Thursday, March 18, 2010

EKOS Poll: 4.2-pt Conservative Lead

EKOS is on schedule with its weekly poll. A little movement, but nothing significant.Since last week's poll, the Conservatives have gained 1.2 points and are at 33.1%. The Liberals have lost 0.7 points and stand at 28.9%. While these are both within the 2.0 MOE, the 4.2 gap is not.

The NDP loses 0.3 points and is at 15.7%. The Greens lose 0.2 points and are at 10.8%, while the Bloc gains 0.1 point to reach 9.2%. The other parties are at 2.3%, down 0.1.

In Ontario, the two major parties have joined in a tie at 35.6%. The NDP is behind at 16.3%.

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is comfortably ahead with 36.8%, followed by the Liberals at 24.2% and the Conservatives at 16.3%. All of these results are slightly lower than where the parties want to be.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives continue to struggle with 32%. The NDP is at 24.8% and the Liberals are at 23.6%. The Greens are at 16.3% here.

The only movement outside of the MOE in any of the regional results comes in Alberta, where the Tories have gained eight points and stand at 58.2%. A Conservative lead in Atlantic Canada (only 0.4 points with a 7.8 MOE) is an oddity.

In the cities, the only movement outside of the MOE is in Toronto, where the Conservatives have gained nine points and are almost tied with the Liberals.

The Conservatives win 63 seats in the West, 45 in Ontario, 6 in Quebec, and 11 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 125.

The Liberals win 21 seats in the West (thanks in large part to a big number in the Prairies), 47 in Ontario, 16 in Quebec, and 18 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 102.

The Bloc wins 51 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 11 in the West, 14 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 3 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 51.

This poll also has the "second choice" question, which I always love.

For Conservative voters, 45.9% have no second choice, 25.2% choose the Liberals, and 14.8% choose the NDP. This indicates that Conservatives voters don't see either the Liberals or the NDP as sharing a lot of common policies, but that the Liberals are seen as closer to the centre.

Among Liberal voters, 32.7% choose the NDP as their second choice, 26.5% have no second choice, and 18.6% choose the Conservatives. This indicates that the Liberals have a much stronger left-wing than they do right-wing.

For NDP voters, 30.9% choose the Liberals, 28.1% choose none, and 21.4% choose the Greens. Going over to the Tories is too much of a stretch for NDP voters.

For Bloc voters, 31.6% choose their fellow social democratic party in the NDP, 28.6% choose none, and 16.1% choose the Liberals.

Finally, among Green voters, 30% choose none, 24.2% choose the Liberals, and 23.6% choose the NDP. Talk that the Greens are more right-wing than most people think seems unfounded.

166 comments:

  1. When members are voting on Derek Lee's motion I wonder if this poll will have any impact ?

    A lot of nervous Liberals in parliament right now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why would you say that? The party has been polling well enough, and certainly better than the 2008 results. Few Liberals in parliament are in danger of losing their seats. The Conservatives and the NDP are the only ones that should be nervous. The only thing the Liberals are likely to lose is the possibility of forming government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shadow,

    Probably more than a few nervous conservatives as well.

    Would you like to be running on a platform of not handind documents over as ordered by parliamen.

    Conservatives, can cry "National Security" all they want, that canard won't fly.

    Remember openness, and accoutability.

    If I was a liberal MP, I would be willing to take my chances.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eric,

    I'm curious about your conclusion that the latest Ekos poll suggest that the Grits would make big gains in the prairies. Since the Ekos poll numbers show that they would do materially worse in the prairies than they did during the last running of the reptiles (28% to 33.8% in 2008) and the Tories would do materially better (43% to 39.2%) it strikes me as an odd conclusion. I don't think the ridings have changed, have they? Is there something I'm missing?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eric its not really good enough for the Liberals to get 100 seats when they were looking at a minority gov't last spring.

    Iggy would be gone as leader with such a result, unless he went for a coalition.

    And 2 more years on the back benches is pretty damn depressing for Liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think I would say that all of them should be nervous voting on this motion.

    Duceppe and Layton have been through so many elections that I think they are unlikely to stay on after another round completes (credit Jack for fighting through the health issues he has)

    Iggy and Harper? one will "win" (if you can call a thin majority a win), the other will probably resign (or be forced out).

    In Quebec the numbers... volatile is the wrong word, but different opinions. Some of them could have the bloc shedding several seats. Some might say they are ok.

    In Ontario... 36-36 and even 38-38 in Toronto?? That tells me that liberals in the center of the universe.... should be very concerned.

    The NDP is down 2.5 points from the election. gains?? not likely.

    Tories are lower in Que,... and BC they just dropped another 4 points. And they stand to lose some on the prairies to the liberals who are flying high there. (I am still stuck with Goodale... why is god punishing me)

    The only people who should be happy are the lobby group who use the election to increase their media time and get their message out.


    And finally, what burning issue is out there to increase voter participation?? will any parties at all see their funding increased based on an election??


    I don't think any of the parties want to roll the dice and spend their $$$ on an election right now. There is no positive momentum for any of them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Carl, I am sorry, I am not sure what numbers you are looking at, but I can't seem to find them.

    The ones I found are here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2008

    The prairies 2008 election (Sk- Man). The tories average 51%, the liberals 17%, the NDP 25%

    Todays poll puts tories at 43%, liberals 29%, NDP at 16%.


    The liberals cannot help but pick up some there. And that is a very poor result for the NDP.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Carl,

    --- "Since the Ekos poll numbers show that they would do materially worse in the prairies than they did during the last running of the reptiles (28% to 33.8% in 2008) and the Tories would do materially better (43% to 39.2%) it strikes me as an odd conclusion."

    The Liberals had 17% in the Prairies in 2008, not 33.8%. They had 33.8% in Ontario.

    Shadow,

    --- "Iggy would be gone as leader with such a result, unless he went for a coalition.

    I'm not so sure. If Ignatieff runs a decent campaign and gets between 100 to 110 seats, I think he could stay on until the next election.

    Barcs,

    --- "Duceppe and Layton have been through so many elections that I think they are unlikely to stay on after another round completes"

    My own personal view, but I think Duceppe will stay on until the next provincial election in Quebec. Leaving before hand would knock some wind out of the sovereigntist sail.

    --- "I don't think any of the parties want to roll the dice and spend their $$$ on an election right now. There is no positive momentum for any of them."

    I agree, but I don't think the Liberals would be the most nervous. Of all the parties, they have the best chance of coming out with a good result.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "My own personal view, but I think Duceppe will stay on until the next provincial election in Quebec. Leaving before hand would knock some wind out of the sovereigntist sail."

    I think that is possible. But I also think that Duceppe would be leader of the PQ today if Marois didn't throw her hat in the ring... Duceppe may have to make a choice over his support for the movement and his opposition to an "usurper".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Eric the Liberals don't really have a lot of money.

    If they fight an election and get only 100-110 seats they'd be badly prepared for the next one in terms of $$$, organization, morale, and candidates.

    It would fuel angst about whether they can ever form gov't, about whether a unite the left is needed.

    Iggy's personal numbers are 19% approval. How on earth could he stay on after such a result ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I agree, but I don't think the Liberals would be the most nervous. Of all the parties, they have the best chance of coming out with a good result."

    I agree, but good... and better are not the same thing. They would likely exit an election with more seats (although possibly different ones), a higher proportion of the vote.... but not necessarily more votes. There is no burning fire to increase voter participation.

    With a win they could still find their funding cut and having spent a bundle on an election.

    Best case for them would be a few more MP's, and possibly limiting the tories funding by a couple million a year. They would likely even break up the Tory/1 party majority, but whether they make it to a liberal/ndp ability to carry a majority without a 3rd party... I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize the Liberals as "polling well". Sure, their polling numbers are ahead of their 2008 result (how could they not be), but then,they were also polling well above their ultimate 2008 result in August, 2008, shortly before their crashed and burned (and, it should be noted, putting up numbers not all that different from their current ones). Moreover, they're almost within the margin of error of their 2008 election numbers, so it's hard to draw too much comfort from that.

    Worse, having gone through a nasty recession, and series of mini-scandals (though I doubt many of them will resonate with voters), you might have thought the Grits would be doing a heck of a lot better than they are now.

    Furthermore, I think there are still serious questions about the ability of the Liberal party to fight an election toe-to-toe with the Tories. Despite Iggy's best efforts (and a leadership convention and last fall's election fever), the Liberals haven't really been able to close the fundraising gap with the Tories. So they continue to face financial constraints.

    Finally, despites being the defacto leader for more than year now, Iggy still hasn't been able to get together a coherent Liberal policy platform. Granted, neither have the Tories, but they're the government,they don't need a platform, they have to run on their record. The absence of a platform has, and will, hurt them.

    So here we have a party whose polling numbers are within spitting distance of their worst election result in modern history, with far fewer resources than their principal opponent, an image problem and the reality that they won't have a coherent election platform until next year. If I were Iggy (who's only going to get one chance at this), I wouldn't be so eager to try my luck now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eric,

    You're right. I was looking at the summary numbers at the bottom of your blog, but what I was thought was the top of the Prairie Table (with the Ontario numbers just below) was really the bottow. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't believe that the NDP or Bloc can realistically hope to win more seats than they did in 2008. The Bloc could pick up a couple more, but that just means status quo.

    I think it is extremely unlikely that the Conservatives can better their 143 seats of 2008.

    With a good campaign, the Liberals could squeak out with more seats than the Tories, and govern with the tacit support of the NDP or the Bloc on a day-to-day basis.

    That's why I think the Liberals are the only ones who would be justified to go into an election with hope. The other three parties are just going to try to maintain what they have.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think Harper should be really nervous about this:
    "At the same time, the number of Canadians polled who said the Conservative government is heading in the right direction dipped slightly to 44.2 per cent, from 45.5 per cent the week before.

    The number who said it is heading in the wrong direction increased 1.1 percentage points to 44.9 per cent."


    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/17/ekos-poll-mar18.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. All three opposition parties have lots to gain from an election. Unless Harper wins a majority - he will be out of power. There is no way any of the opposition parties will let a post-election Tory Throne Speech pass. The GG will appoint as PM whoever can demonstrate an ability to pass a Throne Speech. I predict that person will be Michael Ignatieff not Stephen Harper. There won't be any coalition, the NDP and the BQ will simply let a Liberal initial throne speech pass and then that government will live or die depending on whether it can get one of the other parties to support - just like the Tories are doing now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eric a good campaign can go both ways.

    And remember your polls don't take into account the advantages Tories have at GOTV and money.

    A CPC gain of 5 seats does not seem out of the question, nor does a 2006 style result.

    But Barcs is right, if Liberals gain only 100-110 their party will be shattered to pieces.

    And a coalition would probably see about 1/5 of their support move to the CPC on a permanent basis. Eventually an NDP-Liberal and maybe Green merge would be the obvious result.

    ReplyDelete
  18. um...if the Liberals take 100-110 seats that is a gain of 30 seats from they have now - they would be jumping for joy at that result the newly enlarged caucus would sing "Hail the Conquering Hero" for Ignatieff - who would them become PM for the reasons i just mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  19. DL remember the GG doesn't do any such thing.

