Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Projection Update: 128 CPC, 100 LPC, 51 BQ, 29 NDP

The latest projection update doesn't show much movement, but is important nevertheless.Why? With the Conservatives dropping one seat and the Liberals gaining one seat, the spread is now 28 seats. And the NDP has 29. This bumps the projection into an Unstable Conservative Minority, as only the second and fourth parties are required to out-vote the government.

The Conservatives have lost 0.3 points nationally and are down to 33.5%, while the Liberals have gained 0.1 points and are up to 29.4%. It seems that the gains and losses are slowing for these two parties. The NDP is steady at 16.2%, while the Bloc drops 0.1 point to 9.3% and the Greens gain 0.1 point to reach the psychologically significant level of 10%.

Let's look at the changes region by region.

In Ontario, the Conservatives have lost one seat and 0.1 points, down to 36%. The Liberals gain a seat and 0.2 points, and stand at 36.4%. The NDP also gains 0.1 points while the Greens lose 0.2.

In Quebec, the Bloc is down 0.1 points but still well ahead at 37.9%. The Liberals have lost 0.2 points in the province (their only loss anywhere in the country) and are down to 25.0%. The Conservatives are steady, while the NDP picks up 0.1 points and the Greens pick up 0.2 points.

British Columbia shows the most significant movement, with the Conservatives dropping half a point to 35.8%. The NDP gains 0.1 points and keeps a narrow lead over the Liberals with 25.8%. The Liberals gain 0.4 points and stand at 25.3%. The Greens are down 0.2 points in the province.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have gained 0.2 points to reach 36.9%. The Conservatives are down 0.1 points and are at 31.2%. The NDP is down 0.3 points to 24.2%.

In Alberta, the Conservatives continue to slide with a loss of 0.2 points. With 59%, however, they still have a commanding lead. The Liberals continue to impress with a gain of 0.4 points and are now at 17.6%. The NDP is down 0.3 points and the Greens are up 0.1.

In the Prairies, the Conservatives are down 0.2 points to 47.5% - still well ahead of the NDP who have lost 0.2 points and are at 23.5%. The Liberals gain 0.1 and the Greens gain 0.3.

Finally, in the North, the Conservatives drop 0.1 points.

This was a bad two weeks for the government, as they have dropped in every region of the country except Quebec, where they remained stable. A 0.5-point loss in British Columbia is very bad news for the party.

The Liberals had a good two weeks, posting large 0.4-point gains in British Columbia and Alberta. They've also opened up a tiny lead in Ontario, but their loss of ground in Quebec is troublesome.

The NDP did not have a very good time, posting minute gains in BC, Ontario, and Quebec but 0.3-point losses in Atlantic Canada and Alberta. However, unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, the NDP is never down or up throughout the country.

The Bloc only dropped 0.1 points, which seems to be the norm. They are stuck at around 38%.

149 comments:

  1. Instability is not good - we've seen how Parliament has been in a stalemate for 4 years now, and if this projection were to hold true through the next election, look for even less to get done.

    I personally think that the Conservatives have done a good job in a minority situation, lasting a lot longer than was expected. (Doesn't mean I'm right, folks - just my opinion.) However, having to keep their eye on two parties instead of one can only make the tension more acute.

    This is like a sudden death overtime game that just won't end...!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even though the changes are slowing down (and you never know, may reverse over the coming weeks), it appears Britsh Columbia will be the place providing us with the most interesting politics for the next little while.

    What would be interesting though is if we could see where the drop for the Conservatives is coming from; is Vancouver abandoning them, or are they losing out in rural areas? Too bad no polls separate it like that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Éric: Projection Update: 128 CPC, 100 LPC, 51 BQ, 29 NDP... [O]nly the second and fourth parties are required to out-vote the government.

    OK, I'll bite. Tory+Dipper=128+29=157; Grit+Block=100+51=151. Therefore, all three opposition parties are required to defeat the government. Even the second and third can't do it. This is not an Unstable Conservative Minority as defined.

    I'm fairly confident of my mathematical calculations, although I didn't take my socks and shoes off...

    ReplyDelete
  4. John - you don't need 155 to defeat the government - you just need one more vote than the government can muster - 100 +29 = 129 to CPC 128. The Bloc could abstain and the Conservatives could still be defeated - that's the scenario Eric's getting at...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very definitely unstable.

    I'm also seeing strong rumours Harper will force an election?? Odd if you ask me?

    Hinchey is correct re votes needed. If the Bloc abstains or splits evenly the Cons can't equal the Lib+NDP number.

    That said the odds of the Bloc doing either of those are pretty small. They have always got more from the Libs than from the Cons and can expect the same again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter - I haven't heard any definite rumours (other than what MSM is putting in people's mouths...). I was informed by an associate of a CPC riding association in MB that we shouldn't expect anything until at least a year from now.

    What sorts of things are you hearing? Inquiring minds want to know!

    ReplyDelete
  7. If Harper calls an election now, I'll be very upset - I'm going away for two weeks. :(

    For what its worth, the Liberals want to go through the spring and summer without an election. They're aiming for the fall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ontario was the key in seats in 2008. Without specific polling data in the ridings, I will conclude the few points in Toronto will not boost the Liberal fortunes in seats at the NDP expense outside Toronto.*

    *NDP and Green hold their popular support

    NDP won't join Liberals at their seat expense. Signed deals mean nothing from Liberals and NDP may have learned a valuable lesson.

    2006 Ontario
    # Liberal Party won 39.9% =54 seats
    # NDP 19.4% = 12 seat
    # CPC 35.1% = 40 seats
    # PC 0.2% = ZERO seats
    # Green 4.7% =Zero seats

    2008 Ontario
    # Liberal Party won 33.8% = 38 seats
    # NDP 18.2% = 17 seat
    # CPC 39.2% = 51 seats
    # PC 0.1% = ZERO seats
    # Green 8.0% =Zero seats

    ReplyDelete
  9. CanadianSense,

    What the heck are you smoking? Who mentioned anything about "signed deals" between the Liberals and the NDP?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Volkov,

    Personal attacks already?

    Facts
    Political Parties act on self interest.

    The NDP have benefitted in 2004 pulling life support from the Liberals.

    Since 2004 the NDP have been making gains in Liberal ridings.

    The Liberals refused to honour their signed deal and Dion was not authorized to offer cabinet seats.

    Iffy was the Deputy leader and did not stop the coalition to risk the wrath of the left within LPOC.

    Ontario transferred a large number of seats in 2008 to the NDP/CPC.

    I remember Liberals making fun of Jack for not joining them in Fall 2009.

    March 2010 now an Amber Alert is being issued for 10 missing Liberals who appear lost and can't find their way to vote down the budget they don't support.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Volkov,

    You are very polite.

    I didn't understand a word of it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CanadianSense,

    That's all well and fine... but what exactly brought on this rant? I asked who mentioned anything about a Liberal and NDP signed deal in this thread, not for you to elaborate on your theories.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 49steps,

    as a Liberal, winning on the Federal scene has become a forgotten skill.

    but making excuses for your party has become S.O.P.

    Too late for that leadership convention or bringing back Jean Chretien?

    ReplyDelete
  14. For someone that accuses me of personal attacks, you sure do make an artform out of it, CanadianSense.

    I ask again - what are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Canadian Sense,

    I am going to be as polite and civil with you as I can.

    Do NOT address me anymore.

    I have ZERO interest in any dialogue with you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Volkov,

    that's 2 in a row.

    Speculation is labelled a "rant" regarding the ground zero for the next campaign: Ontario?

    An opinion posted without a personal insult.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CanadianSense,

    Speculation is fine, but you went off on some tangent about a Liberal and NDP signed agreement, which is what I was trying to pin down, apparently to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My post - 09 March, 2010 12:54

    Volkov, 49steps both of you commented on my POST that was NOT addressed to either of you.

    You require I "explain" or justify my opinion.2-3x

    That's sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh hey 49 steps you can't really say stuff like that.

    People are free to address anything they want, whether its writen by your or anyone else.

    If you don't want dialogue its up to you not to respond to somebody. Maybe they'll stop responding, maybe they won't.


    Quick question:

    Do you know anything about Derek Lee's motion ??

    Why hasn't it been tabled ? It keeps getting pushed back!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Canadian Sense,

    Did you even read my post.

    You are frankly, an idiot who makes no sense.

    Now this is it for me.

    I am completely finished with you.

    You are not worth spending even one more second on.

    ReplyDelete
  21. HS, Peter,

    Some pundits suggest the Throne Speech, Budget are campaign ready.

    Jean Chretien exploited weakeness in the opposition, not allowing them to build a counter narrative to the Liberals.

    Consumer confidence in economy, some budget ideas are widely supported.
    Angus, HD.

    ReplyDelete
  22. CanadianSense,

    Well, yeah, lol, that's what you do when you're intellectually honest. You explain to others why you're right, and use proper justification and factual evidence to back it up. They don't call them opinions for nothing.

    But I wasn't asking you to justify your opinion - I was asking where it came from, considering that no one here talks about a Liberal and NDP signed agreement. Is it such a crime to ask where you got this idea from? Jeesh.

    Shadow,

    Derek Lee's motion never had a set date as far as I was aware, and he was trying to reach a consensus with the Speaker as to when he could introduce it without holding up debate over the budget. People said Friday, but that was speculation, and Lee himself never confirmed at, as far as I'm aware. I'd expect it some time this week, though. If not, then there's some pussyfooting about.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh yes. For all interested parties, Angus Reid came out with interesting numbers for certain proposals within the budget, ranging from the salary freeze to the Holocaust memorial, which, oddly enough, has the most opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,
    Taking a look at 2000-2008 General Elections in Ontario only

    The Greens have grown from 0.9 to 8.0% without winning a seat.

    What is your best guess in popular % support before a breakthrough in winning a seat Ontario?



    NDP earned 1 seat with 8.3% in 2000
    grew to 17 with 18.2% in Ontario.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Volkov,

    It's not surprising that Canadians support something that has to do with giving politicians less of anything.

    A self-loathing political party could sweep the nation.

    Whether it is best to offer lower salaries to politicians and bureaucrats, encouraging the best people to stay in the private sector, is another question that no one in this poll gave much of a second thought to, I'd imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Volkov,

    Tom Muclair and Jack Layton both made speeches regarding the betrayal (fallout from the coalition).

    Brian Topp's book expanded on the detail.(How We almost gave the Tories the boot)

    Several left of centre pundits have suggested Lib+NDP rekindle coalition.

    My post did not provide "links", but the information is easily found.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's a good point, Eric.

    But I wonder; if a self-loathing party could sweep the nation, would it take the form of a party that votes down politicians and bureaucrats getting any special treatment, or would it be a libertarian view, which can be described as "self-loathing," insofar that they loathe the government's general existence?

    In other words, is there a distinction between political self-loathing/deprecation, and wanting a skeleton crew government? Would people be willing to scrap public services, or simply have politicians deny themselves any good treatment?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Volkov I think Kady debunked that whole thing about disrupting the budget, while his motion would take priority everyone can vote to shelve the debate for later and go back to budget stuff.

    A motion like this is supposed to be introduced ASAP, right after the breach of privelege has taken place. I wonder if the Speaker will rule it out of order for simply taking so long ?

    Apparently he's now waiting for the terms of reference to be released for the Iacobucci review. No word for the gov when that's coming. But doesn't that completely fly in the face of parliamentary supremacy ?

    Anyways as far as I can tell his motion is dead and he doesn't have the votes to pass it.

    This issue will be forgotten soon.

    ReplyDelete
  29. CanadianSense,

    Anyone ever notice how all the talk of the "coalition fallout" is from a nearly-irrelevant fourth party which missed it's only chance in it's nearly 60 year existence to be apart of the government?

    Anyways.. why would you bring that up, here, when it basically has no meaning whatsoever? Just out of random thought?

    ReplyDelete
  30. John:

    I really don't see any reason to be afraid of the Americans at this point. We could likely negotiate our own free trade deal with them as we are their largest supplier of oil. We could send that oil to China, invite the Chinese in to really develop the oil sands and get ridiculously rich, if the US doesn't want our oil a condition of getting it being real free trade with of the nonsense that goes on now. Bring it on!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Volkov,

    You continue to make personal comments about motive, character.

    Articles about the coalition are in the media, as is the "hidden agenda".

    Did you think the next campaign will be fought on actual policy differences?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Volkov, I think given an electoral campaign where there is time for sober second thought and people to criticize, a truly self-loathing political party wouldn't go very far if it meant skeleton government.

    But a political leader who ends each speech with "aren't we a bunch of stinkers?" could be bigger than Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shadow,

    If his motion was introduced, do you think the Conservatives would let it drop so easily? Remember, they're the ones who said they may threaten an election over it. I imagine that if Lee introduces his motion in the middle of the budget debates, the Conservatives will ride it to Hell and back. That, or the Opposition might. It's an almost-filibuster.

    However, I don't think its dead yet. I don't know about the Speaker overruling it since its taken so long, but I doubt it. The sad fact is that we really don't know, unless one of us has a wiretap into Peter Milliken's office...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eric why would anyone worry about the public services ?

    Depending on the survey public sector compensation is about 30% higher then private sector with much, much more job security.

    Instead of the three year freeze in Flaherty's budget a ten year freeze is needed to let inflation even out compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Canadian Sense,

    I never said anything about your character in that post. Not to be condescending, but learn about sarcasm and rhetorical questions. I asked why you brought it up - nothing more. Care to explain? I'm listening.

    Eric,

    You're giving me good ideas. xD I'll have to see if I can get my candidate here to switch his slogan to that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Shadow,

    By public services, I meant, you know, our healthcare, infrastructure, notary services, emergency services, regulatory commissions, etc.

    An uber-libertarian government would have none of these. You'd be able to buy your own police services, while those that can't afford it, get no protection. You should pick up some Ayn Rand sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey Volkov you're probably right.

    If Derek Lee introduced his motion i'd advise the gov't to

    A) Not agree to time debate on his motion in such a way that it doesn't disrupt the budget

    B) Run attack ads calling the opposition the party of NO and blame them for stalling popular reforms in the budget

    (Cynical and contradictory I know! Politics ain't beanbag...)

    But in reality the gov't isn't going to run out of supply anytime soon. I don't see a problem kicking the budget back a few days, what's the big deal ?

    I think what might have Derek Lee spooked is Harper treating his motion as a confidence issue.

    Right now the assumption is that if his motion passes Harper will call an election.

    However, i'd advise Harper to call an election if his motion is INTRODUCED. Or at least have someone source a statement to that effect.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Shadow,

    This is completely off topic.

    I would love to know your thoughts about something.

    The conservatives are the law and order party.

    The tough on crime party.

    The throw those guys in the slammer party.

    Didn't Jaffer get a sweet deal today.

    Why aren't the conservatives screaming from the roof tops about those soft on crime liberal judges.

    Our liberal made soft on crime justice sysyem.

    Why are they not demanding that Jaffer be locked up for 400 years.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Shadow,

    That's true. Harper's confidence motion talk could have scared him, but we'll have to see, I suppose.

    But I wonder why you would advise him to call an election over this. Aside from scaring Lee, do you really think this would be the sort of thing the Conservatives could get away with? Wouldn't it essentially be like calling an election themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Volkov

    My post 13:58 is regarding Your 13:35 Post

    Your posts afterwards have already been addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. From what I have read before Lee's motion gets to HOC, Milikin must accept it. Then it can be referred to the SOC for constitutional reference. Third if it makes it past those hurdles Harper can declare it a matter of confidence and either the opposition puts up or shuts up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Heh Volkov i've read every last drop of Ayn Rand, first fiction and then kooky non-fiction.

    Its great stuff when you're 14. More or less outgrew it by uni.

    Yeah that's a really extreme and weird conception of gov't. No taxes just voluntary contributions by corporations to protect their assets.

    I believe in medium to small government, not no government.

    ReplyDelete
  43. CanadianSense: The Greens have grown from 0.9 to 8.0% without winning a seat.

    What is your best guess in popular % support before a breakthrough in winning a seat Ontario?


    That is indeed the key Green Party question!

    When Greens poll regularly in the twenties or even the high teens, the party will win a substantial number of seats as the NDP does today. Until then, it probably makes more sense to look at specific ridings, especially Guelph or Gray-Bruce-Owen Sound. These won't necessarily move in lock step with polls at the national or provincial level.

    As I've observed several times, the Green Party suffers under first-past-the-post by being truly national. Green voters are unusually evenly distributed, so the first seat will be a major breakthrough. The flip side is that at some point under FPTP, the number of seats will ramp quickly.

    If I had a gun to my head and had to answer your original question, I'd guess in the range of 12-14% provincially. However, there's no science behind that statement. A Green MP could definitely be elected with today's polling numbers and a battle-tested election machine.

    Also, you only asked about Ontario. Saanich-Gulf Islands is clearly in play for the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shadow,

    Good man. I know a couple that haven't grown out of it yet. They're scary mofos, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Volkov I see calling an election of Lee's point of order from the governments point of view that of protecting the nations secrets, its allies and its soldiers. You may think that's bunk but will the public or could this, plus talk of a leftist coalition give Harper his elusive majority? I'm being deliberately cynical but that's politics.

    Food for thought my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  46. John,

    You're the Green Party guy here. So I have to ask; who do you support for the leadership of the Green Party, if not Lizzy May?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Earl,

    That's the million dollar question, isn't it? Though, I doubt the issue will be the forefront for the Liberals. Rather, it'll be one notch in the belt used to whip those Conservatives back to Opposition. There is a definite story coming to light about Harper's government; it's sneaky. It prorogues, it withholds documents, it silences members and bureaucrats, it uses patronage, etc.

    It'll be that, versus Harper's steady-as-she-goes-economically and ebil-socialist-liberal-coalition talk, in my humble opinion. A reverse of 2006; one attacks accountability, one attacks hidden agendas and espouses economic guardianship.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Volkov:

    An election around Afghanistan would have a polarizing effect like free trade did 1988. There is IMO a good chance Harper gets his majority. It would be worth a roll of the dice were I him.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Volkov it would be then a battle of the narratives wouldn't it. I suspect Harper's win 39 - 43% of the vote, all he needs for a majority. JMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Earl,

    It will be. I don't think Harper will get a majority, though. I'll say if the Conservatives win, they'll stick around 35-36%. If the Liberals win, it'll be 34-35% with a strong Conservative opposition. It'll be almost equal swing, too. We keep fighting over the same votes!

    No majorities for anyone, not unless the most spectacular collapse of any political party since 1993 occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Volkov: Who do you support for the leadership of the Green Party, if not Lizzy May?

    Elizabeth May is our leader and there's no leadership contest underway. She has my full support.

    You may be a closet Rae fan and Shadow may be passionate about Baird. DL may be waiting for the ascension of Mulcair. But each party has one leader at a time. Elizabeth May is ours. Full stop.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think the scenarios people are floating here are absurd.

    We learned last fall that public will come down hard on any party that is seen to be the cause of an unwanted election. So let's say that there is a motion in parliament demanding that the government turn over the documents pertaining to the detainees - does anyone seriously think that Harper would be on solid ground if he then decided that he would call an election rather than hand over the incriminating documents?? The optics for the Tories would be horrific - Canada goes to the polls in an unnecessary election - all because Harper refuses to hand over incriminating evidence. This election did not have to happen - but we are having one because Harper decided to force one rather than hand over INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE. This would be like Ontario 1990 all over again with Peterson being killed for calling a totally unnecessary early election.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John,

    Fair enough. If I were you, though, I'd go for Frank De Jong. Not that I like him, but he seems to have the best chance of winning some seats.

    And I am not a closet Rae fan. I like Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Just throwing this out there, but has anyone noticed that the Bloc seems to be the only party in the House willing to say the words, "make the rich pay"? Even the NDP steers clear of such language.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hey 49 steps Jaffer did get a good deal, he won't have a criminal record from all of this.

    Careless driving can carry a penalty of 6 months in prison, a $1000 fine, and 2 years suspended license.

    I'm guessing he pled guilty to avoid jail time. I assume that's common practice though to avoid a costly trial.

    It sounds like the prosecution had a weak case on the criminal offences.

    From CTV:

    "Prosecutor Marie Balogh told the court there was no reasonable possibility of conviction on the more serious charges, saying there were "significant legal issues" impeding the case."

    ReplyDelete
  56. For Harper to win a majority, he has to hope that the hundreds of thousands of Liberals who did not vote in 2008 will not vote again, or will vote for him instead.

