Saturday, January 9, 2010

IR Ontario Provincial Poll

Ipsos-Reid has a newish poll out on Ontario politics. It was taken in mid-December, but is the most current provincial poll.So, the Liberals under Dalton McGuinty hang on to a lead with 38% but, as Ipsos-Reid points out, that is seven points lower than where they were this time last year. The Progressive Conservatives are within striking distance, and the MOE, with 34%. The NDP is at 15% and the Greens are at 10%.

The Liberals lead in the GTA and in southwestern and northern Ontario. Their biggest number is in the GTA, where they lead with 45%.

The Progressive Conservatives under Tim Hudak lead in central and eastern Ontario. Their 45% in central Ontario is their best result.

The New Democrats do not lead in any part of the province, but have their best results (22%) in southwestern and northern Ontario.

The last poll that was released concerning this subject was by Angus-Reid at the end of November 2009. In that poll, the Progressive Conservatives were at 41% to the Liberals' 27%. Of course, at that time, the HST issue was tops. It could be that the results their methods provide are different, or it could be that people have lost a bit of their anger.

In any case, unlike the last go-around, the next election in Ontario should be hotly contested.

46 comments:

  1. The fact that the McGuinty Liberals still hold a lead after everything that has happened - not just the HST, but E-health and other assorted, incompetent messes - is just a testament to either the power of the Liberal brand in Ontario, or just how weak the Tories are.

    At least it'll make 2011 interesting, if the numbers hold.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a testament to the weakness of the opposition and their phony opposition to the HST. If they won't promise to repeal it, then why vote for them? Ontario remembers both Bob Rae and Mike Harris. We don't want either one back. Hudak talks just like Harris. Looks like if an election were held now, we'd end up with a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a testament to the fact that people remember just how destructive Harris, Eves, and Flaherty and their ill-conceived policies have been on Ontario.

    Let's not forget that Hudak, who is actually "right" of Harris and his ilk, leads the cons... Since we know that right-wing policies never, ever, ever work out - just imagine how horrid things would be in Ontario if he got control of the government. Clearly, in spite of Dalton being not so 'amazing' - he is by far the lesser evil.

    As for the HST being associated with the liberals... let's not forget that it's known as the

    Harper Sales Tax

    Harper, as in 'Stephen Harper', as in 'Conservative'.

    Fake opposition to it won't get the current provincial cons anywhere...

    ReplyDelete
  4. You guys are going to have to eat your words when Hudak wins in 2011. He's been leader barely 6 months and he's already putting the screws to McGuinty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's McGuinty going to campaign on in 2011 anyways? Voters have no reason to vote for him.

    What's his 2011 campaign slogan going to be? "Vote for me because I'm not him"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Type in a name you guys! Haha, it gets WAY too confusing when anons start debating anons.

    "Since we know that right-wing policies never, ever, ever work out"

    You're making that sweeping statement based on what, half a decade by some guys in Ontario ?

    That's rather silly.


    It looks to me like its all a toss up and the person who offers the most compelling vision and coherent policy ideas would win a minority government.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Since we know that right-wing policies never, ever, ever work out".
    Depends on your definition of right-wing. If you consider all conservatives as right wing, you would be wrong. It seems Sir John A. MacDonald was a Conservative, and his vision and policies seem to be going ok. After all, he started a country! I could sneer at the current party that calls itself "Conservative" and which thinks all that is wrong and needs to be fundamentally changed, probably destroying the country in the process, but the fact remains conservatism is not evil, and even "right wing" isn't always bad. After all, the nazis are the main example of right wing gone really wrong, and there are more examples of left wing gone really wrong in various communist dictatorships.

    That said, I think Hudak will have a difficult time with the Harris legacy. I thought Eves was finding the way back to the centre, though more right wing than I liked, but I voted for him. I wouldn't vote for Hudak.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Liberal i'm sure if you really tried you could find at least something the federal Conservatives have done that you like.

    Maybe the update to the citizenship guide for instance ?


    One thing I approve of that the Liberals did was inventing the HST.

    Its a smart policy that eliminates duplication in the bureaucracy and saves bussiness money by cutting their accounting in half.


    I don't really think its appropriate to call dictators "left" or "right" though.

    NAZI means National Socialist, which could just as easily be called left wing.

    And China is more or less capitalist at this point.

