Friday, February 26, 2010

New Environics Poll: 1-pt Conservative Lead

Environics has released a new poll, showing a closer race than the recent EKOS poll.The Conservatives hold a narrow one-point lead with 31%. The Liberals are at 30%, the NDP at 16%, and the Greens are at 13%.

UPDATE: Comparing this to Environic's February 4-9 poll, we actually see a lot of movement. The Liberals have lost seven points while the Tories are down two. Those go to the Greens (up four) and the NDP (up three). Rarely do we see so much movement between one poll and the next by one pollster, which leads one to believe that the results of one or the other (or both) were somewhere near the outside of the MOE.

In Ontario, the Liberals are well ahead with 38% (down six) to the Tories' 33% (down two). The NDP is doing alright at 16% (up four).

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has a good lead with 37% (up one) to the Liberals' 28% (down seven). The Conservatives are at a dismal 12% (down two), though that same number for the NDP is strong (and up four).

In British Columbia, the Conservatives are doing better with 37% (up four), while the NDP and Greens are tied at 21% (only a three point gain for the Greens) and the Liberals are at 19% (down nine). A little odd, but this is a relatively smaller poll.

The Alberta numbers show a little of the MOE as well, with the Liberals at 27%. To be fair, though, this is only up one from the month's earlier poll. What we do know is that they are doing well in the province anyway.

The Conservatives would win 121 seats with this poll, 73 of them out West. Only 36 come from Ontario, 3 from Quebec, and 9 from Atlantic Canada.

The Liberals win 106 seats, 13 of them coming from the West, 56 in Ontario, 19 in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada.

The NDP wins 29 seats, 8 out West, 14 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 5 in Atlantic Canada.

The Bloc wins 51 seats, increasing their current caucus. The Greens also win one seat in British Columbia.

Another data-point, but this one shows a closer race. There is a lot of variation between this poll and the one by Environic's earlier this month, which leads one to believe that a lot of this movement is due to the MOE.

Note: like EKOS, Environics prompts the party names. Unlike EKOS, they don't prompt for "Other". This clearly makes a difference.

251 comments:

  1. Eric,

    What would the green seat in BC be? The one that Elizabeth May said she would be running in?

    Rocky

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, we can assume that. But, as you know, my projection doesn't work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That error looks really high, Green at 21% even in BC. I'm sure the next Nanos poll should correct things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I figured that would be a safe assumption. She would be the most high profile of the group any where.

    Rocky

    Also, do you think that Lizzy May should be included in the next leaders debate.

    I don't think she should have because her party doesn't have any seats. I also don't think Gilles Duceppe should be included in the English Debate because most english speaking voters can't vote for him even if they wanted too. In the French debate absolutely, but not English.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think Elizabeth May should be included in the next debate if her party doesn't hold a seat in the House of Commons.

    Gilles Duceppe will remain in both language debates because there are English-speaking voters in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do we need to have separate English and French debates at all??? Why not have a bilingual debate (or two) where questions and answers alternate between being in English and being in French - that way everyone in Canada watches the same debate and its harder for any of the leaders to get away with saying things in French that they know English-speakers won't want to hear and vice-versa!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eric,

    I agree he will remain. I just felt that since he doesn't offer a chance to vote to the majority of English Speaking voters he shouldn't be there.

    Rocky

    ReplyDelete
  8. DL,

    Great point, why not have them altogether.

    I know that I don't watch the French Debates since I don't speak it.

    Rocky

    ReplyDelete
  9. liberals at 28% in Quebec, and 38% in Ontario.... that is still pretty good. where did the 7 point drop come out of??

    The tory's in those 2 provinces looks really bad. Liberals would take back alot of seats in the 905, and the bloc would skim a few in Quebec.

    Noticing the prairie numbers too. Nevvile won by 6%, and Goodale had his 20+% lead of the last 2 elections reduced to a mere 11%. Could the liberals really be wiped out of the prairies having lost another 2% here from Dion's result??


    I must alot point out from the last thread (because it is the same here) That with these seat numbers; while the NDP and liberal numbers do exceed the tory number... they don't add up to a majority. Choosing Lib-NDP and Tory-Bloc is an oversimplification since the Lib-NDP would need the Bloc or tory votes to govern too. In ekos, the tories could still govern as they have with votes from any party (most often the liberals). In the environics, the tories would be dependent on the lib or bloc as the NDP don't hold enough seats to get the tories to 154.

    ReplyDelete
  10. More on equalization and why the "rich" provinces have less in the way of public services:

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/02/25/13031046.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know this is a stupid question,.... But why only 2 debates, 1 french 1 english??

    Why not 1 a week? 2 a week? Can you possibly learn all you need to know about the myriad of policies from each and every party in only a couple hours?

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is another possibility. If the Tories don't want the Bloc to have any power whatsoever - they can step in and vote confidence in the Liberal/NDP accord government and isolate the BQ in opposition. Its not as if we have never had the official opposition voting confidence in the government - the Liberals have done it 80-odd times in the last few years and the Tories under Harper voted for the first Martin budget.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "the Liberals have done it 80-odd times in the last few years"

    no, they have done it 80 odd times under each leader Dion, then again under Iggy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Barcs

    Hey pal

    Re the last thread

    You watch ice dancing?????

    Geez

    My congrats to you though, nobody I know would have the courage to admit that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Éric - usually when a new poll comes out you compare it to the last poll by that same company in order to make an apples-to-apples comparison of changes in popular support.

    But you didn't do that here. Instead you compared it to the last Ekos poll, which seems like a nonsensical choice to me.

    You've completely ignored the 7 point drop the Liberals just had from one Environics poll to the next.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now that I've seen these two polls from Environics, I think there was good reason behind some of the concerns people raised about that other poll. I didn't feel it appropriate to compare the two, as the one from earlier this month could have been, in fact, a bit of a push poll.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But you know what? You're right - I mistakenly thought that the details of the last one were only released through CAITI. They were not, and were released on the Environics site, so they are comparable.

    I will update the post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You watch ice dancing?????

    Geez

    My congrats to you though, nobody I know would have the courage to admit that."

    ....... Once again showing the difference between the left preaching tolerance... and how tolerant they actually are. ty

    ReplyDelete
  19. Every group has their idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eric that's a great observation.

    I wish you had made such an observation at some point during the last couple weeks when people were posting about how the CPC are evangelical monsters waiting for the end of days and on the rampage to take everyone's condoms away and let women bleed out in the third world from botched abortions.


    If you want to maintain the appearance of being fair and balanced it would go a long way if you could call out some of the lefty board members when they go off the deep end too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Left Winger/Barcs,

    Re: Ice dancing

    I promise, that after reading only 2 short paragraphs, you will see Andrew Coyne in a different light.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ice dance ?

    I skipped most of it. The costumes are horrendous and silly and the routines a bit slow.

    I did watch the gold medal performance of Scott and Tessa though.

    Their outfits weren't distracting, they had some amazing lifts, and they earned their gold.

    They're basically Canada's sweethearts right now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't read every comment in full - I responded this time because Ira caught my attention.

    General comment for everyone - don't be stupid. The other side of the aisle is not evil.

    The level of commenting the last few days has been very good though, save a few disappointing exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for the update, Éric.

    The way it was written before could have given the impression that you were trying to present a biased view (by comparing the polls only selectively rather than according to a consistent standard).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shadow,

    I'm not a big fan of any figure skating.

    Seeing Coyne describe it as he did, just made me think of his a bit differently.

    The man comes across dry, and cynical most times.

    It's nice to see such "courage". (as Left Winger would say)

    Perhaps some are more secure in thier masculinity, then others.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lol AJR79 allow me some deconstruction on Coyne's writing.

    I laughed at the metrosexual tag a commenter gave him and your wink and nod because in actuality he's expressing admiration for the heteronormativity of the sport, hence the reference to the pre-sexual revolution pair Hepburn-Tracy.

    The world of profesional dance, especially ballroom is heavily influenced by latin culture. You can see the machismo oozing out of the pasodoble, or the sexual nature of the tango.

    As Coyne points out dance is complementary and involves different roles, classic male female gender roles in fact.

    Women don't have the strength to lift men and men aren't gracefull or light enough to be lifted.

    Pairs dance celebrates feminity in women but obliterates feminism as such. It demands masculinity, even hypermasculinity (see Scott's second dance) in men.

    Dancing and figure skating does have a reputation for gayness in North America and men's singles certainly seems that way at times.

    But Ice Dance is a profoundly straight sport.

    Not that there's anything wrong with any of it, its just how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  27. OK, I'll rise to the bait.

    Rocky: I don't think [Elizabeth May should be in the next leaders' debate] because her party doesn't have any seats. I also don't think Gilles Duceppe should be included in the English Debate because most english speaking voters can't vote for him even if they wanted too. In the French debate absolutely, but not English.

    Éric: I don't think Elizabeth May should be included in the next debate if her party doesn't hold a seat in the House of Commons.

    Gilles Duceppe will remain in both language debates because there are English-speaking voters in Quebec.


    The election is about the future, not the past; the seat count in the previous Parliament is not a relevant metric. Forecast voting intent is. There are five significant parties today with five leaders and voters deserve to know where those leaders stand.

    It's to the tactical advantage of the other parties to muffle May and the Greens, but that would be an affront to the voters and to democracy. It would also lessen the regulars at ThreeHundredEight. You need to listen to Elizabeth just to understand why you disagree with her. (Or perish the thought, you might even agree at times.)

    In the next election the Green Party will be fourth by percentage of votes, closely behind the NDP. One or more Green MPs will probably be elected. (Your crystal ball may display different results, but I believe mine is well-calibrated.) The discussion about including or excluding Elizabeth May in the debates is (thankfully) now past history. She'll be there because the other leaders are still wringing the egg out of their face towels from the last election.