    As Stéphane Dion was a product of the more left-of-centre wing of the party, while Ignatieff is more from the centre or right-of-centre wing, I think it is highly unlikely that those Liberals who didn't see themselves in Dion will also not see themselves in Ignatieff.

    And those Liberals who voted for Dion won't want to see Harper returned to power.

    I think it is virtually impossible for Ignatieff to do worse than Dion did, and I doubt those disillusioned voters in 2008 will be disillusioned again in 2010 or 2011. They didn't want Dion as PM, clearly. But will they want Harper as PM for another few years? Doubtful.

    Unless the Liberals fall apart, and I have troubling imagining that since Ignatieff will be a better campaigner than Dion, there is no hope for a Tory majority, especially considering the existence and continued strength of the Bloc.

    Harper's chance was 2008. Hopes for a majority in 2010 or 2011 are illusory.

    Harper needs to aim for another 130-145 seat total, which will give him another two to three years in power.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Volkov,

    If that is the case, it could be because in Quebec, most of the richest are either anglophones are well-known federalists (Desmarais, for example). So, the Bloc is in no danger with that kind of language.

    It could also be that Quebec has generally a more egalitarian society.

    ReplyDelete
  58. DL I see the optics as totally different. It would be the Government (CPC) protecting our allies, our servicemen and women and the sanctity of our secrecy laws. The arcane notion that Parliament can compel the production of material deemed to be secret would lost on the average voter. Harper wouldn't be seen as provoking this election for the people that matter - the 10% of the populations whose vote is up for grabs - the opposition would. Like 1988 it's wedge issue that forces one to think in black and white. JMHO sir.

    Good fortune,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hey John i'm not "passionate about Baird" (in any sense, just in case there was a double meaning there!)

    I'd honestly need to see people's platform during a leadership race.

    In that regard the Liberals are at a disadvantage because people probably still identify closely with Bob Rae from the campaign.

    Stronach is gone and I doubt there's a contingent of Tony Clement supporters trying to guff up Harper so he can swoop in and be PM !

    That being said i'm getting very, very annoyed at Maxime Bernier for trying to play the base off against Harper and set himself up for the leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  60. In terms of a polarized election, remember that a low turnout is to the advantage of the Conservatives. A truly polarized election could get people out to vote, which is not good news for the Tories.

    Remember, there were about 980,000 fewer voters in 2008 than there was in 2006.

    The Liberal vote dropped by about 850,000.

    The Conservatives lost 170,000 voters.

    If a polarized election brings voters back to the polls, odds are the Liberals will benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Eric I don't think this is clear at all:

    "Ignatieff will be a better campaigner than Dion"

    He speaks better English and that's about it. But his numbers are toxic, the more people see him the more it would drag the Liberal numbers down.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Shadow,

    Thanks,

    Good old Rahim Jaffer

    A beneficiary of our liberal made soft on crime justice system.

    A beneficiary of our soft on crime liberal judges.

    How sweet to know it is something he railed on about for years.

    He even criticized Linda Duncan on NDP drug policy.

    Conservatives are always bringing that old canard.

    There is nothing I love more in this world than conservatives who stand by their principles.

    You would have thought at least one conservative, would have called for at least 75 years of hard labour.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Shadow,

    Eric is right - Iggy is a better campaigner. The problem is his image - but that is only one part of the campaign. Ignatieff's leadership has moved forward organization and communications from when I joined in '08, which was dismal to say the least, to a well-managed and efficient machine that, yes, has a few kinks, but is so, so, so much better than 2008.

    He just needs to get a better image. I went canvassing this past weekend, and people kept saying, "I just don't know about Ignatieff." It wasn't as bad as Dion though, for which people automatically told me to fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "DL I see the optics as totally different. It would be the Government (CPC) protecting our allies, our servicemen and women and the sanctity of our secrecy laws."

    Do you seriously anyone would buy such an absurdly lame argument. I think Tory candidates would have a hard time keeping a straight face while delivering such a laughable talking point! - This would be the Tory equivalent of the "troops in the streets" from the Liberals in '06.

    The opposition talking point is blissfully simple - "Harper has something to hide. Some very, very bad and very incriminating and he's going to extraordinary lengths to cover up his crimes."

    I'd like to see a polling question along the lines of "Parliament has voted to demand that the Harper government release unedited documents that are critical to getting to the bottom of the Afghan detainee scandal. Harper is threatened to call an election rather than turn the documents over to Parliament.

    What would you prefer - PM Harper to hand over the documents so we can see once and for all whether or not people in his government broke laws OR Harper to force an election just 18 months after the last one?

    ReplyDelete
  65. I disagree. Dion was awkward even in French. People didn't like his policies. He really wasn't made to be a party leader.

    Ignatieff has experience in front of the camera. He doesn't get ruffled or thrown off message. He speaks clearly, both in terms of language and mere public-speaking skill. His policies are more centrist and will appeal to a wider base. And, perhaps most importantly, his party has the lessons of 2008.

    The numbers indicate people don't like him. We've also seen from the numbers that they respect him (he always gets high marks in intelligence, etc.) But as we've seen with Harper, people will vote for someone they don't like. They won't vote for someone who looks like a bumbling fool.

    Unless Ignatieff steps on a baby during the campaign, he will do better than Dion. Guaranteed.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Earl,

    I agree a majority is in realm of likely for the CPC for several reasons.
    http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2008.10.15_Election.pdf

    Is a link to 2008 Prediction by the Pollsters.
    A poster left this comment after reviewing the accuracy of the Pollsters
    Liberal support was overestimated five times and one tie.

    NDP support was overestimated six times and two ties.

    BQ support was overestimated once, tied four times and underestimated three times.

    The Greens were overestimated a whopping seven times and one tie.

    And the tell tale sign of how bias these pollsters are, is!!!

    All eight pollsters underestimated Conservative support.

    ReplyDelete
  67. DL let's just say we see the world very differently. I don't think 50% of Canadians care if we are toturing suspected Taliban. They are the enemy. Is that right? No, but I do believe it is reality. I can see pretty similar results to 1988 over all.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1988

    The CPC would lose seats in Quebec but win them in other areas of Canada. JMHO. I really enjoy election strategy and to me this is a winner especially when coupled with Jack Layton as Defense, Foreign Affairs, or Finance Minister. Play the coalition and national security cards and Harper is a winner. The Budget just introduced helps as well.

    ReplyDelete
  68. DL

    Your views on the mission and allegations are NOT backed up by action in the House.

    In September the NDP rolled over. In March the Liberals are going to hide on defeating the "supply bill".

    The CPC have a defacto majority as a consequence of a weak divided opposition.

    The difference in 2010 is the "excuse" the senate is stalling the Bills won't be available.

    ReplyDelete
  69. In both the 2004 and 2006 election the final polls underestimated Liberal support and overestimated Conservative support - so there is no consistent pattern as to who is consistently over or under estimated. In any case the Tories only got about 1 or 2% more than the average of the all the final polls in 2008 - if the phenomenon happened in the next election, they would need to be polling about 38% or more and then get a few point above that to have a shot at a majority - not likely.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Volkov,

    thanks for the laugh about your experience canvassing.