    IT really poisons the debate when someone says "your side is responsible for X atrocity and Y genocide because Z dictator was on your side of the politcal spectrum!!".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liberal i'm sure if you really tried you could find at least something the federal Conservatives have done that you like.
    This is often a concern troll gambit, but since you provided concrete examples, I will respond in good faith.

    I liked the GST too, though that was not the current Conservative party.
    I like the home renovation tax credit.
    While in Opposition, I preferred their Iraq position at the time, I thought we should stand by our main ally. Chretien now claims he was shown more evidence than was made public at the time and he found it lacking. And we now know there was a lot of lying to get the US in there. Still, while Blix found no WMD by 2003, after 1991 he was shocked at how close Saddam was to atomic weapons then and we had little idea. It is that fact that they got so close before without anyone knowing that made it difficult to simply hope the inspectors had really found nothing the second time around.
    I don't know enough about the income trust situation, but I don't hold it against the CPC. The flipflopping on such an issue, just as the Liberals did on GST, does not bother me, since it is not really a partisan decision one should base on your party's principles, instead it is a financial decision that should be based on fairness and balancing with other fiscal measures; where you win some and you lose some.
    I don't have real objections to crime bills, though I disagree with minimum sentence and age of consent changes. I don't think the age of consent rules needed changing, since adult exploitation laws continue to hold up to age 18, perhaps those could have been beefed up instead. As for minimum sentences, these can result in acquittals if they are too harsh. Sometimes you really do want a slap on the wrist. I don't agree with release quotas (if they exist) but I do agree with focusing on rehabilitation because it often works. I recall the tale (it may not be true) that Kenya has the death penalty for robbery. Guess what? Robbers are more likely to kill their victims, since it eliminate witnesses with no greater penalty being risked.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't really think its appropriate to call dictators "left" or "right" though.
    True, in the sense that the fact they are dictators is far more important in discussing what they will do, which usually involves oppression and murder. But I think it is appropriate to acknowledge which ideology they are using to try to legitimize themselves. It can be a way to delegitimize them. For example, if a dictator is trying to use a religion as cover, demonstrating that they are not following the tenets can persuade people that the means (dictatorship) is not justifying the end, nor is it helping to achieve the end.

    NAZI means National Socialist, which could just as easily be called left wing.
    The response to that is we don't really believe the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea is democratic. The nazis did not nationalize all industry, which is the usual extreme of socialism when it becomes communism. They were in bed with the corporations of the time.

    And China is more or less capitalist at this point.
    They appear to be allowing more market forces, and I am ready to be corrected, but is it not still organized like one giant conglomerate of corporations, as far as the way they are seen by the rest of the world? The conglomerate being owned bye the Chinese government, and controlled by the Chinese communist party?

    IT really poisons the debate when someone says "your side is responsible for X atrocity and Y genocide because Z dictator was on your side of the politcal spectrum!!".
    So true and you are the first presumed conservative to agree with me on this that I can recall. Most refreshing really. I have seen similar arguments that claim Hitler was a vegetarian (though he was not), and Pol Pot was a vegan (apparently true, though irrelevant).

    It really is the dictatorship that is the problem. But there is a natural tendency in people to desire more control when you see things apparently out of control. Every dictatorship arises from situations getting out of control by offering a solution. Often the would be dictator helps create the chaos they then offer to control. Only after the chaos is contained and people see their own lives being monitored, their freedom of movement restricted, their freedom of speech restricted and no end in sight of this, do they suddenly discover it isn't worth the supposed order that was made from the chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Harris did good things for Ontario. It was Eves's ham-fisted dismantling of Harris's good work that caused all the problems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Liberal the corporations that Hitler was close to were all run by his allies. Plus there was an unusual degree of command and control with regards to industry (although this is usual during war time, happened in the US too).

    But you could say Hitler followed a Keynisian economic platform, promising huge infrastructure projects to lift Germany out of unemployment.

    So its very hard to point to a conclusive case that Hitler was a follower of any particular conservative economic or social philosophies.

    He was militaristic and xenophobic so he got labelled "far right", which becomes a slur on those of us on the right side of the spectrum.


    Instead of returning the favour and making a case that Hitler is left wing, like the book "Liberal Fascism" does i'm content to just exclude these extremes completely.


    To me "left" and "right" exist in the context of DEMOCRACY.

    Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, Chaos, Anarchy, Communism, Fascism - these are better and more descriptive labels for regimes seen as odious to mankind then "far left" or "far right".

