Saturday, April 19, 2014 - (47109 comments)

Canadians give average performance scores to elected officials

14 comments Latest by RonaldODowd

In a recent Nanos Research survey, Canadians were asked to rate elected officials in various areas on a 1 to 10 scale, where 1 was very poor and 10 was excellent. These areas included:

  • making decisions in the long term interests of Canada;
  • managing policy priorities in a changing situation; and
  • representing the views of voters that elected them.

Only a small minority of Canadians thought elected officials are doing a good job in any of these areas. Canadians were likely to give an average score (4-7) to elected officials in all three areas (53.0%, 55.7% and 51.7% respectively).

Canadians were also asked to compare federal parties in these three areas. Conservatives were thought to be comparatively better than the other parties at making decisions in the long term interests of Canada (26.8%) and at managing policy priorities in a changing situation (24.8%), while the NDP was thought to be better at representing the views of voters that elected them (30.9%). Of note, about two in ten Canadians were undecided as to which federal party was best in these areas.

Methodology

Between April 13th and 14th, 2012, Nanos Research conducted a national random online survey of 1,002 Canadians 18 years of age and older. The data has been weighted using the latest Census results to ensure that the final sample group is representative of the Canadian populace and is estimated to be a true reflection of Canadian opinion at the time of the research.

Long term decisions - Elected officials: On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent, how would you rate our elected officials in the following areas [Randomize] - The ability to make decisions in the long term interests of Canada.

Canada (n=1,002)

1-3 (Very poor): 25.5%
4-7 : 53.0%
8-10 (Excellent):16.0%
Unsure: 5.4%

Managing priorities - Elected officials: On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent, how would you rate our elected officials in the following areas [Randomize] - The ability to manage policy priorities in a changing situation.

Canada (n=1,002)

1-3 (Very poor): 25.5%
4-7 : 55.7%
8-10 (Excellent):12.4%
Unsure: 6.4%

Representing voters - Elected officials: On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very poor and 10 is excellent, how would you rate our elected officials in the following areas [Randomize] - The ability to represent the views of voters that elected them.

Canada (n=1,002)

1-3 (Very poor): 32.2%
4-7 : 51.7%
8-10 (Excellent):10.7%
Unsure: 5.3%

Long term decisions - Federal party: Which Federal party, if any, would you say is the best at… [Randomize] - Making decisions in the long term interests of Canada.

Canada (n=1,002)

Conservative Party: 26.8%
NDP: 20.5%
Liberal Party:16.6%
Green Party: 3.9%
Bloc Quebecois 1.1%
Undecided: 23.7%
No answer/refused: 7.5%

Managing priorities - Federal party: Which Federal party, if any, would you say is the best at… [Randomize] - Managing policy priorities in a changing situation.

Canada (n=1,002)

Conservative Party: 24.8%
NDP: 19.8%
Liberal Party:16.3%
Green Party: 2.7%
Bloc Quebecois 1.7%
Undecided: 25.6%
No answer/refused: 9.0%

Representing voters - Federal party: Which Federal party, if any, would you say is the best at… [Randomize] -Representing the views of voters that elected them.

Canada (n=1,002)

NDP: 30.9%
Conservative Party: 21.0%
Liberal Party:12.2%
Green Party: 3.3%
Bloc Quebecois 2.7%
Undecided: 21.8%
No answer/refused: 8.0%

Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest “Nanos Survey”.

Cheers,
Nik

Reply to Topic

Comments

dm0720

For me, Unless it was perfectly clear that the poll was federal, I would have had difficulty answering it. In my case, I feel the province is doing a significantly less adequate job at looking at the long-term or representing the people who elected them than at the federal government and when I look at some cities, I think it is even worse, particularly when the local members fight with the city-wide elected official(s).

[updated Thu May 03 01:31:49 -0400 2012]

Reply to Comment

03 May 01:31

No replies yet. Join this conversation.

RonaldODowd

The Plane Facts: Is It Bullying Or Are They Just Plain Stupid???

No one can seriously question the professionalism, dedication or bravery of our Canadian Forces. But when it comes to Defence Department senior bureaucrats, there seems to be another picture emerging. No one from outside DND can quite comprehend why the RCAF brass continues to push for a sole purchase -- that of the CF-35, in spite of the political turbulence that has rocked Ottawa over the possible acquisition of that plane.

Frankly, it's incomprehensible to see bureaucrats basically saying that it has to be their way or the runway. Talk about nerve given the signals being sent by their political masters. The politicians are thinking re-examination and reassessment but DND appears to have lost the memo.

They sure don't know this Prime Minister like some of the rest of us! Stephen Harper is well known for having some tolerance for confusion (read the bureaucratic push-pull-shuffle) but we have clearly reached the point where his patience-o-meter is being sorely tested. Attention DND brass -- not a good idea to further antagonize The Boss. Nothing quite like flying into hazardous territory...especially when you are doing so at your own personal risk.