    Did you hear any feedback about not supporting the home renovation credit on your travels in the Fall?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hey 49 steps I don't know any Conservative who wants people charged with "75 years of hard labour" for a little speeding.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "I don't think 50% of Canadians care if we are torturing suspected Taliban."

    You're probably right - but they DO care about the Harper government lying and trying to cover up its role in those tortures. If Harper simply said "Yes, we were complicit in the torture of Taliban suspects in Afghanistan, we are proud to have done that and we will happily do it again!" - they would probably be in much better political shape then they are in now after trying to smear Richard Colvin and trying to cover up what they did.

    Its not the crime its the cover-up!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. CanadianSense,

    Nope, not a word about it. The biggest issues talked about was Iggy, when Harper was going to get kicked out of office (not kidding - one person said he wasn't sure about Ignatieff for the very reason that he wasn't trying to kick Harper out of office at that very moment), and another person was concerned about the lack of motorbike trails, for which our candidate is going to get City Hall to take care of, 'cause he's connected like that.

    Oh, and one person talked about how, even though he never votes, he'll vote to get Harper kicked out of office. :D

    ReplyDelete
  74. Earl: I see the optics as totally different. It would be the Government (CPC) protecting our allies, our servicemen and women...

    Harper's challenge is that the ground is shifting under his feet. The "protect the troops" mantra has never really been believed by anybody except the Tory base, at least since the time of Martin's incredibly boneheaded ad.

    It now increasingly appears that Harper is protecting not our soldiers, but CSIS. From Tory to Green to Dipper, we love our troops. (Hey, I'm in at the Legion twice a week.) Since the Maher Arar affair, however, CSIS has been a national embarrassment. It's a toxic flag for politicians to wrap themselves in and all opposition parties would aid in the wrapping: "Harper is covering up for CSIS torture renderers".

    The presentation might be more diplomatic (or not, if it comes from Warren Kinsella) but this is just a taste of what the Tories would hear on the hustings if they make hiding the documents the key election issue. Think feet and FN M2HB-QCB.

    ReplyDelete
  75. DL John,

    this might cheer you up and piss off some Liberals.

    NDP break 20% national at mainly Liberal expense.

    I don't believe the grassroots are engaged or behind the current leader at LPOC.

    How many park their votes for the Greens not sure. May is NOT an effective campaigner.

    I suggest the Greens might break 10% but still think they fail to win. May should have run in Ontario to be close to Ottawa for face time in press. Too many mistakes re timezones and riding make her a serious tactical failure.

    Ignatieff does not have his party's 77 MP's in his corner.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Shadow,

    It was a little more than just speeding.

    No matter what his plea deal said.

    You know that.

    ReplyDelete
  77. CanadianSense,

    Given that the NDP are at 20% (up from 18% last poll), and the Liberals at 29%, and Conservatives at 33% - both down one point since the last AR poll - you may want to reconsider the, "mainly at Liberal expense," line.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Shadow:
    "I think what might have Derek Lee spooked is Harper treating his motion as a confidence issue"

    If the Speaker accepts Lee's motion as currently written Harper can't make it confidence as there is a specific clause saying it is not. Motions can't be amended once presented either so that route is out.

    Which is not to say that Harper can't seek dissolution if the motion passes.

    ReplyDelete
  79. If an election was held i'd place money on a CPC result of 38% and a gain of 5 seats for a number of reasons:

    1) Harper is now a veteran campaigner and he knows how to make CPC numbers go up during an election.

    2) The CPC has a strong organization, strong candidates, and a huge money advantage that has only widended because of some important legal decisions.

    150 seats is obviously not a majority.

    But there would inevitably be lots of by-elections and Harper could toss some ambassadorships and senate appointments to the opposition to open up more seats if nessecary.

    ReplyDelete
  80. 49: Not to excuse Jaffir but my guess is that police bungled the investigation. On purpose? Well you would think not after all the noise they made. So what went wrong? If you ever find out please let us know.

    If he was impaired he should not have gotten off.

    Cheers,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hi Peter that's not how the system works.

    I read the letter Derek Lee wrote to the GG in which he said the motion isn't confidence and if she grants dissolution over it she'll be obstructing parliament.

    Its a cute but meaingless trick.

    Its the government's sole discretion as to whether they want to attach confidence to something beyond the throne speech, non-confidencem motions, and the money bills.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Earl:
    "The arcane notion that Parliament can compel the production of material deemed to be secret would lost on the average voter. "

    In actual fact people I've talked to on the street and in the supermarket do understand this issue.

    I think you've got it wrong actually.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Volkov

    I like to use ballot cast numbers. They can't be faked. (Unless you live in Florida)

    I suggest a 1.8% increase for NDP from their ballot numbers in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter I believe the PM merely has to state that his party will treat the motion as one of confidence. No? The only bills that are arbitrarily confidence are money bills.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Peter I'm only an armchair expert. Your opinion is as valid as mine. Only if we get the election we both want will we know, if indeed another issue doesn't come out of no where and usurp the campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Earl,

    We will never know.

    All I was trying to say was that the esteemed Rahim Jaffer was quite the beneficiary, of a what he would term "A liberal soft on crime system.

    Or a beneficiary of soft on crime liberal judges.

    The one he railed against for years.

    I think today Rahim Jaffer is probably very fond of the Canadian justice system.

    Either way his future in politics is pretty much non existent.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Volkov,

    I must admit I get a laugh every time a Liberals states they are against this budget and will sit on their hands to make sure it passes.

    Did Dion do a Vulcan mind meld on Iggy?

    ReplyDelete
  88. CanadianSense,

    Heh, in order for Dion to do that, he'd have to use anywhere near something called "logic."

    I personally think its quite silly. I understand the need to make a statement, but why vote against it.. yet ensure its passage still? It would have been better if the entire Liberal caucus simply abstained from voting. It'd at least be consistent.

    But, I can see the reasoning. This budget plainly sucks, but it's not the kind of thing you're going to fight an election over, especially when you have nothing to fight with. Plus, the Montreal conference must go through. No reason to risk it now. It was just so stupidly put forward.. bah.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Volkov,

    I wan't the conference to go through as well.

    There is no sense trying to push for an election, if people are stating they do not feel this the time.

    There will come a day, (and I think very soon) that will change.

    Best to make your move, when you have a good chance.

    As for vulcan mind meld

    Pheww, gotta wonder

    ReplyDelete
  90. Why hasn't anyone thought about the possibility that Harper could governn until the fall of 2012 when his term is up ??

    2 more budgets and a fall statement to go to the polls on.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Background Information on why GOTV (get out the vote) is going to make the difference.

    On the campaign the opposition don't support the budget and therefore the programs.

    In six weeks the opposition will be attacking each others platform to as not being credible.

    In Ontario 2006 vs 2008 505k voters did not cast a ballot. The suggestion a large number will be motivated by Ignatieff who has not fixed the many issues within his party is speculation.

