adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Alberta Politics: NDP holds slight lead in vote intention over UCP – Angus Reid Institute

Published

 on



Most would-be NDP voters support some form of provincial sales tax


March 12, 2021 – The urgency to revive Alberta’s ailing economy has once again raised debate over whether the province should continue to hold onto its “Alberta Advantage” as the only province in Canada without a provincial or harmonized sales tax, or whether a PST would generate enough government revenue to stave off belt-tightening or growing deficits.

A new study from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds that while a majority of Albertans continue to say “no” to the prospect of a provincial sales tax, political factors may be coalescing in a way that could possibly make the PST a less verboten concept in the future.

Currently, three-in-five (62%) say the province should not introduce any form of PST. Given that Premier Jason Kenney has previously stated that the PST would not be implemented without a referendum, the policy seems unlikely to be introduced under the UCP.

However, a significant segment of Albertans – 38 per cent – say they would support a tax at various levels, from one per cent to more than five per cent.

The political dynamics of the province add to the complexity of the issue. The opposition NDP under Rachel Notley now leads Kenney’s UCP by the slightest of margins in vote intention, 41 to 38 per cent respectively.

Notably, supporters of the NDP, are much more inclined to support the PST. Two-thirds (64%) of those who say they would support Rachel Notley’s party if an election were held also say that they would support some version of this tax.

More Key Findings:

  • Younger Albertans are more amenable to a PST. Half (52%) between the ages of 18 and 34 support a PST introduction of at least one to two per cent. A majority of those ages 35-54 (63%) and 55 and older (76%), however, are opposed to it.
  • Voter retention is a key story at the midway mark of the UCP term. Just 71 per cent of those who supported Jason Kenney’s party in 2019 say they would again at this point, while the NDP has retained 96 per cent of its base.
  • The UCP scores more negatively than positively on all 13 areas of government performance canvassed in this survey.

About ARI

The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) was founded in October 2014 by pollster and sociologist, Dr. Angus Reid. ARI is a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation established to advance education by commissioning, conducting, and disseminating to the public accessible and impartial statistical data, research and policy analysis on economics, political science, philanthropy, public administration, domestic and international affairs and other socio-economic issues of importance to Canada and its world.

INDEX:

  • Which issues matter most in Alberta?

  • UCP government struggles across a number of files

  • Most are against a PST, but younger people are on the fence

  • NDP makes gains, leads by three points in vote intention

Which issues matter most in Alberta?

For Albertans, one key aspect of life is prioritized most: economic growth. Asked for their top issues facing the province, both the economy overall and jobs and unemployment are chosen ahead of all others. Notably, COVID-19 response ranks fifth.

The message is clear from Albertans: do what is needed to boost the economy. Low oil prices and reduced economic activity from the pandemic have wreaked havoc on the economy. The province projects an $18 billion deficit for this year and the total provincial debt is projected to swell to more than $115 billion. Only Newfoundland and Labrador currently has a worse unemployment rate in Canada.

UCP government struggles across a number of files

Albertans have become more critical of Premier Jason Kenney throughout the pandemic, and their assessment of his performance appears to extend to most areas of provincial government.

The Angus Reid Institute asked respondents to assess 13 separate areas of provincial governance. As seen in the table below, there is no issue where the UCP receives a more positive than negative assessment:

Indeed, Albertans are among the most negative appraisers in the country as to their provincial government’s handling of their aforementioned top five priorities. Relative to the way Canadians in other provinces view their respective provincial government’s performances, the UCP government performs second worst on the economy and on jobs and unemployment, and worst on COVID-19 response (see summary tables).

Overall government performance score

According to the Angus Reid Institute’s ‘Government Performance Index’, the Alberta government falls below the national average on satisfaction with government. Only Ontario’s government fares worse on this aggregating scale. This index is a measure of the average number of respondents saying that their government has done a good or very good job on each of the 13 issues mentioned above. See summary tables in the full report for contributing data.

Most are against a PST, but younger people are on the fence

The challenges of the past year have necessitated the Kenney government to stray from its political north star. Government spending has greatly increased to both sustain and stimulate the economy.

Springing forth from this tenuous period is the renewal of the debate over a provincial sales tax. Alberta has long been the only province in the country with neither a PST nor a harmonized sales tax. Premier Jason Kenney has previously stated that he would not introduce such a tax without a referendum. For now, it appears that such a referendum would maintain the status quo, as a firm majority of residents are against it. That said, a near-plurality are inclined to say this is a good idea, at various levels of cost:

There are significant pockets of the province where this debate is much more hotly contested. Young people are far more inclined than their older counterparts to support a PST introduction of at least one to two per cent. In fact, half (52%) say the province should do this. Three-quarters of those over the age of 54 disagree:

There are additional divisions based on income level. Those who are most supportive of a PST are from households with an income level of more than $100 thousand. Close to half (45%) say they would like to see a provincial sales tax implemented and one-quarter would like to see it set at three to five per cent. Lower income Albertans lean more toward opposition. Two-thirds with household incomes of less than $50 thousand are opposed. It is notable that sales taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they are disproportionately impactful for lower income households. Some sales tax policies are designed to avoid being applied to basic goods that are needed by lower-income families in order to overcome some of this regressive quality:

While the PST may be unlikely under a UCP government, it is notable that those who currently support the Alberta NDP offer majority support for the tax. Just 36 per cent of those who say they would vote for Rachel Notley’s party say they are opposed to any form of PST:

NDP makes gains, leads by three points in vote intention

A look at the current vote intention picture in Alberta sheds additional light on just why those New Democratic supporters’ opinions are so important. That party now holds a three-point vote intention advantage over the incumbent United Conservative Party. This represents the first time the NDP have had an advantage in vote intent since 2015 (view our vote intention tracker for all provinces here).

The vote intention picture has become increasingly tightened since the pandemic began, after the UCP spent 2019 with a relatively large lead:

One of the keys to the NDP’s success in 2015 was winning in and around Calgary. Though at the time the party had benefitted from vote-splitting between the Wildrose Party and Progressive Conservatives, Rachel Notley and her team won 9 of the 12 seats in Central Calgary and were competitive in the Calgary suburbs. Now, the NDP hold a nine-point advantage in Calgary, alongside a considerable lead in their more traditional support base of Edmonton:

For the UCP, support among men in particular has diminished since the last election. Jason Kenney’s party still leads by a small margin among male voters, but trails among women and those under the age of 35 by a sizeable gap:

While an election is still two years away, vote retention appears to be an important theme at the halfway mark of the UCP term. Close to one-in-three (29%) 2019 UCP voters have gone elsewhere, while the NDP has retained 96 per cent of its support:

To read the full report, including detailed tables and methodology, click here.

For detailed results by age, gender, region, education, and other demographics, click here.

To read the questionnaire, click here.

Images – CP / SEAN KILPATRICK (left) Edmonton CityNews (right)

Methodology

The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from February 26 – March 3, 2021 among a representative randomized sample of 5,004 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 1.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The total sample for Alberta is 603; a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI. Detailed tables are found at the end of this release.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Shachi Kurl, President: 604.908.1693 shachi.kurl@angusreid.org @shachikurl

Dave Korzinski, Research Director: 250.899.0821 dave.korzinski@angusreid.org


Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending