Monday, February 8, 2010

New Nanos Poll: 1.7-pt Conservative Lead

Nanos Research has a new poll out.Nanos is an interesting pollster as they don't prompt the people they survey with party names. This tends to give lower results for the Greens. Whether this is more accurate or not is debatable, the likely truth being somewhere in between the pollsters that prompt and those that don't.

This contributes to very high totals for both the Conservatives and Liberals. Rather than being tired in the low-30s, Nanos has them tied in the mid-30s. At 35.6%, the Conservatives are not in crisis mode, as this was what got them into government in 2006. But at 33.9%, the Liberals are flying high, higher than they have since the heady days of August and September 2009.

What is probably most significant is that compared to Nanos's poll of mid-December, this marks a 3.9 point loss and 3.7 point gain for the Conservatives and Liberals, respectively.

The NDP drops 2.3 points and is at 16.4%. Normally this wouldn't be troublesome, except for the horrible regional results they got.

Let's get to those. In Ontario, the Liberals are very high at 42%, up 3.5 points from December. The Conservatives are still in it at 39.4%, up two points. But the NDP is hurting at 10.9%, down 5.7 points. That is massive, and positively disastrous. I estimate that would drop them to seven seats in the province.

Quebec is looking much more stable. The Bloc Quebecois gains 0.8 points and is at 33.2%, low for them but Nanos seems to have been polling low for them lately. The Liberals lose 0.2 points and are doing well at 29.3%, while the Conservatives are still showing some strength with 22.2% (down 1.6 points).

Nanos confirms Tory troubles in British Columbia, as they are down 6.1 points to 37.1%. The Liberals are up 3.6 points to 31.9%, very good for them, and the NDP is at 24.7%.

As Nanos lumps Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba together for their polling, I can't use those numbers. Suffice to say, the Conservatives drop 10 points in the super-region, but are still well ahead.

I also can't go a complete seat projection for this poll because of this. But, using the current projections for Alberta and the Prairies, this poll gives me:

Conservatives - 132
Liberals - 110
Bloc Quebecois - 45
New Democrats - 21

High Ontario numbers for the Conservatives and Liberals and low numbers for the Bloc Quebecois inflate the two major parties' totals.

I hope to have a projection update soon, with luck before EKOS's poll on Thursday. I will have a January-average update tomorrow or Wednesday.

55 comments:

  1. Morning!
    This projection would show that Conservatives would have a stable minority by one seat (Libs and NDP would total 131 to the CPC 132) and would thus need to have the support of the Bloq. Of course, if the Liberals stopped being afraid of having the mean old 'separatists' voting with them, the government could be brought down quite easily.

    Eric, this is the first poll in a while to look like this, isn't it? If memory serves me right, everything recently has shown a small Liberal minority by seat total...

    There is a lot more movement, albeit small, than most people realize. Makes me wonder who these movers are?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric,

    What was the popular vote in the last election in Alberta and Man/Sask combined? I'm trying to roughly estimate it from your charts that separate Alberta from man/Sask. Whatever it is, this seems like the latest of a series of polls lately that show the Tories way down on the Prairies (though still with a big lead) and which show the Liberals and NDP gaining ground.

    If this is actually the case, its not as inconsequential as you might think. There are at least two Tory held seats in Winnipeg that could go Liberal. The NDP could easily pick up a couple in Saskatchewan. The Tory seat in the far north of Sask., could be vulnerable and in Alberta not only would the NDP hold Edmonton-Strathcona, but Edmonton Centre and Edmonton East could conceivably be in states of play.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting poll. I wonder about that Quebec result though - the Bloc just seems so low, and the other federalists parties so high, that I really have to wonder.

    But, Nanos confirms the trend we've seen in the past few weeks. The Conservatives drop, mostly to the benefit of the Liberals. I mean, what were the numbers last time, 40-30? Something like that. I'd really be worried if I was a Conservative strategist.

    And oh my, that Dipper number is so low. I wonder why they're dropping so fast in Ontario. Is it just people leaving for the Liberals?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think its an outlier. Just about every other poll has the NDP at about 15% in Ontario. Some say as much 19-20 and this one is the very low end of the scale (note also that Nanos has a very high 28% undecided in Ontario).

    I think that Nanos's technique o0f not prompting any party names is very useful - but it also means that it is super-sensitive to issues like who happens to be making news and therefore has more name recognition. I'll be the first to admit that during the last couple of weeks, Ignatieff has been in the news a lot and the NDP has been very low profile (as of Friday we know the reason why that was the case). I think that often times nanos measures - who is making news and is most likely to be top of mind etc... since people have to volunteer a party name themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Volkov I find it interesting that the media and Liberal/Dippers are using terms like "running scared", "scrambling", "worried" to describe the CPC or its supporters. Or that we were somehow taken by surprise about the negative reaction to prorogation or that it was a mistake.

    But when I talk to actual Conservatives there's just no drama.

    Prorogation was still the right move. The numbers aren't anything to keep us up at night.

    Frankly i'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

    Did anyone really, really expect those sky high Conservative numbers to last forever ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shadow you're starting to sound like all those American rightwing bloggers who spent all of 2008 prefacing every posting about every single twist and turn of the presidential election campaign with "...this is good news for John McCain".

    If crashing in the polls from a 14 point lead to a dead heat doesn't worry Tory strategists at all than I think the Tories need better strategists. They are starting to remind me of the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who keeps accusing his opponents of cowardice and of not wanting to fight after they have chopped off both his arms and legs and simply walked around him!

    ReplyDelete
  7. No DL we're just in touch with reality.

    We have a better machine and loads more cash than anybody else right now. When you factor that in an election right now would result in the '08 seat totals.

    Plus stories like this keep popping up:

    "Liberals not ready to defeat Tories in spring"

    http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/spring-02-08-2010

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good. I'm happy to know that Harper's people are fiddling while Rome burns to the ground. The news that Tory strategists think that everything ids a-ok will put a spring in my step for the rest of the day - this is best news if heard in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Nanos methodology has been shown to be considerably more accurate than EKOS's automated prompting, for example.

    I think we need to pay special attention to the Nanos polls because they show us where those Green votes are actually going to land. The Green Party does not get electoral support anywhere near the numbers reported by the other pollsters, so Nanos is our only source that tells us what the numbers might look like with a realistic Green total.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sigh ok DL, ok.

    And when Dion was ten points ahead ? When Iggy was ahead for most of 2009 ?

    Did Rome burn down then too and magically get rebuilt only to burn down again and then get magically rebuilt again only to BURN DOWN AGAIN BECAUSE WE'RE TIED WITH IGGY!!!

    Ahhh!!! Oh noooooo!

    Mass panic is called for !

    Lol you're too much. You can only cry wolf so many times before people start rolling their eyes.

    I'll give you a heads up. Harper strategists would LOVE a spring election.

    Temporarily lower poll numbers over a non-issue that will soon dissapear is just the bait we might need to lure Iggy into the trap.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since when is something a "non-issue" when 75% of the public opposes it and it is singularly responsible for a 10 point slide in the polls?

    I remember a lot of Liberals dismissing the sponsorship scandal as a "non-issue"...look where it got them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DL where are you getting this 75% figure?

    Only about a 1/3 of the public really knows and understands what prorogation is. Of them about 60% are opposed.

    The vast majority of the people opposed are anti-Harper paritisans anyways and were never going to vote for him.

    Swing voters and the Conservative base ? They're all busy getting ready to watch the Olympics and have forgotten about the prorogation thing already.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Such a fickle base of support. Shiny Olympics!

    The rest of us are going to continue going to work and the like, and maybe catch some coverage when we can.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shadow

    "jack is getting his party strong enough to get into a good position to make that happen"

    Are you assuming the NDP is going to get stronger as a national force in Canadian politics?

    I wasn't making any premature pronouncements. I was just making an observation. When Layton helped bring down Martin. two issues that progressive voters care about died.

    That is also part of the Layton record.

    Not to put words in your mouth, but I think from your statement you believe the NDP is going to get stronger.

    Traditionally in Canada, when voters get ready to vote out a Con government, the NDP numbers go down and the Libs up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Traditionally in Canada, when voters get ready to vote out a Con government, the NDP numbers go down and the Libs up."

    Well let's see, there have been three occasions in the past 50 years where canadians voted out a Conservative government:

    1962/63 - when the NDP was created and got way more support than the CCF had had in the previous couple of elections.

    1980 - when we threw out Joe Clark after eight months and NDP support climbed to 19% and 33 seats.

