Jeff Jedras: On crime bill-fought elections, and who's really tough on crime

Friday, February 08, 2008

On crime bill-fought elections, and who's really tough on crime

We're not going to have an election on the Conservatives' written on the back of a napkin pass the crime bill motion. The scenario though makes me wish the LPC had some money for polling. Because I think this would be an interesting question to put to a sample group:

“As you know, the Conservative government is threatening to call an election if the Senate does not quickly pass its anti-crime legislation.

If you knew the Liberal Party offered to immediately pass more than half this legislation in October 2006, and again in March 2007, and was refused by the Conservative government both times, would this make you:

a) more likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
b) less likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
c) not change your voting intention?”

Is it still called push-polling if its true?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

9 comments:

ottlib said...: That is a leading question Jeff an no self respecting polling company would pose it to a respondent.

Thankfully, this country has a surplus of pollsters with no self respect so have at her.; 6:10 PM, February 08, 2008
Anonymous said...: The word is that the Grits and the Bloc will vote for the motion. Harper gets the crime bill through before the House is dissolved.; 6:14 PM, February 08, 2008
wilson said...: Save your money,
on MDL new poll out on crime.
70% say courts are too lenient,
and 74% of WOMEN want 3 stricks law, 71% of men same.
Cons have crime in the bag.

But was that the real purpose for the 'unusual' motion?
Dalton mcGuinty and Jack Layton want to abolish the Senate.
Maybe we should accomodate them.

Don't be surprised if the next election is coupled with a referendum question on the Senate.; 9:20 PM, February 08, 2008
Joanne (True Blue) said...: What I don't understand is why the Liberal Senators are so adverse to raising the age of consent?; 9:53 PM, February 08, 2008
Mike said...: joanne,

Because this omnibus bill is more than just that..its also mandatory minimums(which don't work) and other things.

I'm curious that a 15 year old is not mature enough to make decisions about their body and the relations with other, but are certainly old enough to be tried as adults.

I find that odd. Has there been such a spate in 14 and 15 year olds having sex that wee need to change a law? Don't the other laws we already have about exploitation, and sexual interference already do the job? Or is this just about trying to regulate sex?

Don't be too sure about your base either...I play hockey on an evangelical church men's team. After our loss tonight, a bunch of us had wings an beer and the talk turned to politics. Shockingly, not a person I was with - devout evangelical Christians all - like the Conservatives anymore, and thought they were doing a good job. Now we live in Pierre Polievre's riding so the disgust may be understandable, but you can count on a sizable chunk of the base either staying home or ruining their ballots over the performance of this government.

Wilson,

Until you post a link, I'll consider everything you type a lie.; 12:28 AM, February 09, 2008
Gayle said...: Actually, wilson is kind of telling the truth - at least about the (stacked) poll.

The only real issue is if the pollsters asked the respondents if they want to spend billions of dollars locking up criminals knowing that it will do nothing to reduce the crime rate.

if you ask people if they think the justice system is too lenient, and if they thing after the third sex offence someone should get life, of course you know the answer.

The DO bill does more than make the third sex offence a life sentence - it also makes the third assault, or break and enter conviction a life sentence.

Somehow I think if the questions were honest we would get a different response.

But this poll was done for MDL, so it has a certain slant...; 1:33 AM, February 09, 2008
MississaugaJoan said...: I would not be surprised to find more than a few donations to the Conservative Party from people directly and indirectly associated with private prisons.

Wikipedia writes:

"Today, non-governmental enterprises, in the form of publicly traded companies, operate 264 correctional facilities housing almost 99,000 adult offenders."

Someone in the Liberal war room should also be going through the Conservative donor lists as well for people associated with production of fire arms.

Hint: check the lobbyists and then check the donations.; 1:50 AM, February 09, 2008
Gayle said...: mj - I read the reort that came out of the panel studying our prison system (chaired by the guy who wanted to privatize jails in Ontario). It basically concludes we need to build super prisons (at what cost?) and cancel stat release because 40% of prisoners violate that release. Of course that means over half do not violate that release, but whatever...

They also recommend there be more money spent on rehabilitation programs in the prisons.

That last recommendation could be implemented right now without any need to make legislative amendments or find the billions of dollars it will take to build new prisons, but somehow I do not think it will be. Not only that but if the government decides to implement the other recommendations, coupled with the huge influx of prisoners expected with the omnibus bill, I do not know where they are going to find the money.

They are going to have to set some priorities here.; 10:23 AM, February 09, 2008
Jeff said...: Ottlib, it's definitely leading, I agree. Still, I think if we were to get the truth out there public opinion should shift considerably.

Mushroom, I haven't heard that. But even if they do vote for the HoC motion, that doesn't mean the Senate passes the legislation any faster. The House motion has no force and effect on the Senate, it's an empty PR gesture. If the Senate doesn't pass it though and the Libs voted for the motion, it does give the Cons another Dion's not a leader club to beat us with.

Joanne, I don't know the answer to that. Wouldn't it be nice if perhaps the media paid attention to the policy debate in the Senate on that question, rather than just the tactical fight, and wouldn't it be nice if the government allowed the Senate to have that debate?; 11:35 AM, February 09, 2008