Jack Layton, most popular federal leader
February 20, 2010 - 1:35pm
-_-
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
This must be hearbreaking, particularly for the Liberals.
Jack Layton, most popular federal leader
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff brings up the rear. Despite a remarkable six-week media honeymoon since Mr. Harper prorogued the House of Commons, only 15 per cent of respondents approved of Mr. ignatieff's performance, while 49 per cent disapproved -- just about as much trouble as Mr. Harper is in. Lots of uncritical exposure does not seem to improve Mr. Ignatieff's numbers. Or to put the point more bluntly, the more Canadians see of Mr. Ignatieff the less they seem to like him, at least according to Angus Reid.
IIRC, Layton has always had better approval ratings than Iggy and Harper.
Keep in mind that more people disapproved of Layton than approved. That poll doesn't so much say to me that people like Layton so much as they see him as the best of a bad lot. Still indicates massive trust issues that the NDP needs to overcome.
I think Angus Reid was reporting it as the first time Layton had moved ahead of Harper on this particular survey question. But it is true that no political leader is beloved according to these numbers.
Keep in mind that more people disapproved of Layton than approved. That poll doesn't so much say to me that people like Layton so much as they see him as the best of a bad lot. Still indicates massive trust issues that the NDP needs to overcome.
Exactly.
Canadians are compassionate and polite, and are just expressing some admiration for Layton in his fight against cancer.
You mean, the majority who disapproved of Layton want him to die!?
You mean, the majority who disapproved of Layton want him to die!?
That's not what I said, and you know it. I should report your comment as inappropriate.
I don't see why. It's the best laugh out loud I've had all afternoon !
ETA: The way Unionist dissected your illogical argument so humourously, that is.
Thanks, OO, but don't bother explaining. Scientists have posited that in some societies, a sense of humour is innate. It can't be learned. There's clinical evidence for that hypothesis right in this thread.
Wow, Layton's approval rating is about as high as GW Bush's was in 2008.
LP, I'm trying to understand the hidden meaning of your post. Are you saying that Layton will retire, and his successor will be defeated by a former president of the Harvard Law Review? Or that GWB had an undiagnosed medical condition?
I wonder what the CSIS file on Layton says.
It's important to note how important this is and it's really not that important in itself. Ed Broadbent led in such polls for years nad yet that only helped a little at the ballot box.
BTW: for some reason in this Angus Reir online poll - everyone gets much, much, much lower approval ratings than they do in any telephone poll. I have no idea why.
People who rate you as a nice fella but don't vote for you don't trust you with their savings. This last poll is an indication that everyone has lost a great part of their savings in the last year. And they don't trust anyone with the remnant. That's all.
i hope you have something else you want to talk about.
This is bizarre:
Ken's post #16 was (I was certain) in response to a post by webbietalkjam. I then posted in reply to that - but now, webbietalkjam's post has vanished!
Could this be what happened to conrad's post in another thread?
I'll email the mods about this. Anyone else notice disappearing posts??
You are right- the post by buddy did vanish.
How is that done?
Come to think of it, that happened to one of my posts about a week ago. It had posted up in the thread, but had vanished later in the same day when I logged back in.
Strangely, the thread remained at the top of the "ITEMS LARD TUNDERIN JEEZUS HAS PARTICIPATED IN"...
Yep, I lost a post a day or two back. And I don't have to reply to KenS... :)...I guess.
As webbietalkjam said yesterday before he was censored jack layton is being undermined by separatist loving Mulcair. Keep your friends close and your enemies (especially within the party) even closer Jack. Mulcair has his designs on your job by clearly undermining you with his pro loving separatist comments.
Delete this leftwing wings. Hurray for censorship with the so called progressives in canada.
Perhaps the flag as offensive glitch michelle spoke of is coming into play?
And down with a bigotry so deep-seated that it must resort to grunted mindless expressions of "patriotism". What a perverted sense of Canadian spirit...the usual francophobe shite.
the latest incarnation of this gentleman is gone.
Jack Layton isn't the most popular federal leader, at least not according to this poll.
More people simply approve of the job Jack is doing than the other leaders, but what is his job? Prime Minister in waiting? Fourth party leader? Principled, but misguided, socialist loudmouth? The last one is most likely the view of Conservative respondents, but they could still approve of his job given that definition of his "job." How respondents define his job will determine how much they approve or disapprove of his performance.
A better indicator of the actual "popularity" of federal leaders is the one that Nanos uses. "Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister?" http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Best-PM-201002.pdf Notably, Jack still leads Iggy in the more reliable federal leadership poll, but he is a country mile behind the most popular federal leader - Harper.