    1993 - when we threw out the Tories under Campbell when NDP support collapsed - though that was more linked to the unpopularity of provincial NDP governments in Ontario and BC than any so-called strategic voting - plus the whole constitutional fiasco caused a rift with NDP voters in the west who went to Reform.

    So there is no clear pattern

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, and for anyone interested, because I saw some election speculation, I can't tell everything, but the Liberals are gearing up for an election in 2010. This isn't just volunteers, its the actual organization.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DL

    Rephrase

    I should have used the 1993 example.

    Maybe there were unpopular NDP governments in BC, and Ontario, but people were also completely fed up with the cons, and were desperate to get rid of them.

    The 1993 election saw the NDP, poll an historic low.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Volkov

    Planning for spring or fall?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well this year is 2010. Its not 1980 when people were DESPERATE to get rid of Joe Clark - yet still gave the NDP an increase in votes and seats. Its also not 1993 when people were DESPERATE to get rid of Kim Campbell and they not only gave the Liberals a majority but they also gave vast numbers of votes to new parties like Reform and the BQ that clearly had no chance at all of winning the election - while the NDP collapsed.

    You can only go so far with these endless historic analogies. Every election is different and you can't always be a general trying to re-fight the last war. Just a year and a half a go, the convention wisdom was that all those former Liberals who "lent their votes" to the NDP in 2006 as a protest against Paul Martin would shift back to the Liberals en masse because they would be so horrified after 2.5 years of Tory rule. Instead they gave the NDP even more votes and seats in 2008 than they did in 2006!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kevin,

    Fall. The plan is to have a platform done by then, and plan for an election.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Volkov

    Maybe the libs are planning, but will the BLOC, and the NDP agree?

    ReplyDelete
  22. DL

    A lot of libs stayed home in 08, because they didn't want Dion, or the green shift.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Of course there is always an explanation. How do we know that in 2010 or 2011 a lot of Liberals won't stay home again because they don't like Ignatieff or because they don't like some aspect of whatever platform he unveils?? Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  24. DL

    "How do we know that in 2010 or 2011, a lot of liberals won't stay home again because they don't like Ignatieff or because they don't like some aspect of whatever platform he unveils"

    Are you admitting that a lot of liberals stayed home in 08?

    ReplyDelete
  25. All we know about 2008 is the following: Overall turnout dropped compared with 2006 AND Liberal support (in raw votes) dropped dropped precipitously while NDP and BQ raw support was almost unchanged and Tory support was up a tiny amount. Correlation doesn't always mean causation. It could be that half a million Liberals stayed home. Period. OR, it could be that turnout fell across the board, PLUS lots of Liberals shifted to the other parties giving the illusion that Liberals stayed home when in fact that was just the net effect.

    I don't know, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kevin,

    Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it? The Bloc would probably be ready to go, because I don't see the Liberals as a threat to them, and that would be their only reason for not going. I mean, they didn't vote confidence last time, either.

    The NDP... well, who knows? They have a chance of keeping some of their seats, and maybe holding the balance of power. If they decide to keep the government alive again, though... I don't think anyone will be appreciative, especially if the idea for the Liberals is to be prepared. I mean, we all breathed a sigh of relief last time, but if we're actually geared up to go next time...

    ReplyDelete
  27. A lot also depends on what shape the Tories are in in fall 2010. If they are way behind in the polls and they start being desperate to avoid an election, then it would be interesting to see how far they would bend in terms of agreeing to an NDP shopping list of demands.

    By next Fall the NDP will have lots of money socked away for an election and there really won't be any reason not to have one.

    Meanwhile, I'm curious which opposition party is going to support the budget on March 4?

    ReplyDelete
  28. DL

    No I guess we will never definitively know. Sometimes conventional wisdom sucks.

    All we do know is that every parties vote total in 2008 decreased as compared to their 2006 performance.

    The only party besting their 2006 total were the greens.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I can't see Harper putting any poison pills in his budget.

    After the hit he took on prorogation he will probably try and be on his best behaviour, and not annoy people any further.

    However Shadow say's that there is going to be deregulation of the telecom sector, which the NDP won't like.

    Iggy probably doesn't want to fall into the Dion trap of supporting.

    The Bloc is ready to go, cons just threw them a gift with Prentice arguing with Charest over enviromental policy.

    Who blinks? hard to say.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't expect poison pills, per se, but I do expect a very fiscally conservative budget. Iggy just threw Harper a bone with his promise of more spending on "social justice", and I expect Harper to run with it. This is a chance for Harper, once again, to draw a stark policy divide between himself and his opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just read that the commander of CFB Trenton has been charged with two counts of homicide in the deaths of two women. How long before the Tories start accusing the police of "attacking the troops" because they arrested this guy for murder!

    ReplyDelete
  32. DL

    Was your tongue planted firmly in your cheek when you posted that?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ira,

    I hope he does. It will not only benefit Harper, but Iggy, and the rest of the electorate, as well. We need to start making real choices here, and the politicians and leaders need to start distinguishing themselves if they want the vote.

    And I second Kevin's comment about DL's comment.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes, I was being tongue in cheek. But, I was also pointing out how lately the Tory tactic has been that no matter what any of their opponents say - its always spun as "not supporting the troops".

    ReplyDelete
  35. The NDP is laying the groundwork to support the budget.

    Their MPs are going around asking for an extension to the home renovation tax credit. Saying its the kind of thing they support (flip flop lol).

    My guess is the Tories extend it, obviously. Then the NDP take credit and vote for the budget.

    The only wrinkle will be the telecom/broadcasting deregulation and whether it scares them off.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Volkov i'd stand with Iggy on social spending as a long term investment in human capital if his ideas weren't so stupid.

    Early learning in pre-school and full day kindergarten gives children a short academic bump that basically wears off by grade 3.

    Besides this time is better spent learning social skills, new words through talking to others, and advanced motor skills through sports/play.

    All of these activities can and do take place outside of big government run programs !

    ReplyDelete
  37. Shadow

    Do you know definitively that that deregulation will be in the budget.

    Please be specific.

    Exactly how much deregulation are we talking about?

    Maybe if done right there will be some support for it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kevin its definetly in the throne speech, that was agreed to at the cabinet meeting at Meech lake.

    I'm not sure how the legislative strategy works though. If its actually in the budget or its introduced seperately, or if its in the budget but then voted on seperately down the road in an implimentation bill.

    I guess it just hinges upon if the government wants to survive or catch Iggy off guard and go to the polls now.

    A lot of us want to go now while we hold the big fundraising advantage, the big organization advantage, and Iggy has no platform.

    Maybe all 308 ridings will be like the disasterous by-election results, you know ?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Shadow

    Maybe cons do have a fundraising advantage, but after the writ has dropped all parties are on an equal footing as to what they can spend in a campaign.

    Wasnt't the 08 campaign the first time the NDP spent up to the election limit, like the two larger parties.

    As for your comments to Volkov, a lot of people would vehemently disagree with you about the benefits of early childhood programs.

    A lot of parents would also say that the one hundred dollar a month child care allowance is in-adequate, for day care.

    Most cons (no offence) think that mothers can afford to stay home with their children. In today's world, in most cases that is not possible.

    It's an idealogical debate. Social conservatives believe that mothers should stay home and raise a child.
    st
    Maybe in a perfect world that would be possible. We don't live in a perfect world.

    I read an article where a child care advocate (can't remember name)
    said that most social conservatives believe every father makes one hundred thousand dollars a year, and mothers stay home.

    She also wen't on to say that she didn't believe the con government had any interest in child care.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Kevin childcare is a seperate issue.

    I was writing about Ignatieff commenting approvingly on Dalton McGuinty's move to full day kindergarten and statements that he'll improve early childhood education even if it'll worsen the deficit.

    Its a seperate spending boondoggle.

    The thing about any national childcare program is that like every other gov't program it will quickly become unionized.

    It'll crowd out the private market (leaving less choice for parents) and cost a fortune because we'll be paying for pensions and bankable sick days for glorified baby sitters !

    ReplyDelete
  41. Kevin have you seen youth unemployment lately ?

    How about instead of creating a huge gov't run daycare program, complete with the usual university educated "specialists", lavish pay, and benefits we let parents higher some young people to babysit ?

    If there needs to be extra money we can increase the tax credit.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shadow

    I wandered off into the child care after talking about the one hundred dollar a month allowance.

    A lot of parents would appreciate full day kindergarten.

    "hire young people to baby sit" are you serious, that would give parents a lot of peace of mind when they go to work.

