Tuesday, February 9, 2010

January 2010 Polling

Time to look at January's polling. Eleven national polls were taken during this month (seven more than last month), totalling about 20,310 interviews. Here are the results we get at the national level, with the difference from last month's average in brackets.

Conservatives - 32.4% (-4.4)
Liberals - 30.1% (+2.0)
New Democrats - 16.3% (-0.8)
Bloc Quebecois - 9.5% (unchanged)
Greens - 9.9%% (+1.8)

The Conservatives make a big 4.4-point drop, while the Liberals gain two points. That marks a four point gain for the Liberals over December and January. The NDP has dropped almost an entire point, while the Bloc Quebecois is unchanged. The Greens are up 1.8 points, almost exactly the amount they dropped in December.

The seat projection for these results is as follows, with the difference from last month in brackets:

Conservatives - 123 (-17)
Liberals - 103 (+17)
Bloc Quebecois - 51 (+1)
New Democrats - 31 (-1)
Greens - 0 (unchanged)

The Conservatives and Liberals swap 17 seats, a major shift. The Bloc gains one and the NDP loses one. This means the Liberals and the NDP would outnumber the Conservatives. It also means, however, that the Conservatives could pass legislation with the help of the Bloc Quebecois - but not the NDP.The regional results, with difference from last month in brackets:

BRITISH COLUMBIA (10 polls - about 2,240 people)

Conservatives - 33.5% (-5.3)
Liberals - 26.2% (+1.1)
New Democrats - 25.1% (-1.2)
Greens - 13.0% (+3.4)

This is a big drop for the Tories. The Liberals make a small gain, but more importantly move into second place in the province. The NDP drops a little. The Greens make a big jump, but it is actually equal to the losses the party sustained in December.

ALBERTA (9 polls - about 1,540 people)

Conservatives - 55.0% (-3.5)
Liberals - 18.5% (-1.1)
Greens - 11.3% (+0.2)
New Democrats - 10.9% (+0.1)

This is another month of losses for the Conservatives, though they are still very comfortably ahead. The Liberals falter a little, but at this level they are in play in Edmonton. The Greens manage to maintain their (artificially?) high level of support, while the NDP can't seem to gain any ground.

PRAIRIES (9 polls - about 1,130 people)

Conservatives - 47.4% (-5.0)
New Democrats - 23.6% (+2.2)
Liberals - 19.1% (+0.9)
Greens - 8.5% (+0.6)

The Conservatives are down big in the Prairies, dropping well below the 50% mark. The NDP benefit, moving solidly into second. The Liberals make a modest gain, as do the Greens.

ONTARIO (10 polls - about 7,100 people)

Liberals - 37.2% (+2.9)
Conservatives - 35.1% (-4.0)
New Democrats - 15.5% (-1.0)
Greens - 10.6% (+0.6)

The Liberals gain almost three points, marking gains of almost five points over the last two months. They've opened up a nice little lead over the Conservatives. Dropping four points in Ontario, both because of its importance and the large sample size, is disastrous for the Tories. The NDP also takes a step back, while the Greens make a small step forward.

QUEBEC (12 polls - about 6,570 people)

Bloc Quebecois - 37.8% (unchanged)
Liberals - 25.6% (+0.1)
Conservatives - 15.9% (-2.8)
New Democrats - 11.9% (+1.1)
Greens - 7.0% (+0.4)

The Bloc is as steady as can be, and has been for months now. The Liberals make a statistically insignificant gain, but being steady at better-than-Dion numbers is good enough. The Conservatives make a big drop, marking almost five points of losses over the last two months. They are in trouble. The NDP makes a nice little gain, but it more or less makes up for the losses in December.

ATLANTIC CANADA (9 polls - about 1,230 people)

Liberals - 35.8% (+4.1)
Conservatives - 30.0% (-5.7)
New Democrats - 26.3% (-2.5)
Greens - 6.5% (+2.5)

That is a big drop for the Conservatives, but they were flying a little high in Atlantic Canada anyway. The Liberals take advantage of it, gaining four points and the lead. The NDP take a step backwards, but the Greens take a small step forwards.This was a very, very bad month for the Conservatives. They dropped in every region and their smallest drop was still almost three points. They were down big in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia - places they need to be doing better.

By comparison, it was a good month for the Liberals. They are up in five of six regions, though for the most part their gains were relatively small. But being up almost three points in Ontario, four points in Atlantic Canada, and one point in British Columbia is good news.

It was a mixed month for the NDP, up in three regions and down in three. But the movement wasn't drastic, and gains were made in Quebec and the Prairies, which are good regions for the NDP. But losses in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and British Columbia are worrisome.

The Bloc is steady, which is good. The Conservatives are dropping, which means the Bloc stands a good chance of taking back a few seats around Quebec City and in the Saguenay.

There is some talk that the current trend is not exactly a reversal or a major shift, but that the wide gap that formed in the fall of 2009 was the anomaly. I'm starting to think that is true, as for most of 2009 we were looking at a close race. We got so used to double-digit gaps in September through to December that we forgot how close the race was for the rest of the year. Are things resetting?

77 comments:

  1. I could be completely wrong but:
    123 Conservative
    31 NDP
    Equals 154

    103 Liberal
    51 Bloc
    Equals 154

    How does that make the Libs and Bloc have a compbined advantage?

    Or am I missing something? Just curious...

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. I will edit that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Much better!

    I also agree that something hasn't been right over the last year - we appear to be back to where we were last summer.

    In a weird way, do you think that this is how the Liberals and Conservatives want it so they don't have to go to an election this year? A bit of stability in knowing that the opposition isn't really fiscally prepared for an election, so we go back to the normal days of this endless minority? You would think that a minority situation would make Stephen Harper's incrementalism move much more incrementally...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Conservative government has gotten used to being in constant pre-election mode, so I don't think we will see any changes. Every since 2004, we've seen the various parties focus more on politics than policy. I doubt that will change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sad isn't it?

    I think it's the minority mentality that's doing a lot of that - if you have a majority, the natural focus shifts more to policy, and bumps back to politics closer to when election possibility nears.

    In a minority, it could technically fall at any time, which puts election fever in high gear.

    Lots of other things to consider, but if we put our partisan hats aside, that's probably a big factor in the current political climate...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, well I seriously doubt that we'll have any majority governments for many years to come. That is, until they all figure out they have to play nice together, and govern in coalitions. The logic is inescapable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not so sure it was an "anomaly," because I think that if Stephen Harper hadn't handed us the gift of prorogation, the numbers would not have changed. The Liberals really got a bump from this, not just in the polls, but through morale as well.

    Rex Murphy is right about one thing: the biggest factor for the Conservatives is Stephen Harper himself. Most of the population only tolerates him, but when he shows his more unpleasant sides, they start moving away.

    Combine that with a Liberal Party that is actually getting its act together (I can tell because my riding association's president used to really be skeptical of Iggy, and after a session with him, now thinks the world of him), and Harper is setting himself up for the guillotine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Volkov

    Your'e right the Canadian public has never really had a great fondness for Harper.

    It was looking really good for him last October after his appearance at the gala in Ottawa. People were starting to think "hey maybe I can like this guy"

    But then he always has to go and do or say something so off the wall, that people start to turn on him again.

    His knack for self sabotage, is really something I just can't understand.

    He could have won the 04 election, but then he comes off with the child pornography accusation against Paul Martin.

    Now prorogation. The con strategists were too cute by half on that. It just reinforced Harper's reputation as always focusing on partisan gain, and political strategy.

    Im not writing him off just yet, but he is really going to have to do something to show the Canadian people that he is not always obsesssed with tactics, and strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm surprised more people haven't commented on the extent to which the politician in history that Harper most resembles is Richard Nixon. Think of all the similarities - the dark depressive personality, the intense resentment, the paranoia, the secrecy, the obsession with personally destroying any "enemies", the intelligence undone by shallow motives etc...

    ReplyDelete
  10. DL

    Hey stop holding back.

    Tell us what you really think!

    ReplyDelete
  11. DL you left out the part about him being a racist, battering women, and liking aids because it kills gays.

    You've said all those things in the past, why not list them now ?

    Lol perhaps its the case that Richard Nixon is the American politician the opposition would most like to see Harper as.

    Or even more cynical and probably more accurate, Richard Nixon is the American politician that the oppositions wants Canadians to think Harper is like.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Volkov i'm not at all impressed with the arguement that Harper is the Conservatives worst enemy.

    Or if he is then it should also be noted that he is also our greatest strength.

    After the two parties merged his discipline was required to keep things together.

    People say he is too partisan and mean. Well the base, like any base, is much more so. He's been able to manage expectations and hold back the alpha male go for the kill mentality you see over at blogging tories. He's moved elements of a right wing protest party back to the center which is no small feat.

    And there are very few PMs in waiting for the party who aren't identified with the old party divisions or unacceptable policy positions.


    I know Liberal partisans have a vested interest in creating anti-Harper sentiment and divisions (ex. Baird leadership website, Iggy courting Mulroney).

    And I know certain media figures buy into this notion that he needs a majority or will be forced to resign.

    But I can tell you that the Conservative base will keep Harper on with or without a majority. In fact unless he loses more than 20 seats next election he'll stay as PM.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are so many ways in which harper is just like Nixon, maybe i can make this exercise a lot shorter. Let's try to think of any ways in which Harper and Nixon have different characters...(if you giove me a month or two I might think of something)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shadow

    "He's moved elements of a right wing protest party back to the centre, which is no small feat?

    How much of that was forced upon the cons because of their minority position in parliament?

    Do you honestly believe that even if Harper loses less than 20 seats the cons will keep him on?

    After 3 kicks at the can and still failure to secure a majority, how is that possible?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that as long as Harper is PM he will remain leader of Conservative party. The thing is that unless the Tories either win a majority in the next election or are so close to a majority that there is no momentum at all for the opposition parties to cooperate - he will be out after the next election. Once he is no longer PM, he will either quit in a huff or be fed to the crocodiles.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kevin the ability to adapt to a minority parliament, moderate your poliices, and then stop an angry base from freaking out is no small feat.

    Of course Harper will move to the right if he gets a majority. That wasn't the point though, this is a question of who else would be better as leader then Harper.

    With the BQ taking as many Quebec seats as it does I think a Conservative or Liberal majority is out of the question for now.

    Nobody is going to blame Harper for not being able to do the impossible.

    Anything less then a 20 point seat loss and he stays on as leader if he wants to. The party loves the guy and he'd pass a leadership review no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DL I think Harper would stick around, watch the coalition fall apart, and ride voter anger to a majority.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shadow

    "the ability to adapt to a minority parliament moderate your policies and then stop an angry base from freaking out is no small feat"

    Of course Harper will move to the right if he gets a majority"

    So what are you saying exactly?

    Harper really wants to move to the right but can't because of the constraints of a minority parliament.

    A minority parliament has moderated their policies.

    What exactly do the cons have planned for us in the unlikely event they ever get a majority.

    You can't honestly think there isn't a leader for the cons out there that would be better than Harper?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It won't be a "coalition" and it won't "fall apart" for the same reasons that Harper current "deal with the opposition parties" hasn't fallen apart. The moment the Liberals form a government, the show will be on the other foot - the NDP and BQ won't dare provoke another early election they can't afford and the tories will probably be leaderless and demoralized.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My view is that if Harper can't win at least another close minority or a majority, he may not be so much forced out, as he may just leave. There is a certain sadness about not being able to get a majority, even if the Opposition is so fractured and weak.

    Would the Conservatives throw him out? I think its a possibility. Shadow seems to think all Conservative insiders love Harper and believe in his leadership - that is far from the case. I know many a Tory that would never vote for the federal Conservatives under the current management, or would hold their nose if they did.

    If Harper fails to get a majority government, and there is no doubt, he is the only one that could at the current moment, then there is clearly something wrong. It may not lead to his ouster, no, but it could lead to fractures. Harper is not immune to the effects of the old PC internal squabbles, just as Stockwell wasn't either. It will rear its head in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stephen Harper may have outlived his usefulness to the CPC. He was and is a unifying force. However most of the party would be loath to split again and hand back the country to LPC with no chance of reclamation. Reconciling a second time would take longer and be more difficult than the first.

    Leaders are hardly indispensable. Look only at the the Mike Harris and Dalton McGuinty in Ontario. Few thought they would be elected once as premier let alone win a second time. Dalton just might fool us all and get third mandate. Harper doesn't strike me as the type who will hang on beyond his time. I think it will be three times and you are out for him.

    Shadow you need to learn to reference your sources. You seem to be the only one on the board who is aware of this telecommunications reform/foreign ownership review coming in the budget. Let me tell you how wrong you are to expect that Harper would put something like that in his budget when he knows that could not only provoke an election but give the opposition an issue.

    Kevin you seem to think we've seen a real move to the right under Harper. I think we've seen a move to left of Chretien. A move to right of some small magnitude would be good for the country. Nothing of the magnitude Shadow would want though. Spending cuts and tax increases will be necessary to balance the budget. Let's hope someone wins a majority so the medicine can be administered.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It will be a game changer if they actually allocate the extra seats to BC Alberta and Ontario. It would be possible to get a slim majority without the 40 or so block seats-or at least a working Lib minority with the tacit support of the NDP and the Bloc
    Im sure now things dont look good for Harper he will delay the changes as long as possible. What do you think?
    ericrw

    ReplyDelete
  23. Its irrelevant because those extra seats won't be created until after the results of the 2011 census come in and a new boundary commission is struck and reports and passes parliament and is proclaimed etc... The earliest that any new boundaries will be in effect will be 2014 - meaning that it is 100% certain that the next election will be fought on the current boundaries and depending on how long the next government lasts - we may even fight the election after the next one on the current boundaries. After that my crystal ball wears out.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Volkov i'm going to have to call you out. You're describing your partisan wishes here, not an objective analsis:

    "It will rear its head in due time."

    Or with a little help from the Liberals ? The fake leadership websites? Iggy courting Mulroney ? This ridiculous idea that the Wildrose means a right wing protest party is going to go federal ?


    Fact is that without the Quebec seats that the BQ has make it near impossible for a Conservative majority.

    There is nothing "wrong" with Harper's inability to win one, its actually fairly obvious given the current configuration.

    Since WW2 we've had about 20 elections. Conservatives have only won 3 majorities in all that time and that's with Quebec seats.

    Liberals won 9 majorities.

    For Harper to win a majority it would be a rare achievment. To win one without significant Quebec support would be damn near impossible.

    This idea that Harper should be winning a majority and there's something wrong with him if he doesn't is laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm a fan of Stephen Harper, and I think the Richard Nixon comparison is accurate.

    Of course, I liked Nixon, too.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I guess we're just waiting for news to break about Harper ordering break-ins, erasing tapes and having the RCMP spy on his opponents. I'm sure it won't be long - I wouldn't put it past him.

    The one thing i can never figure out about Harper is why is such an angry, resentful, mean-spirited person. From what i know, he had a very cushy upper middle class upbringing and hasn't faced any real challenges in his life and yet he seem to filled with hate and resentment. maybe his mother didn't love him? Any other theories about just what it is that he's so angry about??

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Earl.

    If you need a link just ask for it. No lectures about what I need to learn to do please!

    Kinda makes you sound like a grumpy old man, lol.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2519517

    Telecom and Broadcasting deregulation is coming in the throne speech.

    The specific regulatory changes will be mentioned in the budget, without a doubt. But its not a supply issue so it'll be voted on seperately.

    We'll see if it annoys the NDP to the point that they can't support the budget.

    Its very hard to prop up a gov't and then argue you're not technically voting for deregulation because that's a seperate vote.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lol DL so now Harper is filled with anger and resentment!

    According to you he also:

    hates gays and loves aids because it kills them. Plus he physically assualted the GG when they met. Plus the Tory party is full of racists and any minority members are uncle toms.

    (I'm going to keep a list of all the crazy, insane, obnoxious things you say for now on.)


    Do you honestly think this sort of over the top language convinces people of anything ?

    Or are you just venting some frustrations ?

    ReplyDelete
  29. So if it "leans heavily on the Wilson report", by a former Bell Canada chief executive, we won't see deregulation of satellite TV. Why can't I subscribe to Dish or DirecTV?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Liberal the NDP and the BQ are going to be against this no matter what.

    So its going to be up to your leader if he works with Harper on this or doesn't.

    From what I understand the opinion is pretty split within the caucus.

    More competition, more options, lower prices vs Canadian protectionism/economc nationalism.

    If this is something you're interested in maybe speak up. Otherwise the predictable reaction will be the three opposition parties lining up against this for no other reason then because Harper suggested it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Shadow here's where we need to revisit a lesson Canadian politicians learned long ago. While many Canadians would like access to Direct TV and such most of them don't want CTV to be a subsidiary of CBS. Nor do they want Rogers owned by Time Warner. No sir! That's an issue of nationalism. We are Canadians and proud of it. Any politician, even the mythical S. Harper ignores that at their peril.

    I simply can't understand how someone as politically astute as you, can't see that S. Harper isn't going to be defeated on some issue like foreign ownership of cable and telecom. Harper will choose the time and nature of his defeat in so far as he is able.

    Frankly after reading the article you so kindly posted the link to I feel fairly certain that if the CPC follows the course Ivison suggests that they'll be cannon fodder and Iggy will be PM by May.

    These polls should have put Harper on notice. Only a fool would wave a red red flag in front of a charging bull. This is an issue that might play well in rural BC or Alberta but not in ON and PQ, or for that matter Vancouver or Calgary. It will resonate with the die hard Reform types and not with the rest of the party. I'd like to be able get Direct TV. I'd like an end to CC rules on TV and radio. I don't want ATT or Verizon as my telephone and cable providers though. Frankly I value a little diversity so I wouldn't Fox news owning CTV. This has the smell of December 2008. This time the LPC will defeat the government and win the subsequent election surrounded by cries of "I am Canadian".

    Oh and I'm a really grumpy old man when confronted ideological nonsense!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Earl i'm simply telling people what Harper has planned. The cabinet meeting at Meech lake has put the gov't on this path and there is no turning back now.

    The last time an election was fought over free trade I happen to think it was a good result for the Tories.

    Besides this is 2010.

    Canada has a low corporate tax rate, a wealth of human capital, and a vibrant television community.

    We can easily compete with foriegn competition!

    This is about being Canadian ?

    Ok well then how about some pride in our abilities and our strengths ??

    How about not assuming we are a weak nation perpetually on the brink of being taken over by the US.

    I reject that notion.

    Our nation is strong enough to stand up and compete against anyone in the broadcast and telecom sectors.

    I am Canadian!

    (How was that for nationalism ?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey did McGuinty go ahead with prorogation ?

    I can't find any news stories, blog groups, or freak outs about the end of democracy.

    Also the BC legislature hasn't sat at all this year and is only having a three day session in feb before breaking for the Olympics until March.


    What no protests for the Liberal premiers of BC and Ontario ????

    Weird. Its almost like there is a double standard or something!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Shadow

    The Harper prorogation was objected to because of the manner in which it was done.

    The 08 prorogation was done to avoid defeat on a non confidence motion.

    The 09 prorogation was done to avoid scrutiny on the Afghan detainee issue (even Flanagan admitted that)

    It seemed that the tool of prorogation was not being used appropriately.

    Even the cons had a hard time justifying it, their reasoning changed everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shadow

    as opposed to why there is no uproar for Mcguinty and Campbell.

    People don't think Mcguinty is proroguing for the reasons Harper has.

    Even the economist magazine said the Harper prorogation reeked of naked self interes.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kevin what is this afghan detainee nonsense ?

    Flanegin isn't part of the gov't and is pretty much frozen out at this point. His opinion is worthless.

    That was a total non-issue. The Liberals botched the file and left a big mess that took a year or two to clean up by the Conservatives.

    Not really a big deal. The idea prorogation had anything to do with such a petty, non-issue is laughable.

    Especially since it hurts the Liberals more then it does the Tories.

    Proprogation was done to gain control of the senate. That's it. No other reason.


    What happened was a group of partisans cynically objected to a constitutional tool that all governments be them PC, Liberal, or NDP have used repeatedly in the past.

    Then a sympathetic media amplified the outraged by relentlessly "reporting" on some facebook page.

    The group was given hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising. The Liberal and NDP (mostly NDP) machines jumped into action and got their usual protesters out.

    And there you go!

    A totally astroturf, meaningless protest about a meaningless issue.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Shadow,

    There is barely a shadow of credibility in anything you've stated in this and all your other postings. And I've read a lot of them. Reading your statements makes one wish there was a moderator to correct the utter garbage and lies you recycle. You think human rights are 'a petty, non-issue,' well then once again you have been the perfect mouthpiece for your party and can be proud. Or maybe you actually believe that yourself. I'm not sure which is worse.

    Honestly, we know the Reform party talking points already because we get them constantly in the media, in our mailboxes, and on our billboards, and yet you bring them here because you feel it aids your great intellectual endeavour of belittling everyone else under the guise of good debate. It's ok, we get it, we got it a long time ago. On top of that, though, it's just so bloody boring that you can't think for yourself and bring some honest, original substance to these message boards.

    And, by the way you, you play the victim brilliantly and play up the Conservative eternal-victim-status just as well. Academy Award is in the mail.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hello Davor.

    Please stop the troll behaviour.

    I'm not going to be run off and nobody appreciates people who come on these boards to just make personal attacks.

    If you want to join in the debate and see if you have something worthwhile to contribute please do so.

    Otherwise keep the partisan negativity to yourself please !

    Your bitter, angry tone seems to have destroyed any point you were attempting to make. I'm afraid you've been utterly discredited at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  39. DL

    Reading in the paper this morning about how planned parenthood is drawing on reserve funds, while a decision on it's application for 18 million from the governmetn appears delayed by an abortion debate.

    They applied in 09 for a 3 year 6 million a year contract from CIDA, to replace the expired contract.

    Apparently backbench MP, Brad Trost, petioned the Harper government against the federation in the fall saying it should not receive any more CIDA funds on grounds it helps provide abortion.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think its all evidence of how Harper is trying to kow-tow to the religious right by stealth. Wasn't Brad Trost the same backbencher who after Diane Ablonczy approved a grant to Toronto Pride only had to pick up the phone to the PMO and get her humiliated and fired. I guess Brad Trost is the real power behind the throne.

    Its one more reason why the Harperite cancer must be excised before it spreads its poison to more parts of the Canadian body politic.

    ReplyDelete
  41. DL

    What about funding cut to Kairos.

    Harper seems to have a new focus on women and children in the third world.

    Even Gerald Caplan pointed out that, Kairos worked in the Congo with a Congolese group that was planning to set up a legal clinic to protect women's rights.

    One of it's intended projects was to support Congolese women who had been raped.

    ReplyDelete
  42. There hasn't been any uproar over McGuinty proroguing because he's only proroguing for a week, isn't killing any bills, and isn't dodging any committee, or the parliamentary majority. Apparently they just want to give a speech from the throne in March.

    So indeed it is not the same.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/proroguing-under-the-radar/article1462420/

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kevin any group can point to good works they do or are planning to do.

    Especially if they are lobbying for gov't money!

    But the fact is that any grants CIDA doesn't renew go to other aid activities, often ones that are superior.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am convinced that Shadow is actually an operative for one of the opposition parties, because he is making the CPC look more foolish by the day.

    Listening to him talk down to everyone here, now the detainee scandal is mere "nonsense", can't be the real CPC position, can it? The detainee scandal will not go away. Sadly, we have very real evidence from yesterday that there actually is at least one bad apple in the Forces itself at the highest levels, and we are not allowed to question if there are lesser bad apples in the civilian leadership at the highest levels? A major difference of degree to be sure, but the fact remains, no institution is immune to having bad people, and no institution should be above question to its highest levels.

    Then we see the feigned inability to distinguish between McGuinty's proroguing and Harper's proroguing. In both cases, we end up with more Conservatives in the government, with the 5 new Senators, and the 2 Ontario MLAs, Messrs Murdoch and Hillier, who were tossed from the Legislature, being allowed to return.

    Then the "we know best" and "others are better" smugness to explain away ideological based defunding of groups the so-cons don't like.

    And then the explanation that any dissent is simply due to ultra partisan meanies who just don't like Harper, or perhaps have a supposedly irrational hatred of Harper. Such "hatred" of course is claimed by anyone who responds to the kind of bait left here daily.

    I call fake.

    However, I could be wrong. Maybe he really is a CPC insider. I keep hearing a little voice in my head, some guy named Heinlein, who keeps telling me not to attribute conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Shadow

    You don 't see any contradiction to Harpers's so called focus on women and children in the third world, and the funding cut to Kairos.

    BTW 70,000 women die annually in developing countries, due to botched abortions.

    Bev Oda minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, has refused to say whether contraception, and access to abortion will be included in Harper's initiative

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hey Liberal you're doing the troll thing now too ?

    I don't know if you've noticed but there are a lot of people here interested in having discussions.

    If you have something to add please do so.

    But drop the ad hominem attacks. They discredit your arguements and show an intellecutal inability to engage with others you disagree with.

    Perhaps the fact that you are at a lose for substantive arguements betrays the fact that the partisan version of reality you're asserting has no basis in fact ?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Kevin I see no contradiction whatsoever.

    Far more women die from lack of iron during pregnancy then botched abortions.

    Iron tablets are way, way cheaper then a medical procedure like abortion.

    More lives could be saved if our limited aid dollars went to buying iron tablets then providing abortions.

    It is only those with an ideological commitment to abortions who want to take gov't funding away from saving the lives of women and use it to advance their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Shadow

    "far more women die from lack of iron during pregnancy than botched abortions"

    "It is only those with an idealogical commitment to abortions who want to take away from saving the lives of women and use it to advance their agenda"

    One does not know whether to laugh or cry

    I give up!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hey Liberal you're doing the troll thing now too ?
    No, I think you are, sir.

    I don't know if you've noticed but there are a lot of people here interested in having discussions.
    Yes, and you disrupt that with your passive aggressive sneering, sir.

    If you have something to add please do so.
    I do so.