So let's hold off on the chest thumping until Jack overtakes Harper on the real question and becomes Canadians #1 choice for PM.
So let's hold off on the chest thumping until Jack overtakes Harper on the real question and becomes Canadians #1 choice for PM.
That's not such a good question either as election-weary Canadians always choose the incumbent, I recall Martin easily winning on this polling question shortly before losing to Harper in the election.
Layton is clearly the most likable of the three leaders but he has had a hard time convincing voters things would be significantly different or improved if he was PM. He needs to find a strong line of critique that the NDP can build credibility on and stick with it-I think Afghanistan could have developed into such an issue if the NDP had remained consistent and focused.
All three federal leaders have approval ratings lower than George W Bush during his last 14 months in office and all have higher disapproval numbers than approval. The fact that Layton's approval rating is only 3 points lower than Bush's worst performance is not something to be proud of. Furthermore, Layton has been steady in the high 20s for years -- this "lead" has not arisen from NDP gains but from the downward motion of Stephen Harper.
What the NDP should be doing with this polling info is crafting a populist "throw the bums out" message for the next campaign. The level of voter confidence in leaders is at an all-time nadir in Canadian politics. The correct response to this is not to proudly proclaim our leader to be the least-hated but instead to tap into the mood of the people and haul out some good old fashioned populism.
Well it's certainly not something to be gloating about in the newspaper of Canada's "opinion leaders."
All three federal leaders have approval ratings lower than George W Bush during his last 14 months in office and all have higher disapproval numbers than approval. The fact that Layton's approval rating is only 3 points lower than Bush's worst performance is not something to be proud of. Furthermore, Layton has been steady in the high 20s for years -- this "lead" has not arisen from NDP gains but from the downward motion of Stephen Harper.
You're comparing apples to oranges. In telephone polls Layton's approval ratings tend to be in the high 50s, Haper in the high 40s and Iggy in the 30s. For some reason in online polls people tend to be much much more negative towards everyone and everything. When Bush had approval ratings in the 20s - it was in Gallup telephone polls - the ones that currently have Obama's approval rating at around 51%.
So why is Topp actually openly gloating about the 29% approval figure in the Globe?
So why is Topp actually openly gloating about the 29% approval figure in the Globe?
29% in a multiparty system is much different than in a two party system.
This isn't a "best PM" poll where you have to pick one. One could approve of the performance of all four leaders if they wanted to.
I think it's remarkable for the NDP considering Jack doesn't have Bay Street money propping up the party. I think the corporate hirelings in the other two parties are in awe of Jack for not being a bought and paid-for stooge, like their pre-programmed puppets Steve and Iggy. They don't want too many public debates with Jack who they know is a real leader and makes their yes-men appear to be the bumbling, stumbling stooges and fops that they are. Liberals and Tories prefer each other's company to the NDP. One NDPer equals fifty of their's anyday of the week and twice on Sundays, and they know it.
I just did a random Google search of past approval ratings. Here are some examples:
December 1982, according to Gallup:
Pierre Trudeau 29%
Joe Clark 49%
Ed Broadbent 50%
July 2002, according to IPSOS-Reid:
Jean Chretien 46%
Joe Clark 54%
Stephen Harper 40%
As I said before, a 29% is just nothing to crow about when we have done so much better.
There's the leader and the electorate to be considered, along with the times. Could the electorate be waiting for Godot in these fearsome times? (And let no one suggest they parallel 82, the eve of the Charter or 2002, the eve of Steve.)
I think the corporate hirelings in the other two parties are in awe of Jack for not being a bought and paid-for stooge, like their pre-programmed puppets Steve and Iggy.
Some people do also see Jack as a bought and paid-for stooge, just one bought by big labour rather than big business. It's not something he gets a total free pass on.
So why is Topp actually openly gloating about the 29% approval figure in the Globe?
I'm not gloating about it. I do think it bears remarking when the leader of the NDP is ahead of both the Prime Minister and Mr. Ignatieff in a poll. Perhaps it is an early indication that Canadians are taking a second look at Mr. Layton. The Nanos poll referred to in this discussion is interesting in that way as well.
Possibly even more interesting are Mr. Ignatieff's numbers, given the second honeymoon he is enjoying. Possibly a quirk of a couple of polls. Possibly a fundamental development. If these kind of numbers continued into an election campaign some important opportunities might open up.
I think the corporate hirelings in the other two parties are in awe of Jack for not being a bought and paid-for stooge, like their pre-programmed puppets Steve and Iggy.
Some people do also see Jack as a bought and paid-for stooge, just one bought by big labour rather than big business. It's not something he gets a total free pass on.
