Some surprising and not so surprising things in the regional numbers:
Most people polled in oil-rich Alberta and the rest of the Prairies disagreed with the NDP leader, while those in Quebec and British Columbia were most likely to agree with him.
Given the mix of resource extraction versus manufacturing in the B.C. economy, these numbers make most sense if you see the larger Dutch Disease hypothesis as a means of getting to an anti-Northern Gateway position.
As to whether his views have hurt Mulcair, it doesn't look the poll asked a simple horse-race question re voting intentions, but there is this:
The poll suggests less than half of Canadians had heard about Mulcair's comments.
If I were the NDP leader I would be saying a little prayer for the Canadian Sheeple.
5 comments:
The poll suggests less than half of Canadians had heard about Mulcair's comments.
No surprise, most of the people who did were out in the Prairies. It's been used to whip people against Mulcair and the NDP; bare coverage of it out in Ontario (where you'd hope to whip up support for it; and surprisingly, according to the article, people disagree). The argument's been made that voters in Alberta and Saskatechwan were unlikely to vote for the NDP, but the past scandals with the Conservatives had the potential of knocking them down a few pegs out there.
I'm starting to think it might be a gaff only on the fact in its attracted so much attention. The Conservatives love to go on the offense, and this has given them a target. So far, the heat's off of the Conservatives and on Mulcair.
The division among the parties are interesting to see. Liberals are divided on it, with a higher minority agreeing (48%), the Greens show a slight majority disagreeing (56%), a slight majority of NDP supporters agree (55%), but a majority of Conservatives disagreeing (70%) and a majority of Bloc voters agreeing (64%). The whole thing's been a good rallying point for Conservatives (although the argument could be made that if Mulcair said the "sky is blue" the Conservatives would be against it).
I don't think the pipeline has much to do with perceptions of "Dutch Disease" in BC.
In BC's case, the lion's share of that resource extraction(and manufacturing for that matter) is timber, and the high dollar has had the same effect as elsewhere.
So we need a committee to decide when legal life begins "in the light of modern science", but we don't need to review the science for or against Dutch disease theory nor do we need to review evidence of robocalls. And especially we don't need to review the UN food guy's claims that while we send millions hoping to help the starving elsewhere, we don't feed all of our own people.
I'm sure Economist Harper could explain how taking "externalities" out of the equation amounts to privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
I wonder what a psychologist would say about the self-image of a nation that considers currency parity with a struggling neighbour to be evidence of a "high" or overvalued dollar.
The psychologist would probably not care to speculate, and suggest the patient ask an economist.
Post a Comment