Canadians are remarkably optimistic (Nanos Mood of Canada Poll)

I hope their optimism is justified. In the longer term I would be optimistic too but for the shorter term I think not. By nature I am very optimistic. I have always believed since the dawn of civilization the human race is improving and will continue to do so. The advancement is not in continuous elevation but in zigzag steps, hills and valleys, each hill higher than the previous one, each valley not as low as previous ones.
Canada is very lucky and is examplary of the above observation. We have always had relatively good government..Sometimes not as good as we should but generally acceptable.

I don't look to the furure only in terms of the economy. I don't see the economy as the determining factor in our well-being. Materialism and consumerism is just not my cup of tea. Things like personal development, education, concern for the other are more important. Of course the environment makes all that possible. The economy is only a segment of that.
I get from Nik's poll that the emphasis is on the economy. It's there that my optimism hits a roadblock. My reasoning is that we rely too much on external sources. Our economy is to tightly tied to the US. I believe the US is headed for a recession. This in turn will negatively impact China and India. With our economy based so heavily in natural resources and trade with US and China we can expect a downturn also. I don't see any indication that our government is aware of the seriousness of our situation. (or maybe they don't care)

Another wet blanket over my optimism is this present government. This government has us on the wrong road. A road that potentially has ruts, potholes, washouts, collapsed bridges, and a sheer cliff. The driving government has on blinders, drives too fast, doesn't take detours or see alternative routes and worst of all doesn't listen to the warnings or advice of passengers. Doesn't even acknowledge them.
I have often said that the US government is the worst since the 1920's. I don't know whether it's coincidental that ours is too. BTY I have read four top US historians who have said the present US government is the worst in their history.
This PM and government gets a big fat F from me.And I blame it solely on Harper. He has much more qualified Conservatives to run the government, some right in his own cabinet.
Canada's reputation is severely damaged. In spite of Harper it is still looked on in favour but nothing like it was a few years ago. I work with a lot of immigrants and live among them. They tell me what the people, on the street in the countries they come, say. Not what their governments say. Their leaders have a political and vested interest.

Another damper on optimism is that too many people are caught up in daily living that they haven't time or interest in seeing what their government is doing and to add to that pessimistic view is that the media is shirking its responsibility to see that the people are aware of what's taken place. A poll of the average Joe's awareness (to an indept degree)of important issues around him would reveal what a lack of awareness there is.

Having said all that I am optimistic that the people of Canada will wake up before we go too far off the road and will kick out the driver and find a better route. I'm optimistic that bad drivers don't last long.

[updated Wed Dec 12 08:41:36 EST 2007]

Linking the economic optimism and the political numbers, my sense is that if an election occurs in the first six months of 2008, the dynamics would be favorable to the Conservatives rolling up a majority — and, though less likely, possibly a sizable majority.

My reasoning is two-fold. First, the political polling numbers. What you seem to have here is a good lead for the conservative across various indicators, but not a sizable enough lead to immediately produce a majority should an election be held now. But when I look at the average ratings, plus the low ratings for the other party leaders, what I see is a "reserve" of potential votes that could be mobilized by effective, well-funded, campaigning. Chretien recently said it very, very well. Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. So far, there is no clear indication that the Harper government has waded into conditions that likely would lead to its losing an election.

Still on the first point — the numbers — in my view, the interesting question looking ahead to the next election (given my 6 month window) is what will happen to the Liberals. Will the dynamics of the election represent significant further steps toward polarization of Canadian politics between two main contenders or will we stay with the multiparty distribution that has prevailed for the last number of years? On the analogy with the mid-1960s, I think the next election could produce a move to two dominant parties with the others receding to the fringe. Who will represent the opposite pole to the conservatism that, in one form or another, has become a quasi-middle in the political muddle? Will the Liberals succeed in repositioning on the Left of the spectrum or will the NDP make significant gains with their present position, as a result of a shift of the political landscape to favor a polarizing offset if some form of conservatism is dominant?

My second point has to do with the political consequence of economic optimism if (as is likely) it would hold for at least the first six months of 2008. Behavioral economics offers some clues to political consequences in this regard: i.e., not only how the Canadian economy is actually performing, but how is this performance perceived relative to other economic information that filters through to Canadian voters' consciousness.

If the Canadian economy is still seen as performing well at election time, and if this is in contrast to what Canadians are perceiving about the American economy (and what is being conveyed to them of political debate about the economy during an intense American election) the background noise is likely to intensify Canadians' feelings that our economy is relatively secure (whether or not this is really the case looking forward). In this case, if the first condition I noted materialized (mobilization of a "reserve" of votes in favor of the Conservatives), then the swing of election results would be magnified, and a possible Conservative majority could become a very big majority (e.g., compare the Trudeau election of 1968). My guess would be that under these conditions, if the polarization corollary also materialized, it would favor the NDP vote holding and the Liberals, under Dion, sinking considerably.

[updated Wed Dec 12 13:28:12 EST 2007]

Our prosperity and the "feel good" attitude is largely attributed to energy sales including oil, gas and electricity. The faltering manufacturing sector is going to draw down on the overall economy and could have a negative effect on peoples' feelings. Any sudden and severe environmental regulations will have a very negative impact on the economy and optimism will wane.

[updated Wed Dec 12 16:18:48 EST 2007]

I"m with Bernie on this one. The average voter is simply not aware of what is going on with this nations government and the issues nationally and internationally. If the average voter was aware, the average voter would be much more concerned about Canada's involvement with climate change, Afghanistan, commodities, globalization, U.S. economics and foreign policy, and concentrated media in Canada. Unfortunately, the system has to break before people lift their heads to the issues at hand.

With the issue of Climate change, Canadians are losing their reputations quickly with their stance in Bali and the Commonwealth. We are now presently being seen as being a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution.

The tar sands, as the majority of Canadians are likely unaware, produce more C02 emissions than the rest of this nation combined. The average Canadian has not heard of the National Citizen's coalition, an organization of U.S. born multinationals with the sole purpose of increasing market share in all of Canada's economic sectors. They've succeeded heavily in pursuading the public through the media especially in Alta, to open their doors to foreign investment for oil and gas development. And the average person doesn't know that Stephen Harper was the president of the NCC for 5 years previous to becoming Conservative leader. In other words, the average voter doesn't know that Stephen Harper was a corporate lobbyist lobbying on behalf of U.S. corporations to increase market share in Canada with all of its sectors. And as such, the average person doesn't know what is at risk. Every crown corp, board and regulation to keep Canada owned by Canadians is at risk with Harper. If the average person knew this, they would choose, as Bernie says, another driver.

The average person is also not aware of what Harpers choices were with Afghanistan. Harper increased Canadian military presence there from 800 soldiers to 2300 in short order, and marched them to southern Afghanistan where 8000 U.S. soldiers took 300 causalties over 3 years. There are now 72 dead Canadian soldiers and there isn't a leader who knew this before hand that could not have known the outcome to this before hand. In other words, Stephen Harper knowingly put our nations soldiers in harms way, changed the role from peace keeping to military, and adopted U.S. foreign policy in the middle east.
Lest we forget, Harper wanted us in Iraq. His stance with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was appalling, and his continued stance with Bush is such that he may as well be a Republican and in fact, he's compared himself to being one years ago. The economic fallout is no less dramatic. Increased defense expenditures of 24 billion over 4 years... is what Afghanistan will cost us.

The Canadian economy is driven by commodities. What happens when the world's largest economy tanks due to a debt crisis? The U.S. sub prime mess is what it is... a mess. When Bush took over the White house, he paved the way for the Republican congress at the time to deregulate the banking industry to the point where children could borrow money for bubble gum. In short, with lax banking regulations in the housing market, it became a sellers market with fresh buyers entering the market. Real Estate valuations went through the roof. Construction boomed. And the shaky debt didn't surface until valuations began to drop. As valuation's continue to drop, so will bankruptcies rise and it's predicted that it will cause the next recession.

When Clinton was in power in his 8 years, combined bank, fed and state debt levels rose by 1.2 trillion. In GWB's 6 years of rule, their nations deficeit has risen by 3.6 trillion and now stands at 9 trillion and growing. 40% of their nations debt has come since Bush has taken power. War and fiscal mismanagement has taken its toll and we are now seeing their true weakness in the form of a dropped currency. The only reason why Americans haven't caught on to how fast their dollar has devalued (roughly 30% over 2 years compared to most other developed nations currencies) is that China has dropped its currency valuation to stay at par with the fall of the Greenback. This won't last forever and when China props up their currency, Americans will feel their reduced buying power. What will it do for commodities in the short and long run? It will devalue them and thats devastating for a Canadian economy with a government that is shrinking its government revenue and increasing spending on war and cutting social programs at a time where the opposite needs to occur and if things don't change with Conservative policies, we'll start running deficits.