    ReplyDelete
  13. You know, I distinctly remember John Tory, a man much more agreeable than Tim Hudak, posting similar, if not better, numbers during his reign of the Tories as well. So, the idea that Hudak is "putting the screws to McGuinty" and has an amazing chance in 2011 doesn't hold water when faced with precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Volkov:

    I think John Tory would have beaten or at least forced Dalton into a minority position had he not come up with the idea of funding religious schools. We already have a huge amount of waste and duplication by having two parallel school systems, one public, the other RC. Most Ontarians didn't want more. That issue over shadowed every other issue in the campaign. It was a huge tactical blunder by Tory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Earl;

    I know, so how much do you want to bet Hudak's Tories will do the same? XD

    ReplyDelete
  16. He was militaristic and xenophobic so he got labelled "far right", which becomes a slur on those of us on the right side of the spectrum.
    Yes, but it shouldn't be a slur, no more than Trudeau visiting Moscow (and being blacklisted for it) should be a slur on him. The "far" would be the operative word, as in extreme. After all, Churchill was a Conservative.

    Dictatorship, Authoritarianism, Kleptocracy, Plutocracy, Chaos, Anarchy, Communism, Fascism - these are better and more descriptive labels for regimes seen as odious to mankind then "far left" or "far right".
    I suppose all sides, left and right are guilty of trying to conflate left vs. right with democracy vs dictatorship. I prefer to treat them as different axes, and orthogonal at that, so they vary independently.

    The common characteristic of dictatorships is finding some ideology (or religious faith) to use as the excuse for their exercise of raw power. I think Lenin was a believer in the ideology he imposed by force, while Stalin and Hitler were just thugs and haters who treated the ideals of their ideologies as window dressing to further their own ambitions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. omg....I just choked on my coffee.....did someone upthread say someone will have to eat their words when Mike Harris lover Tim Hudak wins Ontario in the next election....omg thats precious.

    Listen, the ON Libs are getting close to being decadent, but Hudak?

    Bible thumping, Mike Harris loving, privatize everything, neo-con, creationist HUDAK?

    IN ONTARIO???

    Please, pass whatever you're smoking, me want some too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. anon...were you serious?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No more Hitler talk, please. As some of you know, History is my line of work and I've studied Nazism. Some of the statements above hurt my head.

    I'll also confirm the request made that people sign a name instead of putting Anonymous. It gets confusing, and makes it difficult to have discussions.

    T, your first and third posts were fine, but your second doesn't further debate here. I'd like to maintain a minimum of civility here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I honestly think racism played a part in John Tory's defeat.

    How else can funding for Catholic schools be justified when Hindu, Sihk, and Muslim schools are denied ?

    The double standard is astounding and i'm surprised it hasn't been struck down by the courts.

    Either fund everything or fund nothing.


    Earl calls it "duplication" and a waste of money but he couldn't be more wrong.

    School choice is ESSENTIAL.

    It really is the way of the future. Failing schools in the US are being replaced with charter schools.

    Schools run by parents, schools run by organizations, schools run by communities, schools run by the faithful, virtual schools, home schooling.

    The more choices the better.

    BTW the real waste in the public education is the unjustifiable benefits and wages that teachers make!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Some of the statements above hurt my head."

    That comes across as a bit condescending.

    Why don't you share your knowledge and correct our factual errors so we're more informed the next time the topic comes up ?

    Or offer an opinion as to whether its appropriate to call historical figures "left" or "right" ?

    I think I agree with Liberal that a seperate axis should be used that describes the degree of concentration of power from difuse (democracy) to centralized (dictatorship).

    Also the moral axis of good and evil seems pertinent.

    Thus ends our adventures in ontology, from this day forward NAZIs shall no longer be considered right wingers, nor shall Stalin be a lefty.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Left and right are very vague and clumsy terms to use for such extreme figures as Stalin and Hitler. But, it is generally agreed that on the extremes of right and left, you find Hitler and Stalin, respectively. The odd thing about it is that the spectrum is more of a circle, so that Hitler and Stalin find themselves closer to one another than to any more moderate figure on the right or left.

    It is stuff like saying Hitler had no economic or socially conservative policies that make my head hurt.

    Building roads and natinalising some industries does not a socialist make. You have to look at the whole picture.

