So there's a new HD poll out. My first impression is that I like the new green look but now on to more substantial observations.
So this survey was conducted over 2 weeks with a sample size of 1,000 per week. Nationally HD has us at 9% (not bad) with the Libs and Cons tied at 32% (hopefully keeping us from a spring election).
Regionally we are sitting at:
- 8% in Quebec,
- 10% in Ontario,
- 12% in BC,
- 8% in Man/Sask,
- 12% in Alberta (ahead of the NDP) and,
- 5% in Atlantic Canada.
There isn't much else in the report but they do give separate results for the 905 area of Ontario where we are sitting at 11%. So if we are at 11% in the 905 and at 10% in all of Ontario what region is pulling us down? I'm guessing in the North and if it is, it does not have to be that way.
I was chatting with my dad about politics as I often do and he mentioned that the Greens could probably do well in Northern Ontario. He has a good point. The NDP win up there mostly due to union support and their promises for bigger and better mills and mines. The problem with this is that in many of these towns they have used up the local resource of choice. Look at White River a soon-to-be-if-not-already ghost town that depended on a Domtar mill to survive. The mill is gone, the good (big) trees are gone or are at least too far away to be cost effective. Someone (my pick would be Mike Schreiner as a northern program would probably be most effective if it was a partnership between the GPO and the GPC) should head up there and explain how the NDP way has lead to many of the problems they face today. They should explain how taking a sustainable approach to resource use and development could lead to longer term, sustainable prosperity.
We think of BC and South Western Ontario as our strongholds but our message really is suited to communities in Northern Ontario, places like White Rive and Manitouwadge. In a lot of these communities they don't have a boom bust cycle they have a relatively short lived boom followed by a terminal bust that results in all the kids leaving for Southern Ontario (or Alberta) and the town dying. A message of sustainable growth and sustainable resource use would be far more appealing there than I think we expect. Especially if it would result in the young people in those communities sticking around or returning after college/university.
The other piece of info in the HD poll is that we are at 10% with women and 8% with men. Taking into account that there is some margin of error in there I think its a pretty good balance.
| Party | M | W | ∆ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bloc | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| Lib | 32 | 33 | 1 |
| Grn | 8 | 10 | 2 |
| NDP | 14 | 17 | 3 |
| Con | 35 | 28 | 7 |
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| HD-Poll-2010-02-01.pdf | 352.63 KB |
Need more clarification
Dave,
Maybe you could expand a little further on HOW the Green Party could operationally take advantage of this opportunity in Northern Ontario. You previously highlighted on this blog that several GPC field organizers were let go recently including one of the Ontario Organizers. Further, you have been a very large advocate for focusing all available resources into Saanich-Gulf Islands to get Ms. May elected. In addition, the GPO doesn't have the fundraising capacity nor other resources of the GPC (like $2M/year in subsidies) to put into such endeavours.
OR are you now advocating to remove resources from Vancouver Island to take advantage of strong polling opportunities in other regions of the country???
I wouldn't go so far as to
I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a polling opportunity in the North but I do think there is at least potential. Again like I mentioned in a comment replying to Steve I didn't think that this post would generate much interest.
I think the opportunity there would actually be something for the GPO to capitalize on more than the GPC. Growing up in the North there seemed to be more a distance from Toronto issue than a distance from Ottawa issue that I think the GPO is particularly well suited to dealing with. Which is why I mentioned Mike in the post. Mike has been planning tours so maybe one to Northern Ontario would be something to do.
The GPO does have the resources to do it.
~ Dave Bagler
I never said that the GPO
I never said that the GPO didn't have resources. However, much of those resources are going into fighting 2 byelections and so trips into northern Ontario aren't their #1 priority.
That being said, the GPO has to cover a third of the ridings that the GPC does yet they do not have the income (donations, government subsidies) anywhere near a third of the GPC's. It is very difficult to understand why the GPO should drop everything to focus on a region with their very limited resources when the national party won't do it with considerable more resources available to them.
Unless you are advocating that the GPO should be taking a leadership role in defining what direction all the Green Parties operating in Ontario should take???
"In addition, the GPO doesn't
"In addition, the GPO doesn't have the fundraising capacity nor other resources of the GPC (like $2M/year in subsidies) to put into such endeavours."
Sorry I thought that was you saying that they didn't have the resources but I think you clarified it in your reply. So what you're saying is that while they may have the resources it not a priority?
If so, I totally agree. All I know is that the last time I spoke with Mike he was planning on trips across Ontario, maybe not to the far North / North West, but still in Northern Ontario (Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, etc...).