    Demographics

    Polls who do the seniors like?

    http://www.elections.ca/loi/res/estim/estimation40_e.pdf

    The turnout rate among 18 to 24 year olds remains low. Youth turnout went from 37 percent in 2004 up to 43.8 percent in 2006, and back down to 37.4 percent in 2008, However, it should be noted that, for the 2008 general election, other age groups had even larger declines, including those aged 35 to 44 years old (a decrease of 7.8 percentage points), 45 to 54 year olds (a decrease of 10.3 percentage points), and 55 to 64 year olds (a decrease of 9.8 percentage points). Part of the decline observed in youth turnout may therefore be due to factors other than age.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Éric - I'm inclined to agree that a Conservative majority in the next election is impossible.

    The subsequent election, sure. But not this one.

    As you correclty point out, the mere existence of Iggy combined will bring back many of the traditionally Liberal voters who didn't support Dion. The realistic goal for the CPC in the next election is to hold onto their gains in Ontario, minimise the damage in BC, and claw back at Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Shadow,

    Gotta admire someone with big dreams.

    Your dreams are bigger than most.

    Did you see "Alice in Wonderland"
    over the weekend?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Shadow,

    Because it won't take nearly three years for the Liberals, Bloc, NDP, and Canadians in general to get PO'd with Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Volkov - It might.

    Harper can learn. He became PM as a remarkably raw politician who was prone to misreading public sentiment and shooting himself in the foot.

    The Liberals have had over a year with their new leader now, and despite a lackluster budget and declining poll numbers for the government, they appear to be entirely uninterested in forming the government.

    If they're not ready now, then when?

    Harper has shown an ability to execute a long-term political plan effectively (as he did through most of 2009) to bolster his support, and the Conservatives still have a dominant financial advantage over the other parties. Since Canadians appear not to mind him much when he's not doing something stupid, and they clearly haven't warmed up the Iggy, I see no reason why this minority parliament can't persist for quite a while yet.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Volkov,

    After the writ is dropped are not all parties on an equal financial footing as to what they can spend
    in a campaign?

    I think Harper is wearing thin for a lot of folks.

    This Afghan detainee issue, is not going away.

    His hard ass style turns many people off.

    The thought of handing him a majority probably scares the wits out of some.

    The budget is a financial fantasy, as per usual with Flaherty.

    The recovery is jobless.

    The AG is releasing a report into the EAP, in the fall.

    Tell me please, how are things going to get better for Harper and company?

    ReplyDelete
  97. Volkov we've never gotten a test of that theory though.

    Summer '08 it was Harper himself who pulled the plug. All other attempts to remove him by the opposition have failed.

    Harper seems to be master of his own destiny. And he actually enjoys governing and being PM when he can steamroll the opposition.

    Telecom and broadcasting deregulation is an exciting initiative with broad public support !

    Tough on crime legislation can finally make it through the senate!

    And the oppo can be forced to take tough votes on senate reform too!

    Why wouldn't he want to continue for as long as possible when he's actually accomplishing things ?

    Especially with the economy and jobs gradually returning.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Volkov I saw somewhere that the Conservatives have appointed 1/3 of federal judges.

    Every day in power shifts the country slightly more to the right.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Volkov,

    After the writ is dropped are not






    all parties on an equal financial footing as to what they can spend
    in a campaign?

    I think Harper is wearing thin for a lot of folks.

    This Afghan detainee issue, is not going away.

    His hard ass style turns many people off.

    The thought of handing him a majority probably scares the wits out of some.

    The budget is a financial fantasy, as per usual with Flaherty.

    The recovery is jobless.

    The AG is releasing a report into the EAP, in the fall.

    How is it possible for Harper and company to remain till 2012.

    The Canadian public will soon wan't an election, and the opposition will know that.

    I know DL has great hopes for the NDP, but I told him on the weekend that after all it's time in existence the NDP hasn't even formed an official opposition.

    Does he ever start to wonder why?

    The Liberals will be a defacto choice for a lot of voters because they are a larger party, and have governed Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hi 49 steps this "fictional" budget will pass because Liberals will go missing.

    Individual initiatives in this budget have broad public support.

    The budget on the whole has something like 42% support.

    Interestingly only 7/10 CPC members like it which means its a base + outreach document = good for an election campaign.

    So how on earth do we get into an election campaign ?

    Over the motion Derek Lee won't be bringing forward ?

    I mean c'mon, you guys have folded like a cheap suit.

    ReplyDelete
  101. New Harris Decima

    Conservatives 33%
    Liberals 29%
    NDP 16%
    Green 11%
    BQ 10%

    Ontario
    Liberal 39%
    Cons 35%
    NDP 14%
    Green 10%

    ReplyDelete
  102. New HD poll - Conservatives get a bounce, sort of, but the Liberals still beating them handily in Ontario, somehow. And for any federal leader, except for Duceppe, favourability keeps dropping. Iggy just drops more 'cause he's cool like that.

    Anyways..

    49 Steps,

    All parties can spend to a certain limit, but the fact is that the Liberals last time in '06 couldn't even reach that limit. We might this time.

    And yeah, the NDP aren't the de facto choice. They're the third party. That's about it. Gotta love them, but they ain't forming a national government in our lifetimes.

    So as Harper keeps grinding himself down, votes will go to the Liberals, and probably to the Greens as well. But, as Iggy himself said - we must present an alternative, because even if Harper puts himself in the position to be brushed into oblivion, it won't happen unless we give voters something to turn to.

    Shadow, Ira,

    Harper had his chance in '08. We all know it. He won't stretch it to 2012, any more than he stretched it to fall 2010 from his original mandate in '06. I mean, he could have - the Liberals gave him a free pass.

    No, Harper will go before 2012, and I say even before 2011. Expect an election, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  103. That's me, by the way. Just fooling around on my blogger profile. It likes messing it up.

    ReplyDelete
  104. 49
    Interesting numbers.

    What happens though if this Liberal think tank comes out with some really exciting, to the public, ideas?

    Not daycare or any of those other tired ideas but some real grabbers?

    ReplyDelete
  105. dow,

    People do not want an election right now.

    As for cheap suit?

    Come on have a little heart.

    We wear GUCCI

    ReplyDelete
  106. Volkov ok i'll bite.

    How and when would this election come to pass ?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Shadow,

    Well, the entire idea hinges on two things; whether the Liberals are on track and ready, and whether or not the Harper government is ready to risk it all in order to stave off an even worse defeat which would probably come about eventually once the government decided to cut spending across the board - always unpopular.

    The first factor depends obviously on whether the Liberals have the money, the organization, and the numbers to risk an election. The second relies on when Harper and Flaherty decide to get out the chainsaw.

    I know, I know - people actually love spending cuts. But the fact is that if the Conservatives cut the wrong things, they're setting themselves up for some hurt. They become vulnerable once that saw is out. Look what happened to Harris. Look what happened to Chretien in '97. Look what is happening the David Cameron's Conservatives in Britain.