What do the two Bay Street power parties have to campaign with right now, and what does the NDP have in the war chest? In the dollar democracy south of us, the party that spends the most on expensive TV, newspaper and radio advertising, kick-back and graft side deals is always the one that wins the election. And generally that class of people who owns the news media gets to propagandize and tell millions of people what and how to think politically. North American politics isn't like Cuban politics where any Cuban national can run for election. In the USSA and Bananada, a billionaire oligarchy pretty much chooses beforehand who will stooge for them in the halls of power. We've had the same two plutocratic parties ruling these countries since 1776 and 1867. That's longer than the Soviets ruled the former USSR. Democracy in North America is a well financed illusion.
I just did a random Google search of past approval ratings. Here are some examples:
December 1982, according to Gallup:
Pierre Trudeau 29%
Joe Clark 49%
Ed Broadbent 50%
July 2002, according to IPSOS-Reid:
Jean Chretien 46%
Joe Clark 54%
Stephen Harper 40%
As I said before, a 29% is just nothing to crow about when we have done so much better.
Like I said, all the party leaders get much, much higher ratings in telephone polls than in online polls. I know not why.
I wasn't saying that was the truth, just that it's a perception that contributes to the success of the None of the Above Party.
I think our dated electoral system distorts public opinion enought to frustrate people from trying to elect third and fourth party alternatives. A relatively slight shift in votes often results in a windfall of parliamentary seats for either of the two most well financed power parties. They don't even need a phony majority in order that Bay Street and foreign interests are able to seize power in Ottawa. Millions of Canadians vote like Americans do when voting out of fear of electing another Mulroney.
I think ergo...uh.. If you are only looking at numbers and not changing social/economic situations I can't imagine you are thinking. Not analytically, anyway. That's howcum statistics lie...over time.
There's the leader and the electorate to be considered, along with the times. Could the electorate be waiting for Godot in these fearsome times? (And let no one suggest they parallel 82, the eve of the Charter or 2002, the eve of Steve.)
Yes George, we could figure the world as an endless series of exceptional circumstances just so that they never comment on the present and whatever talking points Federal Office has distributed.
Stockholm, good point. It's one of the few points of divergence between these two types of polling. What do you think is behind it?
It is worth pointing out that the house is nastier and more partisan than it ever was before-- in some ways less personal-- people support their party leaders more often than not-- it was not always that way. I think in this atmosphere you would never see a party around 20% in the polls be able to have a leader at 50%-- even knowing you can approve of more than one leader.
There's the leader and the electorate to be considered, along with the times. Could the electorate be waiting for Godot in these fearsome times? (And let no one suggest they parallel 82, the eve of the Charter or 2002, the eve of Steve.)
Yes George, we could figure the world as an endless series of exceptional circumstances just so that they never comment on the present and whatever talking points Federal Office has distributed.
Stockholm, good point. It's one of the few points of divergence between these two types of polling. What do you think is behind it?
I wonder, SP, who would be dumb enough to read "the people's" response to a poll question as NOT a response to their existential situation?
I just did a random Google search of past approval ratings. Here are some examples:
December 1982, according to Gallup:
Pierre Trudeau 29%
Joe Clark 49%
Ed Broadbent 50%
So that's the poll Ed was boasting about in his 2004 election ad:
I'm the one you all should know
Once more popular than Trudeau
There's the leader and the electorate to be considered, along with the times. Could the electorate be waiting for Godot in these fearsome times? (And let no one suggest they parallel 82, the eve of the Charter or 2002, the eve of Steve.)
Yes George, we could figure the world as an endless series of exceptional circumstances just so that they never comment on the present and whatever talking points Federal Office has distributed.
Stockholm, good point. It's one of the few points of divergence between these two types of polling. What do you think is behind it?
I wonder, SP, who would be dumb enough to read "the people's" response to a poll question as NOT a response to their existential situation?
Is it "existential" that poses a problem here, SP, the barrier to a response? i.e.... A majority see Steve as the best "leader". Doesn't that resonate with historical events when folks feel threatened, their ideas of "good" and "bad" maybe skewed all to hell?
I'm the one you all should know
Once more popular than Trudeau
It wasn't an ad. It was a spoof that he did when he was featured the Mercer Report.
Isn't that Jack Layton? What a Coincidence!:
http://torontoist.com/2010/02/jack_layton_wants_you_to_make_sure_you_see...
We saw more than enough of Harper at the Olympics and we see Jack at Grezky's and it is a big deal. Were was Iggy?? That should be the question.
