platform should also be canadian'd up to the max… it's the only way he'll be able to get rid of all his political baggage– it's cool that he's trying to win back business Liberals, but his support for the Iraq war is still a huge liability no matter what party stalwarts say. And their recent support of mandatory minimums for drug offences was sooooo the exact wrong direction he needs to be going in.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      Witty in observation and delivery. Thanks for the laugh.

    • http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

      Yeah, I think it’s safe to say that the Liberals are failing at creating any sort of narrative whatsoever. The only success they’ve had is heading off the nanny thing, really, and that was dropped into their lap.

      It’s almost funny. The whole reason the Liberals were castigated as ineffective during the Dion years was a combination of “weak leadership” and “party division”. Yet now it’s united under the most secure Liberal leader in ages, and it just doesn’t seem to be any better.

      Perhaps being The Party Of the Mushy Middle isn’t what it once was.

    • Dee

      Re: "They've managed to get government right-track/ wrong-track numbers to their largest net right-track gap yet: 10 points."

      Uh, you realize of course that when you subtract two measurements from each other the statistical error for this difference is larger than the errors for the individual measurements? This net difference between the right-track/ wrong-track numbers has been effectively flat for the last two months.

      It just appears to me that it's summer and the general populace isn't paying attention to politics at the moment (see flat trends in the party support numbers as well). Nothing has happened.

    • catherine

      The Conservatives have spent about $300M of public money to advertise their narrative, a lot more per year than previous governments. Don't you think money talks?

  • Mulletaur

    *ouch*

  • My Four Cents

    As a retired soldier with many friends still in, the troops are tired. The Operation Tempo has been high and with every new commander things even get even busier.

    To boot benefits for injured soldiers come in dribs and draps. Its to bad that the the general public isn't aware of this.

  • Mulletaur

    The Yankees are just getting started (finally) in Afghanistan and there's no public support for Canada for the mission. Hopey is not going to be best pleased with us Canuckistanis when Harper turns him down.

  • Calgary Junkie

    Another pundit weighs in on Libs and standings in the polls:

    James Travers, speaking to Charles Adler on Tuesday, July 14th, around 12:51 PM …

    “… I think it’s important to think WHERE the Liberals SHOULD be in the polls now. I mean if you think that we have a govenrment that has never REALLY convinced Canadians that it’s what they want, that is in the middle of the worst recession, you know creeping up for a hundred years … the Liberals should be well over 40 points, in fact they’re down, and that should worry them deeply …”

    Listen here (whole interview starts at 12:34 PM)
    http://www.am770chqr.com/Station/AudioVault.aspx

  • Hanging Out

    This just shows the challenges associated with decrying a government as totally incompetent while a) supporting them in the House, and B) offering no differentiating policies.

    I'm sure Ignatieff will eventually untangle this Gordion Knot.

    If not, surely the next Liberal Leader will do so.

  • Hanging Out

    Unless, of course, by 2011 Obama will have listened to his own supporters, declared victory, and started getting his own troops out of the Afghan quagmire that he now owns.

    • Mulletaur

      Possible, but very, very unlikely.

  • Anon

    "Perception of government action is net positive in every province except Quebec. This shows the effectiveness of the Liberal communication machine."

    They're not going to hire you as a surrogate, so stop begging.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    How about actually reporting on military operations for once? How many Canadians could name the three-month battle in which Captain Nichola Goddard (our first female battle death) was killed?

    Personally, I think the Government and the TV media between them are no longer capable of dealing with any serious issue on its own terms. If you're not wearing a speedo or playing the ukelele, you don't make the news.

    • Tiamaat

      > How about actually reporting on military operations for once?

      I'm pretty sure that if they were allowed to do that, they would have done so by now but the reality of the situation is that when details are no longer matters of national security, they have since lost their newsy-ness.

  • tobyornottoby

    My take is that support has deteriorated as it became apparent to more Canadians the reasons provided by the Liberal-Conservative war coalition were either unattainable or dishonest to begin with. In other words the fight terror, free the women, build the schools, rebuild civil society reasons they provided were just cover for cynical political reasons to be in Afghanistan as follows:

    Original Reason (Liberal) = to be seen as supporting/retain influence with the US, for what would later become the War on Terror
    Next Reason (Liberal) = since we weren't going to Iraq we needed to take a bigger load in Afghanistan (to retain influence etc.)
    Third Reason (Conservative) = for the greater glory of Canada's New (minority) Government (and to retain influence with Washington)
    Next Reason (Conservative) = we better look like we're doing some of the things we said we were going to do (or we’ll never get a majority)
    Current Reason (Conservative) = we have to get our asses out of there but we need to do it without looking like quitters

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Hear hear. However elite & effective they are, we just can't sustain this level of commitment with the small size of our army. They deserve a break, they've been on continual rotation for years & years.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    For those of us ( blush ) who have been against Canadian involvement since the beginning, the question I have
    is when did start to be ok to say so ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    Who is paying for these polls? Why would anyone fund weekly polling during the summer months when no political activity is happening and no-one is paying attention?

  • Anon

    Good question. What does "the latest weekly poll conducted by EKOS Research Associates exclusively for release on CBC.ca." mean exactly?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    CBC

    I'll bet it's cheaper to generate content by taking out a long term contract with Ekos than by paying journalists to dig up stories.

    i may be creating things in my head, but wasn't it just a few elections ago where they made the decision not to report polls – during the campaign – at all?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    Ah thanks, didn't notice the cbc.ca in the preamble.

    Wasn't the CBC looking for ways to save a few bucks a little while ago? Tracking polls being run every week to ask the same questions to the same completely disinterested people to get the same answers when nothing is changing sounds like a great candidate for a cost savings opportunity.

    Reminds me of the City of Ottawa…they produce a waste pickup calendar every year and spend almost $1 million every year to distribute it to every home in the city, even though you can print it on your computer yourself. Then when they need to make budget cuts, they cut the actual waste pickup service itself instead of the calendar distribution. No wonder cost cutting initiatives never work.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    After the 53 419th CBC story from that angle? Might have been a tipping point.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    I'm going to bet/guess that someone got creative, and realized that they pay through the nose when the writ is dropped and they have to scramble to get a pollster on board. Given the odds of elections every one to two years for the foreseeable future, it could probably work out cheaper to keep a pollster on contract for an extended time. It also probably drives the website and broadcast numbers when they are released, which would fit CBC's sorta-public, sorta-competing-with-the-privates, fuzzy mandate these days.

    Ekos may well be giving them away for next to nothing – it's essentially advertising, and in the current downturn it's hard to imagine our bitty population can support as many polling firms as we have – they could be trying to edge out the competition.

  • Harpixion

    Come on Dee, we can't let logic get in the way when there appears (rightly or wrongly) to be a opportunity to take a shot at the Liberals.

From Macleans