Già lo scorso anno i liberal di Mr Trudeau avevano subito una cocente sconfitta in Ontario: i populisti avevano vinto 76 seggi mentre i liberal erano crollati a 7 deputati.
Poi è venuto fuori lo scandalo che Mr Trudeau si era palpeggiato perbenino Mrs Rose Knight, fatto che per un liberal è un peccato irredimibile, ed infine è esploso in tutta la sua virulenza lo scandalo della SNC-Lavalin, ove Mr Trudeau ha messo il muso nella greppia.
I liberal erano crollati dal 39.5% delle passate elezioni al 30%, mentre i conservatori erano passati da 31.9% al 40%.
Due giorni dopo questo ultimo sondaggio, la Nanos Research è uscita però con una nuova proiezione che stima i liberal al 34.6% ed i conservatori al 35.1%.
Sono differenze apparentemente inspiegabili.
* * *
«Trudeau government tables budget as support drops and time runs out before October’s election»
«The Liberals are trailing Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives and Trudeau’s party has taken big hits in the demographic groups that helped deliver a majority Liberal government in 2015»
«So if today’s budget includes measures targeted at those very groups, don’t call it a coincidence»
«the Liberals are shedding support in all age groups and with both genders.»
«But they have taken a particularly big hit among millennials — down about 10 points»
«The Liberals still hold a narrow lead in this age group, with an average of 31 per cent support to 28 per cent for the Conservatives and 27 per cent for the NDP — but before the 2018 budget the Liberals were ahead by 17 points among millennials»
« in the 2015 election …. among voters between the ages of 18 and 25, the Liberals took 45 per cent of the vote — 20 percentage points more than the second-place New Democrats …. The Liberals also have lost their lead among women, men and middle-aged Canadians»
«the NDP has seen disproportionate gains among millennials»
«The loss of younger voters to the NDP and middle-aged voters to the Conservatives is a combination that could prove electorally problematic for the Liberals»
* * * * * * * *
Il Conservative Party of Canada, CPC, propugna un Conservatorismo sociale e fiscale, grosso modo un centro-destra, mentre il New Democratic Party sostiene una socialdemocrazia, alquanto simile a quella dei democratici americani.
I giovani stanno razionalizzando che in pensione non ci andranno né oggi, né domani, né mai: perché dovrebbero votare liberal?
Riportiamo in calce l’editoriale di Aljazeera sul partito di Mr Scheer: è scritto in un ‘politicamente corretto’ da manuale. Chi ha orecchi per udire, intenda!
Trudeau government tables budget as support drops and time runs out before October’s election.
Today’s budget will be the last one presented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government before this fall’s federal vote. An election year budget is a high-stakes exercise in any context — but this one comes as the Liberals find themselves in their worst position in the polls since coming to power.
The Liberals are trailing Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives and Trudeau’s party has taken big hits in the demographic groups that helped deliver a majority Liberal government in 2015.
So if today’s budget includes measures targeted at those very groups, don’t call it a coincidence.
The CBC’s Canada Poll Tracker puts the Liberals about three points behind the Conservatives, at 32.7 per cent to 35.3 per cent. That’s far below where the Liberals were on previous budget days.
When their first budget was delivered in March 2016, the Liberals were in the midst of their post-election honeymoon — nearly 16 points ahead of the Conservatives. By March 2017 and the unveiling of Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s second budget, the Liberals were still ahead by about 11 points.
Last year, polling conducted before the budget was tabled — and before Liberal support took a dive in the wake of Trudeau’s botched trip to India — showed the Liberals in the lead by about 5.5 points.
This undoubtedly is a worrying trend line for Trudeau, who is scheduled to face the electorate in just seven months. But the profile of the voters who are drifting away from the Liberals should worry the prime minister even more.
Liberals losing support among millennials
Comparing the demographic breakdowns in three polls conducted in the last few weeks by Ipsos, Nanos Research and Abacus Data to surveys conducted by these polling firms in the months prior to the 2018 budget shows that the Liberals are shedding support in all age groups and with both genders.
But they have taken a particularly big hit among millennials — down about 10 points. The Liberals still hold a narrow lead in this age group, with an average of 31 per cent support to 28 per cent for the Conservatives and 27 per cent for the NDP — but before the 2018 budget the Liberals were ahead by 17 points among millennials.