    So in order to stave off an even worse defeat after those cuts come into place, the Conservatives might risk going earlier, taking smaller losses, and continue governance.

    Either way - before 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  108. John Baird has said that anyone who criticises Jaffer's getting off easy on this case is a Liberal who hates the troops.

    Peter MacKay is planning to seal legal documents and police reports related to the incident.

    Stephen Harper is going on The National to state that Canadians don't care about CPC hypocrisy and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  109. The House of Commons voted 214-84 on Tuesday to reject a Bloc Quebecois amendment to the federal budget.

    The CPC already have their majority, the Liberals are not interested in +30 seats some people believe.

    Perhaps inside Polling is showing something else?

    +10 CPC?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Volkov what makes you think cuts are coming ?

    There's a phrase for this "drinking your own bathwater", or in this case Kevin Page's bathwater.

    Finance is predicting about 5% growth for the next five years. But Flaherty bases revenue by averaging the predictions of Finance, BOC, and about 15 or so private sector economists.

    He's budgeted for about 2.4% growth.

    Its a classic Liberal trick to have a "surprise" surplus at the end of the year, or in this case a balanced budget before fiscal year '14-'15.

    Meanwhile department budgets are being frozen, basically to put the squeeze on public sector compensation. Pet Liberal projects will be cut but nobody will notice because core entitlements will be left alone.

    Chantal Hebert wrote a good article today on how you guys just swallowed the poison pill:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/776444--h-eacute-bert-budget-reflects-tories-vision

    ReplyDelete
  111. That Jaffer thing is a disgrace.

    No way he gets off on the DUI.

    Some scumbag pulled some strings!

    Live long, and prosper.

    ReplyDelete
  112. "So how on earth do we get into an election campaign ?

    Over the motion Derek Lee won't be bringing forward ?

    I mean c'mon, you guys have folded like a cheap suit."


    Think it is those HD numbers.... and others like them.

    Liberals still falling in Que..... Izzy May is more favorable than Iggy? And running 3rd in BC to boot. Might soon be 4th to a surging green party now only 5 points behind them.

    I am not sure the liberals could vote against anything with numbers like that.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I am impressed tho that the line representing the national NDP numbers is almost perfectly static.

    Not much movement either way for them :(

    ReplyDelete
  114. On Jaffer.

    and tolerant comments from the left like this: "John Baird has said that anyone who criticizes Jaffer's getting off easy on this case is a Liberal who hates the troops.

    Peter MacKay is planning to seal legal documents and police reports related to the incident.

    Stephen Harper is going on The National to state that Canadians don't care about CPC hypocrisy and corruption."


    ..... Wasn't that tried in a provincial court? Are those poor innocent McGuinty liberals doing Harper's evil bidding now??

    Want to bet how many days in jail liberal MPP Micheal Bryant will get in case against him for the death of a cyclist??

    Bet they don't work out to be that different. Plea bargaining plain and simple.

    Yes I think he should have gotten more. But it is also kind of neat to hear liberal minded people decry the system they have painstakingly created over decades.

    $500 fine gets you a tough on crime opposition party??? ...for a few weeks?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Well Peter I guess that makes it a two party affair now doesn't it. I was just about to post the link myself.

    Cheers,

    Earl.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Shadow

    That Hebert piece is actually from Monday, not today

    ReplyDelete
  117. Earl

    Watch the dates on that though. Remember until mid 2005 we passed them on to the Americans.

    She's referring to the Hillier deal I think?

    ReplyDelete
  118. I think the detainee issue has always been a two-party affair. The question is, which party is calling for a public inquiry, and which party is trying to hide of Canadians?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Barcs,

    I Don't want to be argumentative with you.

    However I have read a few posts from you deriding the intolerant left.

    My friend if you want to read some mind blowing stuff, I suggest you head on over to the BTs

    The you can come back here and we will have a discussion on tolerance.

    It's a two way street.

    If you are calling to call one side, call the other as well.

    Then at least your complaints will have some credence.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Shadow,

    What makes me think cuts are coming? Well, because, I mean, have you seen our deficit and debt load? 5% growth ain't no fix for that stuff. Neither is cutting, er, "pet Liberal projects," like, say, healthcare.

    I mean, it's obvious the cuts are coming eventually. The government is run by a bunch of people claiming either to be neoconservatives or Thatcherites. It's pretty obvious to anyone that the cuts are coming. The question is, will they use the scalpel or get out the axe? My bet is the latter, and a new, fresh mandate would help give them momentum to deal with it, then brush it off later.

    ReplyDelete
  121. On Jaffer,

    I pointed out the tory hypocrisy on that yesterday to Shadow.

    Personally, I feel if a person has a drug addiction, treatment is the way to go.

    However I heard not one conservative from the Harper government screaming about his bloody slap on the wrist.

    Not lets say that had been a former liberal MP

    Well I will leave that up to your imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  122. To add to the Jaffer comments...

    I thought this was a non-issue before, and I even thought the Liberal members bringing it up in the House shouldn't have, but I was wrong - this is a big issue.

    People are really angry about this. Jaffer got off with a $500 fine for what was essentially drug charges along with speeding. No person not connected to the political or wealthy class would manage to get that. It's ridiculous, and it's becoming even worse, now that the judge's impartiality is coming into question, considering that the man was appointed by Flaherty during his time as Ontario's AG, that he worked for Brian Mulroney's Health Minister, and was even a supporter for Kim Campbell in her leadership campaign in '93. It's starting to reek of cronyism.

    Might this be the one thing that sticks to the Teflon man? Oh, I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Volkov,

    You know about that judge as well.

    Sure smells fishy.

    Who knows?

    You can't fling accusations around without any evidence.

    Those tough on crime tories, look riduculous.

    Their proposed drug policy is assinine, I hope it never sees the light of day.

    ReplyDelete
  124. 49 steps - 03/10 - 8:30.

    While I might agree with you that there are a number of crazy bloggers under the BT tent, I would venture to say that there are intolerant narrow-minded bloggers in every single political aggregate out there, be it Liblogs, Progressive Blogs, etc...

    There are a number of interesting authors over at BT (me being one of them, and if I didn't like what I was writing, I wouldn't write.) - I'd give the painting a rest - at least stop using such a large brush!

    Also, I don't profess to have the answers to everything, and will admit when I'm wrong, but please - I'm sure there are extremists within the spectrum you support...

    ReplyDelete
  125. Hinchey,

    You should come on more often.

    You are honest.

    What I was pointing out was a conservative poster, deriding the left for intolerance.

    Without doing the same for the right.

    Extremist loonies are on both sides.

    But be fair if you call one side, call the other.

    That was my point.

    I hate extremism from either side.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Our legal system is among the very best in the world--not perfect, but not far off the limits of what can be achieved in the real world.

    Jaffer appeared in an Ontario Provincial Court. The judge wasn't happy with what he heard, but accepted the joint request of the Crown and the defence. The Crown and OPP happen to currently serve the public under a Liberal government, but they would have done the same under Tories, Grits, Greens or CPC-ML because that's what they do.

