Friday, March 26, 2010

Seat Changes in Ontario

I was playing around with the UBC Election Forecaster, tweaking it so that the popular vote results in each region would mirror those in my projection. They use a simple vote transferring model. Some of the results that came out of the forecaster were different from my own (though not significantly), but the result in Ontario matched mine exactly: 48 LPC, 45 CPC, 13 NDP.

So, this gives us an idea of what seats we are actually talking about in Ontario. It is a swap of 10 seats to the Liberals, six of them coming from the Conservatives and four of them from the NDP.

Here are the Conservative seats that switch over to the Liberals:

Kitchener-Centre
Kitchener-Waterloo
London West
Mississauga-Erindale
Oak Ridges-Markham
Ottawa-Orleans

None of these seats, however, are held by important members of the Conservative caucus.

These are the New Democratic seats that would switch over to the Liberals:

Sudbury
Thunder Bay-Rainy River
Welland
Trinity-Spadina

While the first three seats are held by lesser members of the NDP caucus, the last of the four is held by Olivia Chow.

Anyway, an interesting look deeper into the projection. The forecaster also identified Beauport-Limoilou and Roberval-Lac-St-Jean as two of the Conservative seats that would pass over to the Bloc Québécois.

105 comments:

  1. I'd like to add to that list of ones that the Liberals need to really take a stranglehold on Ontario:

    Thornhill
    Peterborough
    Newmarket-Aurora
    Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
    Ottawa West-Nepean
    Algoma-Kapuskasing
    Thunder Bay-Superior North
    Haldimand-Norfolk

    If those start tipping, look for a Liberal government on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We don't have access to any riding by riding local polling information.

    In 2009 we had 4 by elections. In 2008 General Election.

    We get National, Provincial Polls.

    Anyone have a link for a specific riding by riding poll?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CanadianSense,

    This is as close as you'll get, though I question the numbers myself on a lot of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed CanadianSense.

    This assumes changes in the vote are distributed evenly.

    But in politcs changes often come at a group by group or regional level.

    A sophisticated model would have to poll different census groups and then extrapolate changes in support by looking at the demography of a specific riding.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Northern Ontario is such a totally different political culture from the rest of the province that it almost ought to be part of Manitoba not Ontario - but since only 7% of Ontarians live there - its too small to have any weight within the Ontario part of a national poll.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry Volkov they are not close to 2008 results.

    Do you think the LPOC have moved up from 2008 in Toronto?

    ReplyDelete
  7. CanadianSense,

    Well, take that up with the site's owner. Seriously. If you ask him, he could probably tweak some riding-by-riding stuff for you on whatever results you'd see fit. Maybe. Worth a shot, because unfortunately, I don't see any other projection website out there that does that, at least not pre-writ.

    And yeah, I can see the Toronto numbers going up - Toronto proper, anyways. But as I said, I don't trust the numbers too much. You should take a look at the Calgary ridings - boy, you'd think we'd actually have a shot there!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Damn Eric !!

    I wanted to see Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke change.

    Liberals used to own this riding !!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter,

    And you still get to keep Dean Del Mastro, and Pierre Polieievre

    ReplyDelete
  10. 49 steps I imagine people like Pierre Polieievre and Peter Van Loan would become rather useless if Harper gets a majority. They may even get bored. Same goes for a lot of the buffoons on the other side too.

    Short term tactical games, partisan hackery, and obnoxious question period behaviour would take a back seat to long term strategic planning and good governance.

    I think Harper will explicitly ask for a majority next election and part of the appeal of it all will be a release from all the gotcha scandals and constant election threats.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dream on . . . . . zzzzzzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  12. Volkov,

    Anyone can post anything, we both have blogs.

    It costs real money to do polling. Who is funding the polling in those ridings?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think Harper will explicitly ask for a majority next election and part of the appeal of it all will be a release from all the gotcha scandals and constant election threats.
    That reminds me of a conversation I had in the 80s with a communist. He thought the Soviet "communism" was the best. I pointed out they do not have freedom of speech or free elections. On the contrary, he said, the average people are free from having to make decisions about things they know little about, they are free from being embarrassed by the politicians arguing and grandstanding, they are free from having to worry about where they will work, go to school, and live. No worrying about who to vote for in elections.

    I didn't go to the meeting he was trying to talk me into attending, and I won't vote for Stephen Harper to be released from "gotcha scandals and constant election threats" (a.k.a democracy). I have no interest in being "free" of having any kind of check on his regime which, with a majority, would surely show its far right wing true colours that are barely kept under wraps these days.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "a majority, would surely show its far right wing true colours"

    I certainly hope so. We need some Chilean-style Shock Therapy to reduce the size of our government.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We need some Chilean-style Shock Therapy to reduce the size of our government.
    Not to mention reducing the size of our population.

    Y'know, Ira, being outspoken and all, you would be disappeared pretty quickly in Pinochetland.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoa how did we get into communism and benevolent dictatorships ?