This was a key voting bloc for the Liberals in the 2015 election. A post-election survey done by Abacus found that, among voters between the ages of 18 and 25, the Liberals took 45 per cent of the vote — 20 percentage points more than the second-place New Democrats.
Normally, younger Canadians don’t vote in big numbers. But that wasn’t the case in 2015, when new turnout records were set for this historically apathetic cohort.
The Liberals also have lost their lead among women, men and middle-aged Canadians, while they now trail the Conservatives by double-digits among seniors. Instead of the narrow one-point advantage they held just prior to the 2018 budget, the Conservatives are now ahead by an average margin of 43 per cent to 33 per cent for the Liberals across the Ipsos, Nanos and Abacus polls.
The Conservatives have not seen their support take off among women, however. The Tories are up only three points with women voters over the last year, compared to a gain of eight points among men. There isn’t any significant difference between age groups in the changes in Conservative support.
But the NDP has seen disproportionate gains among millennials. The party is up by an average of five points among younger Canadians in these three polls, while the party as a whole has dropped by one point. This decrease has been driven primarily by a fall in support for the NDP among men and older Canadians.
Budget a chance to reverse the trend lines
The loss of younger voters to the NDP and middle-aged voters to the Conservatives is a combination that could prove electorally problematic for the Liberals — costing them urban seats around universities on the one hand, and suburban seats full of commuters on the other.
The budget provides an opportunity to address some of these vulnerabilities. CBC News has reported that the budget is expected to contain funding for lifelong learning and adult skills training programs and measures to assist first-time home buyers.
But the bleeding is coming from all quarters. It puts the Liberals in an unenviable position for a first-term government.
The last few first-termers were in a better position than Trudeau is today. At the time of Harper’s last budget in his first term in 2008, the Conservatives were ahead in the polls by about a point in a minority legislature. They succeeded in increasing the size of their minority government in the subsequent election.
In 1997, when Paul Martin tabled the last budget of Jean Chrétien’s first term, the Liberals were ahead of the Progressive Conservatives by a whopping 31 points (the Reform Party and Bloc Québécois, who had more seats in the House than the PCs at the time, were even further back).
Brian Mulroney’s PCs, however, were trailing by about six points at the end of 1987 — just a few months before his government tabled its last budget before the 1988 election. That election turned on the free trade debate and Mulroney was able to secure another (reduced) majority government.
This fall’s federal election is unlikely to be dominated by a national issue of such importance, so Trudeau will have to bank on something else to turn things around. Today’s budget is a chance for the Liberals to try to do just that.
Such opportunities are going to be limited in number between now and October. So could the Liberals’ remaining days in office if they aren’t successful in changing the channel.
Like Trump, Andrew Scheer is looking to the far right to help him win a tight race.
It is said that you can take the measure of a man by the company he keeps.
By that objective calculus, the toxic company that Canada’s Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, stubbornly keeps ought to disabuse anyone of the silly notion that Canada is an antidote to the pestilence of white nationalism infecting other, Western “liberal” democracies.
Scheer has a long history of courting white nationalists by appealing unabashedly and overtly to their ugly, nativist, xenophobic and racist temperaments (to describe them as “ideas” is antithetical to the word).
Serious attention should be drawn to Scheer’s relationship with Canada’s extreme right wing since, if accurate, a recent spate of public opinion polls suggest that the Conservative chief may well become prime minister come the next federal election scheduled for October.
Of course, Scheer is a faithful disciple of former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper who besmirched himself and, perhaps more importantly, the country he served by championing racism-infused “policies” as a means to mine the support of Canadian bigots who would be attracted to such malevolent policies at election time.
Harper’s sorry, signature gambit in this regard was the unveiling – stripped of its government-sanctioned rhetorical embroidery – of a “snitch” line, where Canadians were encouraged to report other Canadians guilty of culturally “barbaric practices” deemed “incompatible” with “old stock” Canadian values.
Harper’s legion of apologists insisted that his snitch line and use of the benign “descriptor…old stock Canadians” weren’t Exhibit A and B of how to practise sectarian wedge politics. So, stop hyperventilating you perennial politically correct types, the apologists cried.
Today, the same cavalier defence is being employed by the same band of apologists to dismiss as inconsequential Scheer’s undeniable associations with notorious white nationalists that should, if decency had any currency in politics, be disqualifying.