    The whole case does not reflect well on Rahim "tough-on-drugs" Jaffer. While cocaine and impaired driving charges were dropped, the court of public opinion has other views. However any notion that federal strings were pulled is utterly lacking in credibility.

    Stephen Harper's government has no shortage of outrages to answer for. This isn't one of them.

    Tory apologists always tell us to "move on" when a particularly egregious topic needs more investigation. Let's "move back" to those.

    ReplyDelete
  127. John,

    great post. Couldn't agree more on the selective outrage, speculation of a failed MP from 2008.

    A massive budget is being debated and the official opposition is sitting on their hands.

    This reminds me of the national anthem debate.

    Who is going to hold this government to account for the budget?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Today's Walkom column in The Star:

    "However, for Canadian democracy, all of this is terrible news. Here, there are few checks on the power of government. But the main one is that, within the broad confines of the Constitution, cabinet must do what elected MP's want.

    If a majority of MP's want a bill passed, that bill becomes law. If, as in the Afghan prisoner case, a majority of MP's want to see government documents, these documents must be produced. In a parliamentary democracy, there is little executive privilege because the executive, in effect, serves at the pleasure of the Commons."

    ReplyDelete
  129. I actually agree that it is doubtful that the Tories "pulled strings" for Jaffer. But i do think that its highly hypocritical of them to be so strangely silent about this affair. In the past Tory luminaries have never hesitated to shoot their mouths off about light sentences and the supposedly soft justice system - so how come no one from the Tory caucus is CONDEMNING the fact that jaffer got off virtually scot-free. Now children across Canada have this wonderful role model - all you have to do is be a Tory MP and be married to a really nasty bitchy other Tory MP - and if you want to do cocaine and drink and drive - no worries!

    ReplyDelete
  130. Peter,

    no it his opinion.

    The senate can refuse a PASS a bill.

    The GG can reject a PM request to prorogue.

    We have many constitutional, procedural tools including the opposition removing their support if the government does NOT have their confidence.

    Why are the opposition unwilling to fight on Colvin allegations by moving contempt, fear of triggering an election?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Hey 49.
    Not a problem.

    I try to stay away from blindly cheering on the Conservatives, but find myself agreeing with many of the policies. Furthermore, I can't align myself with many on the left due to their stance on many issues - but when anyone does something stupid, I try to call everyobody equally.

    Just turns out that my blood pressure goes up a little more when the leaders of the left open their mouths (Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe - my favourite punching bags!)

    ReplyDelete
  132. DL,

    After Marc Emery out the NDP and losing two candidates in 08, your selective outrage over substance abuse issues are comical.

    Can you link the progressive outrage blogs on Corbiel, Bryant treatment?

    Perhaps the CPC MP's in gov't are disgusted but busy with actually focusing on their duties that matters to most Canadians ie Budget, EAP.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Sense

    Your illiteracy is beyond comprehension

    Goodbye

    ReplyDelete
  134. Oh and to be clear, there have been numerous occasions where I do cheerlead for 'my' team. I suspect that's only natural.

    But everybody - Jaffer got off easy, and if it was his first offence, well - it had better be his last. But I do find it hilarious that the Liberals are condemning the soft treatment he received. Pot? Kettle? Black?

    ReplyDelete
  135. CanadianSense: A massive budget is being debated and the official opposition is sitting on their hands...

    Who is going to hold this government to account for the budget?


    The budget isn't the issue today. It's a non-budget that follows the Hippocratic injunction, "do no harm". The opposition have very little requiring undoing after letting it go through. And for all the talk of "recalibration" and "cutting" and "saying no", nothing happened. (OK, expenditures climbed a bit.) Only Tories think it's meaningful.

    The key issue is the attack on Parliament in the coverup of torture-related documents. That is where all opposition parties should be holding the government to account. Jaffer is just a distraction from an assault on all Canadians.

    This assault appears to have been launched for tactical reasons of defending CSIS and cabinet members from possible legal action, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Volkov,

    Your allegation against the judge for his past political affilations remind me of talking points from other bloggers.

    1) Amir has ties to Michael Ignatieff.
    2) Several experts cited in the media on human rights, constitutional law have similar relationships with the NDP, Liberal Pary.

    Can you explain how the provincial judge influenced the negotiated deal between the provincial crown and Jaffer's legal team?

    John wrote a great post. Does favouritism exist, yes.

    Remeber H1N1, administrators, athletes getting their shots first?

    ReplyDelete
  137. DL

    EXACTLY!!!!!!

    AGREE!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  138. John,

    You may suggest Canadians care about the stunts on the Hill.

    The majority of MP's are unwilling to ACT against this minority gov't.

    The Civil Servants are doing the redacting, not the ministers.

    The MP's from the opposition like to talk, but action on this has been going on for over 4 years.

    We have allegations being recycled.

    I don't believe the Civil Servants are using a bias in redacting after the Liberas lost power.

    I appreciate the desire for the opposition MP's to avoid ACTING talking for fear of an election.

    I keep reading 155 Canadians in Parliament are above the laws in the land passed and can demand anything as they are supreme.

    I am will to test that theory with the "voters" casting a ballot.

    I imagine a large number of those opposition MP's have NO interest in getting that support.

    EVERY MP serves at our pleasure and Parliament is our HOUSE.

    I don't serve 'at the pleasure' my MP.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I'm responsible for comments on this blog. Don't post anything potentially libelous.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Agreed Eric.

    Remember that Jaffer has not been charged with any drug or alcohol infractions.

    Definititive statements about him "driving while intoxicated" and in possesions of cocaine are most certainly libel.

    Being charged with something does NOT nessecarily mean you're guilty.

    Let's respect our system please, innocent until proven otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Éric: I'm responsible for comments on this blog. Don't post anything potentially libelous.

    To the extent that was aimed at me, absolutely, and I apologize for any whiff of implication. Jaffer isn't even "not guilty" of the dropped charges; the charges were never pressed. In our society, this makes him the equal of any of us on those counts. That's a system I strongly support.

    My point about moving on from the Jaffer affair still stands. I regret some of the phrasing I used. Too fast on the keyboard, too slow on the thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  142. It was actually in reference to DL and CanadianSense, who accused the NDP of electoral fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Eric,

    If my questions used language that was inappropriate I apologize.

    I was referring to a Public Press Release by Elections Nova Scotia chief electoral officer Christine McCulloch. The maximum fine was levied.

    Here is the link.
    http://www.capebretonpost.com/Politics/2010-02-26/article-837460/NDP-fined-for-failing-to-return-donation-from-trade-unions/1

    ReplyDelete
  144. Its funny you should say that 49, cus I keep hearing how intolerant the right is.

    Just pointing out for people that the left is the exact same.... cept they keep trying to tell us how tolerant they are.

    Its somewhat like the irony of the tough on crime tory charged with possession, DUI, and speeding.

    But hey, if you don't want me to point it out to people. how about abiding by that tolerant standard that the left keeps pushing?

    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.