    Parents who have to use day care wan't their child in a safe nurturing enviroment.

    Daycare is allready expensive, so the under six child allowance is inadequate for parents who need day care.

    You dont believe in child care, that's fine, a lot of parents's want it and need it.

    You idealogically opposed to early child hood programs, thats fine to, a lot of people aren't.

    Your'e assuming a government boondoggle. Have you seen what day care costs in Ontario, and elsewhere.

    Ask people who use it, they would appreciate, some help

    ReplyDelete
  43. Have to say I fully support Jesse on the idea of glorified baby sitters. I've never understood why elementary teachers need a degree to teach up to grade 7. Grades 7 & 8 perhaps. Same thing with nurses. For decades community college worked just fine. Now we require a degree in nursing. More schooling equals more pay.

    We have become a society that values paper qualifications far beyond what they are worth. The ability to do the job is what should be first and foremost. Adding the words university degree rather than college diploma worth thousands. Are they better teachers and nurses or librarians? In our endless quest to have the "qualified" people we have instead got the people most willing to jump through hoops.

    Please don't think that I'm devaluing education. I'm not. Do we really need teachers in high school with Master's degrees and PHDs? To manage a department at a Shopper's Drug Mart, like cosmetics you now need a degree. Our society is creating over qualified people churned out by paper mills.

    Good, solid education is to be valued! However our lust for paper qualifications is found virtually everywhere. Business salivates over MBAs. When will it end and at what cost?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jesse your comments about unions are off base. You sound so jealous. Maybe like Mike Harris you're a failed teacher, or you couldn't get a job because you didn't belong to a union. Unions have given us a decent standard of living. Employers wouldn't pay much more than subsistence wages with out unions. If you represented what the CPC is really all about then I'd be changing my vote. Fortunately you're a self identified fringe player as a libertarian.

    Where did you get this notion that we're going to get telecommunications reform in the next federal budget. It isn't a budget item. Only in your world would the CPC force an election on a matter of nationalism. That's what overtly changing the foreign ownership rules would do. Yup give the Liberals just the issue they need. Harper has more sense than you do, at least I hope he does.

    ReplyDelete
  45. How refreshing it would be to see Jesse to complain about business collusion and subsidies. Finally someone is challenging the real estate empire and their hold on MLS. Now that will mean benefits for consumers, if successful. This challenge was the result of efforts by the federal government and very likely unionized employees. Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kevin its a wonder society has survived until now!

    How have previous generations that seem superior to this batch of young people ever appeared ?

    Highering neighbourhood kids to babysit is perfectly fine. In fact its been happening since the start of time.

    "Loving and nurtuing environment" sounds like psychobabble. Just more coddling an already spoiled generation.

    What they need to do is go outside and play, join sports teams, do what people used to do before gov't daycare and video games. Before childhood obesity.


    I realize this is an urban/rural issue. In urban areas there's a complete breakdown of traditional community.

    "Youths" in Toronto are more likely to be involved in gang activity, criminal activity, and drug use then many of the smaller and medium sized towns and cities across Canada.

    So obviously there are issues there.

    Ok so how about a job bank ? How about pre-screening young people and then have a community feedback system where people can read reviews about their job performance ?

    If daycare is too expensive how about increasing the child tax credit ?


    It just seems like the Liberal solution to everything is more government, more spending then nessecary, and boosting public sector unions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shadow

    "Hiring neighborhood kids to baby sit is fine"

    How old are these kids supposed to be, and where does school fit into their all day baby sitting schedule.

    "Go outside and play and join sports teams etc"

    What do the parents of very young children do.

    In your scenario parents are supposed to leave their children with the neighborhhod kids go to work and be happy.

    You are completely devaluing child care, and child care workers.

    I don't know about you but most parents who have to work want to leave their children in a safe daycare where they know their children are being looked after and they don't have to worry.

    Increasing the child tax credit will do nothing to increase child care spaces, for parents who need them.

    "Youths in Toronto are more likely to be involved in gang activity"

    Which is why we need recreation and after school programs. You know to help them play some of those sports you talked about.

    I would have more respect for your argument if you would just say that you are idealogically opposed to child care, and early child care programs.

    What you laid out above sounds like 1950's Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Kevin drop this "you're ideologically opposed" to childcare nonsense. Oh yeah, Conservatives hate kids! I'm interested in what works best for families.