I'm not advocating that the GPO should be taking a leadership role in defining what direction all the Green Parties in Ontario should take. I just believe that the Green Party would have greater success in the North on provincial rather than federal issues. Not to mention the political landscape in Ontario is very different provincially than federally. In my opinion the GPO currently has greater opportunities in Northern Ontario than the GPC.
~ Dave Bagler
You know Mark Mackenzie also
You know Mark Mackenzie also has the small business cred and suit wearing ability to do well. Maybe he would willing to do a tour after the by-election.
~ Dave Bagler
Northern Ontario Realities
Now, with regards to Northern Ontario; I don’t disagree that we Greens have a lot to offer Northern Ontario communities when it comes to sustainable choices which would assist these communities. There is so much in Vision Green 2010 which would benefit Northern Ontario communities, it’s not even funny.
However, our Party also challenges many important notions and ideas Northern Ontarians have about what it means to be a Northern Ontarian. First of all, putting a price on carbon is seen as problematic for many Northerners who live in scattered communities and who rely on vehicles (pick-up trucks and SUV’s in particular) to get to and from work, recreation, etc. Simply put, the geography of Northern Ontario and the lack of investment in transportation infrastructure over the years makes it very difficult for Northerners to get around. So our starting point to all economic and environmental discussions is one which is apt to turn many Northerners off.
Now, you and I know that our Party isn’t going to unilaterally price carbon to the point that people in rural areas won’t be afford to get to work, attend school or go shopping. We have policies which add financial supports to offset the increases expected from putting a price on carbon. However, I can understand that many Northerners might not have a lot of comfort in that approach, particularly since Federal and Provincial funding taps keep getting turned off by politicians in Ottawa and Toronto who don’t understand the uniqueness of Northern Ontario (and who don’t want to keep funding a program instituted by a former government).
In other words: a tax has a sense of permanency; funding offsets seem to come and go. Since our Party is proposing to do both (tax and offset), I think it’s very fair that Northern Ontarians would be suspicious when it comes to follow-through. And trust me: funding taps are getting closed off all of the time.
With regards to the NDP and Northern Ontario, yes, I think it’s fair to say that there is a bit more of a "union culture" in the north than in other parts of Ontario, given the percentage of jobs in the resource sector (mining and forestry) which have historically been union positions. Interestingly, Northern Ontario’s other big employment sector, which is often over-looked, that of government services, is also very unionized. I would agree with your assessment that unionized voters are generally more supportive of the NDP than they are of other parties, and therefore the NDP has a bit of an advantage in Northern Ontario.
And the NDP has been popular here, both provincially and federally. Here’s the breakdown: 7 out of 10 ridings provincially are held by the Liberals (not including Parry-Sound Muskoka, which, depending on who you ask, is or is not a "Northern Ontario" riding). Federally, the NDP was able to upset a number of Liberal incumbents in the last election, including in Sudbury, Nickel Belt, Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing and another in the Northwest I think (Kenora?). (As an aside, take a look at NDP spending in Northern Ontario in the last election, and I think you’ll see that they outspent the Liberals considerably...and reaped the electoral success which usually accompanies that kind of spending). That’s interesting because to me it shows the current disposition of power split generally in half between the Liberals and NDP. So despite the greater than average percentage of unionized voters in the North, there isn’t such a direct translation to NDP power. In other words, it’s completely a myth that the NDP is the default party of choice here in the North.
As far as the NDP not delivering for Northern Ontario, well, I think that the NDP would be the first to agree that the North continues to be stiffed, and that’s why it’s important for all Ontarians to vote for the NDP. Remember that Ontario has only ever had an NDP government once: between 1990 and 1995. These were arguably pretty good times for Northern Ontario. It’s been the election of Liberal and Conservative governments, both federally and provincially, which have frustrated Northern Ontarians. All in all, I think that the NDP do really have a better understanding of Northern Ontario than do the Liberals or Conservatives. So blaming the NDP here is really a bit of a straw-man argument, given that they have never been in a position to exercise power (beyond those 5 years under Bob Rae).
As far as our Party goes with regards to sustainable resource practices, I think that we have a lot to offer Northern communities which are dependent on forestry. We have some extremely progressive policies, provincially and federally, to address these situations. For communities where mining is the biggest employer, though, I think it’s fair to say that our policies here are mediocre at best. As Greens, we have a bit of a perception problem as well, as people tend to think that we’re anti-mining. From a policy perspective, it looks to me like a push at best. We could be doing more work with regards to our mining policies.
And on that note, I hope everyone reading this comment will be interested in supporting a policy proposal which we here in Sudbury are currently working on with regards to more sustainable mining practices.