    But drop the ad hominem attacks. They discredit your arguements and show an intellecutal inability to engage with others you disagree with.
    Please get a mirror and read that statement to yourself. It makes you look worse, the fact that you engage in ad hominem, and now admit you understand that, nut then whine when someone else rebuts yours.

    Perhaps the fact that you are at a lose for substantive arguements betrays the fact that the partisan version of reality you're asserting has no basis in fact ?
    Speaking of ad hominem...

    ReplyDelete
  50. I give up!
    Don't. This is a major component to the far right strategy. Make the discourse so broken, people throw up their hands and say "you run things". Which is exactly what they want. Or you mock them and then they play the victim, hoping to negate your views by claiming you are going ad hominem.

    Every time I see this kind of calculated attempt to discredit and marginalize all who disagree, so they win by default (since their policies will never win on their merits), I just think of the handbook for CPC MPs, describing how to disrupt committee work and generally make the system unworkable.

    It is calculated, and it is deliberate. We need to remain aware of that.

    Don't give up.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shadow

    Weren't you upset when I said you had an idealogical aversion to government run day care, and early child care programs.

    Now you throw the idealogical argument around for people like myself, who are pro choice, and support a woman's right to choose.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Liberal i've said my piece, if you want to continue with your slurs and attacks that's fine.

    People here for a substantive debate will just have to ignore your paranoid ramblings.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kevin the fact is that Planned Parenthood uses some of their money for political lobbying.

    The idea here is that left wing groups want the Canadian gov't to give money to these activist groups so that they can effect political change in other countries.

    That's the pro-choice agenda, i'm not saying its good or bad i'm just saying that if our focus is on saving the lives of women then its poorly spent.

    Our limited aid dollars should go towards saving the most lives possible.

    Buying iron pills and anti-retroviral drugs so that babies aren't born HIV+ are a far better use of money then paying for abortions.

    People who care about this issue want to get the most bang for their bucks here.

    People who care about abortion rights have a different agenda.

    The two are mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Liberal i've said my piece, if you want to continue with your slurs and attacks that's fine.
    I always enjoy it when you mix your ad hominem attacks with self righteousness, pretending you are only here for discussion and not sneering putdowns of anything not CPC.

    Perhaps you could point me to any comment of yours, ANY, which is not attacking someone else. I see only one candidate out of 18.

    People here for a substantive debate will just have to ignore your paranoid ramblings.
    More ad hominem. It's like a bad habit you just can't quit, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Liberal you're getting a little tiresome.

    I'm not the one who came on here and posted a comment completely devoid of substance but for personal attacks on another board member.

    That is trolling. No other way to put it.

    Discuss the issues, not the other board members please.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Liberal supporter:

    Shadow/Jesse represents the far right of the CPC. He is a self admitted Libertarian. Now how many of those do you think form the "base" of the CPC? Shadow is to the right of Stephen Harper and of most CPC supporters.

    Indeed his manner is irritating and abusive.

    He gets some of his ideas from a single newspaper article and then presents it as if it is accomplished fact. He tries to talk like an insider. In reality he reads the NP.

    I have always voted PC, Reform and CPC in my days, but my idea of a Conservative has only a passing resemblance to Jesse's. Fortunately they are the fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hello grumpy old man here to lecture me again !

    I can only speak for myself but i've never said i'm a libertarian. Never. My stances on abortion, foriegn military interventions, prostitution, and drug legaization put me far outside the libertarian camp.

    Nor do I read the NP. I don't read any newspapers.

    A variety of sources and blogs are compiled into an RSS reader and I review them each morning.

    The only dead tree materials I read are Macleans and The Economist.


    BTW if you're talking about the contents of the upcoming throne speech do you wish to take a bet on whether telecom/broadcasting deregulation will be mentioned ??

    I win you stop the personal attacks/lectures.

    You win, well heck just stop the personal attacks and lectures anyways!

    They add nothing to the debate all.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Liberal you're getting a little tiresome.
    Poor baby. Don't like getting called out, do you? I think the other commenters will find you are getting a lot tiresome, sir.

    I'm not the one who came on here and posted a comment completely devoid of substance but for personal attacks on another board member.
    Oh really! You attacked DL, Volkov, Kevin in this thread alone. The only attack on you which fits the pattern you are attempting to apply to me is Davor. Everything else is responding the content of your statements.

    That is trolling. No other way to put it.
    Your certainty is misplaced.

    Discuss the issues, not the other board members please.
    I shall call you out whenever it is necessary. If you discuss the issues, then it will not be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ok going to take my own advice and ignore the trolls for now on!

    Liberal supporter and Earl aren't regulars and only seem interested in coming on here to make personal attacks.

    No feeding the trolls, lol!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Shadow

    "liberal supporter and Earl aren't regulars, and only seem interested in coming here to make personal attacks"

    Just exactly what are you saying?

    Because they aren't in your mind regulars, they have no right to make any commentary?

    Do you completely discount every thing they say, because you don't happen to agree with it.

    I find Earl, and liberal supporter, made some very valid points today.

    You may not have liked it, but they have every right to speak their mind, just as much as you do.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Kevin I could launch into an assualt on your character and which parts of your writing style or commentary does or does not annoy me too.

    So could anyone about anybody.

    But we don't.

    Because its beside the point. If you don't like what someone has to say then don't read their comments or respond to them !