Isn't that Jack Layton? What a Coincidence!:
http://torontoist.com/2010/02/jack_layton_wants_you_to_make_sure_you_see...
I think it's great!
I was totally impressed by Jack and Oliva's ability to get in front of the camera at Gretzky's. They were on camera 6-7 times during the biggest hockey game in a generation. After having to endure seeing Harper all through the Olympics, it was pretty cool to see Jack pop up for the big show.
I'm sure Jack and Oliva were not there by accident, and it just shows how able he is to play the tactical game. He didn't let Harper get all the Olympic glory.
I gotta think Harper was pissed about Jack's presence. I only saw Harper once during the whole game.
Yeah and rose marie barton did her typical drive by smear along with tool solomom(Why is this asshat allowed to do politics something he clearly knows little about, nother person who can read a teleprompter) Last week when layton had huge support as far as leaders go. They showed his disapproval ratiing??WTF kinda shit is that. he was at 44 approval but 29 disapproval and the graphic was laytons disapproval. I wanted to write the ombudsman.
I missed to see what they showed for iggy or harper just before jacks graphic, whether it was their app or dis rating. Not even a mention of GD and he was on the questionaire, I approved of what he has done lately. Heck the CBC commenst are they would rather have the bloc running the country than the useless cons.
Really Liberals, that's all you've got? :rolleyes:
I'm surprised no one has posted anything yet about the stellar numbers that Jack Layton gets in the latest Ipsos poll
http://www.am1150.ca/blog/1092487
"When asked who would make the best Prime Minister a stunning 46% chose Stephen Harper putting his personal popularity well above that of his party. In second spot for best PM is Jack Layton, the NDP Leader is the choice of 33% of Canadians, more than double the 16% who say they would actually vote for his party. Trailing behind his party's popularity is Ignatieff, the choice of just 21% for best Prime Minister."
"Ipsos-Reid asked several questions regarding leadership attributes, who has a vision you can support, who do you trust, who has what it takes to lead, who can compromise for the greater good and who is best suited to lead during tough economic times. In each of these categories Harper came in first place, Layton in second and Ignatieff third; always the choice of less than 25% of Canadians. In one category Layton actually came first, 41% of Canadians said he is open to the ideas of others, 32% said the same for Harper and just 22% felt that way about Ignatieff."
I know what you mean about Evan Solomon's show. I mean, I *love* politics, but I never watch Power and Politics now because it's just awful. Neither Solomon nor Rosemary Barton know anything, and they're so busy hyping insider gossip and blog and twitter non-stories, that they're apparently unable to cover anything serious in any depth or with any deep knowledge or background.
It's just truly awful what CBC has done to that show. I hope someone has a Google Alert on their system and picks this up, and finally does something to fix it, because it's an embarrasment. I've taken to watching Tom Clark on CTV instead, and then just turn off the TV altogether when his 2-party panels come on.
I'm surprised no one has posted anything yet about the stellar numbers that Jack Layton gets in the latest Ipsos poll
http://www.am1150.ca/blog/1092487
...In one category Layton actually came first, 41% of Canadians said he is open to the ideas of others, 32% said the same for Harper and just 22% felt that way about Ignatieff."
This is very important on a couple counts-- first because Canadians recognize this and it means that they see Layton as someone who can work with others and second because it is Harper's greatest weakness.
While I am loath to go full tilt on a single poll for reasons I have mentioned many times, I think this resonates-- and it should be the theme and ads for the next campaign--
Support a leader who is able to listen to others. One who does not either roll over to support other parties forgetting the needs of Canadians (show pic of Liberals voting for government) or govern like his opinions are the only ones that matter. In these minority government times-- why not support a party capable of working with others, one that puts your priorities first but recognizes the need to compromise in order to provide good government?
If this became the ballot question -- the NDP could surprise on election night and the resulting parliament would have a mandate to support the people and to work together. This is what people want to hear.
You build the rest of the campaign around what the NDP brings to parliament and let the two bigger parties act like small children in a schoolyard.
You can also use the theme: "This is what real leadership looks like" And show NDP initiatives and positions and the leader speaking in a Prime Ministerial way. Avoid the I'm running for PM-- people will remember that from last time (I'm not saying it was bad to do but you can build on that message now). Now contrast with the others who are running for PM on the issue of leadership. I don't think the NDP has to say it is running for the top job.
Then the best quote may be a set-up-- the media will ask why are you not saying you are running for PM -- and reply because now they know and I'm talking about leadership etc. and where we go in parliament and with this country.