    But I'll admit, it's always nice to have a reliably yankable chain...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Éric: The level of commenting the last few days has been very good though, save a few disappointing exceptions.

    I will second that. Of special note, Shadow has not only behaved well, but refused to rise to the bait when poked by others on several occasions. Thank you.

    Long may this last.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I like John's eternally optimistic view of the Greens getting more votes than the Bloc, or anywhere close to the NDP. I remember when I had to survive on such far off hopes concerning Dion and premiership. XD

    But, he is right about May's participation in the debates. Lord knows I find her an unbearable shrew, but May is the leader of a major party in Canada, one that does have the potential to gain seats in the House. She deserves her spot at the table/podium, just as Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton do, even though no one expects them to be government parties. We're an inclusive democracy, which means we must listen even to the nutbars from the Green Party.

    ReplyDelete
  30. --- "I will second that. Of special note, Shadow has not only behaved well, but refused to rise to the bait when poked by others on several occasions. Thank you."

    Indeed, the boys in blue have been the good guys these past few days.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And red team, at least the regulars, have been good too.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I feel like I should be sporting a big red jersey right about now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Volkov,

    Sorry if off topic.

    But wtf with Guergis

    What do you know

    ReplyDelete
  34. Volkov there's nothing wrong with eternal optimism.

    I happen to think the Liberal party will dissapear and we'll have a polarized left-right split between the NDP and the Conservatives.

    Others happen to believe that the CPC will split in half.

    Politics is so unpredictable that I wouldn't rule out anything, even the Greens getting seats and becoming a major force in Canada politics.


    As for debates I think we should have an english and a french debate where all leaders including Green outline their party platforms.

    And then a second set of english and french debates where Ignatieff, Harper, and maybe Layton depending on his parties support outline what they would do as PM.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 49 Steps,

    I know what everyone else does, essentially. Guergis had a hissy fit at the Charlottetown airport, and I suspect either a worker, or at least a fellow traveller, sent off a letter to Liberal MP Wayne Easter, a guy who's pretty funny if you ever get the chance to meet him. It lists how Guergis called either the airport or PEI a "shithole," slammed things down and was rude to everyone that bothered to come within 10 feet of her.

    What I know of Guergis herself, she's always been rumoured to have a temper. Some staffers in her ministry, the Status of Women, have complained in the past about her attitude towards them and her colleagues. Anita Neville, the Liberal critic, has also said something, I can't remember what, about Guergis' character, though it might be totally unrelated.

    I don't know where the Conservatives find these people, but they all have tempers or issues. Deb Grey was another Reformer known to have a temper. It's like the Conservatives are a magnet for the eternally angry.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think putting May in the debates when her party has no seats to be inconsistent with history.

    There was no widespread support for allowing Preston Manning into the debates in 1988, though once the Reform Party won a seat in 1989 they were permitted to join the debates (though there was some discussion about permitting Manning or Bouchard to take part in 1993). During the 1993 campaign, the Reform Party was polling at 6-7% - far lower than the poll results for the Greens today, but the standard that got them a seat at the debate was that they had a seat in the House of Commons.

    The standard has been set. Changing it now would be a manipulation of the electoral process.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I saw that Eric. I don't know whats going on. Someone's effed up, though.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pairs dance celebrates feminity in women but obliterates feminism as such.
    Really? I thought they both get a gold medal if they win. Celebrating femininity has nothing to do with feminism. If I put on a kilt and toss a few cabers around, is my celebration of my heritage therefore obliterating my ability to enjoy the freedoms of modern life?

    Feminism just means that if the two in an ice dance pair might be dating each other, it is only a sidebar, not a panic over her chasteness. They could be dating other people and it raises little comment.

    The only attempt at obliterating feminism was from some sour grapes bonehead complaining that drinking beer and smoking cigars after winning a gold medal in hockey wasn't ladylike enough.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ira,

    It isn't an "electoral standard," by any stretch of the imagination. It's a voluntary standard decided upon by the networks which host the debates; electoral law has nothing to do with it. May has already been in the debates, and her party is always polling a consistent amount above 5%, and sometimes above 10%. To keep them out of the debates now is to be cancelling the voice of 10% of the population. It isn't right, "electoral standard" be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Volkov,

    She is only a junior cabinet minister right?

    If this is all true, why would Harper wan't to keep her around in that position.

    Surely there must be more qualified conservative women than her.

    I have seen Wayne Easter on TV, he does seem like quite a witty guy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't know where the Conservatives find these people, but they all have tempers or issues. Deb Grey was another Reformer known to have a temper. It's like the Conservatives are a magnet for the eternally angry.
    I agree, but we also hear Paul Martin would read the riot act daily.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Re: John

    Standards are not hard and fast in our processes, so I think it may be appropriate to try for a different standard in the debates this time. While some people certainly appreciate what May added to the debate, and voted for them, the party ended up still without any seats anywhere. Maybe the party should have to demonstrate a greater likelihood of impact, (through higher levels of polled support) before being allowed in this time.

    That Environics poll being out of line isn't a big surprise.
    ~
    Also, Ice Dancing can appear pretty athletic at times. It's not bad.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eric,

    Feshcuks amusing (as he almost always is), take on the Yanks and Fins.

    My favourite so far
    "10:08 The revised Finnish gameplan now seems to consists of making meek, half-hearted attempts at body contact. Memo to Finland: I tried this on girls during high school parties and it never works!"

    Too drole.(sic?)

    ReplyDelete
  44. 49 Steps,

    Wayne Easter is great. He came to the Niagara region awhile back, and during a little town hall meeting, he was talking about how he, a guy who was arrested for protesting with some farmers, became Attorney General. He's got tonnes of stories like that.

    Anyways, Guergis is a junior minister, yes, though I don't know if there are any more qualified women in the caucus to take her place. Like Lisa Raitt, she isn't unqualified; just incompetent, or lacking in any sort of ethical backbone. If she was replaced, who would replace her? None of the other Conservative caucus women are truly qualified, at least none that are already with a portfolio. Its a party mostly devoid of true expertise, to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Volkov,

    Sorry for second post.

    From what I understand she tried to break through a security door?

    I am sorry but if I did that at an airport they would haul my sorry butt on outta there.

    Probably in handcuffs

    ReplyDelete
  46. liberal supporter,

    That's true, but that caucus back in the 38th Parliament... that was a caucus from Hell. I don't know what was going on back then. That was before I was into politics, and I remember seeing the news and asking myself how the hell these people are expected to govern.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 49 Steps,

    I don't remember seeing anything about her trying to get through a security door, just that she was slamming things down and yelling at people. She was angry that she had to wait, and that the security officials were holding her up, and she said something to the effect of "I'm working my ass off for you, don't lecture me" to airport officials.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Volkov,

    Re:"I don't know if there are any more qualified women in the caucus to take her place."

    Diane Ablonczy ring any bells?

    ReplyDelete
  49. AJR79,

    Not I said that there aren't any more qualified women in the caucus that don't already have a portfolio. Ablonczy has a portfolio.

    ReplyDelete
  50. AJR 79

    Ablonczy, is a very well qualified woman. Smart and savvy.

    However isn't she in the Harper doghouse over funding of a pride parade?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ablonczy would make a good Conservative leader, after Harper flitters away. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 49 Steps,

    Yes, I believe that she was thrown under the bus, at the behest of on Charles McVety.

    One of the more shameful moments of the CPC bowing to the religious right IMHO.

    Volkov,

    The portfolio she has now is beneath her. She is more then capable of taking on extra.

    I hope to see her move back up the totem pole next shuffle.

    As for a CPC leader...

    I'm not seeing it, but I'm a big Jim Prentice fan anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  53. That should be "one" Charles McVety of course.

    If there was ever a guy that I wish would just go away...

    ReplyDelete
  54. AJR79,

    Oh, I agree. I don't know why she wasn't placed in a better portfolio to begin with. She is a fully capable minister, and one that does Calgary proud. I've heard that she's more loved in the city than Harper!

    Jim Prentice, eh, I think he'd be a good choice, but he hasn't impressed me at all in his various positions. Ablonczy has, the problem is that she seems about as mousy as Dion.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Prentice is the Mr.Fixit of the CPC.

    If you look at the Ministries he has headed, it's easy to see that he gets the tough assignments...
    and handles them well.

    I like him for all sorts of other reasons too.

    I think his social views are alot more inline with mainstream Canada, and he could well get the majority that has (thus far) eluded Harper.

    To be clear, I'm not in any hurry for Harper to step down.

    The succession may be messy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ablonczy got a promotion recently didn't she ?

    She's in charge of the seniors portfolio now I think. They're a huge part of the CPC base and with an aging population its a very sensitive file.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Good points, AJR

    Shadow,

    Don't kid yourself; Ablonczy was demoted. Her last portfolio was Small Business and Tourism - oodles above Seniors in terms of contracts, of contacts, of influence, etc. The Minister of State for Seniors is little more than a lip service portfolio.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I went to school with Diane Ablonczy's daughter, and then later I worked with Diane. She's good people.

    I don't think she'd make a good leader, though. She doesn't have the voice for it. Deb Grey's voice was never shrill, even when she was angry. Diane's voice can be shrill. Shrill doesn't sell.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Kell McParland spinning away at the Guergis story.

    I didn't know it was her birthday thou.

    ReplyDelete
  60. AJR79,

    Wow, there's more spin there than an Iranian centrifuge.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hi Liberatl Supporter.

    I completely agree with you on the women's hockey team.

    I had a good chuckle and said "good for them" when I saw the pictures.

    Someone should give the IOC the finger for their typical anti-smoking blather and alcohol is evil nanny state nonsense.

    The only thing that gave me pause was the underage drinking which is against BC law until 19.

    "Celebrating femininity has nothing to do with feminism."

    You misunderstand, I wasn't refering to the social/political rights of women, something that is almost universally supported in the west.

