Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Keep sippin' that kool aid

CP headline: "About a third blame Ignatieff for UN loss: poll"

CP news story paragraph: "Fifty per cent of those polled blamed "the government's recent record on international diplomacy" for the loss, but Ignatieff came in second."

Actual results: 50% blame Harper government policy, 31% blame Ignatieff.

Disconnect: 50% blame Harper government policies, 31% blame Ignatieff.

Since when did a 19-point gap become a "close second" worth noting? Was 2008 a "close second" for Dion's Liberals and the 11-point gap between them and the Conservatives? And since when did the smaller number become the more important one? When did the majority opinion in a poll end up being the one that's regulated to the sidelines? My god, imagine if this was a voting intention poll and 50% said they would vote for Harper, compared to 31% for Ignatieff. The press would be going nuts! Mind you, they'd still be anti-Ignatieff...

I could call this a failure of modern media and the sorry-ass-excuse of a press corps that makes up quite a few major media outlets in this country, but I would just be repeating myself.


  1. The headline was sloppy but the damage has been done. Some people blame Ignatieff. I agree with the assertion of most people he is not known in those circles and his opinion does not matter.

    He made a mistake, Bob and Martha did damage control on CBC. "Canada does not deserve a seat" will be included on the campaign. (This is one of many examples of a lack of political skill)

    He slagged National Geographic when they attacked the Oil Sands and it was well received. If he had played that the UN got it wrong it would have been better, but he chose to play small politics. Betting against Canada is not a good idea. Ask John Turner on Free Trade vs Mulroney.

  2. I just read the Poll and it does not state Harper government but it refers to recent. What does that mean since last they held the seat or since 2006? How can you possibly know the mindset of Canadians what they view as "recent"?

    This survey is very funny as 27% of Liberals also blame Ignatieff. (Again I don't)

    What do you think the support levels for "Canada", if they asked if Canada deserved a seat?

    Partisan Liberals keep forgetting the basic lesson this Federal Government is ours and when they do well or screw up it is Canada.

    Some partisan Liberals can't accept it, until we have an election and voters decide a change is in the cards this is our Federal Government.

  3. It's the poke and provoke media at it again. IMO, the real reasons why Canada didn't get the SC seat were because of the Harper government's lazy climate policy (which the UN Chief opposes) and its disgraceful treatment of child soldiers (which nearly everybody opposes.)

  4. CS,

    When someone says "recent," I'm fairly sure you'll find the vast majority will refer to the government that's been in power for nearly 5 years now that has wrapped itself in the cloak of patriotism and Canada. When a government like that ends up failing Canada, much like your claims of "betting against" the country, the reaction is the same. And fyi, John Turner was powering ahead of the Mulroney Conservatives, and fell down because of his crappy personality and leadership and the Conservative spin against that, not because people embraced free trade.


    You're very right, though there is more too it. Ignatieff's comments could have been worded better, but he is essentially right: the country, and the current government, hasn't done much to deserve consideration for the seat. They payed little attention to the UN, joined the game late, and their record of co-operation and support for initiatives fell flat. Crappy reputation plus Western European voting bloc = no seat, and no respect, for Canada.

  5. It does not makes sense to blame the Conservative Government for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol they have opposed prior forming gov't in 2006.

    Liberals admitted they had NO intention of "getting it done."

    As I said Conservatives have continued with the funding priorities that Martin started that in agreement with the Conservative platform.

    A steady increase in Equalization, Transfers to provinces. Martin finally also promised more spending on the military. Kevin Page confirms the large spending programs need to be reviewed and unsustainable.