Mediaboss Marketing

The federal Liberals continue to register the highest comparative score on the overall Nanos Party Power Index but Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continues to trend up on the preferred PM front. Overall, the Liberals scored 55.8 points out of 100 on the Nanos Power Index followed by the Tories at 53.1 points, the NDP at 49.5 points, the Green Party at 31.2 points and the BQ at 28.1 points (QC only).

The Nanos Party Power Index methodology comprises a basket of political goods that includes ballot preferences, accessible voters, preferred PM views and evaluations of the leaders. It is modeled similar to a standard confidence index.

On the preferred Prime Minister measure Harper was the choice of 33 per cent of Canadians followed by Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau at 29 per cent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair at 20 per cent, Green Leader Elizabeth May at three per cent and 14 per cent were unsure. Harpers numbers are at a 12-month high.

A series of independent questions were asked to gauge the accessible voters for each federal party. The Liberals have the largest potential upside with 56 per cent of Canadians who would consider voting Liberal. Forty-three per cent of Canadians would consider voting for the federal NDP, 43 per cent would consider voting for the Conservatives, 26 per cent of Canadians would consider voting Green while in Quebec 34 per cent of voters would consider voting for the BQ.

Also of note, concerns about war/terrorism/security remains the second most important issue at 14 per cent but registered a decline from last weeks tally (17 per cent unprompted). It is now six points behind jobs and the economy which is the most important unprompted issue of concern among Canadians.

Read this article:
Harper hits new 12-month high on preferred PM measure in Nanos Power Index

John Roskam: Victorian Liberals failed to stand up for their values
IPA executive director John Roskam explains why the Victorian Liberal government lost after just one term in office. John was appearing on The Bolt Report alongside Cassandra Wilkinson from...

By: Institute of Public Affairs

Read the original:
John Roskam: Victorian Liberals failed to stand up for their values - Video

Losing government after one term is a tragedy for Victorian Liberals. But they should be even more disappointed that they didn't use the four years they had to implement the Liberal reform agenda Victoria desperately needs.

The Victorian Liberal Party cannot afford to ignore the lessons of this disappointing defeat. Attributing much of the blame to the federal government is an implausible excuse. The reality is that the Victorian Liberals trailed their opponents in the polls for almost all of their four years in government, long before Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister.

One thing is unambiguously clear from the result the risk-averse, moderate, cautious approach to politics favoured by state Liberals is no guarantee of re-election. Simply arguing that Liberals will be better managers of services is not a sufficient argument to stay in power. In fact, by failing to emphasise liberal values of small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, the Coalition denied itself its best chance of retaining government.

The Baillieu-Napthine era is certainly not without achievement. Its budget management is the envy of the federation, with a prized AAA credit rating and budget surpluses forecast for the foreseeable future. It unquestionably delivered on its promise to get tougher on law and order. Planning reforms have increased the sorely needed supply of housing. The government's much-maligned vocational education changes were clearly necessary. Long-overdue reform of the taxi industry was enacted. The hard line on industrial relations was welcome, although the failure of police to enforce the law in the Baiada Poultry dispute was disappointing.

Advertisement

But the truth is few Liberals honestly believed they were going to win the 2010 election. As a result, the deep thinking about a policy reform agenda that should take place in opposition largely did not occur. Renewal of the parliamentary party did not go far enough. Unsurprisingly, this meant the government got off to a very slow start, and in the absence of their own clear agenda, too many ministers took the lead from their departments with little regard for whether their recommendations were consistent with Liberal principles.

Sadly, this culture affected many areas of government. In education, the government bowed to union pressure and backed away from introducing performance pay for teachers. They happily signed on to Julia Gillard's left-wing and substandard national curriculum. In health, they uncritically advanced nanny-state policies such as banning solariums and smoking outdoors at restaurants. In transport, they promised "free" tram travel in the CBD a policy straight out of the Greens playbook. The government picked an unnecessary and unhelpful fight with the federal government over freedom of speech, and neglected to address widespread concern about the impact of the human rights charter on Victorians' freedoms.

On jobs a key issue for voters other than modest rebates on payroll tax and Workcover premiums for businesses employing long-term unemployed youth, the government's plan was to hand private businesses grants of taxpayers' money in the hope this would create employment. This is not only economically ludicrous but also politically unconvincing. Where was the all-encompassing Liberal pro-growth agenda of tax cuts and deregulation? An ambitious agenda for reform like this could have captured the attention of the electorate and convinced voters the government had a vision for the future.

Instead, the government's re-election strategy appeared to be to try to convince Victorians that Liberals would be more generous with taxpayers' money than Labor. That's not a fight the Liberal Party will ever win.

The result was a stunning rejection of auction politics. The Liberals' efforts to outbid Labor with more lavish election promises were a complete failure. Premier Denis Napthine's frenetic and extravagant spending announcements clearly failed to save his government, or meaningfully dent Labor's lead.

Read more:
Liberals shouldn't have abandoned their principles

Losing government after one term is a tragedy for Victorian Liberals. But they should be even more disappointed that they didn't use the four years they had to implement the Liberal reform agenda Victoria desperately needs.

The Victorian Liberal Party cannot afford to ignore the lessons of this disappointing defeat. Attributing much of the blame to the federal government is an implausible excuse. The reality is that the Victorian Liberals trailed their opponents in the polls for almost all of their four years in government, long before Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister.

One thing is unambiguously clear from the result the risk-averse, moderate, cautious approach to politics favoured by state Liberals is no guarantee of re-election. Simply arguing that Liberals will be better managers of services is not a sufficient argument to stay in power. In fact, by failing to emphasise liberal values of small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, the Coalition denied itself its best chance of retaining government.