And finally, I think that we Greens need to start doing a bit of a better job at co-opting some of the "union" vote from the NDP, although I think that’s going to be a big task, given that the NDP is the sworn ally of labour. Nevertheless, I think that we Greens have a lot to offer those involved with the Labour movement. We Greens tend to be a little too dismissive of labour sometimes, rather than acknowledging the opportunities for growth to be found within the labour movement, particularly in the education and government services sectors. Food for thought.
Dave, your poll analysis leaves a lot to be desired
Dave, while I understand that the majority of your post had to do with Northern Ontario issues, I feel the need to comment (again) on your own peculiar analysis and or spin on the "latest poll".
This Harris-Decima poll, with regards to Ontario, provides data for 1) Ontario as a whole; and, 2) the "905" region. This data shows that while the Greens are sitting at 10% provincially, we are doing better in the "905", at 11%. Keep in mind that the margin for error for the poll is: +/- 3.8%, which means that both the 10% and 11% figures are within the margin for error, making a meaningful comparison between the two statistically insignificant.
Further, if you’re looking for a geographic region which may be "dragging" provincial totals down below the 11% identified in the "905", why would you immediately assume that the region is Northern Ontario? In fact, it’s absolutely foolish that there is a single geographic region which might be responsible for a "drag" (which is statistically meaningless anyway). Instead, it’s quite likely that the difference (if there is a difference) is a riding-by-riding issue. It’s beyond comprehension that, without any data, one could leap to the conclusion that a whole portion of the province is at fault for a (statistically insignificant) drag on poll numbers.
And further, I’m not at all sure why you would believe that Northern Ontario would be the implicated region, more-so than Eastern Ontario...or the City of Toronto. Keep in mind that both Eastern Ontario and the City of Toronto contain more ridings each than does all of Northern Ontario. As there are more voters in Toronto, maybe those are the voters who, on aggregate, haven’t bought into the Green Party to the same (statistically insignificant) degree that the 905ers have.
Dave, your analysis of the polls continues to baffle me. You’re doing our Party a disservice with your blogs by publishing such unsophisticated, bafflegab comments about the polls. Please stop! Every time we trumpet a "success" which isn’t a success, it makes us look a little foolish.
Steve, seriously? Can you
Steve, seriously?
Can you read my damn posts. I wasn't saying anything negative about Northern Ontario. I was saying that we might be missing an oppertunity.
I'M FROM NORTHERN ONTARIO. I'M NOT ATTACKING NORTHERN ONTARIO. GET YOUR PANTIES OUT OF A BUNCH.
I didn't claim that it was detailed poll analysis. I just used the poll as an excuse to talk about Northern Ontario which was what I was going to talk about anyway.
~ Dave Bagler
It's your analysis of the polls which is problematic
Dave, I read your post. And I'd appreciate a little more decorum from you in your response; it's completely inappropriate to suggest that I get my "panties" unbunched.
I didn't know that you were from Northern Ontario. Frankly, that's not an important issue at all with regards to my post, which was highly critical of your analysis of the polls. Perhaps you didn't get that from what I wrote, and maybe I'm in error for not stating my case more forcefully.
What I meant to bring to your attention has to do with your on-going flawed assessment of current polling data, for varied reasons. You are often critical of the analysis of other Green Party bloggers when it comes to polls, yet your own analysis doesn't appear to be based on, well, much of anything at all. It's just absurd to state that Northern Ontario, or any geographic region of the province, is dragging our numbers down, when Harris-Decima offered no data other than for Provincial and 905 subdivisions. I mean, come on.
And further, given that the data for the Ontario and 905 subdivisions are within the margin or error, it's statistically insignificant. You continue to ignore things like this when you make your bold and rash statements about the continual polling successes our Party experiences. At least if you're going to argue the case for success, base it on fact rather than conjecture. And there have been good facts available pointing to some limited successes, including the EKOS pollsters seat count projecting a Green MP for the last three weeks. While that's still based on a mathematical model, it's the best tool that the pollsters have developed. In other words, there's something to it.
But there isn't anything to your suggestion that Northern Ontario is pulling the Party down. And that's what you've suggested in this post.
If you want to talk about Northern Ontario, find a better hook than a poll that doesn't have anything specifically to do with Northern Ontario. There are lots of hooks out there.
Really Steve? I can't say hey
Really Steve?
I can't say hey this poll has higher numbers for the 905 then the rest of Ontario. Oh that reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad.
Seriously? I didn't claim to be analyzing the poll and quite frankly I can use whatever hooks I want.