    My objection is people coming on here and instead of discussing the ISSUES, discussing the COMMENTATORS.

    That creates a nasty atmosphere where everybody is pitted into opposing camps and refuses to engage and discuss whatever the topic is.

    ReplyDelete
  62. ...Partisan hats, blue and red, what does it matter what gets said?

    It's all opinion - people get all worked up when we don't agree, but who really changes minds on these comment threads anyway? Not to be cynical, but really, who's winning the argument here?

    If it's your own site, sure - defend your opinion, but if it's someone else's, why bother getting so worked up? Life is too short folks.

    Sorry for preaching - this back and forth is just depressing me a little. : )

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hi Hinchey. There's actually a few commentators here with some good info from time to time.

    Its always nice to get the inside scoop from people of all stripes or ask how an issue is playing with their crowd.

    Then there's the usual suspects with the usual talking points, engaging in the same old back and forth that doesn't really convince anybody of anything i'm afraid.

    I'm just trying to make sure this little corner of the internet that I enjoy doesn't turn into a partisan battlefield like so many other places.


    Although I must admit to be amused at the notion that i'm a paid operative.

    Apparently the CPC has loads of them if some of the unhinged left are to be believed!

    I'm doing this for free, anyone know how I could get a cut of that action, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Shawdow writes:

    Then there's the usual suspects with the usual talking points, engaging in the same old back and forth that doesn't really convince anybody of anything i'm afraid.

    I'm just trying to make sure this little corner of the internet that I enjoy doesn't turn into a partisan battlefield like so many other places.


    You mean exactly what you are doing? Are you so beyond partisan that you do not realize you are the one that is constantly coming out with the old and very tired talking points as well as turning this into a partisan battlefield by constantly basically making up stuff (thank yourself most people don't actually call you out more often) and dismissing anyone who has an issue with your obvious tactics as a 'troll'.

    I've been coming to site for quite some time now, and finally decided to post since your nonsense is getting quite annoying. Your hourly posts simply ruin all the education discussion taking place.

    I accept the fact that you'll dismiss this comment as a 'left-wing conspiracy' - but for your own sake, perhaps you should ask yourself why so many people have an issue with you. It's not your politics we're having an issue with...

    ReplyDelete
  65. "but for your own sake, perhaps you should ask yourself why so many people have an issue with you. It's not your politics we're having an issue with..."

    Sigh.

    Left wing trolls gang up and try to drown out people they disagree with.

    If I got a bunch of right wing trolls to do the same, targeting someone it wouldn't mean their opinions were wrong at all.

    Outnumbering someone isn't the same as being right.

    Frankly i'm not at all surprised that more and more trolls would jump into the mix.

    It has nothing to do with me, its just the nature of the internet i'm afraid.

    I know you probably feel good about getting into the fight, taking me on, showing support for your troll buddies but it just makes my case.

    Lets focus on the issues, not the commentators!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hey Shadow/Jesse I was here before you were. I'm a regular. You and I had a debate about the Libertarianism. We disagreed on the potential for the HST to cause political problems for the CPC federally, we disagreed on the tax system, we now disagree on telecom/ foreign ownership. I don't post as much as you but allow me to point out to you that I do qualify as a regular.

    You're saying I shouldn't lecture you? I'm only framing my responses in the language you use. So one once again I've had show you where you were wrong.

    Again let me show you where you are wrong, Shadow. I can discuss issues on here with any other poster and enjoy the conversation. With you I face someone who speaks with certitude that his interpretation of the truth is fact. That's not a debate because debate requires the other party to recognize the points made by the other person involved. You don't engage in that, the recognition of the validity of another's point of view, the most important part of the debate.

    Have you noticed that just about everyone on the blog, including the owner dislikes the manner in which you post. Perhaps you need to pay heed to what others are saying and change the manner in which you frame your points.

    I would welcome a discussion with with you where my point of view is accorded the same value as yours. When you're ready to come down from the mountain and join us regular folks we'll welcome your input.

    Good fortune,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  67. Shadow

    You have completely missed the point of Earl's and Josh's comments.

    You are completely dismissive of anybody who has a different opinion than yourself.

    It's OK I get it

    Dismissing someone as a troll in your mind doesn't make their arguments any less valid.

    I have a pretty good guess what you are going to post back, so I won't wait for it.

    I'm going to bed

    ReplyDelete
  68. Kevin I think you missed the point.

    Go back where I responded to this.

    There is a lot of things about your partisan always take the Liberal line that annoys me.

    Then you accuse Conservatives of being blinded by ideology, not caring about children's daycare or women dying.

    You run on talking points only and refuse to acknowledge the other side is right.

    (See, people make these sort of complaints about anyone.

    And then they can get a troll, a concern troll, and everybody to pile on and you have a good old fashioned partisan food fight.)


    This is why we should stick to the ISSUES and not the COMMENTATORS.


    If you don't like someone's style then don't respond to them and don't read their comments !


    Lol, its that simple. I'm amazed Earl isn't getting it. I really, really am.

    It just makes him so so incredibly petty. Like a grumpy old man going around lecturing to people.

    Have some humility dude, people don't need lectures.

    And I have yet to see a comment from "Jesse" on these boards but i'm guessing Earl hates all CPCrs or something.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Shawdow writes:

    Left wing trolls gang up and try to drown out people they disagree with.

    Outnumbering someone isn't the same as being right.