    Harper gets to bring in this throne speech. Opposition would need to all vote it down.

    Then she'd refuse request for dissolution, Harper would resign as PM, and Iggy would be chosen.

    A very messy process indeed. One that would probably do long term damage to the Liberals if successful.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Why would Harper be nervous that "only" 44% of Canadians think the country is heading in the "right direction". That's more or less where the government has been for the last year.

    Moreover, if you look beyond the national numbers, the Government is doing very well in English Canada, which, for them, is what matters (because the BQ will take 50 seats off the table in Quebec no matter what happens). Their unpopularity in Quebec is bad for the Tories, but doesn't really do anything for the Grits.

    Plus, keep in mind, while most of the people who think the government is going in the right direction are likely to vote for the Tories (which makes sense), the vote of those who think it's going in the wrong direction is split between 4 parties. Put it this way, those numbers indicate that the Tories have room to grow.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DL

    I agree with all your points.

    Any guesses as to how Harper will behave at that point.

    Will he accept defeat graciously?

    ReplyDelete
  22. As much as I like seeing the Liberals down under 30%, these second-choice numbers just reinforce that it might be the Nanos poll (that put the Liberals up at 34) that is most accurate.

    Nanos produces more realistic Green numbers, and using the second-choice answers to redistribute Green support in this poll pushes up the Liberals considerably.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shadow,

    Did the Liberals suffer any long term damage in Ontario.

    Remember the 1985 provincial election?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The only thing that does long term damage to the Liberal party is being out of power. If Harper loses the first vote on a Throne speech - it will be the easiest decision in the world for the Liberals to then form a minority government under Ignatieff. In fact, if Harper were a true gentleman, he would do what Frank Miller did in 1985 and once all three opposition parties committed to voting him down - he would see the writing on the wall and resign.

    Unless of course Harper refuses to ever hold another election and declares a dictatorship - which i would not put past him. I suspect that when he gets dumped, there will have the a phalanx of security guards need to pry him out of his seat in the PMO and that he'll probably have to be put on suicide watch afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 49 steps i'd be mad as hell if he accepted gracious defeat.

    The CPC would have the following reaction:

    1) Harper MUST stay as leader. Despite opposition/media calls trying to knock out our best player.

    Seriously, if he was so bad why are you trying to convinced us to get rid of him so much ??

    2) Totally scorched earth campaign to make coalition unacceptable to Canadians.

    3) If Iggy is sworn in as PM use senate to block his legistlation. Ammend his budget with a proposal the BQ would NEED to support. Peel off the BQ at all turns, eventually force them to side with the CPC and take down the gov't.

    4) Fight coalition in election campaign. Win Majority.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Barcs: I think I would say that all of them should be nervous voting on this motion.

    The motion itself is harmless; it's not non-confidence. Harper might be able to engineer the dissolution of Parliament before the documents were actually provided, but I doubt it.

    In any case, they wouldn't want that to be the main election issue. They can say "protect our troops" 'til their faces match their ties, but all the other parties will point out that the Tories are the ones being shielded. Also, the attempt to wrest power from elected representatives wouldn't play well.

    I don't think any of the parties want to roll the dice and spend their $$$ on an election right now. There is no positive momentum for any of them.

    The Grits aren't moving because they have a timetable of a spring Big Think and a fall election, but if push comes to shove, we could all be pounding signs in a few weeks and everyone would cope.

    The only ones who need momentum now are the Tories. In the next election they will need a majority to retain the reins of power and they won't get it unless (as Éric so wonderfully put it) Ignatieff steps on a baby. Otherwise, the sequence is:
    1) Election campaign. All parties say loudly, repeatedly and explicitly, "no coalition".
    2) The votes are counted. There's a Grit or Tory plurality. It doesn't matter which.
    3) The CPC forms a government. (This step and the next may be skipped because they won't change the outcome.)
    4) The government is immediately defeated on a no-confidence vote.
    5) Ignatieff proposes to the GG that the LPC form a government, without any formal coalition.
    6) Her Excellency agrees. King/Byng is an absolute precedent with a Grit plurality. Without one, it's an almost absolute precedent.
    7) The Grits run the show for a while, propped up by the Bloc, NDP and any new Green faces. All supporting parties find the new management far more conducive to leading the country in the right direction. The government is far more stable than the current one. The Tories cry foul because our system isn't the one they want under the current tactical situation. Nobody listens.

    That sequence is the reason the Bloc and Dippers are willing to hit the hustings too. They'll end up better off than they are today under almost any outcome.


    But getting back to the current situation, just what in those documents can be so nasty that the Tories' behaviour makes sense? Because even if they spring a snap election on us, the dirty laundry is coming out shortly afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  27. hmmm....gee this is like shooting fish in a barrel. You think the Tories should cooperate at every opportunity with the BQ so that they can sabotage a Liberal minority government - so that the Tories can then campaign against the evils of...drumroll please...working with the BQ!

    Be serious.

    BTW: The senate can only delay and amend legislation and they cannot vote down money bills at all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Shadow,

    You have completely gone off the deep end.

    Those motions today have you really ticked don't they.

    The CPC was caught off guard.

    What DL said was perfectly correct and legal.

    You are prepared to do and say just about anything as long as Harper retains the title of PM.

    No one is talking about a coalition but you.

    Cooperation in a minority parliament is normal.

    If it is good enough for the CPC., why is it not good enough for a Liberal minority, working with others.

    I suggest you calm down and rethink some of your statements.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 49 steps, DL you guys are funny.

    No coalition ? Really ?

    Jack Layton would NEVER support Iggy without cabinet seats.

    NEVER.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Shadow,

    The complete desperation and panic of the CPC is being very well displayed by you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A defeat of the Harper government with them remaining strong in Alberta and Saskatchewan would serve to reinvigorate the separatist movements there.

    What we really need is a smaller, weaker, central government so the provinces can be free to govern themselves as they see fit. It's clear that Albertans and Quebeckers, for example, want very different things from their government. So why should they have to share one?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Jack Layton would NEVER support Iggy without cabinet seats.

    NEVER."

    Speak for yourself. I strongly suspect he will support Iggy in exchange for policy concessions - and won't demand cabinet seats.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't think a 100-110 seat Liberal result will have anyone jumping with joy. Yes, in theory, that would mean that the Grits could team up with the NDP to outvote the Tories (barely). But that assumes that the Bloc will just go with the flow with whatever the Grits and NDP decide. The Bloc may be lefties, but their Quebec focus tends to give them a pretty different world-view than the NDP or the Grits.

    Take a policy that both the NDP and Grits purport to care about, National Child Care. The Bloc would love that idea, provided it means that Quebec can opt-out, take the money, and do their own thing. Without that provision, though, they'd vote against it an instant. The NDP would hate providing such a optionto every province, though, and if you granted that option to Quebec, but not to other provinces, the other provinces would go ape. (Then there's the little matter of paying for it, which the Liberals won't want to do).

    Moreover, in the long term, even if the Grits could get the Bloc onside, it would come at the expense of shifting the Liberal party to the left, basically exposing the juicy middle of the political spectrum to the drooling conservatives.

    It is, however, a sad comment on the state of the Liberal party that anyone would think that 100 seats is a "good" result.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The NDP and the Liberals have worked very well in a minority parliament before, without a formal coalition.

    I suspect they could do so again.

    That respects the will of more voters than a CPC government.

    This is what is driving the conservatives crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ira,

    Just to clariffy, the Senate can't initiate money bills, but it can defeat them (as the Department of Finance learned a few years ago when the Senate banking committee all but told them that it would not pass their much vaunted, and long-delayed, foreign invesment entity and non-resident trust measures as enacted). Those measures have since been reworked.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ignatieff would not need a coalition to form government in the scenarios described above.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry, that last comment was directed at DL, it's section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eric,

    Technically, you're right, but as a practical matter, he would need some sort of arrangement with one (or more likely two) other parties.

    And, as a practical matter, one (or two) of the other parties would be able to hold him hostage on every vote, so even in the absence of a formal coalition, he'd be dancing to their tune.

    In theory, the same is true of the Tories right now, but because the Tories only need one party to abstain (as opposed to the active support of both other parties), and at any one moment in time there's usually at least one party who doesn't want to force an election (at least not over a given issue), they've been able to play them off against one another.

    A liberal government with 100-110 seats wouldn't have that luxury. One party sitting on it's hand (unless it's the Tories) wouldn't be enough for them to get their agenda enacted. They'd need the active support of at least one (maybe two) other parties.

    ReplyDelete
  39. NDP just wouldn't do it.

    The Bay St. buddies of the Liberals would not let them drop the corporate tax cuts.

    With the corporate tax cuts going ahead there is no money for NDP programs.

    So in order to get the NDP to go along with those cuts the Liberals had to offer them cabinet seats.


    Is everybody forgetting we've been here once before ??

    There were negotiations. There were cabinet seats involved.

    Why would the result be any different this time around ?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Eric

    You say "With a good campaign, the Liberals ....."

    Ignatieff will be running his first national campaign against a season campaigner in Harper.

    Do you see Ignatieff having a first national campaign of the kind that "rookie" Chretien and Manning against Kim Campbell? Mulroney first campaign against John Turner?

    I think a more realistic campaign comparison would be Harper in the Chretien role against Ignatieff in the Stockwell Day role.

    If you can't see a possible CPC majority in that you really are not taking a non-partisan long distance view.

    What would positively differentiate Mr. Ignatieff from Mr. Day? Mr. Day actually won a national leadership contest, had a astounding record a provincial politician and whose youth was a counterpoint to an aging Mr. Chretien. Mr. Ignatieff will run a better campaign because...???

    ReplyDelete
  41. BC has a good point.

    I'm not sure about a Tory majority government since that means they would have to run a perfect campaign. But the same would be true for the Grits to win 100-110 seats.

    Iggy, whatever his considerable merits are, is not (yet) a seasoned politician, and even for seasoned politicans, running a national campaign for the first time is a tough fight.

    Consider Harper. By the time he ran against Martin in 2004, he had fought and won two tough party leadership races (first with the CA then with the Tories). And, yet he still made costly errors in the 2004 election. Iggy doesn't even have that background (having fought, and lost, one leadership race to, wait for it, Stephane Dion).

    In fact, a lot of the heavy hitters in Canadian politics washed out in their first campaigns. Provincially, I think of both Mike Harris and Dalton McGuinty, who were kicked around, badly, in their first campaigns (only to run the floor the next two times out). Out in BC's neck of the woods, I think of Gordon Campbell, who somehow managed to blow his first election, only to mop the floor with the NDP the next two times out.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shadow,

    Idle speculation.

    Ring a bell?

    We are not factoring into account how a dissolution of parliament by Harper, would be received by the Canadian public.

    The cons would have to explain why they are dissolving parliament, and why we need an election.

    I will now indulge in some idle speculation of my own, and say it will not be very well received.

    Depending on how the campaign went Mr. Harper would more than likely find himself on the opposition benches.

    He will find few friends there.

    ReplyDelete
  43. --- If you can't see a possible CPC majority in that you really are not taking a non-partisan long distance view.

    If Harper couldn't win a majority against Dion and that campaign, then he certainly won't win a majority against Ignatieff and a Liberal team that has learned the lessons of 2008.