The Baillieu-Napthine era is certainly not without achievement. Its budget management is the envy of the federation, with a prized AAA credit rating and budget surpluses forecast for the foreseeable future. It unquestionably delivered on its promise to get tougher on law and order. Planning reforms have increased the sorely needed supply of housing. The government's much-maligned vocational education changes were clearly necessary. Long-overdue reform of the taxi industry was enacted. The hard line on industrial relations was welcome, although the failure of police to enforce the law in the Baiada Poultry dispute was disappointing.

Advertisement

But the truth is few Liberals honestly believed they were going to win the 2010 election. As a result, the deep thinking about a policy reform agenda that should take place in opposition largely did not occur. Renewal of the parliamentary party did not go far enough. Unsurprisingly, this meant the government got off to a very slow start, and in the absence of their own clear agenda, too many ministers took the lead from their departments with little regard for whether their recommendations were consistent with Liberal principles.

Sadly, this culture affected many areas of government. In education, the government bowed to union pressure and backed away from introducing performance pay for teachers. They happily signed on to Julia Gillard's left-wing and substandard national curriculum. In health, they uncritically advanced nanny-state policies such as banning solariums and smoking outdoors at restaurants. In transport, they promised "free" tram travel in the CBD a policy straight out of the Greens playbook. The government picked an unnecessary and unhelpful fight with the federal government over freedom of speech, and neglected to address widespread concern about the impact of the human rights charter on Victorians' freedoms.

On jobs a key issue for voters other than modest rebates on payroll tax and Workcover premiums for businesses employing long-term unemployed youth, the government's plan was to hand private businesses grants of taxpayers' money in the hope this would create employment. This is not only economically ludicrous but also politically unconvincing. Where was the all-encompassing Liberal pro-growth agenda of tax cuts and deregulation? An ambitious agenda for reform like this could have captured the attention of the electorate and convinced voters the government had a vision for the future.

Instead, the government's re-election strategy appeared to be to try to convince Victorians that Liberals would be more generous with taxpayers' money than Labor. That's not a fight the Liberal Party will ever win.

The result was a stunning rejection of auction politics. The Liberals' efforts to outbid Labor with more lavish election promises were a complete failure. Premier Denis Napthine's frenetic and extravagant spending announcements clearly failed to save his government, or meaningfully dent Labor's lead.

Follow this link:
What happened to principle?

Losing government after one term is a tragedy for Victorian Liberals. But they should be even more disappointed that they didn't use the four years they had to implement the Liberal reform agenda Victoria desperately needs.

The Victorian Liberal Party cannot afford to ignore the lessons of this disappointing defeat. Attributing much of the blame to the federal government is an implausible excuse. The reality is that the Victorian Liberals trailed their opponents in the polls for almost all of their four years in government, long before Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister.

One thing is unambiguously clear from the result the risk-averse, moderate, cautious approach to politics favoured by state Liberals is no guarantee of re-election. Simply arguing that Liberals will be better managers of services is not a sufficient argument to stay in power. In fact, by failing to emphasise liberal values of small government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, the Coalition denied itself its best chance of retaining government.

The Baillieu-Napthine era is certainly not without achievement. Its budget management is the envy of the federation, with a prized AAA credit rating and budget surpluses forecast for the foreseeable future. It unquestionably delivered on its promise to get tougher on law and order. Planning reforms have increased the sorely needed supply of housing. The government's much-maligned vocational education changes were clearly necessary. Long-overdue reform of the taxi industry was enacted. The hard line on industrial relations was welcome, although the failure of police to enforce the law in the Baiada Poultry dispute was disappointing.

Advertisement

But the truth is few Liberals honestly believed they were going to win the 2010 election. As a result, the deep thinking about a policy reform agenda that should take place in opposition largely did not occur. Renewal of the parliamentary party did not go far enough. Unsurprisingly, this meant the government got off to a very slow start, and in the absence of their own clear agenda, too many ministers took the lead from their departments with little regard for whether their recommendations were consistent with Liberal principles.

Sadly, this culture affected many areas of government. In education, the government bowed to union pressure and backed away from introducing performance pay for teachers. They happily signed on to Julia Gillard's left-wing and substandard national curriculum. In health, they uncritically advanced nanny-state policies such as banning solariums and smoking outdoors at restaurants. In transport, they promised "free" tram travel in the CBD a policy straight out of the Greens playbook. The government picked an unnecessary and unhelpful fight with the federal government over freedom of speech, and neglected to address widespread concern about the impact of the human rights charter on Victorians' freedoms.

On jobs a key issue for voters other than modest rebates on payroll tax and Workcover premiums for businesses employing long-term unemployed youth, the government's plan was to hand private businesses grants of taxpayers' money in the hope this would create employment. This is not only economically ludicrous but also politically unconvincing. Where was the all-encompassing Liberal pro-growth agenda of tax cuts and deregulation? An ambitious agenda for reform like this could have captured the attention of the electorate and convinced voters the government had a vision for the future.

Instead, the government's re-election strategy appeared to be to try to convince Victorians that Liberals would be more generous with taxpayers' money than Labor. That's not a fight the Liberal Party will ever win.

The result was a stunning rejection of auction politics. The Liberals' efforts to outbid Labor with more lavish election promises were a complete failure. Premier Denis Napthine's frenetic and extravagant spending announcements clearly failed to save his government, or meaningfully dent Labor's lead.

Read more:
What happened to Liberal principle?