    And the National Socialist thing making them socialist. The party used the name National Socialist German Workers Party for a reason - it was indecipherable. Depending on the audience, the Nazis would emphasis either the SOCIALIST and the WORKERS or the NATIONAL and the GERMAN. What's in a name, after all.

    The party's main opponents before coming to power was from the left - the Communists and the Social Democrats. The party's allies were on the right - the Nationalists.

    This was no accident.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I honestly think racism played a part in John Tory's defeat.
    I really wanted to vote for Tory, hoping that the tradition of Ontario having the opposite party to Ottawa would hold.

    But I was against extending funding to every school system. I don't agree with having a highly fragmented school system where every church has its own schools; it discourages diversity and encourages enclavism. For a small church group, getting the eduction portion of all their members' taxes is a huge windfall. I recall being told (perhaps incorrectly) that the RC church benefits greatly because the teachers were often nuns who have the vow of poverty so their pay goes directly to the church.

    I think the bureaucracy to maintain education standards across what could be thousands of boards would be so unmanageable they would give up on trying to enforce standards, which would then lead to unqualified people teaching and no oversight to ensure that it is not becoming an indoctrination factory. I suspect it could be made to work, but I'd prefer to have special classes or modified curricula within the public system, such as we already have.

    How else can funding for Catholic schools be justified when Hindu, Sihk, and Muslim schools are denied ?
    I would prefer a single funded system, but there are long standing agreements not easily broken. The main reason it can be justified is that the Roman Catholics are half the population. Two nearly equal sized systems works and there can even be benefits over one system, but 100 systems, many very small fragments, would be much more difficult to manage.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's like trying to determine if a facist is from the right or the left.

    I think it can come from either, and is more often what I like to think of as the "extreme centre".

    The Nazis may not have wanted to own the means of production, but they meant to control them.

    Extreme nationalism is like a religion. It sucks.

    Oh, and McGuinty may earn my vote yet before 2011, and I've never voted Liberal before.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "But, it is generally agreed that on the extremes of right and left, you find Hitler and Stalin, respectively."

    Yes, yes, obviously.

    But that doesn't mean its true or optimally descriptive.

    "Building roads and natinalising some industries does not a socialist make."

    The fiscal program seems redistributive in nature.

    Massive government spending on autobahns, dams, railways, civic projects that provided employment for the previous suffering lower classes.

    A tax and monetary policy that decreased the prosperity of the upper classes, save those who were well connected.

    This could just as easily be one of Stalin's five year plans. Or a left Democratic president like Roosevelt's reaction to the Great Depression.


    I really don't see very much fiscal conservatism here. On the social conservatism front the emphasis on traditional families could count.

    But then again, there was the lack of a connection to the church like in Franco's Spain. Plus the fact that eugenics is not very Christian like. And the focus is more on purity in the sense of maintaining strength and power, as opposed to virtue and redemption.

    "It is stuff like saying Hitler had no economic or socially conservative policies that make my head hurt."

    I don't think anybody said this. I'm sure he had a mix of policies from all over the spectrum, most leaders do.

    I said that there's no conclusive evidence that Hitler was a follower of any specific conservative economic or social philosophies.

    I strongly doubt he went around reading Adam Smith. More like Nietzsche.


    As I said, I think its better to not try to place these figures on the spectrum we use for our domestic politics, both from a standpoint of keeping our debates respectful and being optimally descriptive with our words.

    ReplyDelete
  27. --- "Massive government spending on autobahns, dams, railways, civic projects that provided employment for the previous suffering lower classes."

    Considering the times, however. Both the Republicans and the Conservatives have done massive spending in a time of a horrible economy. This part of their governing programme certainly sounds left-wing in isolation, but was really what every other country was doing. And remember that a lot of these projects were not only done to stimulate the economy. They were done to heighten Germany's position in the world and prepare the country for an eventual war.

    --- "I really don't see very much fiscal conservatism here."

    In many sectors of the economy, it was capitalism gone mad. The major industries in Germany were privately owned and operated, not run by the state. Hitler encouraged competition everywhere, and actually led to several different industries working on the same things, a duplication of effort that, say, Stalin would never have allowed.

    --- "On the social conservatism front the emphasis on traditional families could count. But then again, there was the lack of a connection to the church like in Franco's Spain. Plus the fact that eugenics is not very Christian like. And the focus is more on purity in the sense of maintaining strength and power, as opposed to virtue and redemption."

