Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Hey look: the PM, hanging by a thread and lovin' it

by Paul Wells on Thursday, August 5, 2010 12:46pm - 0 Comments

From the print edition, my monthly brain-in-a-jar Harper column. This one contrasts nicely with this morning’s Ekos poll. Could my powers of prognostication have failed me? Time alone will tell!…

Tags: self-promotion, the ever-cloudy crystal ball

More by Paul Wells

JamesHalifax

firsties!!
John D

What I love about these polls is that Conservative supporters continue to push the line that only the CPC represents "real" and "average" Canadians. That must mean that 70% of the country are elitist latte-sipping jerks who love the census.

Emily

Well you can buy an Ice-Cap at Mac's milk now. LOL

Cons wouldn't know a 'real' or 'average' Canadian if they fell over one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

I'm trying to find that article from, I believe, Dan Gardner that examined the correlation between votes cast in the last election and the number of Tim Hortons and Starbucks in a riding.

The summary was as follows:
There was a far stronger correlation between Liberal votes and Tim Hortons franchises than there was Conservatives.
There was very little correlation between the presence of Starbucks franchises and both Liberal and Conservative votes — though the Conservatives were a teeny tiny bit higher in that regards. (It was the Greens who had the largest correlation in this case.)

Orson Bean

In any event, I don't know that Starbuck's is now any particular badge of elitism or anything like that. I mean, they're everywhere now, they're as ubiquitous as MacDonald's. I also happen to think their coffee sucks, but that's just a side observation . . .

hosertohoosier

I think the problem with Harper's framing is that most people WANT to be "elitists". People increasingly value the appearance of intelligence and culture, perhaps as formerly elite institutions (eg. universities) grow less exclusive. People decreasingly want to be seen as working class know-nothings.
sbt

I think most people are honest enough with themselves to know that they aren't the elite or are ever going to be the elite, though. It's an 'us' versus 'them' tactic and your initial instinct is to choose 'us'.
Lord Kitchener's Own

People decreasingly want to be seen as working class know-nothings.

"Working class" may fit with your point, but was there ever actually a time when people WANTED to be seen as know-nothings?
Charles H.

1843 to 1860?

Loraine Lamontagne

I took an American colleague to Tim Horton's. He found it incredibly elitist: we had une soupe à l'onion gratinée, un petit pain français farci de salade aux oeufs and a mug of excellent dark-roast coffee. He thought Canada was very frenchified.

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

The Conservatives are still beating the crap out of the LIbs on the fundraising front, for whatever that may or may not indicate.

Emily

'The Conservative party has been so successful because it has been able to portray every controversy and every mistake as evidence that the entire world is out to get it'
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Ignoring+evide…

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

Doesn't change the effectiveness of their organization and the loyalty of their core supporters. I'm betting folks who have put cash down are more likely to show up at the polls too.

Emily

Amazing that the votes never match the money eh?

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

Ya, it's gotta suck to keep winning elections like that. They might as well give up.
Emily

The question remains where are they getting the money?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

From individual donors, to a maximum of $1,100 each, just like every other party. I should think the question at hand is why the Liberals have been unevenly successful (to put it kindly) at transitioning from reliance on large private and corporate donors.
Emily

If that were true, Cons would have the votes as well.
hosertohoosier

2009 Conservative fundraising by size of donation (from the Elections Canada website)
$200-$1100: 9,794,225.24
under $200: 7,907,815.81

And donations are a rather poor proxy for votes, because only a small minority donate. If every 2008 Conservative voter donated $200, for instance, they would have over a billion dollars.

As to the Tory fundraising edge, it won't make a huge difference. Spending is capped around 20 million, and the Liberals (and NDP) have always been able to borrow enough money to spend to the maximum. The Tories have a bit more leeway between elections, but it is hardly dramatic. Moreover, Ignatieff has seriously reduced the gap.
Emily

Amazing the number of people that donate money, yet Harp remains a minority.
hosertohoosier

They only had 101,385 donors, but won 5.2 million votes.
Emily

Money…not donors.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

And what people are trying to tell you, with admirable patience, is that the number of people who voted for the Conservative party outnumbers the number of donors by more than 51 to 1. So there's nothing resembling a mystery.

You're actually not obliged to post hundreds of comments a day on these blogs without giving anything a second's thought. In fact, it's strongly discouraged.
Emily

Yes, I know that the voters outnumbered the donors, and what I'm saying, with admirable patience I might add, that that in itself is a mystery. Do you really believe that all those people donate large sums time after time? During a 'recession' and everything? People out of work, places shutting down? And still they donate?

The money might pass through an individual 'donor', but it's likely coming from somewhere else. That's not a conspiracy theory I might add, it's common sense.

I don't take surface things and assume that's all there is to know, I give second and even third thought to them. It used to be called questioning.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion site, and the purpose was to discuss. If everyone on here is supposed to agree, there'd be no discussion at all and it would be a very dull place. Someone could have warned me.
s_c_f

No, it's a conspiracy theory and you're a loon. It's also a completely different argument from the one you were making before Wells shot you down, not that you have a shred of dignity that would cause you to admit it.
Emily

No, it's the same argument, perhaps you just didn't catch it.
s_c_f

I didn't catch it because you didn't make it. You tried to somehow connect the number of votes to the number of donors, to which your idiocy was revealed by several.

Now you're trying to make the idiotic argument that because people can't afford large donations, there must be people making even larger donations than the ones we are aware of.
Emily

Sigh…here's where the patience comes in.

I said he gets the money, something Cons crow about as proving his popularity, yet he doesn't get the votes. Something's not right there.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

OMG, you're at it again.
Emily

Well you apparently missed it when I had to post it several times upthread.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I said he gets the money, something Cons crow about as proving his popularity, yet he doesn't get the votes.

OK, let me try.

HE DOES GET THE VOTES.

The Tories get millions and millions of votes. These do include, most likely, the votes of almost every single person who donates to the party (about 102,000 people). PLUS, they get the votes of millions and millions of Canadians who DON'T donate to the party. What part of "the number of people who voted for the Conservative party outnumbers the number of donors by more than 51 to 1" are you not getting???
Jan

But he can't get a majority. That's the point. Unless there's no correlation between fundraising and winning a majority.
Emily

Exactly
wilson

It is exactly the same argument Emily first made, where's the money coming from. I got it.
s_c_f

It's only the same argument if that is what you interpreted from her ramblings. She made no actual argument.
Jan

It does rouse suspiscions. In a serious recession, with a conservative government violating most of it's conservative principles the party is still able to raise this much money. Of course fundraising scandals only happen south of the border.
s_c_f

No it doesn't. What raises suspicions is this thing they call "evidence". Without some sort of hint of wrong-doing, normal people assume normal behaviour.

Also, it's spelt "its", not "it's", in that context. Since lack of evidence is not a requirement for conspiracy theories, your inconsistent spelling suggests to me you are a Russian spy, considering that there have been some caught recently south of the border, and such scandals would not reasonably occur only south of the border, as you have suggested yourself.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Money will only take you so far in an election, I agree. I take fundraising prowess to be somewhat indicative of a party's organization, management, and of the level of support activiely cultivated amongst the core.

Ignatieff had a brief rise, but the latest quarter wasn't all that great.
AT1

"Ignatieff had a brief rise"
-Like a wedgie? I thought only Dion had those.
Jan

Maybe it has to do the nature of the Conservative voter. Judging by the fundraising letters sent out, they seem to react to hot topics like gun control and gay marriage.
bennji

But it does make a huge difference outside of the writ period.

Recall, that the first time that Canadians saw election style attack (truth) ads outside of it was the "Not a leader" ones targeting Dion. He had he knees knocked out from under him before he even took his first step.

You also has similar ones immediately following the announcement of the green shift, then just last year you had the "Just Visiting" ones.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

It is true. And the Cons currently govern the country, which kind of suggests to me that they've done okay on the vote front.

If your approach to this is at all reflective of the Liberal party's, it's no wonder they continue to fail. Whatever Chretien's flaws, he wouldn't stand for this sort of pouting jealousy.
Emily

Cons are the interregnum. It's why they're only hanging on by their fingernails.

And they aren't 'governing' at all.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

As much as I dislike neocons (and I do, quite vehemently), I can appreciate why such attitudes of entitlement and superiority, expressed as self-evident truth in no need of explanation or defense, would ultimately prove more objectionable to many citizens than Harper's contemptuous and destructive inclinations.
Emily

In other words, you haven't a clue.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

That'd be the superiority thing I was referencing.
Emily

Ahh so when you don't understand something, you blame the other person?

Then I'll spell it out. The country is waiting for the Libs to come up with a decent leader, and then they'll vote Liberal again. In the meantime they keep Harper on a short leash.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

And, on cue, the entitlement!

You play to form, I'll give you that.
Holly Stick

Emily, that is exactly what Sean is referring to. The Liberals are not the natural ruling party and they are not entitled to power. They are not as stupid and destructive as the Harper Conservatives, but they are not all that good either. They should be trying to work for Canadians more and less for their own political self-aggrandization. They should have had the guts to stand up to Harper's thuggery long ago.
Emily

It doesn't matter what you call it, most people see the Libs that way…they governed for most of the 20th century….most successful party in the western world….so to them Harp is a blip.