    The numbers aren't there for a Conservative majority anyway. Coyne, Gregg, and Hébert made the same argument last night on The National. A 12-point spread in 2008 and still 12 seats away from the slimmest of majorities.

    I don't know why you're bringing up Stockwell Day. If you want to make a comparison with Day, he was more of a Dion in terms of personal liabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stockwell day is as dumb as a post and was an object of ridicule. Iggy has a lot of negative qualities - but no one thinks he's stupid or ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "For Conservative voters, 45.9% have no second choice, 25.2% choose the Liberals, and 14.8% choose the NDP. This indicates that Conservatives voters don't see either the Liberals or the NDP as sharing a lot of common policies, but that the Liberals are seen as closer to the centre.

    Among Liberal voters, 32.7% choose the NDP as their second choice, 26.5% have no second choice, and 18.6% choose the Conservatives. This indicates that the Liberals have a much stronger left-wing than they do right-wing."


    Actually what this really indicates is how fundamentalist abd myopic conservative voters really are. Like their leader/owner Harper, they would rather go home in anger with the ball like a little child than learn how to work with everyone else at the play-ground.

    It's actually quite embarrasing for the conservatives. Wonder what talking points will be coming up to try and refute this fact.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Get it ruight Shadow:
    "When members are voting on Derek Lee's motion I wonder if this poll will have any impact ?"

    No motion was moved or seconded today. Thus NO vote is required.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Josh,

    That's certainly a spin you could put on it, if you were so inclined. Although by that reasoning, 27% of Liberals are also "fundamentalists" (fundamentally Liberal, perhaps).

    A more reasonable explanation is that the Tories are notoriously strong in Alberta, where the NDP and Liberals are, for historical reasons, simply beyond the pale of your average voter.

    What it does indicate is that the Tories have a more loyal base then their rivals, which gives them greater policy flexibility, since they can tilt to the left (as we saw last year) to try and peel off right-wing Liberals (the 25% of Liberal voters for whom the Tories are the second choice) without losing their base to another party. There are limits to that, of course, you don't want someone starting up another right-wing party, but it gives the Tories a tactical edge. The Liberals don't have that flexibility, since they risk losing a significant chunk of their vote to either the NDP or the Tories.

    The greater loyalty of Tory voters probably also explains why they're so much more successful at fundraising.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am still left wondering what exactly is in those documents.

    Harper and company seem to be going to very great lengths to keep them under wraps.

    Why?

    Does the brilliant master strategist really want to dissolve parliament, rather than hand over those documents as ordered by parliament?

    What is his game plan?

    How on earth does he expect to win an election under those circumstances?

    Remember open, honest, transparent government.

    Does he really want to run on a platform of I don't respect parliament, I don't respect international law, I don't respect human rights.

    I don't respect the rule of law in Canada.

    I just don't get it.

    Just mind boggling.

    Just some points to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So in order to get the NDP to go along with those cuts the Liberals had to offer them cabinet seats.
    That was to get a formal coalition agreement that they could take to the GG and change government without another election.

    Is everybody forgetting we've been here once before ??
    Yes, once. Usually there is no coalition, at most an accord such as Ontario had in the 1980s. So if you are trying to make the case that "once" is a tradition, what do you call more than once as counterexamples?

    There were negotiations. There were cabinet seats involved.
    Yes, a contract to form a coalition so the GG would not be able to question whether they could form a government if she asked them to.

    Why would the result be any different this time around ?
    Because the only coalition in the past was before 1920, (a government that gave women the vote, by the way). But if we look at the majority of past cases, the more traditional way would be an accord, informal or formal, that would give a Liberal government the ability to govern, while giving the NDP a much bigger voice so they can have some of their ideas implemented.
    I think it is pretty clear the NDP will get more of what it wants policy wise supporting a Liberal government than a CPC one.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 49

    "Those motions today have you really ticked don't they."

    That's the trick to what happened today. There are NO motions. As part of each members question of privilege they read into the Parliamentary record their PROPOSED motions but never actually moved or seconded them. Thus there is nothing to vote on but it tells the Speaker what will happen if he rules against them.

    Smart procedure on the oppo's part !!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Opposition MPs are calling on the House Speaker to rule that the government violated parliamentary privilege in refusing to hand over uncensored documents on the transfer of Afghan detainees.

    Liberal MP Derek Lee, NDP defence critic Jack Harris and Bloc Québécois MP Claude Bachand argued in the House on Thursday morning that the Conservatives' refusal to abide by a House order to hand over the documents flies in the face of parliamentary rights and traditions.

    "If we don't stand up, efforts to undermine our constitution will have succeeded," Lee said.

    Harris put forth a point of privilege calling for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon to be found in contempt of the House if all unredacted documents are not handed over to the Afghanistan committee within 30 days of the Speaker's instruction.

    The opposition has accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of proroguing Parliament for six weeks in an attempt to thwart a special Commons committee's probe into allegations of torture of detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers into Afghan custody, as well as silence questions over what the government knew of the allegations and when it learned about them.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/18/parliament-afghan-detainee-documents.html#ixzz0iYsMDbw4

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Actually what this really indicates is how fundamentalist abd myopic conservative voters really are."

    No, it shows to what extent we think the rest of you are just wrong about how the world works.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Green's who are ex-Conservatives (such as myself) tend to not have the CPC as a second choice as they burned bridges quite nicely with anyone who has left them. Never donated to them, but sure voted for them in the past.

    I can not trust them to keep promises, or to tell the truth (no tax increases - unless you pay CPP or EI or pay user fees or ...). To me they are the 'Bloc Alberta'.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Liberal Supporter

    I agree that an "accord" is more likely that a formal coalition, though as a practical matter that's probably a distinction without a difference. Play it out in your mind, can you imagine the response to Iggy saying: " We promised not to form a coalition with the NDP and the Separatists, and we haven't. We've formed an accord with the NDP an the separatists". Ok, so he probably wouldn't say it like that, but that's how it would likely go over with Joe Q. Public.

    As a purely legal matter, there's nothing wrong with that. As a political matter, it would be disastrous for the Liberal party. In fact, in the long run, even an "accord" with the NDP would be disastrous. The great fear of the Liberal party is that the Canadian political spectrum will get polarized along left-right lines (as it has in the US, the UK, and in practice, in Australia) with them getting squeezed out of the middle (as happened to the British Liberals a century ago). In the past, their ace in the hole has always been Quebec. The grits always started every election with a solid base of 50 odd seats, which gave them an anchor to allow them to hold the middle (since it meant that they had a head start in forming a government). They survived without it in the 1990's because the divided right left them with a solid base of 100 seats in Ontario.

    That ace is now toast. With the Bloc in existence, the battle between the national parties gets played out in English Canada on the left-right spectrum. So the risk of forming an accord/coalition with the NDP is that it will inevitably draw them to the left of the political spectrum. At that point, the concern is that(a) the Tories will pick up enough right-wing Liberals to form a government or (b) left-of-center voters will figure that, if they want a left-wing party that governs like the NDP, why don't they just vote for the NDP. That latter risk is heightened because the ability of the Liberals to disparage the NDP as socialist nut-jobs is undermined when they enter into "accords" with them. In either case, an accord with the NDP would be a strategic disaster for the Grits.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I agree with Carl there. Unless the NDP prove themselves to be so disastrously pathetic that they can't do anything, an accord will only work the long-term disadvantage of the Liberals.

    The only scenario acceptable is to dissolve the NDP. Seriously. Dissolve the NDP and bring its supporters under a new wing within the Liberals. That way, we can work together, moderate each other's political impulses to the left or right, and not work to bring the other down.

    We could call ourselves the Liberal Democrats, though it isn't highly original, is it.

    But, I have faith that the Liberals will always have a base of seats to work off of. The difference may be that instead of Quebec, we're going to shift like the NDP did from Prairie politics, to more urban or semi-urban and industrial seats, to our base mainly focused in the urban areas of the country.

    Until the day the NDP hit above 21% in an election, no merger, nothing. The political landscape isn't so bad that the Liberals or Conservatives couldn't get a majority with a large enough swing.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is funny speculation.

    In 2008 every Pollster had CPC under polled. In 2009 the Liberals failed in four contests. They were not competitive.

    The key demographics in 2010 are better for the CPC and the economy is the ballot question.

    The under 25 yrs old will bring the Liberals out?

    In 2008 a larger drop in other demographics took place in losses 25-44, 44-64, 65+.

    On Thanksgiving 2008 around the table the last day family friends decided to entrust the CPC to manage the economy.

    The NDP/Bloc had the deal in place months before the election was called and the protests, numbers scared Ignatieff. He agreed how bad the coalition was in a June interview. The NP will only pull the plug if the can gain seats from 2008. For the NDP to gain seats that would be mainly at the Lib expense.

    Does Jack risk losing 1 seat in AB, QC so Liberals can have +30 seats? Why did he refuse to join Liberal non-confidence vote in Fall when LPOC were polling under 30's?


    Does Jack go with Bloc Liberals and risk losing 10 seats without a written deal in advance?

    What is the value of the written deal of the Liberals?

    Why would the NDP/Bloc trust the LPC to honour their agreements?

    The General Population has not had the chance to punish the coalition parties leaders. Dion lost his job. He won't be the last.

    Jack and Gilles will both be retired if they "go for it".

    Ignatieff never won the leadership so his resignation won't be noticeable.

    Brian Topp's book will get CPC funded "air time" in the MSM TV, radio spots.

    The campaign will be about the secret deal already planned. The telephone call from Jack.

    Some of you think Jack, Gilles have faced the voters since 2008?

    The coalition parties will repeat the last campaign and deny the deal. They won't survive the CPC air war.


    The public will tolerate the secret deal takes again with the Bloc?

    Too funny!

    The CPC are not going to run against any one party, it will be against protecting Canada from the coalition that will have the separtists in power.

    I can't believe anyone will doubt how ugly this campaign will get and the rout in Ontario for the Liberals.


    Look at the MAP in 2008 and the coalition ridings. What is the % of seats won excluding 75 seats in Quebec? 133/233 CPC won 57% of those seats.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Even on a relaxing vacation CanadianSense doesn't make any sense. Here I was thinking it was just me.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Peter you keep getting this wrong.

    Please go back and read the link I posted to Parliament's website where it explain how this process is working.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_proceduremattersprivilege-e.htm

    In the meanwhile let me correct some statements:

    "That's the trick to what happened today. There are NO motions."

    The motions are inextricably tied to the questions of privilege.

    One of the four requirements when raising a question of priveiege is this. That the MP must provide

    "a statement of what corrective action is being sought and an indication that, should the Speaker rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, the Member is prepared to move the appropriate motion."

    Peter this is also incorrect:

    "Opposition MPs are calling on the House Speaker to rule that the government violated parliamentary privilege in refusing to hand over uncensored documents on the transfer of Afghan detainees."

    No. The speaker makes no such ruling.

    The speaker rules whether "the matter raised is a prima facie case of privilege (i.e., whether it appears at first glance to merit serious consideration)."