The big issue is Canadians are pissed with the small minded nastiness of Harper and the driftlessness of the Liberals-- that is why a campaign built on "That's what leadership looks like" is the right way to go now-- it is positive and avoids the negative shit that will be the theme of both the Liberal and Conservative campaigns -- out of necessity for them. The NDP with this theme can run right up the middle.
To add to this -- people want to see a strong accountability theme as well and we can run some ads saying that's what accountability looks like-- and show our proposals to make parliament work and provide more openness and honest government.
They should hire Henry McCandless to draft these policies. He is an expert in the field of accountibility go here to learn more:
http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/contact.html
I met this man years ago and I read the first draft of what eventually became his book on the topic. His ideas are what we need in government on accountibility. Of particular interest is the way he links accountability to planning rather than just post-project analysis. He addresses who gets the benefits of particular policies, who will pay the costs and the criteria needed to declare success or failure-- prior to an initiative rather than afterwards. These ideas have guided my perception of accountibility ever since I read them back in the 1990s.
Accountibility is not just a thing you speak about-- it is how real power is shared.
You have a lot of good ideas there Sean, but I'll quibble with you on one point: I'm just not sure that the best way to run on "leadership" is to ever use that word itself. If you have to say it, then you're just a poser, is how some research I'm familiar with came down on that question. Layton demonstrates his style of leadership by the way he does things and works with others, which is presumably why it comes across as more authentic and consistent.
I think you are right when your message looks forward but when you are pointing to what you have done and contrasting it with others-- and showing what you do -- saying that's what leadership looks like I think that can work-- perhaps not in any other way though. I agree it has to be done carefully as it may pay off but if you screw up it can backfire.
This might be sllightly off topic, but I wondered if anyone else noticed how thin Layton looked on TV today? It seems like his disease is having an effect unfortunately.
He was asked about that the other week when he visited the PM, and he said that Olivia had put him on a non-fat diet.
I really would not overplay prostate cancer. Its treatment needs to be taken seriously of course, but most men who have it will die of something else. Radiation will take a certain toll, to be sure, but Jack is in a lot better shape than lots of people 20 years his junior.
He does look a bit gaunt however. Could well be a diet to go with treatment but it is noticeable.
Possibly even more interesting are Mr. Ignatieff's numbers, given the second honeymoon he is enjoying. Possibly a quirk of a couple of polls. Possibly a fundamental development. If these kind of numbers continued into an election campaign some important opportunities might open up.
But there are polls where Layton's approval rating is higher, why pick a poll where he has a 29% approval rating (and a higher disapproval rating)?
Jack Layton posts a positive momentum score, as his party reaches the 20 per cent mark for the first time since the 2008 campaign.
Momentum
While Harper posted the worst momentum score of the three leaders again, his numbers (-29) are not as bad as they were last month (-34). In all, seven per cent of Canadians report an improvement in their opinion of the Prime Minister over the past month, while 37 per cent say their views have worsened. Ignatieff ( -19) maintained his showing from mid-February, a definite improvement from his -33 score in December 2009. Layton has become the first leader to reach the positive momentum plateau (+3) in 2010.The Leaders
With the possibility of a new election fresh in the minds of Canadians, it was important to review how voters feel about the current crop of political leaders.
Canadians are evenly divided in their assessment of Harper (43% think the Tories should keep him until the next election, 44% believe he should be replaced). However, Tory voters came out in favour of their leader by a 5-to-1 margin (80% would keep Harper, 16% wan a change at the helm.)
The level of support from party faithful is equally impressive for the NDP's Layton (82% of NDP voters would keep him, 12% would replace him) and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe (only seven per cent of Bloc voters would change Duceppe, and 88 per cent would retain him).
The Green Party's Elizabeth May is supported by 62 per cent of Green voters, while 19 per cent would like to face the next federal election with a new leader.
Ignatieff had the lowest score on this question. Almost three-in-five Liberal voters (57%) would keep him as leader of the Liberal Party, while three-in-ten (30%) would replace him.
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010.03.02_Politics_CAN.pdf
Here is a youtube link to Rick Mercer's tour of the Layton/Chow household
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_hTUyP1sQ&feature=youtu.be&a#watch-main...
It was a good segment on RMR, watched it Tues night, and I noticed that Jack looked great physically in scrum yesterday too.
It's really more of a testament to how unlikeable the other two are.
Stephen Harper doesn't know how to smile.
Ignatieff has complete contempt for the average Canadian.
So let's not get the idea that Jack Layton is terribly charismatic when he is being cpmpared to those two.
I don't think anybody was implying, much less saying, that Layton is charismatic.
People say they like him, trust him, have a high degree of affinity with him. It is strong enough to be relatively independent of comparison to the other two not being much competition.