Stephen Taylor

I’ve just read over the details of the latest Strategic Counsel poll (h/t Calgary Grit) and the poll is good news for Conservatives.

However, I’d like to point out that the methodology of a Strategic Counsel poll differs greatly when the Liberals are expected to lead compared to when the Conservatives are expected to lead.

Let me explain…

Consider the question order of a Strategic Counsel poll from July compared to that released on November 4th.

July (minority parliament and summer break)

Q1. Thinking back over the year, what would you say is the most notable achievement of this minority government in terms of accomplishments and legislation passed?
Q2. And which of these activities would you say is the most notable achievement, is it… The health care accord with increased federal spending, Same sex marriage legislation, Tsunami relief effort, Agreements with provinces for substantial federal funding of day care, Off shore oil deal with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, or the significant increase in social spending through the budget?
Q3. Overall, would you rate the performance of the Liberal Minority government as very good, good, poor, or very poor?
Q4. And how about the operation of the minority parliament. Would you say Parliament has been working very well, somewhat well, not very well or not very well at all?
Q5. And if you had your way, would you prefer a minority government or a majority government?
Q6-9. For each of the following leaders, I’d like to know if your opinion of them has improved, stayed the same or gotten worse in the last year?
Q10. If you had your way, would you like to see (ROTATE The Liberals,The Conservatives, The NDP, and in Quebec, The Bloc Quebecois) keep or replace their current leader?
Q11. As you know, the federal government enacted legislation legalizing same sex marriage. Following the next election, do you think the government in power should allow this legislation to stand or should they attempt to repeal the legislation?
Q12. Gay rights advocates have been making the case that since gays are now allowed to marry they should also be allowed to adopt children as couples. Overall are you very supportive, somewhat supportive, not too supportive, or not at all supportive of allowing legal recognition to gay couples to adopt children?
Q13. The G8 meeting of the major economic powers is taking place in Scotland this week. Which of the following is the most important global issue that you would like to see the major powers deal with?
Q14. If the federal election was being held tomorrow, do you think you’d be supporting the Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (Quebec only) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?

November 4th (post-Gomery)

Q1. As you may know there has been considerable discussion about the possibility of a federal election in the near future. In your view what is the most important issue in the next election [question wording in previous polls: “In your view, what is the most important issue facing Canada today”] – that is the one about which you are most concerned? (Healthcare, Sponsorship scandal/Gomery Inquiry/Corruption, Government leadership/stability, Taxes, Economic issues (excl. Govt. spending/unemployment), Education, Other social issues (excl. healthcare), Environmental issues, Government spending, Unemployment/employment, Terrorism)
Q2. From what you can tell, which party, if any, is gaining the most popularity and momentum towards winning a possible federal election. Is it the Liberal/Conservative/NDP/Green/BQ/None/Other/Don’t Know?
Q3. If the election was being held tomorrow, do you think you’d be supporting the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
Q4. In that case, which party’s candidate in your local area would you be leaning towards at this time? Would it be the (ROTATE LIST) Liberal candidate in your area, Conservative candidate in your area, the NDP candidate in your area, or the Green Party candidate in your area or (QUEBEC ONLY) Bloc Quebecois candidate in your area?
Q5. As you may also know the first part of the Gomery Report was issued on Tuesday. Have you heard a great deal, a fair amount, next to nothing or nothing at all about this Report?
Q6. And from what you know about the Gomery Report, do the findings indicate to you that what went on during the so-called sponsorship scandal was much worse than you ever expected, a bit worse, about as you expected, not quite as bad or no where near as bad as you might have expected before the report came out?
Q7. Paul Martin has said that he was not involved in the sponsorship scandal. Now that the Gomery Report is out, do you find this claim very believable, somewhat believable, somewhat unbelievable or very unbelievable?
Q8. (asked Nov 4) Based on what you have seen, read or heard about the Gomery Report, has it changed your feelings about the Liberal party under Paul Martin in any way? (IF “YES”) Are you now significantly more supportive, somewhat more supportive, somewhat less supportive or significantly less supportive of the Liberal party than you were before?
Q8. (asked Apr 27) Based on what you have seen, read or heard about what Paul Martin has been saying lately about the Gomery inquiry, has it changed your feelings about the Liberal party under Paul Martin in any way? (IF “YES”) Are you now significantly more supportive, somewhat more supportive, somewhat less supportive or significantly less supportive of the Liberal party than you were before?
Q9. Paul Martin has been saying that he is sorry for the abuses that had occurred under the sponsorship program.
Some people say that this indicates to them that the Liberal party is beginning to accept responsibility for the abuses of the program. Other people say that that this indicates to them that the Liberal party is desperate to stay in power. Thinking of these two points of view, which one best reflects your own?
Q10. Some people say that while they are very angry about the abuses of the sponsorship program they do not believe Paul Martin was responsible and that he should not be held accountable for what happened.
Other people say that they are angry about the abuses and that even if Paul Martin was not directly involved, as Finance Minister and as the leader of the Liberal party, he must be held accountable for what happened. Thinking of these two pints of view, which one best reflects your own?
Q11. Some people say that Paul Martin’s offer to call an election once Judge Gomery has submitted his final report of the inquiry in February of next year [Apr27 wording: his report of the inquiry in November of this year] is a reasonable one and that they are prepared to wait until then for an election. Other people say that the offer is unreasonable because we have heard enough and it is now time to call an election. Thinking of these two points of view, which one best reflects your own?
Q12. If the Conservatives joined with the other Opposition parties to force an election, would this make you more likely to vote for them, less likely to vote for them or have no impact either way on any decision about voting Conservative or not?
Q13. Who do you hold responsible for the sponsorship scandal? Do you hold the federal Liberal Party responsible or do you hold a few individuals in the Liberal Party responsible?
Q14. From what you can tell, which party, if any, is best at cleaning up the abuses that have occurred in the federal government? Is it the Liberals/Conservatives/NDP/BQ/Green/Other/Don’t Know?