Defaultposition/chairwarmer/interregnum … what have you.
Holly Stick

You don't get electing by sitting on your smug complacent arrogant butt expecting people to notice how superior you are.
Emily

Oppositions usually wait for the govt to defeat itself. They all do eventually..
Holly Stick

Canada cannot afford to wait that long….
Emily

Well Canada will have to. They made the choice.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

You are wrong Emily , the Liberals need more than a decent leader, they need to reinvent the whole party.
Emily

That isn't going to happen. A new leader, perceived as dynamic, will get them in again.

Personally, I'd like to see a new party, one for the 21st century…but that isn't likely to happen either.
Anon

Reinvent? What does that mean, exactly? Be more like the NDP? Be more like the Conservatives? They'll get criticized either way for it. At least Iggy is out there *gasp* listening and talking to Canadians. Where's Mr. Harper been?
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Oh, please, don't even try to play that game, it doesn't make sense!
Anon

You trying making sense. You can't just throw out a word like "reinvent" without any explanation and expect that to satisfy people. "Reinvent" could mean anything. What do you want the Liberals to be?
sbt

"What do you want the Liberals to be?"

Well, I'd like them to be like they were back in the 90s but that party appears to be dead and buried. But I think your question is really the root of the Liberals problem. It seems to me that Liberals are so busy trying to find out what other people want them to be that they've been all over the map and aren't really anything. Some of that is the Conservatives calling their bluffs but many of those wounds are self-inflicted.
Jan

What exactly does 'reinvent the whole party' mean? It gets trotted out all the time without explanation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Cons are the interregnum.

Beware, Emily. Cromwell's Interregnum changed the nation permanently.
Emily

Yes, they never allowed it to happen again.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

It was what he destroyed—the divine right of kings—that was never allowed to happen again.
Emily

The theory of divine right was abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Abandoned then, yes, but Cromwell's signing of the death papers certainly got the ball rolling on that oh-so-interesting stage of history.

Then again, the restoration movement appreciated his efforts so much they dug him out of his grave and beheaded him. So who knows if the comparison is really all that apt.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Just want to remind everyone, I'm the Liberal. Emily professes not to be.
Phil

Although lets not forget that if an individual donates (for example) $400, taxpayers will reimburse the donor with $300, so that individual is "only" out by $100. That 75% tax credit is in place up to $400 dollars; above that the credit rate drops to 50% and then to 33.3%.

Here is a link.

Pity the poor taxpayers!
Ariadne

To use the words "taxpayers reimbursing the donors" is quite dumb. All party donors (no exceptions will get credit from donations as tax laws of Canada imply). It does not mean reimbursement, only tax deduction. If ever there is reimbursement happening, is when the taxpayers and donors made more payment than they should.
Phil

Ummmm, I think I understand your distinction, but it is only a semantic distinction; nothing wrong with taking issue with semantics, but your distinction is muddying, not clarifying.

Riddle me this, the taxpayer who has a taxable income of $20K and made a $400 donation to a political party, after they file their tax return and send in their final tax payment or receive their refund check, how much money are they out of pocket?

The answer is $100, and it's taxpayers who have been obliged to cough up the other $300. If you don't want to call that reimbursement, how about a subsidy?

And if I have made a technical error wrt the mechanics of the Federal Tax Worksheet and Schedule 1 and the T1 General Tax Return and so on please do let me know.
Wascally Wabbit

Er – Sean – hate to have to put you straight – knowing how you love to be frirst with the "Facts" – but actually – the Liberals have quite a bit more in the bank than the Cons ($3 million vs. $2 million).
Seems like Mr. Harper hasn't just been urinating away his credibility with all these recent gaffs – but he's been dipping into the Election fund piggy bank to pay for all those spitballs he loves to throw!

bennji

Plus, they drum up an issue, and then do nothing to deal with it.

Take the long – gun registry. If they really wanted to get rid of it, they would. Either through introducing a bill as a confidence motion (as they did with almost all the bills from 2006-2008) or, they could have done it as part of the 2010 omnibus budget bill.

Emily

After 8 years of Bush gay marriage is stronger than ever, abortion still exists, and stem cell research continues. They just like to complain about it when they're not in power to stir up their voters again.
Dave

Why on earth would they get rid of a whipping horse that generates probably $1.2 million of their annual fundraising total?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I can't get the software to load the column. I did once, but it's two pages and I can't get to the second page.