[updated Wed Dec 12 22:00:22 EST 2007]

Continued from above:

As far as globalization goes, Canadians are major participators in developing resources internationally. Our environmental record isn't great with this, and neither is our M & A's in terms of foreign takeovers of Canadian corps here at home. Quite frankly, we need to protect our economic sectors in Canada from foreign takeovers and Harper's aim is to leave us defenseless with deregulation and privatization. Most nations regulate M & A's cause they know what is at risk... lost tax revenue. If Albertans had any clue as to how much lost tax revenue they've had due to foreign investment... the argument for jobs and lack of Canadian liquidity is most certainly, at present, unjustified. They should be living like Saudis. It's sad, what the media concentration has done to that province and the National Citizens Coalition played a large hand.

U.S. foreign policy has always been in this way, since I can remember... if they can't bribe politicians to buy what they want, they try a coup. And when the coup fails, they count beans and if its worth it, they invade and occupy a nation. The U.S. empire was built on oil. While it produces a fourth of what it consumes, it exports more than it imports through its oil corps and globalization. Their politics and corporate economy has become so integrated, that they now a leader that is the corporate lobbyist son of a corporate lobbyist. Dick Cheney? Corporate lobbyist with Haliburton as CEO. James Baker? Corporate lobbyist with Carlyle. Its becoming an essay here, but the reader who isn't so average and is informed, knows my point.

So does it scare me just a little to see a president that headed the largest U.S. corporate lobbyist organization (National Citizens Coalition) in Canada with a sole own to own Canada's economic sectors, now become the Conservative leader and Prime Minister of Canada? I not only find it disturbing and somewhat unpatriotic, I find it even more so disturbing that more than 9 in 10 haven't even heard of such a lobbyist organization (NCC).
I'm disturbed, because the only way it could happen is through media concentration.

Enter Can West Media. Its the largest Canadian media outlet in Canada, controlled by the Israeli Asper family, and the connections that the Conservative party and Can West has, is in itself, very disturbing, flirting with scandalous. So... for the average reader that has stumbled on to this simple read, I know why most of us aren't aware of the issues at hand and the dangers of following dis-functional political policy. For the most part, "we simply know only that which we are being told". And that, dear readers, is nothing to be optimistic about considering the media we have in this country.

[updated Wed Dec 12 22:01:07 EST 2007]

Nik, I believe there are a couple of "moody" questions here. First, the touchy feely one regarding the direction the country is going. It is progressing well without any major upsets on the horizon---a nice warm fuzzy feeling. Good for the government in this regard.

Secondly, the question of governance. This is no simple question as it begins to deal with specifics and opinions diverge. Generally, legislation introduced appeals to most so the is OK. What has not been introduced is where perceptions begin to fracture, for example, hospital wait time promised in the last election, the Afghanistan commitment, the constant double-speak regarding climate and some reversal of direction with some issues.

Are there any nagging issues? Well, there are some and these seem to point directly at Harper. I, for one, do not like following behind American foreign policy initiatives. I am concerned for Canadian sovereignty of our natural resources and industry-----that sovereignty seems to be steadily chipped away without particular concern of this government. I get the impression / feeling, rightly or wrongly, that this government is not as open or forthcoming as it might be or should be in this day and age. What is the one word that describes this ??? --I will leave that up to you.

Yes, there are positive accomplishments of this government but there are nagging questions too. What is it then? If Harper tends to ignore strong public opinion in the minority position, what is he likely to do in a majority position? The solution, in the event of an election, is to weigh the alternatives and that is exactly the stalemate in Canadian politics. Harper is "safe" for the moment.

[updated Thu Dec 13 04:38:36 EST 2007]

On recent Globe and Mail poll, 80% of Canadians were dissappointed with the results of Multiculturalism in Canada, Of course you know, that this program was forced upon Canadians by the Liberals, I hope they never become government for the next 50 years and certainly without Dion as the Party Leader, this guy is worse than Chretien if that is possible or maybe Mulroney now. When was the last time we had a good Prime Minister does anyone Know?

[updated Wed Dec 26 01:26:10 EST 2007]

Nik.
About six weeks ago your poll showed remarkable optimism among Canadians. Do you think that same optimism exists now vis a vis the downturn in the markets and all the talk of a resession?
I recall that at that time I was not so optimistic about the economy. I think now that my mood then was justified.
I wonder what Canadians are saying now.

[updated Tue Jan 22 08:33:51 EST 2008]