On change

Yesterday's Angus Reid poll (warning: PDF) is interesting enough in its top-line results - showing the NDP at half its level in Quebec suggested by the latest CROP poll, but making up for it with a lead in Atlantic Canada as well as strong numbers in Ontario and elsewhere. But a couple of the subsidiary questions offer some even more significant fodder for discussion.

First, there's the question as to how particular parties would affect the real-life situation of respondents:

Thinking now about your personal financial situation, would you and your family personally be better off, about the same, or worse off, if each of the following leaders and parties were in power? (Better off / About the same / Worse off / Not sure)

Now, Angus Reid's analysis focuses solely on the plus/minus numbers between the first and third columns - showing the Cons at a -12, Libs at -15 and NDP at -23. But that tells only a small part of the story.

Despite having the highest net negative, the NDP also has the highest absolute positive, with 15% of respondents saying they'd be better off under an NDP government. That compares to 10% for the Cons and 11% for the Libs - meaning that respondents don't seem to see any particular difference in their likelihood of doing well under either the Cons or the Libs.

Where the NDP does run into trouble is with the 38% of respondents who believe they'd be worse off - hinting that the party has a ways to go in countering the usual evidence-free spin that NDP management somehow represents a threat. But the scores tighten considerably if one looks at the respondents who see a particular party as a force for change in percentage terms, with the NDP's 28% score (15% positive out of 53% perception of change) ranking just behind the Cons' 31% and the Libs' 30%.

In other words, the real difference between the parties on the question seems to be that more respondents see the NDP as a force for change, whether for better or for worse. But since the Libs' strategy necessarily depends on pitching the need for change even while explaining their habit of rolling over instead of providing it, there would seem to be a great opportunity for the NDP to build off its relatively strong base of voters who see NDP government as the best result for them.

Meanwhile, the poll seems to have included another question which should have offered some significant insight into the respective views of the three national leaders in Parliament - with just one small hitch:

Thinking about the following qualities and characteristics, do you think they apply to Stephen Harper / Michael Ignatieff / Jack Layton?

From that question, one would expect to see the qualities evaluated for all three leaders. But instead, only Harper's and Ignatieff's results are presented (featuring a 6-point drop in Ignatieff's "inspires confidence" measure to plunge him into Harper territory) - suggesting that either the question as presented isn't the one that was asked, or that Layton's results were left out for reasons unexplained.

Mind you, there's always some concern as to where to draw the line in presenting leaders as options - and Green supporters will have reason for concern that Angus Reid's "qualities" research excludes Elizabeth May. But it's especially weird that a question which actually names Layton on its face wouldn't include his results - and hopefully we'll find out how that happened.