Could it be because I haven't received my "Hey, your Macleans is here, you wanna read it now?" email notification? I mean, I'd hate to be a paying customer learning about this stuff AFTER the non-paying freeloaders. :)

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

Right click on the link, select Copy Shortcut, delete the content of your address field at the top of the screen, paste in the new info, and hit return.

I think it's an issue with our IE browsers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I use Google Chrome and I never experience that kind of problem. The pages load much faster, too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Okay. I guess I'll try that one after all.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Wow – an unbelievable difference. Thank you – here I thought it was my computer acting up. I guess I owe the machine an apology for cussing it out. It's like I just upgraded my internet service speed.

Lord Kitchener's Own

You weren't using IE6 were you!?!?!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I think so. It just says "Internet Explorer provided by Dell". It sure sucked, whatever version it was.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

You're welcome!

Jenn_

Got the Google Chrome working–it really is amazingly fast, comparatively speaking. Thanks for the suggestion.

Crit_Reasoning

Glad I could help.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Thanks, Sean.

madeyoulook

I'd hate to be a paying customer learning about this stuff AFTER the non-paying freeloaders.

Rich elitist!

;)

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

Two things, I'm hardly suggesting fundraising is the most important measure – I was just tossing it out there.

Second, how a party spends that money is something of a different discussion.

Wascally Wabbit

Good for you Sean.
Presented with facts – you change the channel!
Figures!

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

I wasn't trying to change the channel, nor do I think I really did so. This whole thread got started by me noting that the Conservatives are out fundraising the Liberals. I think I was careful to qualify that with a "whatever it may or may not indicate".

As for Conservative spending – it doesn't surprise me, in that they are in constant campaign mode.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I'm inclined to take any polling results conducted over a long weekend, by robo-calling, with a grain of salt large enough for an entire stableful of boarded horses.

So, in my view, anything contrasts nicely with the latest Ekos poll.

John D

Shouldn't this be even more accurate? Didn't Demetri or Kory or whoever say that Real Canadians™ can't afford to go away to the lake? So all the elitists would have been on holiday while the Real Canadians™ were at home working on their cars and taking robocalls.

(also, who puts horses on salt?)

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

You're funny.

Also, I guess I just gained a few farm-cred points by knowing what a salt lick is.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Nonsense, Paul. You're just playing chess, while… oh wait, that's not right…
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

In Wells vs. Ekos, I'll go with Wells.

Harper was even with Dion in the summer of '08, before the writ drop.

VinceClortho

fair point, but it was followed by probably one of the worst campaigns by a Liberal leader ever. I dont think Mr Harper can count on lighting twice. Mind you, the Con campaign wasn't their best either…since it got side tracked quite badly by the the real time unfolding of the economic meltdown and the Cons carried on regardless….advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the equation for them.

Count on the Liberals being better on the road than last time, whether it will be really good is another story.

But Harper has been holed up all summer. Cue the Wells column on "what Harper did all summer". My suspicion is he actually "recalibrated", without announcing it, unlike the last time he announced it and didnt.

To me this means the fall means, the Cons turn back to substantial policy announcements (that doesnt mean opponents agree it just means substance) or we end up with "too clever by half" tricks, like embedding the subsidy reduction in a budget during an economic crisis.

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

I think we can all quietly take a few slow steps back from Emily, smile sympathetically, and leave her alone.

Emily

I think you can all give your heads a shake, if you can't understand plain English.

Even Elections Canada has been after the Cons for election funding shenanigans.

sbt

Wasn't that for allegedly exceeding their campaign spending limit? That has nothing to do with fundraising.

JamesHalifax

Emily noted:
"Then I'll spell it out. The country is waiting for the Libs to come up with a decent leader, and then they'll vote Liberal again"

No Emily, Canadians aren't waiting for the Liberals to come up with a good leader, they're waiting for the Liberals to stop stealing from us or abusing power when they are in Government. Right now, many of the worst offenders are STILL in the Liberal party and until they are gone it will be tough going to be re-elected to a majority.

wsam

Abusing power …. like Harper poroguing in the face of tough, uncomfortable questioning?

I know. I know. The Liberals did it too. But not like that.

JamesHalifax

I don't mind Iggy. I think he's an effete snob, but he is also right leaning. Folks like Bob Rae, gerald Kennedy, and Mark Holland are the reasons I could never vote Liberal. I have not voted Liberal since they booted Chretien out, and I will NOT vote Liberal again until they get rid of the three I just mentioned, and many more.