    And what I layed out is 2010 Canada in all but the big cities, not the 1950's. As I said there is a sharp urban/rural divide on this issue.

    And the reason childcare spaces are dissapearing has more to do with nanny state regulations shutting down backyard daycares.

    Everybody needs insurance now. There's rules and inspections. Loads of red tape preventing a stay at home mom from taking care of half a dozen of her working friend's kids during the day.


    And yes, you're damn right i'm devaluing childcare workers!

    What does everybody in Africa do? Every human being since the dawn of time?

    They didn't have freakin degrees or specialized training !

    btw setting up government run, top down, union daycare does NOT create new childcare spaces.

    It crowds out existing arrangements.

    Or it creates economic situations that simply aren't feasible, to the point that it would do our economy more good for women (or men) working in certain sectors to just stay home and look after their children themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Shadow

    Being idealogically opposed to child care, and early child learning programs does not equal "Conservatives hate kids"

    You are opposed to a position I took on an issue, and thats fine, but don't put word in my mouth, that I never said.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Kevin i'm not opposed to childcare (have nothing against babysitters or working parents).

    I'm opposed to gov't run childcare and early childhood education because it costs too much and doesn't work.

    If it worked and didn't cost too much i'd support it.

    Has nothing to do with ideology at all.

    You seem to be implying that I don't have valid objections to Iggy's policy proposals and am just against them because of some kind of philisophical or political obligation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jeez Shadow, why don't you check your facts.

    "One in four boys report heavy drinking practices in small metro regions, small cities, small
    towns, and northern regions. In contrast, boys in the major metropolitan regions have the lowest prevalence of heavy drinking."

    (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2003003-eng.pdf)

    "Prevalence of substance abuse is higher in mid-size cities than in rural or larger cities" in Canada.

    (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-canada-substance-abuse/)

    "Society’s preoccupation with drug use in urban communities has drawn attention away from important rural drug issues. In fact, drug use in Canada is actually less common in larger cities with Canada’s major drug problems lying in provinces with more rural communities."

    (http://www.drugabuse.ca/newsletter_pdfs_v01_i05/04-RURAL_VERSUS_URBAN_DRUG_USE_MISUSE.pdf)

    ReplyDelete
  52. To summarize ... illicit drug abuse is low on both sides of the "divide" (rural/large city), with the divide itself (small city) being where most of the abuse is happening.

    "Sharp urban/rule divide on this issue" indeed.

    (Not to mention that you have your argument bass ackwards if the drug we're talking about is alcohol.)

    ReplyDelete
  53. "You seem to be implying that I don't have valid objections to Iggy's policy proposals and am just against them because of some kind of philisophical or political obligation."

    Those who label themselves as partisans subscribe, in whole or at least in significant part, to a certain set of beliefs. Being partisan also implies some amount of obligation to promote the political philosophy of choice via the political party of choice.

    Your position on childcare aligns with the Conservative's ideological position. The Conservatives (hopefully) have a logical philosophical reason (right or wrong, I don't claim to know) to support this political ideology.

    There's no inherent wrong in subscribing to a political party's ideology. I don't think Kevin was implying otherwise.

    I do agree with your worries about overpaying baby-sitters in a government-run childcare system. However, I do think that the Conservative government should at least do an objective, unbiased cost-benefit analysis of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  54. SK there is indeed an urban/rural divide on this issue.

    Your use of statistics doesn't adjust for income level or the aboriginal population.

    Most communities are somewhat homogenous so when you account for variables skewing the stats you find that aside from some trouble spots rural/suburban juvenile deliquency is less then in big cities.

    Obviously these trouble spots need childcare too, they also need a great deal more assistance.

    But that doesn't discount the urban/rural divide. It just means that when you drill down into the numbers there are further divisions.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Shadow ...

    ""Youths" in Toronto are more likely to be involved in gang activity, criminal activity, and drug use then many of the smaller and medium sized towns and cities across Canada."

    My stats very clearly contradict this statement. To quote one of the sources I cited (CBC):

    "The research also suggests that the prevalence of substance abuse is higher in mid-sized cities than in rural or larger cities. For example, it found the rate of substance abuse estimated at 7.76 per cent in Toronto and 8.08 per cent in Montreal, but about 12.57 percent in mid-sized cities."

    Nice try.

    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.