    Its like an American grand jury. It only decides whether the case is strong enough to go ahead. It does not render a verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Volkov,

    The problem with the merger idea is that it probably isn't possible for one political party to cover the spectrum between the NDP and the Grits. Any merger, of neccesity, would entail a compromise between the policies of the two parties, with the risk that you voters around the edge. Former NDP supporters who head off and vote for the Greens (or whatever new socialist party forms up) would be bad enough, but losing former liberals on the right would be doubly bad (as they be both lost to the new party, and again for the Tories).

    I think too many NDP and Liberal supporters think that a merger of the NDP and the Liberals would just be a repeat on the left of the merger on the right of the Tories and the CA. What they miss, is that ther merger of the Tories and the CA had an institutional history that they could build upon (as many CA members had, once upon a time, been Tories - Stephen Harper started his career working for a PC MP). Moreover, the merger of the CA and the PC party could look to provincial policians in united PC parties to bridge their gaps Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Tony Clement, Bernard Lord, etc.)I'm hard pressed to think of similar provincial politicians on the left.

    As for the notion that the Grits will always have a base of support, it's true that they do have a solid base of support in some urban areas. But they hardly have a monopoly, facing competition from the Tories in some cities (Winnipeg, Ottawa, Vancouver), losing out entirely in others (Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec) and facing competition from the NDP in the others (in the Atlantic Provicnes and Toronto). And, for what it's worth, today's Ekos poll doesn't suggest that the Grits have a monopoly in Canada's large urban areas (they're behind the Tories in three, the Bloc in one, and essentially tied with the Tories in Toronto - Toronto).

    In anything, however strong its position is in those ridings, its not close to the way it used to be in Quebec, where they could check off 5o seats before the writ was dropped.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @DL "Stockwell day is as dumb as a post and was an object of ridicule. Iggy has a lot of negative qualities - but no one thinks he's stupid or ridiculous."

    ==================================

    And if you look at the facts and accomplishments.....

    Mr. Day: 1)Bringing Alberta out of deficient doing the heavy lifting to completely pay down the Alberta deficit to 0.

    2)Very credible stint as Minister of Public safety. heading up Canada's recovery as head of Treasury board. Treated with respect by media, opposition in his current role. No one questioning his ability to get the job done.

    3) ran and won a leadership campaign

    4) was an awful leader alienating a huge portion of his MPs.

    Mr. Ignatieff

    1) ran and lost a leadership campaign TO Dion

    2) No political accomplishments whatsoever. No responsibilities and no deliverables.

    3) as a leader alienated a huge portion of his MPs. To hang onto power had to gut his OLO and take on Chretien cronies as advisers.

    4) as dumb as a post


    No one has clarified why they would expect a well run campaign by the Ignatieff led Liberals....

    Do you think that their are enough Cretien croinies to manage Ignatieff? has he been nuetered as leader? organization and poularity of Rae? Strong Quebec presense / leadership in Garneau?
    Great policies? Well organized message that resonates with the voting public? Obamaesque oration?

    Please any reason to think feel that Ignatieff will not run a pitifully awful campaign that will be so much better than Dions?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hi Volkov,

    Well.....

    There are rules that must be respected on the board.

    Can you guess what I am thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  62. The CPC would love to run an election triggered by Ignatieff. The only thing that will stop them from getting a majority is if they get painted as same as the Liberals... wanting power at all costs.

    Now with Canada doing so very well coming out of the recession the CPC can afford to wait for the Liberals to back up their rhetoric and trigger an election or wither away.

    The CPC are even throwing out the rejection of cutting the $1.75 subsidy as a sign the Liberals are forcing an election.

    ReplyDelete
  63. In the last election, the Tories were shut out of Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. In this election they might do marginally better than that, but their weakness in the big cities remains painfully clear.


    Oct 13, 2008 Ekos snapsot metro vote
    http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2008/10/snapshot-of-metropolitan-canada-october-13-2008/

    Although Ontario as a whole has witnessed a see-saw battle between the Liberals and Conservatives, in Toronto there has never really been a contest. In our latest roll-up of results from Toronto, the Liberals have a huge lead over the other parties: 41% to just 21% for the Conservatives and 23% for the NDP.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Carl: I agree that an "accord" is more likely that a formal coalition, though as a practical matter that's probably a distinction without a difference. Play it out in your mind, can you imagine the response to Iggy saying: " We promised not to form a coalition with the NDP and the Separatists, and we haven't. We've formed an accord with the NDP an the separatists".

    No, no "accord" is needed either, unless that's what you call the current situation. That label means something like the Ontario '85 arrangement, which was a signed agreement.

    For any explanation of why a Liberal government Just Can't Work, mentally swap the Grit and Tory labels and see whether the argument still holds water. The current situation may provide guidance. Things are less stable if two parties can defeat such a government, but that in no way changes things fundamentally.

    We're unlikely to have an election soon because the Tories don't want to give up power quite yet and the Grits have a planned countdown to the fall. But come October or thereabouts, we'll be seeing a Grit minority government. The rest is details.

    If we do have an election, it's some kind of last-ditch attempt to hide the detainee documents because they are so explosive, and I still don't see how that could work. I also don't see what could be in them to make them so toxic.

    Unless it's the photographic evidence for this:
    Stephen Harper has plans for Canada.
    Scary plans.
    Stephen Harper has a dragon.
    He keeps it in a shed.
    Stephen Harper drinks his own blood.
    He really does. We can't make this up.

    (Sorry, I can't find a link to the Rick Mercer video.)

    ReplyDelete
  65. 49 Steps,

    Indeed.

    Carl,

    I agree for the most part about the merger comments; its a wholly impractical idea, but it isn't impossible nor implausible. There may come a day when the idea of a merger would be in the best interests of both parties. It nearly came after the 2000 election, and it might come at another point in the future. It might be messy, but hey, it'll probably be worth it.

    Not that I want a merger, mind you. I just think that is the best outcome of any situation whereby the Liberals and the NDP must rely on eachother. It could be we end up in a permanent coalition, much like the Liberals and the Nationals in Australia are.

    But I disagree with saying that the urban base for the Liberals is not as secure as Quebec's base was. You have to remember that the base in Quebec was usually pretty superficial; it would turn on a dime given the chance, as well as the resources and the political needs of the day. We saw it with Diefenbaker, with Mulroney, and with Harper when he surged from below 10% in 2004 to beating the Liberals by nearly 4% in 2006. Quebec's everlasting Liberal support isn't so everlasting, except in Montreal.

    However, it is in urban areas. I think every election except 1984 had the Liberals roundly sweeping away the Conservatives and Dippers in the urban areas of Toronto, Montreal, and even Vancouver. Where the Conservatives are starting to bite back is in the suburbs, but that is always waffling back and forth, and isn't set in stone for either party.

    But even in 2008, Vancouver proper voted mostly for the Liberals. That's pretty good considering how badly we did in 2008.

    And, really, if the Liberals can hold on to urban areas in the worst election they've had since 1984, I would gander that the urban areas are the most reliable source of Liberal votes - not la Belle Province.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hey CS that graph you put up a few days ago about the superiority of the Tory GOTV operation was pretty cool.

    http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/03/gotv-nik-nanos-descontructing-connect.html

    Is there any way to quantify what kind of bump it produces ?

    People never seem to factor in the superiority of GOTV, money, and candidates.

    Just looking at the polls isn't enough to predict the outcome of an election!

    ReplyDelete
  67. If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.

    His willing to lead in December on tape and this statement in May 2009 will be plastered.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Shadow: Please go back and read the link I posted to Parliament's website where it explain how this process is working.

    In the meanwhile let me correct some statements...


    Thanks for the link repost and for sorting us out on what the steps of the dance really mean. This is useful.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Shadow

    thanks for the h/t on my graphs.

    Campaigns matter. The religious vote removed the Liberals. Studies confirm it. Ignatieff and the coalition are now demanding we spend millions provide birth control and abortion in the HOC as part of maternal health to help children too.

    The Catholic Register and many pundits who are pro-life have been writing scathing attacks.

    The dissension in QC with Nancy Charest (came 2nd) behind Bloc she is a star candidate.

    Denis Coderre statement and Janine Krieber about the party being run from Toronto.

    The Quebec results in 2009?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'll make a bet right now that after the next election, if the Liberals still have above 20% support, CS and Shadow will be claiming electoral fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Oh, and did anyone get the news where the Conservatives caved in on the contraception question in maternal care?

    Looks like the Catholic Register will be putting Harper's ugly mug up on their paper soon.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Look at where the leaders are travelling in 2009, is the Liberal leader spending 90% time in ridings they currently hold?

    Michael's latest campus tour existing ridings? Where is the expansion? New seats coming from the NDP wins in 08?(Summer conf)

    Dion ran save the furniture campaign in Fall 2008.

    Ignatieff has started that same campaign earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  73. CS making inroads with Catholics could a HUGE development.

    It might be interesting to compare ridings the CPC is targeting for pick up and look at the census data on pundits guide to see the % Catholic.

    This could make some Quebec and Atlantic Canada seats competitive.

    The opposition really blew it on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Volkov,

    the Pope rejected Nancy Pelosi's request for a photo. Harper got his for the base at home.

    Remember wafer gate? Do you want a link to the studies and the attempt by the Liberals with John McKay to win back the religious vote?

    I estimate LPOC 23%, your 20% is a tad low.

    Do you think Ignatieff will step on a baby as predicted earlier?

    Regarding "character" a favourite point used in attacking the conservative bloggers and candidate?

    I keep talking actual policy and verifiable comments.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Awarding the Liberals 21 seats on the prairies is patently absurd. With these numbers they would be lucky to hold onto what they have--i.e. 2 seats, one in Sask (Goodale) and one in Manitoba (Neville).
    I would be very interested to know which other 19 seats are even remote possibilities . . . The Liberals are nowhere. Conservatives, on the other hand lead in all provinces outside Quebec and are not only tied with the Liberals in Ontario, but in TORONTO! How can this be anything but grim for Iggy. How long can he stay the course? A couple more months, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Volkov are you refering to this:

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/18/birth-control-maternal-health.html?ref=rss#ixzz0iYxHL4Um

    Its not a reversal or cave in at all.

    If other countries want to fund contraceptives as part of the iniative it remains an option for them.

    This thing will probably be broken into chunks, with various countries doing various specific things.

    If a country wants to distribute condoms thats there bussiness.

    Canada, for example, is interested in nutrition for pregnant mothers. Vitamins and iron tablets. Very cheap, very easy to distribute, and would save tons of lives.

    ReplyDelete
  77. CS,

    One, get off your high horse. Learn about sarcasm.

    Two, I never questioned anything about your religious-vote talk. Stop making up arguments for me.

    Three, most of the time you rarely make sense, so I don't see how you're on about "actual policy" and "verifiable comments." You can quote all you like, doesn't mean how you rationalize them makes sense.

    Loyal Subject,

    If you look at the numbers, the Liberals are at 29% in the Prairies, up from 17% in 2008, while the Conservatives are down some and the NDP vote down a lot. I don't think the Liberals will get 21 seats, but they're getting more than 2. 29% is close to the 30% they had in 2004, when they had a good number.