    Even with a majority we have an election every 4 years.

    The voters still get to pass judgement.

    We all just get a little peace and quiet in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peace and quiet is only good if your team has the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shock Therapy was the economic policy. I'm not asking for Pinochet's silencing of criticism.

    We have a stable political system. A majority government could govern largely unopposed for 4 years pretty much regardless of what they did. There's no danger of an uprising of the sort Pinochet was trying to avoid. Pinochet's strong arm simply wouldn't be necessary.

    I just want that same sort of drastic shrinkage of the size of government.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A lot of Canadians don't have a team.

    Such a message could appeal to them.

    Remember all it takes is 40%

    ReplyDelete
  20. The "shock therapy" in Chile was a disaster. They ended up with sky high unemployment and Pinochet was driven from power because by the late 80s he was so hated. Chile is doing well now because they have had a social democratic government for the last 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DL let's get our history right.

    Pinochet wasn't driven from anything, he stepped down on his own volition after he held a referendum on his continued rule.

    The result was 56-44% for him to step down. That's hardly "hated".

    And Chile is a Republican system so while they may have had social democratic executive they've also had right wing control of the legislative branch of gov't at various times too.

    A split system of control that is far preferable to a Hugo Chavez style socialist dictatorship that was emerging before Pinochet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Regardless, Ira, the "shock therapy" was needed to tame run away inflation.

    Canada has no such problem. Our central bank has a sound money policy, hasn't printed new money in ages, and avoided the British policy of quantitative easing during the recession.

    Massive cuts in government would be destabalizing.

    A slow, orderly reduction in spending is preferable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010.03.27_Veil_CAN.pdf

    This really puts the editorial stance of The Globe & Mail on the wrong side of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 49

    Posted by me to a Piece in today's Star by Travers

    " So Many Issues, So Little Time

    What does one do with a politician who isn't a politician? What does one do with a Party which seems to have lost its way? What does one do about a party with no platform? Obviously, hold a think tank !! Sorry but a lot of this should have been handled by an internal party conference, not a public think tank, or better yet a leadership contest. Time to come into the real world. "

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a student of World Politics I'm detecting some trends on here I find unsettling.

    Extremes on both sides are starting to sound a lot like Tea Baggers in the USA.

    Cut it out !! Extremism doesn't work for either side. This is Canada, we don't shoot politicians, threaten them with death, send really objectionable Emails or letters, and most of all we don't buy into the "spin" and "talking points" used down there.

    Eric please take notice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In our history we have not elected an extremist party to power ever.

    The LPOC have generally been in power for most of the time with time out for bad behaviour.

    The PC and new right of centre camp has returned to governing as a result in large demographic shifts over a decade.
    It is not about a single issue or a single demographic, region.

    The fringe players NDP, Green have grown or recovered since 2000.

    The largely French language voter in Quebec has decided to park their votes for the Bloc.

    Examine the Trudeau Liberals to 2010 the regional bases have existed forever.

    Ontario/Quebec dynamic is slowly beginning to shift to Ontario-West.

    The focus on a few extremists from any camp is a distraction or fear mongering.

    OBAMACARE is not the end of the world. The U.S. has been running a sloppy government with excess forever. The Bill for "excess" will have to get paid. The same for the European countries who can not afford their social spending.

    Creating a new global tax on banking, Carbon won't "fix it" to pay for those social programs.

    Rationalization and a rebalancing needs to be done. I don't see any groups clamouring to pay more taxes. I do see a few millionaires, well paid economists, celebrities, bankers suggesting we raise all our taxes as the right solution.

    Silly me those tax forms and loopholes don't seem to single out those calling for the increase.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CS

    You probably represent, with your often senseless screeds, one of the worst offenders on here. Learn to edit

    ReplyDelete
  28. On personal, character attacks demostrating intolerance, the representatives from the left win the prize consistently.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the Conservative party tried to on a platform of, "The country's fine, let me smash it!" I don't think they'd win. Certainly even by the standards of shock therapy, usually some kind of crisis is required to justify embarking upon any kind of soak the middle class policies.

    ...not that it's advisable under even those circumstances:

    Re: Chile and shock therapy

    The complete version:
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

    "So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989)."

    The short version:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Economic_growth_of_Chile.PNG

    The coup is in 1973, the banks have to be nationalized in 1983, the dictator leaves in 1988.

    The ranting version:
    I could go and on; Allende's administration was undermined by Nixon/world recession/the historical Chilean opposition equivalent of the GOP's behaviour today; shock therapy didn't really work for most of Eastern Europe; such anti-populist policies require a non-democratic state; having the support he did didn't say good things about Pinochet --it says bad things about the people who are alright with murdering dictators and/or those who rule for a few over the many; the left-centre of Chile has dominated politics right up till about now since the 1988; certain undemocratic or liberal elements of the Chilean constitution were enacted under a dictatorship and cannot be removed without levels of support you can't get in a democracy, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well done CS. If you can't refute what the poster said then attack the poster.