    Social conservativism is not limited to Christian thinking. The emphasis on traditional families, as you point out, is most obvious. The woman was supposed to stay at home and raise children. The reason why Germany did not employ as many women in the war effort as in other countries is because of this ideology.

    Abortion was, of course, out of the question. As was "degenerate" art and music. Homosexuals were criminals. Inter-racial anything was strictly prohibitive. There was no privacy in the bedrooms of the nation.

    --- "I said that there's no conclusive evidence that Hitler was a follower of any specific conservative economic or social philosophies."

    Hitler was no economist. He didn't understand economics at all. So we can just leave that aside. But his social and national philosophies were very conservative. Whether he subscribed to a specific "view" is irrelevant. Hitler created his own worldview.

    Hitler's nationalism, a political philosophy generally accepted to be right-wing, was clearly conservative in nature, especially in the context of German conservativism.

    --- "I strongly doubt he went around reading Adam Smith. More like Nietzsche."

    What does that matter? You can be a conservative or liberal without reading a single political book.

    --- "As I said, I think its better to not try to place these figures on the spectrum we use for our domestic politics, both from a standpoint of keeping our debates respectful and being optimally descriptive with our words."

    Bringing up Hitler and Stalin in a political debate about Canadian or American politics is always ridiculous. Remember Goodwin's Law.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very entertaining debate guys.
    Well reasoned arguements on both sides

    My vote goes to Shadow because of this point.

    "To me "left" and "right" exist in the context of DEMOCRACY."

    From what I can tell Hitler took ideas from both sides of the spectrum.

    I don't see any great love for "conservative" ideas in his policies.
    (Some of which were very effective)

    The attrocities of Nazi Germany cannot be blamed on right-wing politics, any more then it can be blamed on religion.

    Unless you consider anti-semitism/ racism/homophobia right-wing ideas.
    (or Christian ideas)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Actually the only reason that we have dual educational systems in ON is that the right of Roman Catholics to their education system is guaranteed in the BNA and more recently the Constitution which incorporates the BNA.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fascinating Earl, much like the constitutional requirement to provide PEI with ferry service !

    One wonders if the most recent constitutional document, the charter, and its insistence on equal rights and treatment for all faiths would require funding to be extended to other faith based schools.

    It seems somewhat outragoeus that Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, protestant! and atheist!! tax payers are funding the education of roman catholics while their children recieve no such benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Strong up move for Gold this evening. Up $17.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It seems somewhat outragoeus that Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, protestant! and atheist!! tax payers are funding the education of roman catholics while their children recieve no such benefit.
    Well if you read the ravings of Stein, we will be a muslim majority in just a few short years. Somehow they will grow from 2% now to over 50%. When another faith approaches 50% of the population, they can have their own school system.

    I think a possible way out would be to expand the definition of the separate school system from the Roman Catholic system to be the "faiths" school system. So we would have a public secular system, and the separate one that has faith as an integral part. If your local community is *mostly* followers of Judaism, the local separate school would have stars of david on the walls instead of crucifixes.

    Of course the flaw in this might be we would have a school in Bountiful that would want to train the girls to be breeding stock and train most of the boys to go away. Therein lies the problem. How do we classify the acceptable faiths from those that are not? I'd have no problem with the local separate school being dominated by Jews, Muslims, Anglicans, Hindus or any of the major faiths, but do we really want a Scientology school?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey Liberal I don't think anybody really expects taxpayers to fund the teaching of religious subject matter.

    In BC all schools recieve the same amount of per pupil funding but there is a core curriculum that's enforced and held accountable with standardized testing.

    The only real difference is the decore and the fact that teachers and buildings are also being used for faith community and instruction.

    Its certainly a reasonable use for a school since they often perform community functions after hours anyway - as polling stations, as emergency shelters, or for plays or cultural events.

    So I think when you ask "do we really want a Scientology school?"

    the question that is really being asked is whether we want such religions in our country at all ?

    We may or may not, depending on our values and prejudices but its not really up to us.

    We have freedom of religion in this country.

    And if this is a large enough community to benefit from such a dual-use arrangement of school facilities as religious facilities as well I see no reason why we can deny them the courtesy and equal treatment.

    Their tax dollar's pay for the thing too !

