Nanos National Poll - Canadians prefer controlled stimulus; Harper scores well on issue management (Completed September 11)

King Stephen appears to have once again cast his magic spell over the hearts and minds of the Canadian electorate.Being so infected,I think they really deserve The" King" with a majority government for another four years,Then and only then (I hope) they will be shocked back out of their political illiteracy.King Stephen will given a place on the Honour Role of failed Conservative leaders,which he has so rightly earned

[updated Thu Sep 24 03:46:25 EDT 2009]

I believe this poll says it is better the devil you know than the devil you do not. I also believe it is desireable to continue the minority situation until the Spring, at least, or until in the New Year when a more legitimate reason for an election is obvious to the ELECTORATE rather than to the politicians who are ALL currently jockeying for political browny points. No matter what their political stripe, no politician has all the answers or ever will have all the answers for a very diverse Canadian electorate. An election in the Fall would likely lead to another minority and that does not make for the best governance of Canada. Thus far, Harper has been reasonably careful and a good tactician stepping his way across the Canadian political minefield. He could even "grow" in the role as the leader of a minority party and the Prime Minister of a minority government------there is no other party on the horizon that looks much different. By no means has Harper satisfied that evasive majority of the electorate and neither has he poked too many in the eye either----he has poked some but I believe he is learning.

[updated Thu Sep 24 04:19:59 EDT 2009]

There was a study done a little while back in the US. It asked a group of those who believed that Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq. They even narrowed the group into those who said they believed it because Saddam was cooperating and supporting Al Qaeda. When it was pointed out with demonstrative proof to them that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda they accepted the truth that there was no connection but they still believed that Bush did the right thing, even tho that was their reason for their belief in the first place.
This only goes to show that with people who don't think logically; that proof to the contrary is not enough to change their original beliefs. That is particularly true for the political thought processes of many Americans. I believe in Canada it is not much better.

It's beyond me to explain why anybody who thinks logically would think that Harper is a good manager in any of those categories. He is wrong on the economy,deaf to any environmental concerns, set back national unity, wrong on taxes and on health care, an embarrassment to Canada on the international level. He has very poor managerial skills and a failure as a leader. (The latter being a good thing)

I don't know how the opposition leaders would fare. Ignatieff does not give me any hope. At Least they could never be as bad as Harper, nor could any other member of the Conservatives except maybe Kenney, Van Loan and two or three others.

I don't care what Harper is personally. I only care about the decisions he makes governing this country. if I list a hundred things he has done I can only recall three that were right. interest in the North, not selling our satellite and in favour of HST. There maybe some others which I've forgotten , mostly because his important decisions are so disastrous that one doesn't pay much attention to a few minor things he did right.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, even if he score 15 or 20 out of 100,(and they would be on minor issues) he could never get a passing grade.
I have been closely observing our political leader for 50+ years and no other leader comes close to be the disaster that Harper is. (except, possible, Mike Harris in Ontario)This is not based on emotionalism but on a careful scrutiny of the actions of the performers and their implications for the country as a whole.

It seems to me that a higher percentage of the people of Quebec have a better grasp of what good governance would, could and should be.

[updated Thu Sep 24 08:48:11 EDT 2009]

The wording of this question seems odd: "On a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is a very low priority and 4 is a very high priority,..."

Most people would associate 1 with very high priority ("It's my number one priority") and then go down from there. Nik, is there some reason you chose this method?

[updated Thu Sep 24 08:55:40 EDT 2009]

As a Conservative supporter all I can say is the Count is very lucky that the NDP swallowed themselves whole to support the EI reforms being proposed by the government.

If Nik is right as he has proven to be in the past the Libs were/are going to get beaten in the next election. It is just a question of whether it is going to be a minority or majority.

In fact now we are seeing news reports/columns where the party is now arguing over who is going to be the next leader.

[updated Thu Sep 24 10:34:57 EDT 2009]

oh pshaw - it's easy for Harper to look good now the recession is coming to a close - of course he looks good. How could aynyone who is not in government be seen to be good at managing the economy - it's a loaded question. Iggy is untried and it's only natural that someone would respond that the PM is stronger at the economy at this time.
And many of these answers don't even make sense - after all even as a Liberal I would rate Jack Layton as a person who fights for health care more than Harper - are these people polling Canadians in the middle of the night - are the responders all asleep ? And the environement - come on be real - who could honestly say Harper is an environmentalist. My teachers always told me - " be a critial thinker and always consider the source of your information "
That one health care question should give everyone a clue as to how much thought actually went into those answers. Polls ? the only good poll is the one on election day - Polls once said that Kim Cambell would win a landslide victory - oops she lost the farm !!