    I was refering to theories of feminism that believe gender identity is meaningless, that men and women should be thought of as indistinguishable equals in all ways including their fundemental nature.

    If those theories were applied two women would dance together or two men or the women would lead and pick up the man.

    In that sense pairs dance is retrograde because it holds up traditional gender roles.

    Coyne, much of the population, and I find something comforting and enjoyable about that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. That was a nice story in the post.

    However it still seems like pretty appalling behaviour.

    We all get the gears at the airport. Maybe she should have arrived 2 hours before as advised, for a flight instead of 10 minutes.

    The Globe and Mail is reporting that she did try and push through a security door.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 49 Steps,

    You can see the letter from the complainant here: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/helena-guergiss-adventures-in-prince-edward-island.html

    I think what they meant was that Guergis attempted to walk through the metal detector with her shoes on, despite being warned that her shows would set it off, and that she had to remove them. That's the only thing I can see relating to that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's entirely possible some of the women's hockey team were unaware of BC's drinking age. The team lives and trains in Alberta, where the age is lower.

    I'm also not sure whether persons under 19 are actually prohibited from drinking. I know in Alberta the restriction is only on then buying liquor or being served liquor in restaurants - but drinking at home is legal. So what the law is on this specific instance I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Volkov,

    You are right.

    That's what happened.

    From some of the articles I have read airport employees are saying she is the worst they have ever encountered.

    What rude and disrespectful, behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  66. One more suggestion from the NP roles from me:

    John Ivison has been in fine form this week, and provides a pretty good overview of where things stand going into the spring session.

    IMHO, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Also, in an attempt to throw out my shoulder patting myself on the back...

    Wasn't some fellow around these parts predicting that the prorogation anger would wane by the time "Olympic Mens Hockey Tournament" was over?

    It will take a few more polls to be sure, but then I think that fellow deserves the gold metal for political prognostications.

    P.S.
    I know I can be a pompus ass, so don't bother telling me what I already know.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh, and I give a full pardon to the womans hockey team.
    (am I not merciful?)

    They've done Canada proud.

    The IOC can go pound sand.

    This is Canada baby, and this is how we celebrate!

    You go, girls.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I don't think anyone in Canada is actually offended by the celebration.

    Even the under-age drinking - come on. She's of age in several provinces in Canada, and who among us who lived on the Ottawa River didn't skip over to the other side when we were 16 or 17?

    ReplyDelete
  70. To resolve the debate, two is not enough. Why not lump them into categories that share similiar concerns with geographical context.
    The North (1), West (1), Ontario (1), Quebec (1), East (1). Five debates. (3-4 allow for spokesperson switch out leader for designate in party)

    Leave that to party, like penalty shot.

    Gilles only participates in one and Liz none until her party wins a seat. Many of us don't want to see 10 fringe parties with no chance of winning one seat on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Éric: I don't think anyone in Canada is actually offended by the celebration.

    Well, the Tory, Grit and Bloc views seem to be that the on-ice celebration was fine. We haven't heard from the Dippers yet, but I have my suspicions about DL's thoughts. To round out the spectrum, the champagne on ice raised the women's team even higher in this Green's estimation.

    National unity. It can be found.

    ReplyDelete
  72. CanadianSense: Many of us don't want to see 10 fringe parties with no chance of winning one seat on TV.

    It scarcely bears pointing out, but this is a meaningless argument, especially in a forum dedicated to polls. There are five major parties and only five. On a close day, the largest polls two and a half times the smallest. Fringe parties aren't in the equation.

    As I've observed earlier, the weakness of the Green party is its broad appeal. Other parties win disproportionate numbers of seats because of their regionalism. That's no reason to hide the Greens from voters, even though this may appeal to some people for tactical reasons.

    A tactical approach makes for bad government and bad democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The IOC has concluded its investigation. Their major finding is that the team was indeed drinking Canadian beer. No word on whether the cigars were Cuban to piss off the silver medalists, but this was outside the scope of the investigation. It has also been determined that the person attempting to drive the Zamboni could not have been legally impaired at that point. Finally, under age drinker did not buy the beer and was not served the beer. She apparently found it brought it from Alberta where it had been legally obtained and therefore no laws were broken.

    (full disclosure: I made up the above)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Hi Ira.

    I know (from experience) that the police in BC can force you to discard your alcohol if you're underaged (tip anything open, they take anything unopened).

    But i've never heard of anyone getting arrested or ticketed for under age drinking.

    So maybe its against the law but there's no penalty other than a stern talking to ??

    ReplyDelete
  75. In response to Rocky and Éric who don't think that the Greens should be in the Leader's debate because the party doesn't have any seats: In the 1988 federal election, the Bloc Quebecois didn't have any seats in Parliament. Despite this, the party that only ran 75 candidates out of 295 ridings was included in both French and English debates.

    Canadians deserve to hear the perspective from the party that garnered more that 940,000 votes in the last Federal election and that has fielded candidates from coast to coast to coast.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Marls

    I believe the BLOC was founded in 1991.

    Shadow help me out is that right.

    ReplyDelete
  77. It occurs to me that the Grenes at 21%, and the Liberals at 2008's 19%, there would be more than one seat in play for the Greens than just one. I'm thinking Saanich-Gulf Islands, Vancouver Centre, even Victoria would be tipping at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 49 Steps,

    That is correct. :D

    The Bloc Quebecois was founded originally as a parliamentary caucus in 1991. So there was no way for them to have had positions at the debates in 1988.

    1993 is a different matter completely. At that time, the Bloc had 8 members, including one that was elected sort-of under its banner, namely Gilles Duceppe

    ReplyDelete
  79. Volkov,

    You think Hedy Fry could get knocked off by the greens?

    ReplyDelete
  80. John you have your definition of fringe and I have mine. You believe 5-6% is a significant movement and is entitled to share the stage with parties that have over 25 seats in the HOC.

    Again to clarify my opinion, I think the Bloc should only participate in the Quebec debate until they win seats outside QC. I would prefer Regional Debate and more of them without a distraction of the Liberal lite party aka Greens.

    ReplyDelete
  81. 29 Steps,

    No, Hedy is too stubborn to knock off. However, that doesn't matter in terms of polling numbers; Adriane Carr had a pretty good result in 2008, and since she's running again, with the Greens at 21%, I'd expect her to at least come in second, if not knock off Hedy with numbers only.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Andrew Coyne is at it again, with another article about gender in the Olympics.

    Cat, meet pigeons.

    ReplyDelete
  83. AJR 79

    Don't think i'll touch that one.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Volkov,

    Do you think the Green numbers are real.

    Or are they just a giant parking lot?

    (Sorry John)

    ReplyDelete
  85. 49 Steps,

    Mostly parking lot. The Green Party's strength is mostly exaggerated, but that doesn't mean it is completely over-the-top. I'm sure strengthened numbers for the Greens, in the 10-15% range, will elevate the Greens to maybe 7-10%. It isn't as if the Greens are completely devoid of support. But, otherwise, the Green numbers are too high to be real. Just like 27% in Alberta for the Liberals is just a wee bit too high for reality.

    Come election time, strategic voting and general apathy will down the Greens from 15% to 8%. I mean, the entire Green strategy is centered around that impending result; hence why they're trying to focus resources on only certain ridings - well, who am I kidding, just one - instead of the 308 strategy, because they know strategic voting will rob them of those votes anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I'm surprised that Dmitri Soudas and the rest of the CPC Attack Machine is not slamming the Charlottetown airport security staff of having a Liberal, nanny-state entitlement mentality for daring to interfere with the tantrums of a Glorious Member of Canada's New Government (TM).

    ReplyDelete
  87. Hey Volkov, 49 steps regarding the greens as parking lot its possible there's some bleed over from the provincial scene in BC.

    People are angry at Campbell over the HST but nobody trusts NDP except their base so third and fourth parties like the Greens and Conservatives are surging.

    I'm not saying people are stupid but look at the "Other" numbers in Alberta for EKOS and its clear that Stelmach is skewing the sample.

    Maybe that's why Greens seem high in BC ?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Volkov,

    I don't think May is much of an asset anymore for the greens.

    I think you said you found her shrewish. I just find her annoying.

    By all means let her in the debate, I don't think she's wearing well.

    Dr Cynic Give them time

    ReplyDelete
  89. Wow this could change a lot about Canada-Quebec relations:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/quebec-shale-gas-find-could-redraw-canadas-energy-map/article1478900/

    Have not provinces should be encouraged to develop these resources.

    It would go a long way towards easing up the resentment of BC/Alberta.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Shadow,

    Eh, I thought about that possibility, but the last BC poll I saw didn't have the Greens making great strides at the expense of anyone. It's a possibility, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on it. We'll need to see some recent BC provincial numbers to see, I suppose.

    49 Steps,

    There is a movement within the Green Party to get rid of May, which I think is probably well deserved. She is a nice lady and I don't think all her ideas are horrid, but I can only think of one word when I see or hear her: shrew. She doesn't seem too electable, either. She'd be out of place in the House.

    Now, the person to watch is Frank De Jong. He's going to be challenging May for the leadership, and this guy is about as far right as Preston Manning. But he makes sense and he has clear ideas; that's why he managed to bring the Ontario Greens from complete fringe party, to nearly 9% of the vote in 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Volkov wasn't the previous Green party leader someone who leaned to the right too ?

    Didn't make much of a dent back then though.

    I think the blogger Blue Green (who sometimes comments here) has been teasing a new candidate for leaderhsip.

    All I know about is that she's female haven't heard if that went anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Shadow,

    Jim Harris was right-wing, but he was never as popular or as clear as De Jong. If I were in any way involved with the Greens, or wanted to be, I'd hedge my bets on De Jong being the best leader for the Greens. Not because I necessarily agree with his politics, but I know he'd be an extremely competent leader.

    I see Blue Green's blog sometimes, and I'm interested in this candidate as well, though I'd have no clue who she would be. Please, please, don't say its Adriane Carr.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Volkov i've always found Adriane Carr to be angry and shrill.

    She doesn't deserve to share the name of beloved Western painter Emily Carr.


    About De Jong, wouldn't an Ontario leader be a waste when the Green's greatest strength is in the lower mainland and the island ?

    Do they really have a shot at winning a seat in any Ontario ridings ?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Shadow,

    Oh, yes, they certainly do! I can name a few; Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound is both provincially and federally a strong Green seat, with candidates nearing 30% of the vote; Guelph is a strong riding for the Greens, especially near the university; Ottawa Centre is pretty good; a lot of the downtown Toronto ridings have strong Green leanings; and a few more. Ontario itself is either tied or slightly under Alberta in terms of where the second largest amount of Green support crops up.

    De Jong would really improve on that. BC is great, but Ontario is ripe for the picking as well. I think something like 3/5 best ridings in 2008, outside of Central Nova, for the Greens, were in Ontario.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hey Volkov you're right. I looked up and the top five were NS, ON (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound), ON (Guelph), BC, BC in '08.

    Bruce-Grey-Owen sound was number 1 in '06.

    So why on earth wouldn't Elizabeth May have run there in '08 and why isn't she doing so this year ??

    She does need to be replaced for being so tactically stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Shadow,

    Well, she ran in Central Nova in '08 because she thought she could pull it off against MacKay, given that she is from the area, and that Nova Scotia isn't like Newfoundland, and a complete wasteland for the Greens. I mean, she did manage to get 32-34% of the vote.

    But, I have no idea why she didn't go there this time. BGOS is a great riding for the Greens; its provincially strong, its structurally supportive of them, and its MP is a backbencher. It seems like the perfect riding, but no, she goes off to BC.

    I have a theory, though. Shane Jolley, the candidate in '06 and provincially in '07, as well as a rumoured leadership candidate for the Green Party of Ontario before he dropped out, is probably going to try another run federally. He's popular, he's known, and he has influence. I bet that either the Green leadership didn't want to mess up his chance, or the Greens in Ontario raised hell in order to stop May from taking up root there, because she would have taken over the entire riding, brought in her own people, shoved out the current association and Jolley, etc. That's my guess.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Volkov I know Eric's projections sometimes show a Green win but he obviously goes off polls alone and not fundraising, organization, quality of candidates, etc.

    So do you honestly think they are going to win a seat next election ?

    I'm looking at the numbers and just not seeing it.


    What i'm wondering is at what point do they stop being relevent? Every year is the Green breakthrough year. They're the favourite under dog of the media.

    If they don't do anything this year I think they should be completely and utterly ignored from then on.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Possible Election Trigger:

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/privilegewatch-do-not-taunt-happy-fun-parliament.html

    http://tinyurl.com/yf8lfe3

    ReplyDelete
  99. Shadow,

    The Greens aren't too bad with fundraising, in all honesty, its just that they don't raise that much, and they aren't really organized in the ways the bigger parties are.

    So, the Greens can raise money. They can also funnel it properly, granted if they get their act together organizationally. Right now, I think they're doing exactly that, except they're doing it in a way that I don't think is very productive, in that they're sending all the resources to May in SGI, in order to get her elected. I don't think people like that, and I don't think its conducive to building the Green brand in areas where they can win, which is what they need to do, instead of just focusing on getting May elected.

    But, even if the Greens don't get an elected representative next election, they won't go away. They are, federally and in a few provinces, big parties with influence. You can't ignore them, because they will be loud. But, rest assured that if there is no breakthrough soon, the movement itself will probably die down, meaning that you won't have to ignore them - they'll just disappear themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hi Earl,

    Looks like the opposition is going to push the Afghan detainee issue.

    They wan't those unredacted documents.

    It seems that that there also accusing Minister Mckay of lieing to parliament.

    We will have to see how hard the opposition is willing to push this.

    And how hard the conservatives are willing to push back.

    Things could get nasty

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi Earl, that motion is deeply dissapointing.

    The Liberals as the official opposition and a once responsible party should work with the government and should designate a small group of MPs who are trusted to view classified documents in their unredacted state.

    Frankly I don't trust the NDP or the BQ and don't want them viewing anything to do with national security. They'd violate the Security of Information Act in a second.

    A small working group of Liberal and Conservative MPs should be given full access to the documents off camera and off the record.

    Then they can make any motions or introduce any legislation they wish after viewing the material, including a motion that the speaker rule that any or all parts of the documents become public record.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Earl

    http://tinyurl.com/yf8lfe3

    Yes I posted that on the Ekos thread. This is a very important measure simply because it will finally and clearly lay out the power of Parliament over the Executive.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Shadow:

    "The Liberals as the official opposition and a once responsible party should work with the government and should designate a small group of MPs who are trusted to view classified documents in their unredacted state."

    The issue here is NOT the documents but IS the Govt's refusal to bend to the power of Parliament. Parliament has to be supreme in our system, there can be no exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Peter this is not some grand case of parliament vs the executive.

    What is holding the documents back is a legal dispute over how the Security of Information Act applies to parliamentary privelege.

    This is parliament vs parliament.

    The opposition should ask for legal clariication from the Supreme Court before it goes off and starts holding people in contempt.

    OR the Liberal party should act responsibly and negotiate a solution with the Conservatives.

    The fact that the Liberals are teaming up with their coalition buddies instead of acting like a responsible governing party is deeply dissapointing.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Peter another solution would be to simply pass legislation ammending Canada's laws to clarify that no pre-existing law limits parliamentary privelege in any way, shape, or form.

    Be patient and send that through first, second, third reading and the senate and you'll have your documents.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Fringe parties aren't in the equation."

    I dunno. as far as polling goes.. only the green fringe party is. We have seen the difference in polsters that prompt names, and those that don't. Its somewhere between a 3 and 8% swing for the greens depending on if someone mentions their name in the interview.

    What would it be if the other fringe parties were mentioned? would they get in to the more then 1% group?? Would all the parking votes that the greens receive move?

    Atleast the greens have come up with a real platform in recent elections. I can give kudos to May and her immediate predecessor for that. The first couple elections they were little more than a lobby group spending the candidate fee to get a little publicity for their cause. Since then they have graduated to a fringe party.

    I don't think she should be in the debates (or atleast all the debates) I want to see several debates over the course of the election period. Draw straws or something to vary the 3-4 people who would be in them and find a moderator that keeps them talking about only the parties and policies up for debate within that particular debate.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Shadow:

    "Peter this is not some grand case of parliament vs the executive."

    Sadly you have taken this position which is totally wrong. Parliament trumps any law!! PERIOD

    It is the supreme authority in the land. Like it or lump it it MUST have the authority to compel the executive and to hold it to account. This goes all the way back to Magna Carta.

    By adopting the Tory position you show your lack of knowledge about how our system really works.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Peter that's simply not the case.

    We don't have a parliamentary dictatorship. There are procedural and legal constraints that govern the operation of parliament.

    A previous parliament created a statutory obligation that the government not release these documents by passing the Evidence Act and Security of Info Act.

    If this parliament wants to undo that obligation it MUST follow the established procedures of passing a law that does so or seeking legal clarification from the Supreme Court as to whether or not these acts apply to MPs.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Peter let me put it this way.

    If the house really does have "supreme authority" over the executive then could a simple majority vote disband the defence ministry ?

    No.

    Because ministries are legal entities created by previous parliaments.

    First, second, third reading, moving through the senate, and the signature of the GG are required when changing the law.


    We're not going to get into the practice of ignoring our senate, ignoring our GG, and ignoring our constitution.

    Asking that we do so shows ignorance of how our system works.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Alas no ice dancing today.

    My bad

    Peter you seem like a really smart guy.

    Wasn't there an English king beheaded for defying the will
    of parliament.

    Shadow, still like ya a lot but have to inform you in our system PARLIAMENT IS SUPREME

    ReplyDelete
  111. No Left Winger in our system the constitution is the highest law in the land.

    Parliament is the highest court in the land.

    Courts are bound by the law and must follow it to the letter.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Shadow said...

    We're not going to get into the practice of ignoring our senate, ignoring our GG, and ignoring our constitution.

    Apart from the sudden love-fest that the cons have for the GG for aiding Harper in suspending democracy twice in a year - why do conservatives have nothing but contempt for the other two?

    Why do conservatives feel they are above all those institutions?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Parliament is the highest court in the land.
    I thought the Supreme Court was the highest court in the land. Parliament isn't a court. Courts do not make laws. A court can only "make" law by ruling on cases that are seen to have wide applicability. While Parliament can make any law it likes.

    Still, that is a side discussion to the apparent CPC position. As you claimed before, they will now allow the detainee hearings to continue. If that is true, now we see they are simply throwing a bone, hoping that will be enough to end the problem. As soon as the demand for uncensored documents was renewed, we see the CPC yet again wrapping themselves in the mantle of National Security. Seems like an awful lot of hurdles you would have Parliament jump to get the uncensored documents. I wonder why?

    Frankly I don't trust the NDP or the BQ and don't want them viewing anything to do with national security. They'd violate the Security of Information Act in a second.
    Why not name some names of those who you categorically assert would break the law? Why the coyness? Did someone brief you on libel law?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Shadow

    A little friendly advice.

    Rephrase, and rethink that last statement of yours.

    Please

    ReplyDelete
  115. Liberal Supporter

    Come on now I am really pissed

    I just asked Shadow to do a rethink and a rephrase of his comment in response to me

    You stole all my thunder and ruined all my fun

    Thanks a lot

    (Just joking)

    ReplyDelete
  116. You stole all my thunder and ruined all my fun.
    Worse than that, I have provided him an opportunity to answer one question and ignore the other. It's not like he is the only person who would take advantage of that, but he has shown he is one of them.

    My apologies, LW!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Left:

    "Wasn't there an English king beheaded for defying the will
    of parliament."

    Charles ll if memory serves

    ReplyDelete
  118. Josh

    Really surprised at you pal

    Conservatives only hated the senate
    until they gained a plurality in it.

    Harper can now stuff it with unqualified hacks.

    As for the constitution, well that just gets in the way of their master plans.

    Peter I believe you are right.
    And you were correct in all you points above my congrats.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Charles ll if memory serves.
    Good heavens no! It was Charles I.

    ReplyDelete
  120. The real question is if the Security of Information Act gives the Conservatives the right to withhold the information they are withholding. If it does then Shadow is correct, Parliament must change the law then ask for the documents. Parliament MUST abide by the current law of the land as must the executive. Since the executive is part of Parliament it can be sanctioned by parliament but only if it can be proven that it has indeed broken the current laws.

    Any sanction would likely be referred to the SOC for review of its legality. Even if Parliament holds the government in contempt the entire matter will end up in SOC or an election will be fought on the issue. After the election the the SOC would be wise to rule on the issue in any event. That's the legality of it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Lol Liberal Supporter you're a hoot.

    Libel law ?

    Stating an opinion is not actionable.

    I would need to be asserting a fact. A fact that would both need to be false and that you could prove I knew to be false but said anyways.

    You guys are too much though. I always see libel this, libel that on internet boards. Scott Tribe, over at Macleans, that sort of things.

    Has any politician ever sued an anonymous commenter on a political board in Canadian history ? Lol.


    And to both you and Left Winger I am not planning on changing my statement at all.

    Parliament is considered the highest court in Canada.

    The power to subpoena documents and to hold people in contempt are legal powers.

    You guys really should get your stories straight. The basic premise of Errol Mendes and Derek Lee's arguements is that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over parliament and that parliamentary privelege cannot be diminished by parliament passing a statute.

    The gov't lawyers are arguing that because of laws passed by previous parliaments it cannot disclose documents to this parliament's committee.

    Note that this arguement isn't based on executive vs parliament but on the power of parliament to regulate ITSELF.

    For parliament to get a hold of the documents they would need to first repeal their own laws.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Shadow,

    the left believe their MP's are above the LAWS of the land they pass.

    It is part of their entitlement culture.

    The Government is not redacting, apppointed and trained people who are NON PARTISAN are doing the redacting.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Liberal Supporter here is a story about Ujjal Dosanjh tweeting during a " in-camera, closed-door, for MPs-ears-and-eyes-only session of the Commons Defence Committee."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/10/twoops.html

    And the gov't is supposed to hand over top secret documents to this lot ??

    You gotta be kidding me !

    Here's another story about Ujjal Dosanjh getting into a fight with another Liberal MP who wanted to hold a closed door meeting.

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/10/grit-vs-grit-action-at-the-national-defence-committee.html

    ReplyDelete
  124. Canadian Sense (Nonsense)

    That Ladies and Gentlemen is what we call a straw man.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Hey Canadian Sense read the above links.

    They want top secret information about our military men and women in the field to be handed over to Ujjal Dosanjh who's already had to apologize for tweeting during a closed door meeting !

    Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Liberal:
    "Charles ll if memory serves.
    Good heavens no! It was Charles"

    Yes you are right, thorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Lol Liberal Supporter you're a hoot.

    Libel law ?

    Stating an opinion is not actionable.

    I would need to be asserting a fact. A fact that would both need to be false and that you could prove I knew to be false but said anyways
    .
    Thank you for confirming you were indeed briefed in libel law.

    You guys are too much though. I always see libel this, libel that on internet boards. Scott Tribe, over at Macleans, that sort of things.
    "You guys", eh? Thank you for confirming you continue to be a hyperpartisan, despite Éric's requests.

    Has any politician ever sued an anonymous commenter on a political board in Canadian history ? Lol.
    Not yet. And certainly not one such as yourself, who has proven himself to have no credibility. Or have you concluded that "neoconservative" is in fact a liar?

    And to both you and Left Winger I am not planning on changing my statement at all.
    Bully for you.

    Parliament is considered the highest court in Canada.
    By whom, aside from yourself?

    The power to subpoena documents and to hold people in contempt are legal powers.
    Which exist for courts, tribunals, inquests, and parliaments, only one of which is a court.

    The basic premise of Errol Mendes and Derek Lee's arguements is that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over parliament and that parliamentary privelege cannot be diminished by parliament passing a statute.
    An interesting point of view. But Parliament can demand any documents it wants. One is in contempt to refuse.

    The gov't lawyers are arguing that because of laws passed by previous parliaments it cannot disclose documents to this parliament's committee.
    The problem with this is that any document could be classified on a whim to prevent its disclosure.

    Note that this arguement isn't based on executive vs parliament but on the power of parliament to regulate ITSELF.
    It would appear that argument is based on the power of the cabinet (not Parliament) to thwart the legitimate powers of Parliament based on its own whim.

    For parliament to get a hold of the documents they would need to first repeal their own laws.
    No, I don't think that argument will fly. If it did, what would prevent the Civil Service from denying documents to Ujjal Dosanjh if he was in Cabinet?

    This is not an episode of "Yes Minister". You can't simply declare everything to be national security to thwart an investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I have read the earlier post. I agree the left have two sets of rules books.

    Can you guess which one they apply when they are caught breaking them?

    Just like perogies Bob Rae get 4, Chretien to avoid whatever.

    Harper gave us a break 5 days before Christmas Break in 2008 and now a 22 sitting delay which he has offered to make up by eliminating March Break.

    Funny how they left keep flip flopping on the same set of rules.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Earl:
    "The real question is if the Security of Information Act gives the Conservatives the right to withhold the information they are withholding. "

    First get this correct, Parliament is the ultimate Supreme Authority in the Land !! Period !! Pointe Finale!!

    If Parliament wishes to override one of it's own laws for its own internal purposes NOBODY can challenge IT !!

    Take it to the Supremes and they will tell you they do NOT have the authority to override Parliament!!

    If the Tories, faced with this hadn't acted so stupidly this would be a non-issue. When faced by the Committee demand they should have called a meeting of opposition party leaders and worked out some kind of agreement re unredacted but limited to the committee access. Instead of that they jumped on their Law And Order steed and galloped off madly in all directions.

    Now what will happen is that once the Throne Speech debate is over an opposition MP will rise on a Point Of Privilege and move that motion laid out on the CBC website, or similar, the House will approve and the Tories are toast.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I have read the earlier post. I agree the left have two sets of rules books.
    Of course you do, CS. What else is new?

    Can you guess which one they apply when they are caught breaking them?
    I give up. Which one, CS?

    Just like perogies Bob Rae get 4, Chretien to avoid whatever.
    Someday, the CPC brain trust will stop saying "always refer to perogies, not proroguement" in its talking point faxes. But then they'd need to find better shills, who don't need to snigger about perogies.

    Harper gave us a break 5 days before Christmas Break in 2008 and now a 22 sitting delay which he has offered to make up by eliminating March Break.
    Hooray for Steve!

    Funny how they left keep flip flopping on the same set of rules.
    Funny how the CPC's supporters keep trying to claim the problem is the number of days of the proroguement, when in fact we all know it was a blatant attempt to avoid answering same tiresome question:

    What did Messrs MacKay and Harper know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Liberal supporter

    I feel it is my duty to step in and refrain you from hitting Shadow with any more common sense.

    Have some mercy on the poor fellow
    please. Have you no shame.

    It is obvious that you are much higher up on the IQ scale, so I think the rules of fair play must now kick in.

    As for you Shadow and Canadian Nonsense you can stop throwing fertilizer around.

    Daddy sent me out to tell you the field has more than enough.

    ReplyDelete
  132. LS

    I accept since 2000 watching your party with 40.8% popular support slide into the worst showing in 150 years is depressing.

    I understand watching the progressive vote shift to the Green and NDP and NOT return to the party of Liberals is depressing.

    Don't be angry with voters in November 2009 who decided in four contests they would send zero liberals to Parliament.

    Clearly the issues you suggest are important are not turning into a ballot box protest.

    Best of luck with FaceBook and more photo ops. How much was that door knob Easter used?

    ReplyDelete
  133. The real question is if the Security of Information Act gives the Conservatives the right to withhold the information they are withholding.
    Thanks, Earl.
    After a brief search on this topic, I have a question. Does the PM or Minister of Defense have a security clearance to view said documents? Is it automatic for their roles or do they have to undergo security checks like everyone else in government who deals with secrets?

    Shadow, which of the items mentioned here would be the prohibition that might be violated by release of uncensored documents? Perhaps "leakage of special operational information"?

    I think the CPC needs to come clean on exactly what provisions of the Act that could be violated. And they need to come clean on which MPs they believe would violate the Act, which was intended to combat terrorism.

    Which MPs are the terrorist supporters? I have heard many assertions on other blogs, especially by anonymous commenters such as one who claimed "Liberals prefer to have our troops killed by terrorists than to keep secret documents secret". This sort of reprehensible statement is what we keep hearing as the excuse to defy the will of Parliament.

    Time to come clean. Let's hear the names of those MP's who are the terrorist supporters and those who would violate the Security of Information Act. They should be prosecuted immediately. If you won't put up with these names, then you have to release the uncensored documents to the committee.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Canadian Nonsense

    What a brilliant argument

    Are you a member of MENSA

    Funny how conservatives never want to rebut the facts in an argument.

    I look forward to some more brilliance and fascinating conversation out of you.

    You have provided me with a great amount of amusement today.

    Thrill me with some more

    Best Regards

    ReplyDelete
  135. I accept since 2000 watching your party with 40.8% popular support slide into the worst showing in 150 years is depressing.
    Why is that depressing?

    I understand watching the progressive vote shift to the Green and NDP and NOT return to the party of Liberals is depressing.
    Why is that depressing? What are you projecting?

    Don't be angry with voters in November 2009 who decided in four contests they would send zero liberals to Parliament.
    I never said I was. Why do you project that I am? Can you not simply argue the points without reaching into your canned rant pack?

    Clearly the issues you suggest are important are not turning into a ballot box protest.
    Therefore we must sit down and shut up? If it was not a concern to you, why waste so much time trying to throw cold water? You should have carried that cold water to the Olympics and saved them a bundle on trucking snow in.

    Best of luck with FaceBook and more photo ops. How much was that door knob Easter used?
    I have no idea what you are sneering about here, sorry I am not connected well enough to understand your inside baseball innuendos. Perhaps you could try clear speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Left winger

    http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-liberals-believe.html

    A video that explains why the Left have a problem with managing issues.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Oh please. Not again. Not here. Not yet another blog being infested with self referencing BTs!

    Sheeesh.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Left winger,

    You are free to win those world changing debates in cyberspace and FaceBook protests!

    Neo woud be proud of you.

    When your party becomes a credible threat in the actual Ballot box again, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Canadian Nonsense

    I thank you once again for your brilliamce.

    Must be hard being as super intelligent as you obviously are.

    Being of such super intelligence and brilliance, it would be nice if you could at least put one sensible argument together.

    As for issues

    Hear of HELENA GUERGIS

    A lovely example of conservative decorum and restraint

    Best Regards

    ReplyDelete
  140. When your party becomes a credible threat in the actual Ballot box again, let me know.
    Does that mean you're leaving and not coming back?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Canadian Nonsense

    Why don't you come back when Stephen Harper has his majority.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Nice bait and switch.

    You guys like to talk tough but can't seem to vote non-confidence when in your coalition has the majority of MP's in parliament.

    Almost sad watching you insult each other taking turns propping up the CPC since 2006.

    Thanks again for voting for that supply Bill on December 10, 2009.

    And agreeing with Harper you don't deserve a March break.

    Just curious dead she kill a bicycle courier or get charged with DUI?

    Liberals in glasshouses are too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  143. The dissapointing thing is that if the LPC would just be responsible all of this could be avoided.

    Ignatieff, Donolo, Chan, LeBlanc, Wlifert, and Cotler could all be in a room with the unrestricted and unlimited access to all the gov't's documents.

    And yet they insist on teaming up with the coalition to hand out classified information to MPs with loose lips (Dosanjh, see tweeting incident) and from the anti-war fringe left who are determined to end our engagement in Afghanistan.

    This is a far, far cry from the Ignatieff who wrote "The Lesser Evil".

    ReplyDelete
  144. Shadow,

    Janine Krieber and Denis Coderre made some insightful comments about the Liberls in 2009.

    They have been too busy with stunts and props to be viewed as an alternative.

    A just released Angus Poll is very unkind to the LPC.

    Political Leadership
    Canadians place their trust to handle economic matters mostly in Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney (51%), followed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (43%), and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff (26%).

    ReplyDelete
  145. Still waiting for the list of MPs who would violate the Security of Information Act.

    Still waiting for the CPC to come clean.

    Still waiting for our new BTer to make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  146. First, parliament is absolutely not the ultimate authority in the land. The constitution is the ultimate authority in the land. Arguably followed by the crown. But parliament definitely isn't at the top of the pile.

    And the Conservatives are correct that their behaviour is bound by the acts or previous parliaments. If the opposition wants to change that, they should amend the relevant acts.

    I don't understand these complaints at all. The government is acting entirely within the rules.

    And what's this about the executive? Canada hardly even has an executive branch to its government.

    ReplyDelete
  147. LS,

    Start with holding your breath.

    Follow up with a photo of your protest.

    Don't forget to chant dictator.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Start with holding your breath.

    Follow up with a photo of your protest.

    Don't forget to chant dictator
    .
    Oh fuck off you sniggering baboon.

    Now you can sneer about how uncivil I am, and smirk about how you must therefore be right about whatever it is you are on about. When you do, try to explain exactly what point you were trying to make, because quite frankly, it escapes me.

    Hahahahahahahaahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  149. I don't understand these complaints at all. The government is acting entirely within the rules.
    They may be. But they need to explain how the Security of Information Act would be violated.

    Which MPs would violate the Act?
    When will the CPC come clean?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Liberal Supporter

    Don't mean to interfere in your argument but WTF where do these right wing whack jobs come from.

    That piece of barf nonsense spewed made absoulutely no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  151. LS,

    Anger management?

    The government is following the laws and DO NOT need to play political games in QP.

    The Government is in the minority and is at the mercy of the majority of the MP who are the opposition.

    Rally the coalition vote contempt or whatever stunt floats your boat!

    Vote non-confidence too! Let's test your theory who is blowing smoke and playing games on the Hill!

    Call you MP and demand their reject the Throne and do-nothing budget"

    Let's get see our democracy in action, you game?

    ReplyDelete
  152. " liberal supporter said...
    The real question is if the Security of Information Act gives the Conservatives the right to withhold the information they are withholding.
    Thanks, Earl.
    After a brief search on this topic, I have a question. Does the PM or Minister of Defense have a security clearance to view said documents? Is it automatic for their roles or do they have to undergo security checks like everyone else in government who deals with secrets?"

    Liberal Supporter:

    Isn't the real issue who the government allows to see documents covered by the act and WHICH documents are covered by the act?

    Presumably Harper and McKay were indeed vetted for security clearances. I'm not sure that government is obligated to share top secret documents with the opposition. We know cabinet minutes are not subject to review by the opposition. Practically the more people in or out of government that are in the know the better chance something gets leaked.

    So in my mind the issues are:

    1. What information is covered by the act.

    2. Who is allowed to see information covered by the act. Does the government of day decide who can see said information.

    3. Is the information being sought indeed covered by the act?

    4. Presuming the government is acting with the current law can Parliament do anything that is legally binding to force the government to break the laws of Canada.

    5. If the answer to question 4 is no, then the opposition has to change the law before it can access the documents it wants.

    It is that simple.

    Finally Canadian Sense, Shadow, Left Winger, Liberal Supporter and the rest let's start being logical and STOP calling each other names. As I've pointed out the arguments are at this point are legal ones. Who cares who did what in past. There are still a lot things to be determined before official secrets are released to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Will we GOLD tomorrow in hockey? I say we will!

    ReplyDelete
  154. Earl,

    I agree with your post about the personal attacks and sticking to the logical points.

    a) Gov't is in a minority and is accountable by voting non-confidence for ANY reason.

    b) The opposition have made a number of serious allegations of cover up, torture, war crimes.

    c) If this is NOT another stunt they should act to remove this GOV'T without delay if they believe their statements.


    We can't have it both ways. You believe the opposition claims or you don't. Will the opposition vote for a government they smear in 2010 with serious allegation?

    ReplyDelete
  155. Earl,

    We have the molds either way!

    I predicted 4-1 or 4-2 fo us already.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Presumably Harper and McKay were indeed vetted for security clearances.
    Really? What would happen had they been deemed not good enough? Can CSIS therefore overturn an election? Or do we now allow civil servants to decide if our elected leaders are good enough to govern? I think not. I doubt they are vetted at all.

    It seems claiming National Security is an all too convenient excuse to avoid answering questions.

    They need to explain what part of the Act could be violated, and who might violate it. The Security of Information Act is part of anti-terrorism laws, and I for one would like to know who the government feels is a terrorist supporter. Then they need to prove it. We're hearing far too many claims of disloyalty and veiled comments about treason. This has to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I agree with your post about the personal attacks and sticking to the logical points.
    I look forward to you doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Nice to see you back, and bringing the sanity Earl.

    The lefties in particular, seem to have thier panties in a bunch today.

    We'll take the gold for sure.
    That'll be the most golds by any country ever, at a winter games.

    I hope that'll end the whining about the "Own the Podium" program, but we are world class at being self-critical.

    My favourite arguement of the thread, "Parliament is the ultimate Supreme Authority in the Land !! Period !! Pointe Finale!!"
    ...because I said so?

    It's either that or the suggestion that Kinsella is watching Shadow, just waiting to sue for libel.

    I know I'm shaking in my boots ;)

    ReplyDelete
  159. ATTENTION ALL CONSERVATIVE PARTY ONLINE SUPPORTERS

    Please be advised that due to the fact that we invested our party funds in Dubai real estate and Greek state debt, we are experiencing cash flow problems. We will be reducing the amount paid per talking point posted from 10 cents to 5 cents.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Joe Bloggins
    CPC Politburo Communications Chief

    P.S. my code was "prorn", which is one letter more than what the CPC gives us each day.

    ReplyDelete
  160. There are true keeners on this blog. Wander away for a few hours and you're 70 comments behind.

    CanadianSense: John you have your definition of fringe and I have mine. You believe 5-6% is a significant movement and is entitled to share the stage with parties that have over 25 seats in the HOC.

    Everyone should read this book. One technique Huff covers is combining two unrelated statistics. In this case, they're percentage of popular vote and seats in the house. Notching up the ante by inventing a never-seen range of "5-6%" gives added power to the technique.

    The meaningful comparison here is the Green voter preference of 9-11% (and steadily climbing) compared to the NDP's 15-17% or the Bloc's 9%. The regional numbers occasionally show the Greens in third, but I think the point has been made.

    And yes, with that meaningful comparison, I don't believe that the Green Party is a fringe. Those who feel that three parties are too many will of course have other views.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "Really? What would happen had they been deemed not good enough? Can CSIS therefore overturn an election? Or do we now allow civil servants to decide if our elected leaders are good enough to govern? I think not. I doubt they are vetted at all."

    All cabinet ministers are vetted by both CSIS and the RCMP before being appointed to cabinet. You know that.

    Party Leaders no doubt come under some vetting by CSIS before they run and you can bet that anyone who who had security clearance problems would find those things leaked to the press as well as party leadership.

    Sure it is possible that someone who doesn't meet the security guidelines could be elected PM. I imagine there would be problems with what that person was allowed to see. Realistically it is doubtful that person ever gets that far. Can you imagine a major party led by a leader deemed a genuine security risk? How would Canadians respond in an election?

    The National Security Act replaced the Official Secrets Act. It isn't just about terrorists. It is about things that ought to be kept secret.

    I agree with with your concern that the Act could be used to hide improprieties. That's when I suspect one of three things would happen in a minority parliament.

    1. The government and opposition would refer the matter to the SOC and let them decide.

    2. The opposition would defeat the government and force an election on the issue.

    3. The opposition would change the Act, again likely forcing an election because the government would no doubt make the motion one of confidence.

    I don't recall ever calling you a name or for that matter being the least bit nasty to you. If I was inadvertently, please accept my apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  162. John,

    In 2000 the Greens were at 0.5%- 6.8% in 2008. I only refer to General Elections as my litmus test.
    In a decade the Greens have NOT won a single seat let alone become a reform-protest movement that had popular support against the gov't in Ottawa.

    Was E. May in Ottawa with Jack, Iggy giving speeches about prorogue?

    The Greens may invest 100% and pull off an upset and even win a by election in our lifetime.

    At the end of the day all the online Polling does NOT matter unless you deliver it at the ballot box.

    The divided left hold a majority of the votes and can not manage to cooperate to vote non-confidence.

    Our system is first past the post and works well for the Bloc in QC, they will block any change that may reduce their seats via Fairvote ideas.

    If we exclude the 75 seats from QC what is the % the CPC seats?

    Where and how many competitive ridings for the green(general elections?)Running 200-300 means nothing. Only 41/303 seats qualified for a rebate in 2008.
    http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

    If the Greens can win 1-2 seats your assertion we must view this a credible political party? Why?

    If PEI with 4 seats became another Regional Bloc Party are you suggesting it will hold sway like the Bloc?

    We have 308 seats and will be adding another 38 seats in 2014, I still don't see a major shift at the BALLOT box for the progressives to your PARTY.

    Ontario, BC and Alberta are getting new seats best of luck.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Volkov: So, the Greens can raise money. They can also funnel it properly, granted if they get their act together organizationally. Right now, I think they're doing exactly that, except they're doing it in a way that I don't think is very productive, in that they're sending all the resources to May in SGI, in order to get her elected. I don't think people like that, and I don't think its conducive to building the Green brand in areas where they can win, which is what they need to do, instead of just focusing on getting May elected.

    Yes, Greens do a number of things differently. One aspect is much stronger support for the grass roots than the other parties. Notwithstanding what you've heard, all the money is most definitely not going to SGI. (How much money can a single riding absorb, anyway?) A large proportion of funding goes to the EDAs (Electoral District Associations).

    If the writ were dropped tomorrow, our EDA would have enough money to run the same campaign we ran last election with no further donations. However, we're not staring an election in the face and we're not sitting back; the bank account just keeps climbing and we'll be running a much larger campaign. We won't be bumping the expense limits in the next election but we'll be getting to a significant proportion of that figure. We can afford to because we poll above the threshold for campaign expense rebates, so the true cost of any expenditure is 40% of the sticker price. We can start talking seriously about moving into second place in the polls. (The incumbent is well entrenched; this will not be the first Green riding in the country.)

    Coming back to a previous topic, the candidate for the NDP did not do as well in our riding. They didn't reach the rebate threshold and from the outside, their EDA appears to be moribund. But perhaps they're just one of those fringe parties.

    ReplyDelete
  164. CanadianSense: In 2000 the Greens were at 0.5%- 6.8% in 2008. I only refer to General Elections as my litmus test.

    I assume that Greens are basic, not acidic. Either way, their relevance in an election is measured by their appeal to the electorate during that election. (And here's a tip: if you go back to 1867 instead of just 2000, the Greens, Dippers and Bloc were all at 0%, so you can really crank down the bottom end of the polling range.)

    Was E. May in Ottawa with Jack, Iggy giving speeches about prorogue?

    Now that you mention it, yes. Why?

    At the end of the day all the online Polling does NOT matter unless you deliver it at the ballot box.

    Absolutely. There will be no strategic voting mixed messaging next time. The electoral Green Machine has matured amazingly. Just watch us.

    I can't make out where the rest of your comment is going.

    ReplyDelete
  165. John,

    compare the birth of reform, to CA, then merger to CPC with PC.

    How long from populist to power as a party against the Political parites in Ottawa.

    The Greens need to absorb a party sharing the same votes. It has been a decade and the Greens may be absorbed like the PC's were into a new party.

    Adapting to the voters and winning in the ballot box is a sign of maturity and wisdom.

    I have already said the Bloc and NDP should join together to replace the Liberals as the official opposition with support in more claim to national support than the Liberals as a national alternative.

    The Green could try a merger with teh Liberals or hope for the Liberals to hit 25% in the next election and pick up the 750 k Liberals who stayed home in 2008.

    The Carbon Tax-Cap Trade thing is not going to be a vote winner in the next election.

    It will be the economy again/trust to manage the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Canadian Sense

    I am having a little trouble following the logic of your post.

    To be truthful I couldn't follow most of it.

    One thing I would like to know though is how could the NDP and the Bloc join forces.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Anyone else notice how often CTV is showing Harper in the stands at the curling matches. Talk about politicizing the olympics for pure partisan gain. Typical of the conservatives.

    Is someone from CTV trying to get appointed to the Senate like all the other obviously partisan CTV reporters?

    Is CTV continously showing Harper so that they can fulfil the fringe-right-wing dream of destroying CBC?

    Why am I the only one brave enough to ask these tough questions??

    ReplyDelete
  168. Josh

    CTV has been spewing tory crap for eons.

    Mike Duffy was very well rewarded for his service to Stevie.

    I personally think Fife wants to get there to.

    Steve cares very deeply for our athlete

    Its just plain mean of you to question him or CTV

    ReplyDelete
  169. LS,

    try this link

    http://ca.dummies.com/store/product/Politics-For-Dummies-2nd-Edition.productCd-0764508873.html

    ReplyDelete
  170. Josh

    You disgust for the PM being given Air Time on a Private broadcaster is sweet.

    Is your leader back at work in Ottawa?

    Did you notice the leader of another country he was sitting with?

    Reminds me of Toront Star Liberals favourite cheerleader Jim Travers who mocked our PM for his Haiti trip and ignored the France President a much shorter visit in Haiti.

    Liberals gutted $ 450 million from CBC and the current gov't keeps dumping money into CBC.

    Can you show me with a link if the CPC have reduced funding since 2006 for the CBC?

    The TV ratings stink for CBC and sending tax dollars so they can air Wheel of Fortune and other American show your idea of Canadian culture?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Canadian Sense

    There are actually several links.

    http://www.friends.ca/press-release/8256

    Again I have a little trouble following your logic

    What are you saying, Ignatieff sat with another world leader, and this is a bad thing?

    As for being back at work in Ottawa

    Stephen Harper is the one who prorogued parliament

    As for the rest I just don't follow your logic.

    ReplyDelete
  172. It is 100% appropriate to show PM Harper on tv.

    He is the leader of Canada's government. Of all of Canada. Of all Canadians.

    When a network pans out to the crowd and highlights various luminaries like other olympians or Wayne Gretzky they would, of course, show Harper.

    He's also appeared on the tv screens of countries from around the world.

    Its good that he's there supporting our athletes and being the face of Canada to the world.

    PS - The CBC should get 100% of its gov't funding cut.

    CTV survives without a tax payer bailout every year.

    Why can't CBC ??

    ReplyDelete
  173. Oh, so the Conservative Party now has to rely on Japanese bloggers to do their fundraising now?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Dr Cynic

    You crack me up

    Shadow CBC has a mandate CTV does not.

    On a more personal level

    Shadow I feel you are owed an apology by myself

    I went too far of my critique of you today.

    You did not say anything to me today that warranted what I said about you.

    Once again I will say to you I am sorry.

    I hope you will accept my apology, and I hope to start again tommorow on a good footing

    Thanks and good night

    ReplyDelete
  175. Ouch Quebec's debt is equal to 94% of its GDP.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100227/quebec_debt_100227/20100227?hub=QPeriod

    If it was an independent nation or in some sort of sovereignty association with Canada they'd be fast approaching a complete and utter economic collapse, especially if they had to take on their fair share of Canada's federal debt.

    Lucien Bouchard has been a very smart man lately.

    Independence is out of the question.

    Cheap tuition, cheap electricity, cheap public services, and subsidized daycare are simply not affordable.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Shadow said:
    "Ouch Quebec's debt is equal to 94% of its GDP. "

    Golleeeeeee

    Sounds just like the USA, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  177. CanadianSense:compare the birth of reform, to CA, then merger to CPC with PC.

    How long from populist to power as a party against the Political parites in Ottawa.

    The Greens need to absorb a party sharing the same votes. It has been a decade and the Greens may be absorbed like the PC's were into a new party.


    The assumption here is that the only possible path for growth is the Reform/Bloc route: find a regional anger and feed off it for instant local gratification.

    The Green approach is quite different. Green support is distributed, not just nationally, but internationally; there are Green members in governments worldwide. Fundamental Green principles are based on sustainability, not tactical considerations. Steady growth in the polls is quite sufficient, and even the occasional dip is not important in the long run. For a financial analogy, think Warren Buffet.

    Green support in Canada is growing steadily today. The rate of growth will increase when the first members are elected; that will be a sign to voters across the nation that it's OK to vote Green. Green support will also increase when the party shakes its left-wing image. (Our EDA is filled with ex-Tories and we're hardly unusual.) This may be why the Conservatives are especially fearful of the Green Party; they know that at some point a chunk of their supporters will cross over. But even without those inflections, the trajectory has been steadily up when measured between any two interesting points.

    The Green Party doesn't play to a Reform/Tory/Bloc, Dipper or Grit script. We're not going to leave in a snit if we don't win seats in the next election, regardless of how much that might please some other parties. We'll just continue to grow. The Green party is about the long term.

    ReplyDelete
  178. John,

    I understand you want to view your party as a credible force in Canadian politics, some of us have a different criteria. That's it.


    International "Green" seats in first past the post system?

    Did you want to include in the different system how extreme left and right wing parties are also in that equation as well?

    Our existing system in Canada requires you to win 50% +1 vote in a riding to get a seat.

    John, Green's only qualified for 41 rebates in 303 seats in 2008.

    That is significant in demostrating the lack of support on a national basis for the Green vote.
    Look at the other parties and how many seats that qualify for the rebate.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Hi Peter!

    No, actually America's debt to GDP ratio is nowhere near Quebec's.

    US = 39.7%
    Canada = 72.3%
    Quebec = 94%
    Greece (IN big trouble) = 108.1%

    ReplyDelete
  180. Hi Canadian Sense

    "our existing system in Canada requires you to win 50% + 1 vote in a riding to win a seat"

    We have a multi party system, and a "first past the post"

    You do not have to win 50% of the vote to win a seat.

    There are many sitting MPs who represent a riding without having achieved that thresh hold.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Shadow:
    "No, actually America's debt to GDP ratio is nowhere near Quebec's."

    To get the number quoted you are making an assumption about the US economy. Based on GDP in say 2003 that number is probably right. Based on GDP of 2009 it's way low.

    Also what number are you using for the debt? Currently it's around 13 trillion against an economy that used to be about 18 trillion that's way more than 39% !! The US economy is actually declining despite all those "happy" numbers from Washington. Unemployment still going up, trade balance a disaster area, Mfg. declining, you name the problem they've got it plus half that trillion dollar budget is allocated to the military. That doesn't do much for your trade balance!

    Yeah Greece is a real disaster, agreed and I was sort of kidding with the Que-US comparison but the US is sure no bed of roses.

    ReplyDelete
  182. 49steps,

    You are correct (that was a sloppy post on my part)

    You need to have at least one more vote to win the riding.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Peter those figures were from the CIA world factbooks latest edition, I think its a 2010 edition so they'd be going off spending in '09.

    Obviously things have jumped considerably this year.

    They are accurate using the '09 GDP, the difference is how you define debt.

    To be accurate they must be excluding state/local bond issues, intergovernmental debt (state debt underwriten by the feds or money owed by the feds to the states) and unfunded obligations (money the feds owe to people through social security/medicare).

    It would be important to see how the study is defining Quebec's debt too.

    But the USA's biggest problem isn't the current size of its debt its their trajectory.

    A country like Canada can handle a relatively large debt to GDP and still have an excellent bond rating because we've been running balanced budgets/paying down debt up until now.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Anyways Quebec's debt isn't really a problem because they borrow in Canadian dollars and unlike Greece can't be kicked out of our currency zone.

    If they became an independent or associated entity, however, they'd be in a world of hurt.

    Economics precludes independence.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Shadow,

    "Economics precludes independence"

    Seems enough like common sense to me, and it seems that Bouchard agrees.
    (to his credit, but don't show him your back)

    However, even after the HUGE bailout of RBS, the dogged Scots aren't buying it.

    I don't know that I should find this kind of thing comforting, but I do.

    Canada is not the only one with these types of issues, and if this article is mostly true, then it seems that the U.K is where we were say.... 15-20 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Shadow said:
    "But the USA's biggest problem isn't the current size of its debt its their trajectory. "

    Yeah 100% agree on that but don't expect any improvement. Both parties are dead set against raising taxes and the Republicans are trying to cut expenses in things like Medicare which really hits people.

    The USA seems to think it is in its own world ?

    Meanwhile China has instructed its bankers to cease buying US commercial paper. Does that tell you anything?

    Incidentally the CIA "Fact book" is not really all that accurate. There are better sources for US economic figures.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Hey AJR79 democrats in congress are planning to do the same thing.

    Except in this case they're trying to lure Puerto Rico into statehood.

    A plurality but not a majority support the current arrangement of territorial association.

    So they're going to ask a two part question. Part 1 will be whether they wish to maintain the current arrangement or not.

    (Independence and statehood voters will vote NO and win a majority.)

    Part 2 will be to choose between independence or full statehood.

    (People who like the current arrangement will mostly break towards statehood.)

    Unless the ballot language is agreed upon by all sides these things can be a bit of a sham.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Hey Peter it may seem like bizzaro world but its Obama wanting to cut 500 billion from medicare and Republicans saying no.

    As for dealing with the debt I don't think higher taxes are the solution.

    America needs to drastically cut its military spending, cut the benefits and wages of its gov't employees, and lift all restrictions on drilling for oil/natural gas.

    Then it'll probably have to gradually devalue its currency to correct the trade imbalance with China and inflate away some of its debt.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Shadow said:
    "Hey Peter it may seem like bizzaro world but its Obama wanting to cut 500 billion from medicare and Republicans saying no.

    As for dealing with the debt I don't think higher taxes are the solution."

    Actually he doesn't. Read very carefully as what the Repigs claim is NOT the truth. Their "spin" is awesome !!

    AS we saw here the solution to debt is cutting expenditure and increasing tax. There is NO other way.

    As to the military budget I totally agree. Slash and burn on that one IMO

    ReplyDelete
  190. Shadow:
    "Then it'll probably have to gradually devalue its currency to correct the trade imbalance with China and inflate away some of its debt."

    The deflation was actually happening until the EU crisis arose.

    By the real griper here is the Chinese Govt decision to stop buying American commercial paper. i:e: Bonds from such as GE or IBM. They will continue to buy Treasury and Fed paper but that's all.

    Which tells me they have given up on the US economy !!

    ReplyDelete
  191. CanadianSense: Green's only qualified for 41 rebates in 303 seats in 2008.

    That is significant in demostrating the lack of support on a national basis for the Green vote.
    Look at the other parties and how many seats that qualify for the rebate.


    I recommend against driving through the rear view mirror; it provides a poor view of the road ahead. If you must, however, you can get a bit more information by collecting several data points and extrapolating.

    Depending on when the next election is called, I expect somewhere between 125 and 175 Green campaigns to qualify for a rebate in the next election. And more in the following one. And yet more in the election after that.

    Others are welcome to believe otherwise if that makes them uncomfortable. We'll know when the returns are in. Feel free to file this for future quotes.

    [I understood your first paragraph, but not the rest of the comment apart from the quoted portion.]

    ReplyDelete
  192. Great going in the olympics Canada!

    Canada's Olympics were an undisputed success!

    Special shout out to Jean Chretien and the Liberals for backing the Vancouver bid so strongly and for setting into motion "Own the Podium". Years of ravaging from amateur sports from the preceeding conservative government left our sports programs in shatters. The Liberals and their strong patriotic backing of amateur helped make the 2010 olympics a success!!!

    Any truth to the rumor that Harper had to be physically held-back from slashing the "Own the Podium" program when his regime came into power in 2006?? Word is he wanted to give the money to the tar-sands as another, of many, subsidies.

    Why am I the only one brave enough to point that out?

    Again, thank you to all our wonderful atheletes and the Liberal governments for setting the stage for this success.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Shadow:

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ai97012.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  194. Josh:

    "Word is he wanted to give the money to the tar-sands as another, of many, subsidies."

    Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Now dig up some sources or documentation !

    ReplyDelete
  195. Josh I don't think anyone here was going to be so tacky as to somehow link the success of our wonderful athletes to what politicians in Ottawa are doing, Conservative or otherwise.

    Your pre-emptive defence of the Liberals and attempt take the credit away from our athletes (where it belongs) is shameful.

    For once could we please leave politics out of something ??

    ReplyDelete
  196. Hi Peter,

    no its actually 100% true that Obama is planning to cut 500 billion from medicare.

    That's half the revenue source for his bill, along with 500 billion in tax hikes.

    The states has a program called Medicare Advantage Part D in which seniors buy additional insurance for things like eye care, dental, and extended drug coverage.

    Every dollar they spend is subsidized by 15 cents of gov't money.

    Its a hugely popular program with seniors which is why one of the many kickbacks/bribes in the house bill was an exemption for all residents of Florida from the cuts.

    (Florida obviously having a great deal of elderly, senior voters who's votes democrats need to win the presidency.)

    The idea was to remove the 15 cents on the dollar subsidy and re-direct it into medicade so the poor could buy insurance.

    Taking from seniors and giving to the poor is TERRIBLE politics, which is why this bill is so unpopular right now.


    Its actually a good policy idea though, I just think the money should be folded back into the system to maintain medicare (which goes broke in 7 years) solvency instead of used on creating another ponzi scheme.

    ReplyDelete
  197. We've all seen this teabagging nutbars waving banners that say "get the governments hands off my Medicate!". If they really want government's hands off medicare they should be calling for the total abolition of Medicare and let health care only go to seniors who can afford to pay for it out of their own pockets!

    ReplyDelete
  198. Shadow:
    "no its actually 100% true that Obama is planning to cut 500 billion from medicare."

    According to a US friend who is an actuary it's closer to 400 billion according to the GAO.

    Then he went on to explain some of the other things and quite bluntly unless the US gets its Health Care costs under control they are headed right towards bankruptcy !!

    The current plan does absolutely nothing about costs, just shifts them around. Our experience with the insurance industry vs health care has been less than satisfactory but theirs way exceeds anything we ever saw.

    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.