Budgets are the most attentively followed and important legislation that Canada’s federal governments produce. On March 29, this will prove especially true for a government that has declared the economy to be its No. 1 priority.
Faced with headlines about overzealous scoop-and-snoop legislation. a robo-call voter suppression controversy that has the government reeling and the still-leaderless NDP lurking near in the polls, the Conservatives are badly in need of some good news.
In this context, it goes without saying that it will be an important budget for the Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. At this time, a quick check-in with Canadians reveals some challenging and crucial details that decision-makers should be considering at this time.
If Jim Flaherty’s budget hits the mark, it could restore confidence and remind a restive citizenry why it bestowed a majority on Harper et al just 10 months ago. If it misfires, it will add to the growing controversies and accelerate a downward slide into a crisis of legitimacy.
Of all the areas of public preference prone to misinterpretation and distortion, none is more fraught with difficulty than charting budget priorities.
Although no simple set of questions can capture the complexity of the task, there are proven barometers that can sort through ambiguities and divisions in public opinion. Some divides reflect disagreements across defined communities of interest and values. Others are the result of the way questions are posed and interpreted.
Consider the new consensus around the politics of austerity. There is little question the public will respond favourably to deep spending cuts as an alternative to tax increases or deepened deficits and public debt. In fact, the public has always believed the government is rife with waste, inefficiency and poor spending priorities.
Figure 1.0 shows a fairly typical response to a
standard question of this sort. While a prudent 30 per cent eschew
answering such a simplistic question, the general sentiment is toward
spending cuts. Well that was easy — the public will reward savage cuts
and abhor new taxes or debt. Some have claimed this new desire for
austerity is up significantly. In fact, in 2010, we asked the same
question of a large random sample and found the public opinion hasn’t
changed much at all. There is no new thirst for austerity. Is the
apparent single mindedness of the public really that straightforward?
Consider Figure 2.0. Hmmm. Well if people prefer
spending cuts to increased taxes and debt, they prefer “investment” in
health, education and jobs by an even larger margin. At 63 per cent,
that constitutes an overwhelming majority of Canadians and that number
is up modestly but significantly since the 2010 budget. The emphasis on
social investment is dramatically higher among women, younger Canadians,
university graduates, and among non-Conservative supporters. So the
front-page Globe and Mail headline suggesting Canadians are
“bloodthirsty” is only partially true, a point wisely acknowledged later
in the story by pollster Nik Nanos.
These perennial debates about the public’s budget priorities emphasize the need for a more circumspect approach to polling that recognizes the answers are influenced by what is asked and who is answering. We would remind those who believe it is all about austerity that the highest scores we received were for social investment — not spending cuts.
Decision-makers and budget planners should be aware of something new on the minds of Canadians: Income inequality. The issue has vaulted from relative obscurity to a pinnacle position in Canadians’ hierarchy of economic and social concerns.
In Figure 3.0, even arrayed against jobs and growth,
health care, and education, the growing gap between rich and poor
emerged as the top priority. It eclipsed such fiscal issues as taxes and
debt by a margin of more than three to one. What on earth is going on?
Is this a rogue error?
Recall that we found in our Beyond the Horserace series that income inequality appeared in a close second place of 20 topics for national discussion.
Favourable attitudes to the Occupy movement dramatically outstripped favourable attitudes to the Tea Party movement (the poster child for austerity and minimal government). We also see evidence in the United States from both PEW and Rasmussen that inequality concerns are rising and there has been a dramatic shift to favouring taxing the wealthy. This is transforming a political landscape in a public that is increasingly skeptical of corporate tax relief and trickledown economics.
Figure 4.0 shows this burgeoning concern with
inequality is likely to influence the political landscape. By a margin
of two to one — more than three to one outside the CPC base — Canadians
would be more likely to vote for a party that raised taxes on the rich
rather than one that promised to keep taxes low.
The findings reflect the fact that income inequality has doubled in the past 25 years while working-class wages have remained stagnant. There is a growing sense of relative decline and deep fears of a steep descent over the next 25 years.
In an upcoming release we will explore profound fears about the end of progress. Dreams of a better future have come up against a ladder with no middle rungs. We’ll consider the effect it’s having on motivation and productivity in Upper North America.
About this poll:
EKOS’ weekly tracking polls are conducted using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the phone keypad, rather than telling them to an operator.
In an effort to reduce the coverage bias of landline-only RDD, we created a dual landline/cell phone RDD sampling frame for this research. As a result, we are able to reach those with a landline and cell phone, as well as cell-phone only households and landline-only households. This dual frame yields a near perfect unweighted distribution on age group and gender, something almost never seen with traditional landline RDD sample or interviewer-administered surveys.