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hey Liberal I don't think anybody really expects taxpayers to fund the teaching of religious subject matter.
    But we do, as long as the charitable exempt status of churches is not restricted to the actual charity work of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and comforting the afflicted. The tax exempt donations are also used for buildings and salaries.

    In BC all schools recieve the same amount of per pupil funding but there is a core curriculum that's enforced and held accountable with standardized testing.
    I'm not certain the per pupil funding is the same in Ontario though I suspect it is. But they do have to follow the standard curriculum. It is debatable whether standardized testing provides accountability, but we do have it and I don't think we're gone entirely to "teach to the test" yet. Still, they are overseen. I know that religion class in separate schools teaches about all religions, more of a comparative religion course than an extension of Sunday school.

    The only real difference is the decore and the fact that teachers and buildings are also being used for faith community and instruction.
    Same here. My argument against expansion is you would have many more school systems and this oversight would be more difficult. For a small population such as Muslims, would we have very small schools, or would there be long bus commutes for the kids to a more reasonable sized school? Hence my suggestion that all faiths be accommodated in the "faith" school system and the largest has the most symbols in the decor.

    I've seen different faiths share the same church buildings. It worked especially well for Jews and Christians since there would be no conflict for the main worship day. That would fit with Muslims too. So I think the separate system renamed the "faith" system could work.

    We have freedom of religion in this country.
    But not all faiths can get a tax exempt status. I believe the marijuana church hasn't managed it yet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eric:

    New poll out:

    http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201001/09/01-937564-dans-lisoloir-cest-harper

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201001/09/01-937564-dans-lisoloir-cest-harper.php

    Angus Reid National poll

    Canada: CPC 36% LPC 29% NDP 17%
    Quebec: Bloc 36% LPC 26% CPC 19% NDP 11%

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010.01.09_Leaders_CAN_EN.pdf

    The first 1/2 of that poll was released yesterday (can't find a pdf for todays 1/2 yet)

    however,

    If you need a baby sitter, an athlete, or someone to have a beer with.. Its layton.

    Iggy comes in first for someone smart to help you with trivia, or scan a list of good books to read.

    And the rest of the questions (which have to do with actual governing of the country)... Harper is the man to beat.


    .... so why am I not surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  38. About the Angus Reid poll;

    I've yet to find that poll on Angus Reid itself. La Presse is the only place that seems to have it. And there are no regional numbers except Quebec, so I don't think Eric can put it up, or else he would have by now.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Angus Reid's numbers match my feelings of where politics is.

    But I wonder if people are really over reacting or reading too much into Harper's dip in the polls.

    He pulled back from very good numbers that existed when everybody was mad at Iggy over wanting an election, Harper had played the paino brilliantly and had successful international trips.

    A natural softening back to '08 or even '06 support isn't at all unusual.

    But its all taken as evidence that chequegate, swine flu, HST, afghan torture, or now prorogation is a grave miscalculation that will cost Harper his majority.

    Next confidence matter comes in march, we'll see how things are looking then.

    But given everything we know i'm still of the belief that Harper gets to pass a budget that cuts funding for political parties and there will be no election.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That Angus Reid poll was in The Star (or at least on their website) last week. I put it up on Wikipedia on Friday.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/747947

    ReplyDelete
  41. Too much incomplete information to do anything with it. Hopefully AR will put up the full results.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yeah, I know. I hate not having a proper PDF release to link to. But it's a data point, and it changes my perception of the recent numbers considerably (it's a very good Green number for an AR poll).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eric wrote:

    "But, it is generally agreed that on the extremes of right and left, you find Hitler and Stalin, respectively."

    Actually, I find rather persuasive the view of Friedrich Hayek that Hitler and Stalin were NOT polar opposites but, rather, represented competing sects of socialism.

    No, the Nazis were not in the Marxist camp of socialism, but they were certainly not free-market oriented. The Nazi regime was very much about both economic matters and other aspects of life being directed by the state.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hitler was Right-Wing.

    It's a historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "It's a historical fact."

    The political spectrum is a subjective measure.

    Anything to do with its application is thus rendered opinion, not fact.


    Is it a fact that a majority of people believe Hitler was right-wing ?

    Yes.

    Is that the same thing as saying its a historical fact that Hitler was right-wing ?

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  46. J. Kenneth Yurchuk13 January, 2010 15:07

    New Strategic Council poll out!
    Conservatives down 10!!!!!
    Liberals up 2...
    NDP up 4!!

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.