    As well, don't let that Toronto number fool you. It's not Toronto proper; it includes all the suburbs around Toronto, including York Region, Peel, and Pickering-Ajax-Oshawa, all areas where the Conservatives do pretty good. Toronto proper will have a much bigger gap, with the NDP much higher.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Shadow,

    It isn't a reversal, but it sure is a cave-in; I don't have the quote at hand, but Cannon said specifically that they would not even entertain the notion.

    Besides, we know its all about perception; this does seem like a reversal from an earlier stance, and I guarantee that it will cause some backlash. You should see how efficient those Christian Heritage Partyers are at spinning - imagine what others with actual influence could do.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Side note:

    I believe that's how the Toronto numbers break down, anyways, unless someone (Eric) can correct me on it?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Volkov,
    you don't need to defend your character attacks.

    You don't have to accept the facts as presented from studies either. It makes many Liberals uncomfortable about the state of affairs.

    You can project the Liberals are a viable party outside Toronto.

    I am comfortable with my prediction of 23% in 2010-11 that is only 3% from their 2008 election results.

    I say economy, job, deficit,coalition threat are the narratives.

    The opposition will blame global recession on CPC, deficit, shoe-gate, and evil right wing neo-con hidden agenda things

    Simply put they did not put forward ideas inside the parliament and chose to host publicity events.

    I believe the NDP, CPC, Bloc are better at campaigns, GOTV and will not lose to Dion redux.

    The LPOC story about their political/financial recovery did not materialize in 2009 elections results.

    The Liberals and media love to raise Tom Flanagan who was employed how many years ago as a source of the inner workings of the current government.

    I prefer to bring up Janine Krieber's letter that was written one year later. Denis Coderre the Quebec "guy" and Nancy Charest who almost won her seat agains the Bloc.

    All still active in the party.

    No high horse, Volkov our parliament is suffering because the Liberals are not behaving responsibly and offering real policies for debate in the house.

    Why not introduce their national daycare program?

    The NDP/Bloc would love to support spend $ 5 billion for the babies!

    ReplyDelete
  81. CS,

    Apparently you've jumped the narrative again, and are now asking me to explain away all perceived problems with the LPC, when I never even brought up the issues nor did I question the integrity of the CPC or anything else in this thread. I haven't even talked about the polling to any major extent.

    This is why I don't think anyone except Shadow can talk with you. To paraphrase Iggy, you're a nattering nabob of.. well, I don't know what, but it isn't anything good. You go on these tangents that were never brought up nor were even opined for discussion by anyone but yourself.

    Now, another time maybe when the discussion is as such that I have the time to spare and the effort to talk with you about it, I will. But only if you make any sort of sense.

    Even Shadow, bless his Conservative heart, understands this. He makes sense. He contributes in a manner befitting this board/comments section/whatever it is. He sticks to the topics, and most of the time, he doesn't bring up non-answers and weird questions with a tangent that goes nowhere.

    Shadow is the model you should follow. Please, do so, for the sake of everyone here.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Volkov,

    for a young person your anger is not well placed.

    You have repeatedly made attacks on character and apply condescending attacks.

    I am comfortable in taking knocks on political opinion.

    The problem is you can't stick to the subject matter.

    Janine Krieber was prophetic and attacked by Liberals for her opinion about the party and leader.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anyways..

    Throwing this out there for discussion, apparently these numbers represent the amount each party's treasury relies on the per vote subsidy:

    CPC 37%
    Lib 43%
    NDP 55%
    Green 62%
    Bloc 82%

    I don't know if their accurate, or were to find out, but if true, that seems pretty good from my side. Even though 43% is still high, it seems lower than what I was imagining.

    Though the Conservative number is higher than I imagined as well. If that number is correct, isn't 37% kind of a big chunk of your budget to throw away? Either they must get more influx from donors that hasn't come up yet, or they are really willing to sacrifice that amount. I suppose they'd still be afloat, and doing better than the Liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  84. CS -

    Who the Hell brought up Janine Kreiber but you?

    If you can't stick to the script, get out of the play.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Volkov,

    I don't follow a script. You don't decide what is debated.

    The posts are about campaigns outcome with this poll.

    You have spent nearly all your time making personal comments in ever post.

    Your desire and habit to give advice is not necessary or needed on my posts.

    ReplyDelete
  86. http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/01/bloc-benefits-from-liberal-political.html

    On the surface, it would appear Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have the most to lose if subsidies were cut because they garnered the most votes in the October election. The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Québécois and $1.8 million for the Greens.
    But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.
    By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'. - CBC November 2008

    ReplyDelete
  87. CS,

    Yes, I can see that. After all, successful troll is successful...

    Anyways. If the numbers I have are true, then the Liberals have cut their dependence on the subsidy 20% since 2008. That's pretty darn good if I say so myself - but only if its true.

    ReplyDelete
  88. The links exists on the post. If they don't work, I try to update them.

    Your pattern in personal attacks is a reflection on your character.

    I have refused to make a personal comment about your constant baiting.

    Why are you having difficulty staying on the subject matter of politics?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Shadow, as usual you are full of ____

    "That the MP must provide

    a statement of what corrective action is being sought and an indication that, should the Speaker rule the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, the Member is prepared to move the appropriate motion."

    That is precisely what they are waiting for, a ruling that the Govt has failed to comply with the Motion of Dec 10 or not.

    The reason for giving the Speaker, via the Parliamentary record, the three motions is to get his opinion as which is the most suitable to go forward. But until he rules that the Govt has failed to comply with the Dec 10 motion they are moot!!

    For Heavens sake get it right for a change

    ReplyDelete
  90. CS,

    Just drop it. I'm not going to bother to explain to you for the umpteenth time that random uses of the words "Janine Kreiber, September 2009," and whatnot, in situations where not a single person brought these issues up, is not a discussion of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Volkov

    Reminder again you don't decide what is politics.

    Janine Krieber post is not about politics?

    How do you explain her letter and her scathing remarks about her party and the leadership?


    Some even hint at sour grapes from the wife of the former leader.

    I don’t believe this for a second.

    Ms. Krieber is not just some average member of the LPC—far from it. Nor is her Facebook posting an angry outburst in reaction to the ouster of Mr. Dion—too much time has passed.

    I believe Ms. Krieber has thought long and hard about this and has echoed the opinions and frustrations of a significant number of Liberals who see their new leader test levels of party popularity that are even lower than in Stéphane Dion’s time.

    http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2009/11/janine-kriebers-facebook-posting.html

    ReplyDelete
  92. CS,

    For chrissake's man, get your head out of the sand.

    I said RANDOM. R-A-N-D-0-M.

    Random utterances of Janine Kreiber is not a discussion about politics, especially when you phrase it as if I or another person was talking about anything anywhere close to the subject.

    This is what you do, CS:

    "Hey Volkov, want to talk about Janine Kreiber?"

    Not:

    "Volkov, you're wrong - Janine Kreiber!" - when I was talking about polling data!

    I'd love to have conversations with you - but please, for heaven's sake, at least put it forward properly. Until then, don't talk to me, and I won't talk to you.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Volkov,

    Bless your heart you have the patience of a saint.

    As an aside, what I am watching now is to see how hard the opposition is willing to push to exert "Parliamentary Supremacy"

    I hope they push as hard as they can.

    I would not mind forcing Harper into dissolution.

    I know that is what he will do rather than hand over those documents.

    That would be Harper pulling the pin and not the opposition.

    He would then have to explain to the Canadian people why he will not hand over documents, and respect the will of parliament, and why we need an election over it.

    From my point of view that will not look good. It will seem like Harper is trying to hide something.

    he came to office on a promise of accountability, and transparency.

    Under that scenario, I like our chances.

    Again what I can't wrap my head around is what is so damning in those documents?

    The CPC is already bringing their usual canards out. Troop safety, and National Security.

    Maybe no one was planning for an election but we just might fall into one none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Volkov,

    Focus.

    The majority of the posts are about the "campaign" narrative.

    We have included the triggers with contempt motion today.

    In my posts three high level people active in the Liberals are named who demostrate in a campaign that Quebec or the Liberals have their act together.

    You suggested it is not on topic 3x.

    Again that is your personal opinion but off topic to the politics, the poll or the trigger motion discussed.

    You personal insults on every comment is off topic and not about this Poll or the disconnect from the results in November 2009.

    Again the lack of focus is yours.

    No need to take a historical/ religious figure name in vain either to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Peter,

    This is a question that is completely off topic.

    Do you think the CPC should run an election campaign based on Janine Kreiber?

    I figure that would get them a HUGH majority.

    I suggest the CPC take CS advice and make that their rallying cry.

    Sounds like a winner to me.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Jane Kreiber" vs the "evil neocons won't play nice and cave and give us everything we ask for"

    .... I only give you 50-50.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Nothing until next week:

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/privilegewatch-update-is-the-suspense-killing-you-too.html

    ReplyDelete
  98. Liberal Robert Kaplan said:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/mps-blab-and-governments-are-responsible-for-security/article1504801/

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yeah, would have liked to know what was going on sooner.

    On the bright side, despite statements like: "Shadow, as usual you are full of ____", ... O'Malley seems to think a vote of parliament is required too.


    Any idea which (if any) of those 3) proposals might come up for a vote??

    ReplyDelete
  100. Volkov,

    I don't think you're right in saying that,at least before 1984, the Grits's base in Quebec was superficial. In fact, for much of the prior century they dominated Quebec federal politics. You mentioned Diefenbaker's 56 election as an example o8 weakness of Liberal support in Quebec. But that's the only election between 1896 and 1984 where the Grits didn't win the most seats in the province (and, along with the social credit insurrection in 1962, the only election when the grits didn't win a a hefty majority of the seats in the province - often they won well over 80 or 90%). You can hardly describe that kind of dominance of a single province for 88 years "superficial" (unless, you'd also characterize the Tory's dominance of Alberta as equally "superficial").

    That changed, apparently forever, in 1984, but that's the point. Quebec was the base that allowed the Liberals to be the "natural governing party" of Canada in the 20th century, and they've lost it.

    As for the claim that the Liberals dominate urban areas, the numbers I posted above disprove that. Yes, they dominate Toronto proper and Montreal proper (thought this latter result has less to do with controlling urban areas and more to do with being the party of English Quebec). They don't dominate the next largest cities, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Missisauga, Winnipeg, Quebec City (in fact, they were shut out of half of them). They control Vancouver proper, but Vancouver proper is a relatively small city (it has population of half a million), and they certainly don't dominate Vancouver proper's neighboring municipalities (where the Tories won 11 of the 15 seats).

    If you want to say that Montreal and Toronto are the Liberal's base, that's fine, but that isn't urban Canada (by any stretch) and it's a base that is far weaker than what they used to have in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 49

    "Do you think the CPC should run an election campaign based on Janine Kreiber?"

    OK you have completely lost me on that one??
    another "Senior Moment " ??

    ReplyDelete
  102. But the CPC pundits told us that Master Strategist would be tying the parliamentary motions about 10 percenters and prorogation to the $1.95 per vote funding, so that the Liberals and NDP would be forced to vote against their own motion.

    What happened to that?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I am in favour of the Derek Lee, coalition gambit to test the "super duper" parliament theory over the documents.

    I think how the media has spun this so far and reported the facts will impact at the ballot box.