[updated Thu Sep 24 17:41:34 EDT 2009]

Nik,

I feel sorry for those 64% of Canadians who prefer controlled stimulus to further improve our economy: this politically sophisticated Prime Minister, although by professional training and political inclination theoretically opposed to government stimulus -- nonetheless remains a pragmatist in search of re-election. As a result, as he has said, stimulus will continue to flow.

However, what Canadians don't realize is that as soon as we get past the next campaign, the pump will be summarily turned off. Perhaps it should have been called Canada's Economic Incentive To Harper's Re-Election Plan.

[updated Sat Sep 26 15:05:36 EDT 2009]

Malaise.

A vague feeling of [political] discomfort. I don't like it one damned bit. I'm starting to get excited -- I'm already well beyond irritated. Hell, I'm getting more mad with each passing day.

Time for a reality check. Something major better be done and fast. I'm not smart enough to know exactly what the problem is but even an idiot can see that this isn't working.

Time to reassess, reconsider and recalibrate.

Now over to those of you who can actually do something about it.

[updated Sat Sep 26 16:19:39 EDT 2009]

Nik:
For the first time I watched your show, I saw your website and took the time to write. I live in BC, not on the Left Coast, but "Up" in the interior. We would love to see some stimulus money coming. There was talk of a Dam announcement when Mr Haper was talking to Mr Obama, I would like to differentiate between the investment in a Dam, and "throwing" money at the Auto Industry. This is how it is seen in the far west. Yes, we get the benefit of a huge construction project, and it keeps things moving for the duration of the project, keeps people working, and keeps our house value up etc, then after it is done, it generates income, for a long time, "forever" in terms of the life expectancy of all of us here now. It makes energy to sell. Forever. The project is the result of investment in a naturally occuring resource. It may have a long pay back, but there is a pay back, and as a person/province/country there is some benefit of this investment.

Then there is the notion of stimulus spending that is a Bailout. While I feel sorry for all the people whose jobs have dissappeared or are threatened by the economic situation, I do not feel sorry for the companies. I am not an expert on the situation, but I am of the opinion that these companies have been on somewhat of a tax holiday for a long time now. These companies have little or no loyalty to their employees, and are not to be mistaken for social organizations. Money thrown at them will be highly filtered before it finds its way to the people who are paid by the hour for their work.

My bottom line on Stimulus. I am all for reinvestment in the country. If we are getting something like a Dam or a Road or a Hospital for our money, I am all for it. Corporate Welfare I am not for. These companies have every opportunity to run themselves back into the ground, leaving us with nothing for our money. If the money is spent on something that will bring benefit besides employment for a short time, it will raise the standard of living in a real way. We need some balance between the long term view and the short term view. Spending our money for short term and not long term results, leaving us to pay it back in the long term just leaves us broke with nothing.

Probably mine is a near photcopy of many rants all of you have read. Just wanted to take my turn.

[updated Sun Sep 27 21:05:10 EDT 2009]

"Canadians are largely in favour of further spending to stimulate the economy"

Then Canadians are idiots. Spending only stimulates debt. Government spending retards economic growth by forcing private interests out of the economy.

The global economic contraction - predicated by the staggering over-valuing of the US housing market after decades of seemingly intentional inflation of US demand for housing (starting with FDR's creation of the Federal Housing Administration, expanded by Carter's creation of Freddie Mac, exacerbated by Clinton's willful meddling in the credit market, and then finally triggered by Bush's unbelievably short-sighting hiding of the problem under mountains of good money thrown after bad) - was a tremendous opportunity for Canada.

Regardless of who is responsible for the strength of the Canadian banking sector, the Canadian banking sector was the world's strongest. Canada stood alone in the developed world as the one country not facing a crippling credit crunch. Our major banks (with one slight exception: CIBC) were not over-exposed to risk in the corporate paper market. We were perfectly positions to take advantage of the rest of the world's weakness and come out on top. Canada could have been the world's financial safe-haven. Canada could have merely stagnated through the otherwise global recession and taken the lead on the recovery. Canada could have served as an example of good fiscal management.

But no, instead our political wrangling led to a short-sighted stimulus plan, as all stimulus plans are.

I only hope that we will now follow the example I expect Germany's new government will set and get out of the stimulus business.

[updated Mon Sep 28 13:09:36 EDT 2009]

Stephen Harper, U of T drop out, in his speech today, refered to his use of the U of T library when he was a student there. A feeble attempt to gloss over his failed two months as a student there. How many books do you think a drop out reads in two months. What a fool he looks. He is a phoney and an embarrasment.

[updated Fri Oct 16 12:16:35 EDT 2009]