~ Dave Bagler
An Unprovoked Finger at the Good Work in Northern Ontario
Dave, when you make an assertion, such as "Northern Ontario" is pulling our polling numbers down, and you have nothing to substantiate that assertion, it makes you look foolish. You wrote: "So if we are at 11% in 905 and 10% in all of Ontario what region is pulling us down? I'm guessing in the North". You can suggest that this is just a guess...a very unscientific analysis to be sure. However, it's very irresponsible to point your finger at a specific region without any analysis and say "There's the problem! It's you guys!"
I'm not here defending the North. I'd be equally concerned if you pointed a finger at Toronto based on the Harris Decima information. What I'm concerned about is that your slip-shod analysis of polls is reflecting poorly on you as a blogger, and by extension, the rest of us blogging out here in the Green blogosphere.
Your pointing a very unprovoked finger at a particular geographic region for not pulling its weight is a slap in the face to those who are doing hard work there. If you can substantiate and support what you think is going on, that would be a different story. In the meantime, you really need to take a little more care with what you write (and I'm not just talking about the uncalled for anti-women "panties in a bunch" remark either, which frankly has no place in a discourse such as this. Is this the way you always argue? You really might want to be a little more careful with cavalier remarks like that, as they can be very insulting and out of line).
Steve you need to re-read the
Steve you need to re-read the post. You will notice the following things:
1) I was not analyzing the North. A number simply reminded me of a conversation I had with my dad about politics in Northern Ontario as my family is from there. Or is that not allowed on MY blog Steve?
2) I was not attacking the North. Nor was I attacking you so simmer. I was simply suggesting that Mike might want to swing up to Northern Ontario for a tour. It might do us some good. So you're mad at me because I think the North might be under appreciated? That's silly Steve.
3) This was supposed to be one of those nice happy posts where no one really gets upset. Why do you have to be so sensitive of everything in Ontario West of North Bay?
4) If some one says "I'm guessing" and "if it is" they aren't asserting anything.
5) "Your pointing a very unprovoked finger at a particular geographic region for not pulling its weight is a salp in the face to those who are doing hard work there." <- this makes you look foolish since I did no such thing. And stop making it sound like somehow a polling number potentially being lower in Northern Ontario is a) surprising and b) a human rights violation.
Steve seriously you're being a little ridiculous. Did you honestly think I was going to be doing a scientific analysis of a poll when I opened with an observation about their logo?
~ Dave Bagler
I'm simply stunned that you can't see why it's insulting
Dave, given your penchant for being very critical of other bloggers on their analysis of the polls, your current comments here strike me as a bit of a surprise. Again, when you point a finger at a particular reason and claim that you think it's "they" who are dragging down numbers, how else is one to interpret that action?
Further, why even assume that Northern Ontario's polling numbers are LOWER than the rest of Ontario? It's quite within the realm of possibility, based on the data released by Harris-Decima, that Greens are polling higher than 10% in Northern Ontario, and that it's lower polling numbers elsehwere (but not in the GTA) which bring us down to 10%. But you see, I don't know that, so I can't make an assertion that's the case. I'd be foolish to even hazard a guess about that.
I understand that your primary motivation for this blog appears to be to have a discussion on opportunities for our Party in Northern Ontario. However, you've a very funny way of going about doing so, by first providing a bit of a slap to the face of those of us here trying to do our best for the Party by making an unsupported claim that you believe our polling numbers are dragging down the rest of the Province. Sorry, Dave, but there really isn't any other way of interpreting that.
I can only say this so many times (and this will hopefully be the last one here today): in the future, think about who you might be ticking off before you publish what you've written. If you're ok ticking certain people off, that's great, but be prepared to weather the criticism sent your way. Even when it's from an unexpected quarter, because you didn't realize that your words might be interpreted differently than you had intended.
A lot of people will never read these comments that we've back-and-forthed here. They'll simply read your post and that'll be it. The comments section is like a retraction in a newspaper, written 3 or 4 days after the original story with factual errors was published. It's the story that sticks around mis-informing readers for ever, while the retraction, already in obscurity, is forgotten.
OK Steve I'm only going to
OK Steve I'm only going to say this one more time.
I never claimed that I was analyzing the poll results. I said that the difference between two numbers reminded me of a story.
You seem to be the only one who doesn't (can't? wont?) understand that.
I'm not critical of other bloggers using polls as jumping off points for other stories I'm critical of other bloggers who believe that they are political gods and that we would have a GPC majority government if only they were put in charge.
~ Dave Bagler
Which bloggers?
I'm out of the loop obviously... which bloggers have claimed they are gods and would deliver a GPC majority?
I was exaggerating Mark but
I was exaggerating Mark but I'm talking about the bloggers that have automatically assumed that they could do better. So: you, John O., Matthew Day (BGB), Greg Morrow among others.