The pre-Gomery poll (in July) asked 12 questions (many of which prompted the respondent) before it asked the headline question of voter intention. The post-Gomery poll (Nov 4) is a more accurate poll in that it asks two relatively neutral questions before it asks for voter intention (in the 3rd question).

Please see my analysis of the July poll here. I discuss how the questions preceding the voter intention question prompt the respondant to think about Liberal accomplishments before asking how the respondent would vote.

(Regarding the voter intention question that appears last after 13 question in the July poll) It is the only question that really matters in the context of the news and it is the motivation behind the commissioning of the poll. Further, as reporters digest this polling information, [this last question which polls voter intention] is the most interesting question and it will be the most widely discussed (more often exclusively). Ask yourself whether or not a more accurate poll result would have been obtained if this question were asked first?

Furthermore, imagine this headline question was preceded by a question asking the respondent not about the “most notable achievement” of the Liberal government but of the “most admirable quality” of Stephen Harper’s leadership. Imagine also if the respondents were asked to choose from a list of generally positive attributes. The results would become skewed more favourably towards the Conservatives. The Strategic Counsel heavily prompts the respondent into thinking positive thoughts about the Liberal party before they are asked about voter intention. This is especially dishonest as the co-sponsors (the Globe and Mail and CTV) are likely to only report the results of the pre-biased voter intention question. Of course, polling only serves to influence public opinion as well so you can see how this becomes a manipulative political cycle.

I just acquired a leaked copy of Prime Minister Paul Martin’s weekly radio address. The message is a partisan one and is selective of the facts.

You can download the address here, or listen to it tomorrow on the radio.

What follows is a transcript of the radio address with my snarky comments in bold.

[funky yet bland music]

[Female voice]

And now… Prime Minister Paul Martin’s weekly radio address, brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Paul Martin]

Good morning from Ottawa. A year and a half ago, I asked a respected judge, Mr. Justice John Gomery to conduct an inquiry into what went wrong some years ago in the sponsorship program, and what must be done to ensure such a thing never happens again.

Paul Martin called the inquiry, yet it was the Auditor General Sheila Fraser which uncovered that the Liberals in Public Works had “broke just about every rule in the book”. Paul Martin called the inquiry because the Liberal Party was caught.

This week, judge Gomery presented his first of two reports. I accepted his findings and conclusions.

Paul Martin’s emphasis here is that Judge Gomery’s work is really only half done. Gomery’s first report detailed political handling of the program through senior levels of the Liberal government with responsibility going all the way up to the Prime Minister and his cabinet (which included Martin at the time). The Judge’s second report will detail how to fix the damage. This report will come no matter which party is the steward of reform. The first report details who is guilty (the Liberal Party’s “culture of entitlement”) and that’s all Canadians need to pass judgement on a party that has been in power for the past 13 years.

What happened in the sponsorship program was an abuse of trust.

abuse of trust… abuse of power… abuse of decency… abuse of Quebec… of federalism… of law… of principles… of the courts… of our democratic institutions…

That’s why I went before Canadians this past spring and took responsibility as Prime Minister for getting the facts out and holding to account those that betrayed the public trust and for reforming the way government works.

Taking responsibility is about more than words;

and about more than patting yourself on the back…

it’s about action. I cancelled the sponsorship program on my first day as Prime Minister.

Because the Liberal Party was caught. It was a no-brainer.

I fired, from his diplomatic posting, the former minister who was responsible for the program.

Fired Gagliano? No-brainer. However, now you’re going to pay the guy (David Dingwall) who hired Chuck Guité a severance of $500,000? I thought the whole point of Gomery was to end the “culture of entitlement”.

I have ordered my government to sue 31 people and companies for upwards of $60 million. We put in place new controls and watchdogs to monitor spending.