The field dates for this survey are Feb. 21-28, 2012. In total, a random sample of 3,699 Canadians aged 18 and over responded to the survey. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-1.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Please note that the margin of error increases when the results are sub-divided (i.e., error margins for sub-groups such as region, sex, age, education). All the data have been statistically weighted to ensure the samples composition reflects that of the actual population of Canada according to Census data.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Frank Graves
Faced with headlines about overzealous scoop-and-snoop legislation. a robo-call voter suppression controversy that has the government reeling and the still-leaderless NDP lurking near in the polls, the Conservatives are badly in need of some good news.
In this context, it goes without saying that it will be an important budget for the Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. At this time, a quick check-in with Canadians reveals some challenging and crucial details that decision-makers should be considering at this time.
If Jim Flaherty’s budget hits the mark, it could restore confidence and remind a restive citizenry why it bestowed a majority on Harper et al just 10 months ago. If it misfires, it will add to the growing controversies and accelerate a downward slide into a crisis of legitimacy.
Of all the areas of public preference prone to misinterpretation and distortion, none is more fraught with difficulty than charting budget priorities.
Although no simple set of questions can capture the complexity of the task, there are proven barometers that can sort through ambiguities and divisions in public opinion. Some divides reflect disagreements across defined communities of interest and values. Others are the result of the way questions are posed and interpreted.
Consider the new consensus around the politics of austerity. There is little question the public will respond favourably to deep spending cuts as an alternative to tax increases or deepened deficits and public debt. In fact, the public has always believed the government is rife with waste, inefficiency and poor spending priorities.
Figure 1.0 shows a fairly typical response to a
standard question of this sort. While a prudent 30 per cent eschew
answering such a simplistic question, the general sentiment is toward
spending cuts. Well that was easy — the public will reward savage cuts
and abhor new taxes or debt. Some have claimed this new desire for
austerity is up significantly. In fact, in 2010, we asked the same
question of a large random sample and found the public opinion hasn’t
changed much at all. There is no new thirst for austerity. Is the
apparent single mindedness of the public really that straightforward?
Consider Figure 2.0. Hmmm. Well if people prefer
spending cuts to increased taxes and debt, they prefer “investment” in
health, education and jobs by an even larger margin. At 63 per cent,
that constitutes an overwhelming majority of Canadians and that number
is up modestly but significantly since the 2010 budget. The emphasis on
social investment is dramatically higher among women, younger Canadians,
university graduates, and among non-Conservative supporters. So the
front-page Globe and Mail headline suggesting Canadians are
“bloodthirsty” is only partially true, a point wisely acknowledged later
in the story by pollster Nik Nanos.These perennial debates about the public’s budget priorities emphasize the need for a more circumspect approach to polling that recognizes the answers are influenced by what is asked and who is answering. We would remind those who believe it is all about austerity that the highest scores we received were for social investment — not spending cuts.
Decision-makers and budget planners should be aware of something new on the minds of Canadians: Income inequality. The issue has vaulted from relative obscurity to a pinnacle position in Canadians’ hierarchy of economic and social concerns.
In Figure 3.0, even arrayed against jobs and growth,
health care, and education, the growing gap between rich and poor
emerged as the top priority. It eclipsed such fiscal issues as taxes and
debt by a margin of more than three to one. What on earth is going on?
Is this a rogue error?Recall that we found in our Beyond the Horserace series that income inequality appeared in a close second place of 20 topics for national discussion.
Favourable attitudes to the Occupy movement dramatically outstripped favourable attitudes to the Tea Party movement (the poster child for austerity and minimal government). We also see evidence in the United States from both PEW and Rasmussen that inequality concerns are rising and there has been a dramatic shift to favouring taxing the wealthy. This is transforming a political landscape in a public that is increasingly skeptical of corporate tax relief and trickledown economics.
The findings reflect the fact that income inequality has doubled in the past 25 years while working-class wages have remained stagnant. There is a growing sense of relative decline and deep fears of a steep descent over the next 25 years.
In an upcoming release we will explore profound fears about the end of progress. Dreams of a better future have come up against a ladder with no middle rungs. We’ll consider the effect it’s having on motivation and productivity in Upper North America.
About this poll:
EKOS’ weekly tracking polls are conducted using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the phone keypad, rather than telling them to an operator.
In an effort to reduce the coverage bias of landline-only RDD, we created a dual landline/cell phone RDD sampling frame for this research. As a result, we are able to reach those with a landline and cell phone, as well as cell-phone only households and landline-only households. This dual frame yields a near perfect unweighted distribution on age group and gender, something almost never seen with traditional landline RDD sample or interviewer-administered surveys.
The field dates for this survey are Feb. 21-28, 2012. In total, a random sample of 3,699 Canadians aged 18 and over responded to the survey. The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-1.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Please note that the margin of error increases when the results are sub-divided (i.e., error margins for sub-groups such as region, sex, age, education). All the data have been statistically weighted to ensure the samples composition reflects that of the actual population of Canada according to Census data.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Frank Graves
No comments:
Post a Comment