    Many lifelong Liberals, like me, are disgusted with Rae and Dosanjh and their antics. Their agenda is to do whatever they can to attack the Prime Minister
    and Defence Minister, even if it means tarring the reputation of Canada and the Canadian Forces. It’s odd, I’ve never heard Rae or Dosanjh expend the same
    amount of energy on matters related to the deaths of 136 soldiers and diplomats violently killed in Afghanistan. I don’t recall Dosanjh expressing any concerns for detainees when he was a Liberal Minister in the Paul Martin Cabinet that expanded our Afghan mission.

    http://www.ottawalife.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230:publishers-message-january-february-2010&catid=32

    ReplyDelete
  104. Personally I hope the ten percenters are history! I don't care for my MP's comments in my own riding. Why should public money pay for crass campaigning?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Peter,

    Sorry,

    It was sarcasm.

    Read CS posts.

    He goes on ad nauseum about Janine Kreiber as evidence of weakness of the Liberal party.

    Since it seems to be bothering him so much, I thought maybe it should be a campaign plank of the CBC

    Lame attempt at humour

    ReplyDelete
  106. Hey Barcs you should know Peter's understanding of this is off.

    Particularily this:

    "The reason for giving the Speaker, via the Parliamentary record, the three motions is to get his opinion as which is the most suitable to go forward."

    Actually any and all motions will be voted on. It will happen in the order they are recieved.

    Also the speaker is NOT doing what Peter is saying he does here:

    "But until he rules that the Govt has failed to comply with the Dec 10 motion they are moot!!"

    In actuality he is ruling whether the case could be made that the gov't has violated privilege. Saying that someone has a case to argue isn't the same as rendering a verdict.

    If he rules that such a case is reasonable these motions will go to a vote.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Volkov i'm not an example for anybody to follow.

    Everyone should feel free to write in their own style and not be mocked for it.

    Yes CS can sometimes appear scattered, so can we all. But if you read his website he has a very visual style and a good head for numbers.

    He makes connections and conclusions that a more linear person would probably miss.

    Anyways, if you find him objectionable then you should interact with other people instead of getting into a back and forth.


    PS - Just because the CBC says something is a cave in doesn't make it so.

    The proof will be whether Canada ends up providing any additional funds to birth control/abortion.

    I'm guessing it won't.

    ReplyDelete
  108. IMO it would be a shame if Canada's initiative to better the lives of the world's women and children didn't include family planning. Contraception is needed in the developing world. We all talk about global warming and pollution and such. Few of us acknowledge the role that the doubling of of human population on the earth in the last fifty years has played. We simply can't continue to reproduce as a species at the rates we are currently or the earth will become unlivable. We will literally be asking nature to wreak havoc upon us.

    ReplyDelete
  109. The greens are only "right wing" in a sense that no longer figures very prominently in the public discourse, namely in that all of their policies would be terrible for poor people.

    Canada's political cleavages are defined by a divide between manufacturing/agriculture/resource-oriented industries and high tech/financial/service industries. Our politics are about industry vs. industry not social class vs. social class.

    The notion of whether Iggy/Dion is/was centrist then misses the real question - in the center of what? The Liberals have been losing because they keep electing leaders who are decidedly not in the center in a core-periphery sunrise-sunset political system. The greens are even further on the extremes.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Earl,

    You are not an old grump.

    You have this youngish conservative, firmly in the rational wing of our party.

    (although we disagree on VATs, and a couple of things...big deal)

    It's a party I sometimes have trouble believing in these days.

    Illogic, and dogma sometimes play a greater role then I'd like, in forming government policy.

    I am not concerned with the Catholic vote.

    I am concerned with rational policy decisions.

    The program should be making this as effective as possible, not winning votes.

    The backpedal here was obvious, and yet another mess of the CPCs own making.
    (unlike the detainee issue)

    ReplyDelete
  111. Correction

    The Conservatives are a bit to blame for the detainee mess.

    Did MacKay suffer too many rugby concusions?

    I don't care, and don't see him as leader anyway.

    I give him credit for running the interference, but don't think he was too savvy, on the handling of the situation.

    Canada deserves better then that.

    ReplyDelete
  112. AJR79 its possible to do BOTH.

    That is win the Catholic vote and save lives.

    This point has been going around lately:

    Why do Belinda Stronach and Rick Mercer raise money to send mosquito nets to the third world instead of paying for abortions ?


    The obvious answer is that there are tons of cheap things to do that save lots and lots of lives and aren't medical procedures requiring doctors, nurses, a sterile environment, electricity, and specialized equiptment like abortions do.

    The aid budget is limited. Looking at low cost solutions like distributing vitamins and iron tablets would save far more lives.


    Only people with a pro-choice agenda to push want Canadians to fund foriegn abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Earl,

    I don't accept the rich nations demanding we impose our birth/population control idealogy. Can you list a study that demostrates the problem is "over population" in the countries you want to target.
    I would suggest our "limited" tax dollars goes toward saving existing lives, improve access to safe clean water, medicine, helping them improve their standard of living. Prioritizing the largescale projects vs using expensive medical procedures, Big Pharma medication is a worthwhile debate in the HOC.

    Tim Ball article


    It is a false issue used mostly for control political by left wing ideologues. Even Paul Ehrlich, who made overpopulation a supposed ticking time bomb with his 1968 book The Population Bomb, says humans actually occupy no more than 3 percent of the earth’s land surface.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13332

    ReplyDelete
  114. Canadian Sense

    It isn't actually correct to say that the Tories were shut out of Canada's biggest cities.

    See http://www.ridingbyriding.ca/2010/03/12/53 on this point.

    By population, Canada's three biggest cities are Toronto, Montreal, and Calgary. Of those, the Tories were shut out in two, and swept the third. Ottawa (where the tories won 4/7), Edmonton (where they won all but 1), Mississauga (1/5), and Winnipeg (4/8) are all bigger than the city of Vancouver.

    True, Greater Vancouver is Canada's third largest metropolitain area. But then the Tories took 11 of the 20 seats in Greater Vancouver (and 6 of the 40 in Greater Toronto, if we're using that measure).

    ReplyDelete
  115. 49

    I see Shadow can't get off his horse. None of the motions described yesterday have been MOVED. Thus there is nothing to vote on.

    just because they are read into the Parliamentary record does NOT mean they have been moved and seconded !!

    We wait for the Speakers ruling on Privilege !

    ReplyDelete
  116. I don't think most voters show to mark the ballot who they WANT to govern. They don't vote against the left vs right positions.

    The opposition don't spend enough time, resources selling their alternative Policy/Ideas of why they should be trusted to govern.

    The opposition has chosen going negative at the expense of providing alternatives for debate in the HOC.

    We are blasted on a daily basis by the opposition the gov't is evil, our pensions, healthcare everything we hold dear is going to dissappear if the right have a majority.

    When asked for solutions Ignatieff has stated "It's not my budget" It is the PM's job, my job is to set up a series of questions and evaluate.

    The Gov't actions in spending like "drunken sailors", saving Ontario manufacturing jobs, following through on campaign promises GST reduction demostrates why many pundits complain about. Are they conservative?

    The opposition benches keep complaining the gov't is governing as a right wing "idealogical" republican party.

    Voters want good government. They don't want corruption, major scandals showing waste, abuse. It took many years for voters to turf the Liberals and many scandals.

    The NDP, Green popular vote recovered and grew at the expense of the Liberals. The CPC have held steady.2000-2010 Liberals dropped in Ontario from 50% to 33%.

    Ontario will decide. The West and Quebec don't show any major shift.

    Alfred Alps has admitted all the negative press helps the fundraising for the Liberals.

    He hoped the H1N1 would be the Governments' Katrina.

    In 2008 the Gov't was rewarded with more seats.
    In 2009 the Gov't was NOT punished for the long laundry list of opposition scandals. They in fact won 50% of the contests.

    The figures (Economy, GDP, Factory Sales, Housing Sales)have slowly been improving.

    The noise over some documents is a just another game in Ottawa.

    I hope we go to the Polls over the games to clear up what are the real issues for Members of Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Peter,

    Bob Rae was on CTV, yesterday explaining the process.

    Step One is that Milleken must rule
    that there is a question of privlege which has been violated.

    It is all moot at this point.

    We won't know where this is going until that ruling comes down.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Carl,

    I did not agree with the headline from Ekos. I linked to demostrate how Toronto had a substantial lead and many 905 seats are in play.

    We don't have extensive riding by riding vote. Citing a "city" is too large to examine a riding.

    Toronto may have many safe Liberal ridings. Some Toronto ridings may not be safe.
    Look at Eglinton West margin shrink for the Liberals 2000-2008

    http://punditsguide.ca/riding_e.php?riding=1072


    Same with those in the West.

    The Pundits guide has a list of ridings that are were within 5%.

    http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/03/gotv-nik-nanos-descontructing-connect.html

    I found 42 ridings. You can run queries into 2, 3-way tight races.

    Actions on files mean something.
    The lowering of the head tax, making it easier for immigrants to get their skills certified will translate more votes.

    The outreach in the religious, ethnic vote is substantial.

    ReplyDelete
  119. 49

    "Step One is that Milleken must rule that there is a question of privilege which has been violated.

    It is all moot at this point.

    We won't know where this is going until that ruling comes down."

    Exactly, you saw the same show I did. Yet Shadow continues on his rant re "they have to vote' !

    There is NOTHING to vote on until the Speaker rules. "Sheesh he's obstinate !!

    ReplyDelete
  120. Peter,

    This is a constitutional, and legal matter.

    Not one of confidence.

    If there is an election Harper will be the one to trigger it.

    If he wants to dissolve parliament, to escape a contempt of parliament charge, it is his funeral.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Meanwhile the above the fold headline in today's Toronto Star is about how Tory flunkies on the H of C committee investigating how the Tories sabotaged Rights and Democracy are using every trick in the book filibustering to make sure that the grieving widow of the former director of the organization not be able to tell her story. I thought Tories were all into victims rights and victim impact statements etc... and here they are showing their contempt for a grieving widow who wants to explain how the thugs Harper appointed to the board of that organization killed her husband.

    Once again, the Tories just don't know when to stop. If they just let her testify, it would be in the news for a day or so and that would it - now there are screaming headlines across the country about Tory MPs stopping a grieving widow from telling her story - either they will back down in the face of all the embarrassment - in which case her testimony will get about 100 times more publicity than it would have had otherwise, OR they stand their ground and don't let her speak and she holds a news conference that gets live coverage on all the major news networks.

    Haven't the Tories leaned anything from their vendetta against Richard Colvin. Its stuff like this that prevents Harper from ever "closing the deal" with the electorate!

    ReplyDelete
  122. The highest principle in our democracy if you want be Prime Minister, you seek a mandate from the people- Stephen Harper Coaltion smackdown HOC December 2008

    In January 2009 the LPOC backed down, refused to seek a mandate from the people.

    March 2010

    The dysfunctional coalition parties are unwilling to vote non-confidence fearing backlash for their stunts in Ottawa?

    The unfair delays cited, redaction by the Civil servants may be actionable by the opposition.

    They may win a ruling from the chair on the point of "personal privilege".

    A vote may take place that may be deemed a vote of confidence by the PM, it is within his perogative.

    I am hoping the chair rules in favour of the opposition.