Yet, the government of Canada has not yet sued the Liberal Party. Isn’t this the part of the culture of entitlement? Is the Liberal party entitled to determine its own level of guilt while more than $40 million is still unaccounted for?

The story that unfolds in the Gomery Report is troubling, but it is a story that needed to be told in full, and in public.

Unfortunately, Gomery didn’t have the mandate to look into chapter 5 of the Auditor General’s report which investigated the links between Earnscliffe, the Minister of Finance (then Paul Martin) and government contracts. This chapter of the AG’s report was omitted from the mandate of Justice Gomery. It doesn’t appear that the Prime Minister is sincere in saying that the story “needed to be told in full, and in public.”

In the coming months, Judge Gomery will be writing a second report, one every bit as important as his first.

“Waiting for Gomery” is becoming a cliché, Mr. Prime Minister. We know that the Liberals are guilty of corruption. This statement is not even a partisan jab anymore; it’s the finding of a judicial inquiry.

He’ll recommend steps to build on our reforms and further improve the way government works.

Stephen Harper has actively done this by writing his draft legislation: The Federal Accountability Act. Instead of passively “waiting for Gomery” and then waiting for Liberals to tell us why Liberals should clean up the mess they’ve made of the good governance of this country, Stephen Harper has tabled a solid proposal for reform.

As I pledged, within 30 days of receiving that report, I will call a General Election, giving you the opportunity to pass judgement on my response to the facts about sponsorship, on the reforms that I have undertaken, and the overall performance of the government that I lead.

The Canadian public will also pass judgement upon the crimes committed by the Liberal Party. Paul Martin neglected to mention this as he does not take responsibility for the “culture of entitlement” created by his party.

Thank you. Enjoy your Sunday.

[music]

[woman’s voice]

This has been Prime Minister Paul Martin’s weekly radio address, brought to you by the Liberal Party of Canada.

UPDATE: I received the PM’s address by email from a friend with the subtext of ‘look what I dug up’. I received this email on Saturday. A couple of you have emailed me and have mentioned that the PM’s address was available on the LPC website on Saturday (likely the origin of my emailed copy). This means a few things:
a) if we can still call this a leak, it was leaked by the Liberals (and thus probably cannot be called a leak)
b) this is not a very smart move by the LPC to release the file a full day before it was to be released on its intended medium (the radio). This gives plenty of time for opposition researchers and armchair pundits (like myself) to rip it apart and point out the half- and non-truths of the address.
c) the Liberal webmaster must not work on weekends (or at least, on Sundays).

So, in the interests of the self-correcting blogging medium, I submit this for clarification.

I got up early this morning for the Conservative policy announcement. Perhaps it was a little too early as we packed the committee room at 8:30am. Stephen Harper’s announcement is a positive and timely message to be sure. A big surprise was the complete ban of corporate and union donations to political parties. I think that this is a great idea that will surly connect with the average voter who gets that generally ill feeling when they think of how things work in Ottawa. Perhaps the greatest strategical brilliance of the announcement is that the Tories have presented their active gameplan for reform, while the Liberals are now stuck in their passive approach of waiting to be told what to do by the judge that labelled them guilty of corruption this week.

I’m not entirely sure about what the plan is for jamming the revolving doors on lobbying. Senior staffers, and ministers are forced to cool off for 5 years in the document, however I don’t understand the harsh words for Hill staffers. Is it not fair for a coffee pouring low level staffer to make connections with parliamentarians in order to eventually advance the position of a future client in a future career? If lobbying is still legal within the proposed Conservative plan, why does Stephen Harper make a blanket condemnation in words?

Speaking of throwing around the lobbying label, Minister of Public Works Scott Brison came out against Mr. Harper for being an unregistered lobbyist for the National Citizens Coalition and brings out not only a red herring, but a red herring that is factually incorrect. Mr. Harper didn’t register as a lobbyist because he was doing no such thing as President of the National Citizens Coalition. Harper was neither an advocate for a profession, trade, nor product but rather a proponent of policy and ideas. The NCC wasn’t “charged” six times for violating the Elections Act, but rather they presented six court challenges to the law.

In fact, watch and listen (turn up your speakers and go to the last 20 seconds) to reporters complain about Scott Brison’s weak challenge to Harper’s policy proposal and to his red herring attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

Gerry Nichols of the NCC responds to Brison’s claim

UPDATE: Brison issues a letter of apology to Gerry Nicholls and the NCC.

The lobbyist policy in the Conservative announcement today was of course inspired by David Dingwall, the former Liberal cabinet minister who became an unregistered lobbyist soon after. Senior Conservatives tell me that the policy is more about punitive action than prevention (we all hope that the threat of the former takes care of the latter). While clever law breakers will always find a way of circumvention, when they get caught, the Conservative policy will not pay severence but insist on a sentence.

Today’s policy announcement is sure to score well for the Conservative Party.

The party has spent a lot of time condemning the corruption of the Liberal Party. Now, it has something to offer Canadians with the aim of cleaning up the mess.