In the end, Canadians may very well see a designated number of CF-35s in the skies but probably not before this Prime Minister deliberately decides to tell a few people to go fly a kite.

[updated Thu May 03 02:26:35 -0400 2012]

Reply to Comment

03 May 02:26

3 replies so far. Join this conversation.

Bernie

I wasn't polled, but I'll give my answers to those questions. 1, 1 and 1, respectively. From these answers you may assume I have little or no faith in politicians in how they cary out the peoples' business, and your assumptions would be correct. Here, I am talking about politicians as a group. There are a few individual politicans who I am sure are decent people who are trying to do a decent job. They cannot make a significant impact because they are not listened to and because they operate inside a disfunctional system.Municipal politicians do a little better than provincial and the provincials do better than Federal.

This Federal government is by far worse than any that I have wirnessed in my 60+ years interest in politics. Politicians should not be making decisions that affect the peoples' lives. They should only reflect the views of the people, the people make the decisions and the politicians implement them. I can never support any other system.

This government makes decisions in opposition to the people and sometimes they seem to deliberately go against the wishes of the people. To compound their poor governance they deliberately insult the people with their lies which they continually engage in and their total disrespect for the people and representatives of those who voted against them.

On top of that, the corrupt way they go about government business and the illegal means by which they attained power have produced the worst political situation Canadians have ever found themselves in.

[updated Fri May 04 16:57:06 -0400 2012]

Reply to Comment

04 May 16:57

No replies yet. Join this conversation.

RonaldODowd

Is A Deal With Quebec Student Associations Good Or Bad For Jean Charest?

It seems that a tentative deal has been struck between the Charest government and the leadership of student associations protesting against proposed hikes in tuition fees. The trick will be getting the majority of students to agree to the agreement-in-principle in pending votes. Right now, we don't know the details but an intriguing question arises subsequent to the negotiations: will a deal help or hurt the Premier's chances in a provincial election which may or may not be called on Monday?

How will voters respond? On the one hand, you could argue that educational peace can do nothing but enhance Charest's chances going into his re-election effort. He will have been seen as having slayed the beast and provided stability going forward. Voters may want to ratify his government's position by giving the Premier a new mandate. Conversely, and this is the approach that strikes my fancy, the exact opposite might happen -- as long as the government had the militant and unreasonable students working in their favour, even everyday people (some of whom I know personally) who loathe Charest were inclined to endorse a hard-line taken by his government. With the student issue off the table, incentive decreases to back the Premier in the seemingly upcoming election. In other words -- conflict worked for Charest while settlement is bound to be a political wash as regards his government's return to power. Stay tuned for further developments to see whether I'm actually on to something or way out there in left field.

[updated Sun May 06 04:24:26 -0400 2012]

Reply to Comment

06 May 04:24

2 replies so far. Join this conversation.

RonaldODowd

Not A Great Day To Be A Federal Liberal...

They say that April showers bring May flowers...but what about the reverse??? Geez. To read the political commentary these days is about as enjoyable as hitting your head (repeatedly) against the most convenient wall.

Check out Warren Kinsella's piece in The Sun on the potential Liberal leadership candidates: http://m.torontosun.com/2012/05/08/its-time-to-listen-up-on-the-liberal-leadership-candidates
then, move on to the comments at Threehundredeight.blogspot.ca:
http://threehundredeight.blogspot.ca/2012/05/new-democrats-solid-in-bc.html#comment-form

Things seem to be less than ideal on the good ship Liberal. That's what Conservatives are counting on -- or, at least hoping for. Liberals need to remember that the stuff of successful politicians -- not to mention governments, flows from that quaint attribute otherwise known as intestinal fortitude. (Some might choose to otherwise describe it by a term that is located somewhat more southward but allow me to be (for a change) a bit more classy than that!)

Are we merely going through the motions here or are some people actually dead serious about righting this party? If they are, shouldn't we as ordinary Liberals have some rough idea of their political intentions by now? Conduct that can hardly be described thus far as being in the mold of the Churchillian.

Is it too much to ask if anyone is up to the challenge? Are those who epitomize generational change simply unable -- or is it unwilling, to take on the task of rebuilding on solid foundations? Where are the minds of the future capable of producing innovative policy that can grab Canadians by the collar and make them want to invest personally in a reinvigourated party?

In short, does ET have to call home? Is anyone actually out there, prepared to do the essential spade work? When I cast my mind back to the historic legacy of The Liberal Party of Canada, somehow paralyzing inertia does not fit the bill. Canadians await. They can only take so many political disappointments.

[updated Wed May 09 02:23:38 -0400 2012]

Reply to Comment

09 May 02:23

4 replies so far. Join this conversation.