You don't like Harper…we get it. But here's the thing Emily….Harper comes across as cold and aloof, but he's also a strong leader. He does not come across as the kind of guy who would steal from us, or accept that kind of behaviour from his MP's.

The Liberal Party on the other hand…..comes across as a group of people who can't wait to get back into power and pilfer the public purse.

wsam

Harper's an ideologue. He's not a good leader. A good leader convinces people to do what he wants. He convinces them using argument.

Harper bullies.

JamesHalifax

No need to spell anything out .

We already get it.
Richard_S_Argent

I'm not much of a philosopher, but is this the right use of the "brain in a jar/vat" line? I thought that was more of an epistimological thing where you try to discern that what you can say is objectively real and not something potentially only in your mind.

Here it seems to mean "let's pretend I can read Harper's mind"

Am I missing something?

(and yes, I realize I'm being overly pedantic, blame Olaf ;)

Olaf

Olaf is a lot of things, but pedantic isn't one of them. Charming, witty, and profound, sure, but certainly not pedantic.

And he looks just precious in that little cowboy outfit of his.

- Olaf's Mom

Richard_S_Argent

Literal LOL there man, literal!

:)
Gaunilon

Hey you got an ID! You've been sucked into the vortex with the rest of us hapless mortals.
Crit_Reasoning

Everyone thumb Olaf up! Let's game the ID "reputation score" system by jacking up his score as high as we can on the strength of his first few comments!

Richard_S_Argent

Easy for you to say, Mr "I'm part of The Century Club"!

:)
Olaf

I shamelessly second Crits endorsement. It's really going to be downhill from here anyway, if we're being honest with ourselves, so it's now or never.

http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

Oh no, the Conservatives have fallen below 30% in the polls! It looks like this is the end–

Whoops, never mind, ONE DAY LATER they're back up to 35% in the same company's poll. (And yet – big surprise – the media continues to quote the old one…)
http://www.ekos.com/admin/article.asp?id=374

http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

To clarify, this criticism is not directly at Wells, who made this post before the new poll came out.

Other media organizations, however, seem to be outright lying about the situation. CTV news last night, and Jane Taber and the <a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Baird+moves+House+leader+Harper+shuffles+cabinet/3369521/story.html">Montreal Gazette today (among others) are claiming that the Conservatives being at 29.7% means they have dropped "11 points" in "the past frew weeks" or "since mid-July." In fact, the the last time a poll had the CPC at 40.7% or higher was back in October 2009.

(Other sources just claim that it's a drop from an 11-point Conservative lead in Ekos polling during that time, but that's not true either – the last time Ekos showed a gap that big was last October, too.)

On second thought, these claims probably aren't examples of the media lying… they're just being lazy, incompetent, and stupid, as usual.

The Invisible Hand

Ugh, should've proofread that better. Sorry for the butchered link. (And the first line should have "directed" not "directly.")

Daren

um…
the poll you linked is from 2009.

http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

Note to self: check any link you find on Wikipedia really carefully.

My other, more significant point about the fabricated 11-point drop stands, though.
Inkless

Speed kills, Hand.

Richard_S_Argent

Whoops, nevermind, you're quoting a poll from last August.

Surprisingly, the media remains silent…

Holly Stick

I blame the media's short memory.

mickey

What’s sad, is how this always gives false hope to those who believe (objective indicators notwithstanding) that Harper is on his way out. And how it feeds the media’s belief that their forced meme of the day was successful.

Watch (again) as some real issue pushes us to a potential confidence vote/election, as Harper (again) miraculously rises to near majority territory. Except it wasn’t a miracle at all, it was that there’s a big difference between general complaining about a politician, and a concrete decision to fire a leader and put some other guy in.

Sorry Liberal friends, but history tends to repeat itself in these matters.
mickey

A mid summer poll has them neck and neck? You mean like every other mid summer poll for the last four years?

Two principal reasons why there appears a “bad” poll for the conservatves at the time of year, only to see Liberal hopes fade – again and again: polls at the time inherently favour general sentiment/historical pattersn not true call-to-action intent. And conservatives are always under sampled due to vacationing families.
mickey

What’s sad, is how this always gives false hope to those who believe (objective indicators notwithstanding) that Harper is on his way out. And how it feeds the media’s belief that their forced meme of the day was successful.

Watch (again) as some real issue pushes us to a potential confidence vote/election, as Harper (again) miraculously rises to near majority territory. Except it wasn’t a miracle at all, it was that there’s a big difference between general complaining about a politician, and a concrete decision to fire a leader and put some other guy in.

Sorry Liberal friends, but history tends to repeat itself in these matters.