    Frankly i'm not at all surprised that more and more trolls would jump into the mix.

    I know you probably feel good about getting into the fight, taking me on, showing support for your troll buddies but it just makes my case.


    Thank you for proving my point. Yes Shawdow, we're all just left-wing trolls and you're just a sweet little innocent victim. Cue the sad dramatic music...

    Amazing how quickly you play the victim card when people call you out. Are you sure you aren't with the NDP?

    Start making sense, get a back-bone and accept your numerous flaws without blaming everyone else, stop flooding the boards with falsehoods and typical talking points, and perhaps then the seemingly ever-increasing amount of people who have an issue with your nonsense just might start respecting you a bit more.

    Stop being a victim - it's quite pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  70. John is there a reason your spelling my tag wrong ?

    I'm sure its some joke that's going way over my head or something!

    Anywho, i'm just here trying to talk to some of the board regulars about what's happening in the political world.

    Not sure why all the trolls had to jump in and ruin things for the rest of us regulars!


    If you think i'm saying something false or am spouting a talking point here's a great idea:

    Quote me. Provide evidence i'm wrong.

    ITS THAT SIMPLE!

    The fact that people won't/can't and instead engage in these blanket attacks on my character betrays their inability to dispute what i'm saying.

    Its frustration. Pent up anger at being wrong and knowing it.

    Sad, just sad.

    But I guess that's what all trolls are about isn't it? Not intellectually capable to engage with people so they do juvenile little things like repeatedly spelling somebody's tag wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Actually Shadow, we share many of the same beliefs:

    I'm a member of the CPC.

    Although I see things I think he should have done differently, I think Stephen Harper has provided the nation with competent government.

    As for the Shadow/Jesse, thing I'm not stupid. Jesse was told not to post here anymore. Within hours you showed up. Your writing style is identical as are your talking points. If you're not Jesse then the coincidence is amazing. It's the style of writing that is the give away.

    I'd be interested in what some of the others think.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ummm Earl the only thing I know about you is that you're the guy who said I needed to learn how to provide my sources.

    These kind of "i'm right, i'm the wise old sage, everybody else is wrong" lessons you lecture at people aren't helpful.


    Anyways, hope the trolls aren't out for the EKOS update tommorow morning !

    ReplyDelete
  73. Shadow writes;

    But I guess that's what all trolls are about isn't it? Not intellectually capable to engage with people so they do juvenile little things like repeatedly spelling somebody's tag wrong.

    LOL - I hadn't even noticed the misspelling of your name. The fact that you did, and are seemingly obsessed with it says way more about you than it does about me.

    The only person who ruined the discussions on these blogs is you. You interject yourself in every conversation with your typical misrepresentations, accusations, and downright false information, then you scream like a two year old when people call you out.

    A sad, sad victim.

    Don't disparage the others by calling yourself a regular. You are simply a troll with some talking points that is bent on disrupting actual conversations. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Conversations used to be really interesting around here between conservatives and liberals until you came along and started with your nonsense.

    Coincidentally you appeared minutes after Jesse was booted from here.

    I like many others have simply have had it with you. From now on I'll be acting as your official shadow (or shawdow if you prefer) - when you need to be put back in your place, I'll do so, which unfortunately seems to be all the time.

    Eventually, when you tire of being called out for nonsense, you just might start making some sense and earning out respect.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Shadow writes:

    Anyways, hope the trolls aren't out for the EKOS update tommorow morning !

    No kidding - please stay away tomorrow!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Shadow writes;

    Quote me. Provide evidence i'm wrong.

    Sure - I'll play along for a bit simply using your first of many posts on this story.

    09 February, 2010 14:50

    Or even more cynical and probably more accurate, Richard Nixon is the American politician that the oppositions wants Canadians to think Harper is like.

    Prove it.

    09 February, 2010 14:59

    I know Liberal partisans have a vested interest in creating anti-Harper sentiment and divisions (ex. Baird leadership website, Iggy courting Mulroney).

    And I know certain media figures buy into this notion that he needs a majority or will be forced to resign.


    Prove it.

    That's just from your first two posts of this story... Filled with hearsay and speculation. Something only a troll would do by trying to invent 'facts' to misdirect a conversation or falsely support ones own point.

    Please provide proof of the above - you state "I know" - now is the time to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I'm sorry you don't understand subjective analysis Josh.

    This isn't science, we don't assert facts and they are right or wrong. Everybody is just sharing their opinion here.

    Also, please don't do the standard filibuster trick which is to say "prove it" to things that educated people generally know about and know to be true. Its a trick because nobody has time to track down the specific quotes from old news archives.

    Ok count one.

    Everyone has noticed the media narrative about Harper being secretive, controlling, everything being run out of the PMO.

    A quick web search and you find there are actually articles that have made the comparison before:

    http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=d6e4c2e4-73b8-4822-b213-862f2f72f9fc

    Anyways, if the opposition was going to choose an America politician they wanted Harper to be compared its a NO BRAINER that they'd choose Nixon.


    As for point number 2 the specific actions that Liberals have taken to exagerate divisions between reform vs PC members is obvious.

    It began with Martin appointing "PC" senators. Continued with Ignatieff gloating about being on good terms with all living PMs, while Harper is on good terms with none.

    As for media figures suggesting Harper needs a majority to stay on i'll certainly name one: Craig Oliver, dean of the parliamentary press gallery.

    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.