On February 19, Scheer spoke at an event on Parliament Hill organised reportedly by “disgruntled pipeline workers” who had travelled from Western Canada by picayune convoy to Ottawa to “have their voices heard”. He was joined by several members of his Conservative caucus who took dutiful turns praising the “protesters” and pledging fidelity to their amorphous cause.
“We are fighting for you. We are standing with you,” Scheer told the small, yellow-vested gathering. One Conservative senator was less trite, urging the assembly to “roll over every Liberal left in the country”. His invitation to violence was predictably greeted with hoots and cheers.
The rumble-ready “United We Roll” contingent that Scheer and company welcomed, encouraged and applauded, included attendees who – anti-hate groups detail – celebrate their white nationalist, white-supremacist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim credentials online.
Still, for the doubters, the “protesters'” convictions surely became apparent when Faith Goldy was also asked to speak at the “rally” as their marquee guest.
Goldy has, for years, flaunted her white nationalism on a variety of media platforms. Among her other noxious “beliefs” is the “theory” that the white race is facing “genocide” and is on the precipice of extinction.
In December 2017, Canada’s racist-in-residence, who also thinks launching another Crusade to retake the Holy Land is a laudable geopolitical strategy, recited, with little prompting and with evident glee on a racist podcast the white supremacist clarion call, The Fourteen Words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
A few months earlier, Goldy displayed her white nationalist bona fides again by appearing on a podcast affiliated with [neo-Nazi website] the Daily Stormer while in Virginia.
Goldy described her tete-a-tete with Nazis as a “poor decision.”
Scheer knew all this and more when he chose to attend the same event, organised by the same people who thought it appropriate and right to invite Goldy, who told Indigenous peoples who assailed her presence on Parliament Hill: “If you don’t like our country, leave it.”
Rather than say no, Scheer and his caucus colleagues opted to stand – figuratively speaking – rancid shoulder to rancid shoulder with a racist in the rank pursuit of parochial, political self-interest. And with that, the nexus of traditional “conservatism” and the wretched right wing was fashioned – married by two speeches in one place, at one time, separated by just a few metres.
Scheer and Goldy have shared more intimate moments. Before she was fired over her “poor decision” to enjoy a convivial chat on a Nazi podcast, the telegenic Goldy was a host on a network featuring a cavalcade of frothing, perpetually indignant, anti-establishment personalities called Rebel Media.
In early 2017, then-Conservative leadership candidate Scheer was Goldy’s chummy, featured guest on her defunct programme On the Hunt – for what precisely remains a mystery.
In any event, the “hot” topic du jour was a non-binding, symbolic motion introduced by a Liberal MP to condemn Islamophobia and all religious discrimination in the aftermath of the Quebec city terrorist who murdered six Muslim men praying in a mosque.
Scheer told Goldy he would emphatically vote against the motion because, like his effervescent TV pal, he was concerned that denouncing the hatred that fuelled the butchery of Muslim worshippers by way of a parliamentary motion would inevitably morph into an “attack” on free speech. “Absolutely,” Goldy said, approvingly.
Fast forward to the horror in New Zealand, when another racist who referenced “white genocide” and “The Fourteen Words” in his “manifesto” slaughtered 50 Muslim children, women and men and grievously injured scores of other innocents because of where they prayed and who they prayed to.
Scheer’s response? Not surprisingly: muted platitudes on Twitter. “Freedom has come under attack in New Zealand as peaceful worshippers are targeted in a despicable act of evil. All people must be able to practice their faith freely and without fear,” he wrote without naming the faith of the massacred or the sites of their massacres. You see, “freedom”, not Muslims, was “attacked”.
That vapid, perfunctory tweet was consistent with Scheer’s reluctance to offend the odious likes of Goldy et al for fear of alienating a potential well of votes during a likely close election. Donald Trump has proven that racist overtures – blatant or cloaked – can afford a winning edge in a tight race.
Only later, after a torrent of criticism, did Scheer issue a second statement on Facebook, daring to mention Muslims and mosques. By then, it was too late. His initial response indeed reflected the measure of the man and the company he keeps.
Despite claiming now to shun the decaying network, Scheer holds other Rebel Media alumni close to his bosom. His 2019 campaign manager was a founding director of Rebel Media.
Like his mentor Stephen Harper, Scheer is intent on, it appears, leading Canada down a dangerous, sinister slope.