    Reality outside Ottawa bubble:
    Could the jobs, economy (Economic Action Plan) override opposition concern for the Taliban by fellow Afghans?

    The campaign narrative on keeping secrets, super duper powers of parliament will go over really well with the under 25 demographic.

    I am interested in testing who the voters will punish for the games in Ottawa.

    The 23% pop for the LPOC may be too high. Volkov 20% estimate may prove more prophetic.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I would LOVE to have an election right now with the story line being "Harper calls unnecessary election in order to avoid releasing documents filled with incriminating evidence. What has he got to hide???"

    BRING IT ON!

    ReplyDelete
  124. DL without help from the MSM how will they be able to afford to broadcast that narrative?

    I suggest the Financial returns point to only one party being able to afford a National TV campaign in 2010.

    Do you have any evidence of funds or free publicity campaign being available?

    Don Martin has suggested the trap is laid around the issues we both highlighted.

    I was under the impression the OBAMA campaign refused to sign onto the matching funds deal because that would have reduced their ability to flood the airwaves.

    Harper will follow the OBAMA democrats in flooding the tv markets, ridings that are vulnerable.

    In 2009 the LPOC were mocked by Rick Mercer for Youtube, radiospots media buy. The NDP who organized the rallies did they spend any money on mass advertising for perogies?

    I can source at Elections Canada financial information. You?

    Big Fish tapped out for Liberals?

    The Liberals continue to rely most heavily on their largest donors of any of the three main parties, obtaining 36.1% of their fundraising from donors at the limit, and 46.1% from donors giving $800 or more annually. -Pundits Guide

    ReplyDelete
  125. 49
    This is a constitutional, and legal matter.

    Not one of confidence.
    "

    Agreed

    ReplyDelete
  126. We don't have "matching funds in Canada". Once the writ is dropped, there are strict limits on what parties can spend. PERIOD.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @ Dreaming Liberal (DL)

    "I would LOVE to have an election right now with the story line being "Harper calls unnecessary election in order to avoid releasing documents filled with incriminating evidence. What has he got to hide???"

    BRING IT ON!"

    ==================================

    And a coalition confidence vote bring down the government and forcing an election to allow partisan access to national security documents for obvious political reasons prior to Judge Icaboucci vetting the legal requirements would generate such a narrative??

    One can only hope that there is critical mass and will within the Liberal organization for this one last election under the Liberal banner. The election results would likely be of the same magnitude as the Kim Campbell defeat and new parties with actual positions and policies would be raised from the ashes.

    BRING IT ON!! It would be good for Canada in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  128. A: I'm NOT a Liberal I'm a New Democrat

    B: It won't be a confidence vote. In fact it will be specifically worded that it is NOT a confidence vote. It will be up to Harper to call it one - in which case the unnecessary election will be 100% his fault!!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Peter,

    Yesterday Bob Rae was asked how far the liberals were willing to push the Afghan detainee file.

    To paraphrase Trudeau, he said "Just watch us"

    Harris was asked the same, and I quote:

    "Well you know the government and the PM, can declare any motion a confidence motion.
    They may decide this is a confidence motion"

    "If the conservatives are hell bent on forcing an election over the issue so be it"

    Does this sound like an opposition who is going to back down?

    Conservatives are completely delusional and dreaming in TECHNICOLOUR if they think going to the polls over this is good for them.

    Conservatives can bring all their usual BS out about National Security, and support for the troops.

    It AINT GONNA FLY

    It will look like Harper has something to hide.

    I say like DL

    BRING IT ON!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  130. I obviously have to repeat this because Conservatives have a hard time understanding anything.

    This is a constitutional, and legal matter.

    Not a confidence matter.

    If Harper decides to dissolve parliament to avoid a contempt of parliament charge, it is his funeral.

    HARPER WILL HAVE TRIGGERED THE ELECTION.

    Not the opposition.

    Case closed

    ReplyDelete
  131. 49
    "Conservatives are completely delusional and dreaming in TECHNICOLOUR if they think going to the polls over this is good for them.
    "

    Gee we are getting so agreeable

    ReplyDelete
  132. DL,

    I am aware we don't have the same system as in the U.S.

    OBAMA backed out of an agreement with McCain to excercise the democrats' ability to raise more funds than the Republicans.

    (Matching program in US had caps)

    The opposition parties will be taking out loans to reach the maiximum spending limits for upcoming campaign.

    The Democrats have spent some money on using the social media in mobilizing their base during the campaign.

    I don't see the equivalent adoption by the opposition parties in Canada.

    The CPC had an interesting experience with their Youtube launch Talk Canada that I was made aware on two weeks ago.

    Talk Canada Oct 2009 129k channel views, 1,248 subscribers.

    NDP Youtube channel March 2007 has 6,129 views, - 211 subscribers

    LPC Youtube Jan 2007 - channel 60,206 - 906 subscribers

    Any reason why the NDP has the lowest number of views and subscribers?

    ReplyDelete
  133. I have one other point I would like to make.

    If we do go to the polls over this and conservatives believe the liberals will be reduced to two seats ala Kim Campbell in 1993.

    Well seriously, all I can say is that you are in some serious need of psychiatric help.

    ReplyDelete
  134. General Elections Liberals 2000-2008

    2000 172 seats 40.8%
    2004 135 seats 36.7%
    2006 103 seats 30.2%
    2008 77 seats 26.3%

    excuses aside another drop of 3% from 2008 is NOT unrealistic.

    I don't think the NDP Bloc will pick up every Liberal seat.

    Election Results
    http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

    ReplyDelete
  135. Shadow,

    You are a talking point machine,and what you care about most is clear:

    "CS making inroads with Catholics could a HUGE development."

    As for your "point" that not all aid money to Africa is spent on condoms, and therefore they are not important, is unsupported by evidence, and reality.

    As for abortion... I never mentioned it.

    It seems that it is your obsession, not mine.

    I'm sure if Harper wanted to send a million bibles to Africa, you would be around here, saying how great is was, and how it will make inroads among religious voters.

    CS,

    You are lumping overpopulation of the planet in with the overpopulation in Africa.

    If you can't draw a corrilation between family planning, overpopulation, and scarcity of resources (food,water, etc), it's because you are a blind man.

    Take a look... Overpopulation

    Go chase your Catholic votes, and spread the talking points boys.

    If the religious hold sway, over the sensible in this kind of decision, don't come crying to me when the centre abandons you, en masse.

    You will have earned, and deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. 1993 Conservatives

    Government to 2 seats

    2008 election conservatives 37.6%

    Polling average conservatives

    30-35 %

    You do the math

    ReplyDelete
  137. Shadow and CS,

    I'm not sure if you guys want Africans to stop having sex, or just want them, to have to risk pregnancy every time they do.

    Either way, it is pathetic and illogical.

    (except for petty, political inroads with Catholics of course)

    If the CPC is too concerned with Christian Dogma, it will be run over by Karma.

    ReplyDelete
  138. AJR79 you're failing to grasp the concept of comparative effectiveness.

    Yes condoms would save lives by preventing HIV (never said they wouldn't, you very ungraciously ascribed that view to me.)

    So would mosquito nets by preventing malaria. So would food by preventing starvation.

    Priorities need to be made because the aid budget is not absolute.


    You seem to be under the impression that the problem with contraception is a lack of availability.

    Its not.

    Its teaching people how and why to use them. In many cases this is impossible because it contradicts their beliefs.

    So its a very involved process that requires public health education and repeat contact with very little effectiveness.

    On the other hand a mosquito net is pretty straightforward and saves far, far more lives.

    ReplyDelete
  139. This is just my own personal opinion.

    Social conservatives are nothing but a bunch of kill joys

    The thought of anybody having sex
    drives them up the wall

    ReplyDelete
  140. AJR79,

    Funding was at $ 5 Billion for foreign Aid during B.M.?

    Liberals gutted nearly every program including helping the poorest of the poor.

    Did you notice your taxes going down since the Liberals held power for 13 years?

    So if taxes are still be collected and not getting to helping those who is to blame?

    An additional 364 million has been allocated after annual growth of 8% for years to get Foreign aid back to $ 5 B. It will be capped. FROZEN.

    Those right winger neo-cons did not cut that priority.

    Brian Mulroney $ 6.4 Billion National Daycare cancelled by the Liberals?

    I am cynical about the talk of the "left" or "progressives" talk smart use of our limited tax dollars.

    That includes maternal health and children.

    Pushing funding for birth control pills, abortions on the third world stating overpopulation is the highest priority is false.

    Who made the most money from H1N1 fearmongering?

    The U.N. W.H.O. overstated the dangers and the opposition alarmism coupled with the MSM?

    We need to make priorities and spend our limited tax dollars wisely.

    Instead of helping large drug companies with their birth control pill sales, I prefer we provide safe clean drinking water FIRST.

    Everytime I read the paper I hear of a doctor shortage. Where are these abortion tax funded operations going to take place?

    The third world have no doctor shortage?

    Let us resolve water, food production and safety for mothers and children. Let's lower mortality rates.

    I don't need to paint the voters who don't share your views as not the "middle".

    I would say the religious vote and visible minorities represent the middle.

    The extreme left don't represent the middle. They want to punish the poor with Carbon Tax Global Trading schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  141. AJR79 sorry I should have just boiled your arguement down since you've started the practice of being hostile and ascribing views to people they never put forward:


    All of Africa's problems are caused by that evil Pope AND RELIGION!! Its evil!! No God! GRRRR NO GOD.

    A little Atheism and condoms would do the trick and all their problems would be solved.

    Only thing stopping that is the Pope! GRRR the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  142. AJR79 said...

    "Shadow and CS,
    I'm not sure if you guys want Africans to stop having sex, or just want them, to have to risk pregnancy every time they do."@19 March, 2010 13:06

    I though Mel Lastman "being eaten" joke was offensive.

    You just beat Mel on that one!

    Please stop watching Tarzan movies for your ideas about Africans. It is truly offensive to read your characterization.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Shadow for me and likely many others the issue raised by the this government's actions on condoms etc. is whether the CPC is in the grip of the religious right. I want a secular party. Every time funding is pulled from an event because it involves gays or family planing becomes an issue then it appears that indeed the CPC is catering to a minority of Canadians who wish to push their religious views onto others. I have principles and separation of church and state is an important one. I don't want the CPC or any other party making policy to capture the votes of any religious group. Policy should stand or fall on its merits.

    ReplyDelete
  144. CS don't bother.

    The atheist left has been arguing for years that all of Africa's problems are caused by a lack of birth control because of those evil Catholics.

    Of course, that's easily disproven.

    Simply compare North America's level of development pre-contraceptives with Africa's today.

    Clearly Africa has much, much bigger problems then a lack of contraception.

    Constant war, lack of government, no rule of law, and no economy because of dependency on foriegn aid come to mind as bigger issues.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Shadow,

    No need to boil it down, I'll say it.

    The pope claining that condems are a sin, and that they make the AIDs problem worse, is tatamount to mass murder.

    Why don't you try and justify it to me???

    Evil, wicked, Grr?
    Yep,Yep,Yep.

    Why this illogical stance.

    To breed more Catholics of course.

    Perfectly moral.