~ Dave Bagler
use common sense
Hmm, why I'm being dragged into this? It doesn't take much thought to see why your "guess" that Northern ON is dragging down the Greens is silly. A +/- 3.8% MOE in ON, means they surveyed 680 or so people in ON (so about 70 said they'd vote Green). Calibrating the sampling to population (the North has 6% of ON's pop., the South has 94%), that means they surveyed about 40 people in all of Northern Ontario. If 4 of the 40 said they'd vote Green, it would be the same as the provincial average. But if only 3 did, it would be 7.5%, so literally a difference of one person would make the North look notably worse. But that's only 1 out of 70 in the province who said they'd vote Green -- whether it's 70 or 71, it obviously not enough to "drag down" the Green provincial average. So the tiny population of Northern ON relative to the South means it will have an insignificant impact on the province-wide average. You could have saved yourself the headache by using common sense.
Oh Greg, I just wanted to see
Oh Greg, I just wanted to see if you were reading :)
Also like I have said over, and over, and over again I just said that it might be and it reminded me of a story.
~ Dave Bagler
Track records speak for themselves
Dave - to exaggerate that I see myself as some sort of political 'god' would imply that I have some sort of ego issues. I would challenge you to consider that I am the one calling for more membership inclusion into the decision making of the Green Party vs. the current path of making a political party into a cult of personality.
Second, you have asked and I have agreed to stop calling you a "kool-aid drinker". If you want that kind of respect to continue, then you have to treat others similiarly. What name calling and exaggerated statements suggest is that you have nothing to add to the debate so you would rather attack those debating. Kind of like how the Conservatives attack Richard Colvin instead of directly dealing with the Afghan detainee issue.
Third, the list of bloggers you reference have their own track records of success. If they have already demonstrated a level of success, why wouldn't they feel they could replicate that on a larger level. The current administration was given the same opportunity based on their level of success (winning the 2006 leadership race) and many have argued that was their "reward" for doing so. However, they have demonstrated over the last couple of years that they cannot sustain such successes or build on them seeing that we are in a major financial crunch and membership has regressed back to August 2006 levels.
NDP is NOT green
"The NDP win up there mostly due to union support and their promises for bigger and better mills and mines. The problem with this is that in many of these towns they have used up the local resource of choice."
Ihadn't thought about the mines when I wrote http://vertstoutdesuite.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/two-must-read-pieces-ab...
My guess is that the auto unions are not too hot about emission restrictions, taxes on big SUVs, etc. So if the NDP wants to be elected in auto-dependent areas, they have to softpedal the environment issue.
Also, when facing the choice between the vital Montreal Conference and bringing the Martin governement down, Layton did not hesitate one split second.
"Soft pedal" on the environment is right
Line, you can't be more correct. The NDP will always soft-sell the environment. They've proven this time and again. When push comes to shove, they will always write-off the environment at the expense of their labour-friendly agenda. Why wouldn't they? They know which side their bread is buttered on: labour unions have a place of primacy within the NDP party structure. Labour members are some of their biggest financial contributors.
The NDP talks a good talk when it comes to the environment, but if there's a choice to be made between a spotted owl and unionized jobs, well...
RE: NDP is NOT green
No they are not and we should call them on it each and every time they pretend to be.
~ Dave Bagler
See? We agree on some things ;)
Absolutely. The NDP, for all of their talk, don't walk the talk when push comes to shove. They may do a decent job of fooling voters, but that's largely what it's all about.
Some may say that it's better to vote for the NDP with the hope of making a little progress on important environmental issues than to vote for the Greens who can't elect anyone and won't have any input on the shape of things to come at all. That's the real issue we need a strategy to counter. Simply telling voters that a wasted vote is just a wasted vote isn't going to help us...especially if a wasted vote is interpreted as helping elect a majority Conservative government.
The best way to address the above concern is, of course, start electing Green MP's. We absolutely positively need to do that in the next election, or likely it's not just "Game Over Green Party", it's "Game Over Canada". Dave, I know that you're doing your part to ensure electoral success for our Party. Keep it up.
Definitely! I have a contact
Definitely! I have a contact in Sault Ste. Marie who is very Green friendly but he is reluctant to vote for us because he thinks his vote would be wasted. I have to go slow with the negative talk aboiut Layton with him. I gained some time while looking for more convincing arguments by mentioning how two-faced Layton can be. He was also very impressed with Ms. May's speech at the Capp rally and I mentioned her latest book. I'm convinced, have been since the eighties if not before, but I'm still trying my wings at convincing others on certain issues like this strategic voting crap for isntance.
Post new comment