    Here's the idea guys, if sending condems over prevents some unwanted pregnancies, it will cost far less in aid in the future.

    It will help African families to have some control over the amount of children they have. It will help them survive, and raise their standard of living.

    Condems are not a panecea, but should be part of any sensible, intergrated stategy.

    The fact that you want to deny the effectivness of them, in a transparent pander to the religious, shows where your priorities are.

    Many things are important when dealing with Africas problems.

    Allowing them some control over their family size, is one of those things.

    Such a simple thing, yet the religious moralizers stand in the way of common sense... yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Earl since when is the government spending money on things the "neutral" or "non-partisan" or "reasonable" position.

    Isn't gov't funding of these things also pushing your beliefs on other people ?

    When its a Yes or No decision you're going to offend parts of society no matter what.


    The Conservative belief has always been to get the gov't out of it all. When there's a huge budget deficit not funding controversial programs seems like an OK idea to me.

    ReplyDelete
  147. AJR79 you must not have read my above comment:

    "if sending condems over prevents some unwanted pregnancies, it will cost far less in aid in the future."

    Its not as simple as sending condoms over. Distribution is required. Teaching people how to use them is required.

    And most importantly convincing people why, which is often impossible because of their beliefs.

    Compared to something like mosquito nets that people will use without hesitation its a less efective way to save lives.

    If our goal is to save lives then condoms are not the answer given the limited budget and wanting the most bang for our buck.

    If our goal is population control then yes condoms make sense.

    Why do you want to control Africa's population though ?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Earl is right.

    If the CPC does not remain reletively secular, they will lose people big time.

    That probably explains the furious backpedal by the PM, regarding Cannons statement.

    The "atheist left" may pick up some more members if the "religious right" is the only other option.

    I'd just as soon tell them to F*** Off, and go try to build up the Christian Heritage Party, if thats how they want to be governed.

    Canada is not a theocracy, and our policies should reflect that.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Earl,

    you prefer the minority view on morality be the tax funded rule of law?

    I want all funding cut from ALL events Calgary stampede, CNE bill clinton, PEI country singer, CFL game out east. 100% cut.

    It has ZERO to do with attacking a minority. It has to do with leaving my wallet alone.

    Framing CPC Party as "intolerant" of minority views is incorrect.

    Political figures including OBAMA, ethnic voters were against extending sex marriage definition.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

    ReplyDelete
  150. Shadow,

    Look at the population growth rates in the Overpopulation link I provided.

    Why do you want it to continue to skyrocket, making scarce resources even scarcer?

    I've seen this veiled racism charge regarding Africans.
    It is empirical reality, not racism.

    Do you think a condom, is hard to figure out?

    Those who would be willing to use them, would be saving themselves the burden of another child, when they can't feed the ones they already have.

    It's part of the solution, an important and easy part, not the whole solution.

    If you can justify the popes stance regarding condems in Africa, then I invite you to try.

    Saying that the atheists are pissed about it, doesn't make it any less evil and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  151. ..a more recent research in 2005 indicates that the non-religious group has risen significantly. Phil Zuckerman, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College writes of several academic sources who have in recent years placed atheism rates in Canada between 19% and 30%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

    At least 70-81% may NOT share your "morality" code.

    No one has suggested we set up a Theocracy. That is just more fearmongering.

    Don't ask me to pay for your events when you represent a minority and label me as intolerant.

    ReplyDelete
  152. CS reality is that the government does support events. I too would like to see them out of that area. My point is that if government supports a variety of events they should fund events and the like without bias as regards religion or sexual preference.

    If I had my way government funding would be completely eliminated for except for what I would define as necessary items: Libraries, the military, healthcare, transportation, education at all levels, and so on. My idea would be to fund those programs we as a nation deem necessary and important so that they can run effectively. Simply put I would rather see money being spent improving waiting times, building roads and repairing the ones we have and improving our schools, than on the CBC, and sports stadiums, and the like. It is a matter of prioritizing spending. If after that some were left I'd return it to taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  153. China has a population control policy, how is that working out for the female babies?

    We can pretend trust the government in population control policies, call me cyncial but I have ZERO interest in being told I need to fund condoms, birth control pills and abortions.

    Are these the same people who flew on jets, rode in limos, ate like royalty to Copehangen interested in trading system to trade carbon credits?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Atheists aren't a minority. We're the default setting.

    ReplyDelete
  155. AJR79 I don't believe Africa has a lack of resources.

    What they lack is 21st century infrastructure and farming techniques that allow them to maximize productivity.

    "Do you think a condom, is hard to figure out?"

    For maximum effectiveness some explanation is required by a public health official.

    Using the right size, using it during non-vaginal sex, not re-using a condom, sanitary removal and disposal, etc etc.

    We're talking about groups of people who think aids can be cured by sex with a virgin or a traditional garlic and root paste.

    And obviously a rapist isn't likely to use a condom, which is a huge problem in much of Africa.

    As you pointed out there's also the problem of religious people not wanting to sin against God.


    As I said if saving lives is your best bet shipping over mosquito nets is the way to go.

    If its population control then condoms, birth control, forced sterilization would all be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  156. CS The money is going to be spent. Accept that. The question is one of what it should be spent on. I see everything right about spending a portion of it on contraception in areas where it is accepted. Shadow makes a valid point about cultures not accepting birth control. We can't change other nations cultures. Again we should not attempt to force our views on others.

    AR I agree that Religions that oppose birth control are doing the devils work. I'm talking contraception, not abortion. The Catholics are not the only religion. Islam also encourages people to have as many children as possible. As far as I am aware there is nothing specific in the Bible that says contraception per se is a sin. I doubt that the Korean specifically prohibits the practice either. I don't know what Hindu's position is.

    I do know that all major religions are embroiled in major disagreements with so called fundamentalists interpreting their holy books in ways that are not supported by reading the same. These fundamentalists use their interpretations to then support radical positions that in almost every case lead to the oppression of women. Religion is being used not as faith but as a bludgeon to maintain male dominated cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Earl do you honestly think objectification of women has decreased post sexual revolution?

    On the contrary, its increased perception of sexual availability by removing societal constraints. We're now seeing earlier onset of sexual behaviours, disturbingly amongst "tweens", an increase in divorce and breakdown of the family unit.

    The plus side is increased employment and education amongst women, which is obviously a good thing.

    But the pendulum clearly needs to swing back towards traditional morality, values, virtue, and modesty to achieve a happy balance.

    Religion holds wisdom and can be valued for it even without accepting its particular metaphysical implications.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Shadow,

    "If its population control then condoms, birth control, forced sterilization would all be effective."

    Are you trying to draw a moral equivalence between birth control, and forced sterilization?

    You're a funny guy sometimes.

    If you want an example of the wisdom of religion, then look no further then the dark ages.

    It holds humanity back.
    Reality makes us stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Hi Earl,

    I know I wasn't part of this discussion, so I hope you will excuse me for commenting on it.

    Reading the comments of Shadow, and CS, I honestly don't know where to even begin.

    If this is the view that is pervasive through out the CPC, it is very clear to me why we should fear a Stephen Harper majority.

    This is clearly not the traditional Progressive Conservative party.

    Having had the enjoyment of reading your comments, I am pretty sure this is not your view of the world.

    I invite you to come and join me on the sunny side of the street.

    ReplyDelete
  160. AJR79 you're really going to blame the dark ages on religion ?

    You're a funny guy sometimes.

    Try the fall of Rome and various plagues.

    And actually if you look at a period like the high middle ages you'll see that religious scholarship and bible study was inextricably linked to literacy and education.

    The printing press itself was developed for mass distribution of the bible.

    Religion is not a historical negative by any stretch.

    It performed many useful functions that have since been supplanted by scientific understanding and the modern state.

    If I was given a tribe of savages i'd invent a religion to teach morality, establish the rule of law, and hold people together too.

    ReplyDelete
  161. If I was given a tribe of savages i'd invent a religion to teach morality, establish the rule of law, and hold people together too.
    What is stopping you, Brother Shadow? If the tribe of regulars here is not sufficiently savage, that can easily be arranged.

    ReplyDelete
  162. "This is clearly not the traditional Progressive Conservative party."

    In the same way that the snow falling outside my window is factually different than the snow that came a week ago.


    Unless the reform party killed off all those people who used to vote 20 years ago (in the same numbers as they do now) for the old PC's and replaced them with clones.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Earl,

    If you review my posts, I have NOT cited the importance of religious doctrine in not following the recommendations from the left's population control agenda.

    I gave an opinion that makes non-relgious posters uncomfortable.

    In our democracy we use plurality in making policy?

    The majority of immigrants are less or more religious?

    Where would these that make their views more?

    We are entitled to express our opinion including those not shared by the majority.

    My concern is the left are not tolerant of protecting free speech unless it is their own.

    I don't have any historical examples of population control "activities" used by ANY government that are successful. Do you?

    Money being taxed is not being used wisely by all level of government regardless of political leanings.

    Pick up a paper, watch the news and we read about waste everyday; Billions are missing.

    I don't share the doom and gloom scenario if we stop funding every special interest NGO.

    ReplyDelete
  164. CS nor do I as I expressed quite clearly. I want my tax dollars to be used on necessaries not luxuries. I was very clear about that.

    I also was clear about the use of tax money that is allocated to be be spent on what I consider to frivolous events and activities if funded in whole or in part by the state. We shouldn't fund gay pride parades. Nor should we fund lawn bowling or cricket tournaments. However if we fund those things government shouldn't pick favourites based on gender, race or sexual orientation.

    No-one is preventing you from expressing your views. If you don't like gay pride parades boycott them as I do. If you don't believe government should fund Opera houses then don't attend the opera and make sure everyone knows you don't support government funding for an activity which caters to only a small elite minority in society.

    These are separate and distinct issues. Issue one is the funding of anything beyond what society collectively determines to be necessary. The second issue is how the funding is distributed and the third issue is your right not to attend events of which you disapprove and to actively voice your descent. You can actively voice your descent in Canada and you certainly are not bound to attend either the opera or a gay pride event. If you are female you can choose to have or not have an abortion. If you are opposed to abortion you may actively seek to dissuade others from having an abortion so long as that action does not become harassment or worse. Finally you can run for parliament or the legislature to attempt to promote your views. What is missing?

    ReplyDelete
  165. Earl

    Agreement in first two paragraphs.

    Minor note sp (dissent vs descent) Please note not intended as a criticism.

    "If you don't like gay pride parades boycott them as I do."

    3rd paragraph, 100% diagree you would be labelled as intolerant, homophobe if you protest defunding that annual event.

    Did you see the attacks from the press and opposition parties over the rumour not funding Toronto's event?

    McGill and York U Campus difficulties with groups.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Harper’s Tories (34%) Continue to Lead Ignatieff’s Grits (28%) in Wake of Throne Speech, Budget

    The poll of 1,001 Canadians was conducted between March 16 and 18 and the results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

    The Headline at http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+Liberals+still+dead+heat+Poll/2703919/story.html

    is "Tories and Liberals still in dead heat: Poll"

    the new dead heat is Liberals within 6. It is worse than that as there is 10% not in the total...Undecided?

    That would put CPC at 37.7% of the decided voters and Liberals at 31.1%.... getting into CPC Majority MOE

    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.