    Best of Republican, Rabid Right theology

    ReplyDelete
  31. There's no denying that veil bans have very broad support. (Lower on the prairies though for whatever reason) I guess I can't expect anyone in politics to stand against them, so I'm glad that some people in the public eye will give voice to the Canadian values we have enshrined in the Charter, and not the ones we just came up with when we started getting freaked out by Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Peter,

    You regularly throw out blanket statements that are not based on any reality except for fearmongering.

    In the US and Canada only two parties take turns in forming gov't.

    You follow up and single out one group.

    You also bash any female labelled a conservative.

    Unlike you Peter I tolerate the Charter rights of the left, right, middle to listen to their "entertainers" who make money from speaking engagements.

    I don't request censorship and ask our system (courts) to do their job. I don't support pulling fire alarms disrupting others from hearing views I don't support.

    You posts show an intolerance for views that are not yours.

    You personal attacks on "editing, grammar" idealogy is your own unwillingness to keep an open mind and allow for different levels of engagement.

    Again the "alarmism" and request for "restriction" is yours and not mine.

    You are free to continue in labelling a movement as dangerous without actual proof and bash "tea baggers" as some dangerous cohesive movement.

    In China they don't allow free speech or freedom of assembly either.

    ReplyDelete
  33. As before you attack the poster not the content. Another of your rambling screeds

    You are digging yourself in ever deeper.

    "You are free to continue in labelling a movement as dangerous without actual proof and bash "tea baggers" as some dangerous cohesive movement."

    As does the majority of US media. Only the disciples of Glenn Beck and Faux News think they are OK.

    Keep going, you are just tarring yourself further.

    ReplyDelete
  34. KS

    "There's no denying that veil bans have very broad support."

    Including the Canadian Muslim Council and other Muslim organisations.

    Remember the niquab and burkha are not required by anything in the Koran but are part of the culture in certain Islamic countries. So this is NOT a religious issue at all but one of culture. If they are going to come here then they need to adjust their culture to ours, not we to them

    ReplyDelete
  35. Peter,

    in a demostration of intolerance of others the hole is yours.

    I did enjoy another attack on more conservative "entertainers" btw.

    We "the majority" are right and you in the minority are ignorant.

    Thanks again for proving my point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. CS

    My, my. Your illiteracy and continuous inability to communicate do show remarkable mental problems.

    Have you sought help ??

    Meanwhile attacking the poster is apparently your stock in trade. When you are proven wrong you even get more incoherent. You need help !!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Alright, that's enough for today both of you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I played around with the UBC forecaster as well.

    In BC I played around with vote migration until it resulted in the same popular vote that Eric projects. I gives the Tories 18 seats (down 4 from 2008), the NDP gains North Vancouver Island and Surrey North and the Liberals gain North Vancouver and Saanich North. The NDP comes within 1% of also taking Kamloops.

    If I apply the national trend to the territories I get 2 Liberals and 1 NDP.

    ReplyDelete
  39. --- If I apply the national trend to the territories I get 2 Liberals and 1 NDP.

    I didn't try out the territories. Interesting!

    I think I got the same results as you did in British Columbia.

    ReplyDelete
  40. btw: when I play with the Ontario numbers to get a projection it comes out as Libs 47, Tories 45 and NDP 14 - for some reason I have Thunder Bay-Rainy River staying NDP by a couple of tenths of a percent.

    Of course one thing about any of these mathematical models is that they are purely mathematical - they take no consideration of incumbency factors etc...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pundits Guide has a query function that you can run on incumbents who lost.

    31 in 2008, 16 in Ontario.

    Only 7 in Ontario were with 0-5%.


    http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Pundits Guide is a great site you can drill down (run the query for Ontario only).

    2008 9 seats were contested with no incumbent. 4 Lib held ridings in GTA stayed red.

    2 went to NDP (Nickle Belt, Thunder Bay North)
    2 went to CPC (Huron Bruce, Newmarket)


    From 2000-2008 the loss of red seats is significant. They held 100/103.

    It includes numerous details, % of vote, margin, % turn out etc.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eric,

    My comp is experiencing technical difficulties. If I double post same message please accept apology in advance. I will delete it if I spot it.

    I will be taking it in again for overheating* problem.

    ReplyDelete
  44. DL good point on the incumbency factor.

    I don't know a single person from Nunavut. But I can't imagine Leona Aglukkaq would be in trouble.

    Although looking at the voter history in pundits guide if the NDP were to nominate a dud and the Liberals grabbed those votes they could concievably rustle up the votes to take the seat back.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Voting in places like the North is very unpredictable, since local issues are very important and there is a very small number of voters.

    People in Nunavut might like having a cabinet minister represent them, but then they might not like what she says on Day 20 of the campaign and that's it for her.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Eric,

    Your statement regarding the "north" being unpredictable and a single issue is going to change an outcome.

    Do you have actual links to back that up or is an opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The seats that the Liberals are projected to win for the most part are all seats that recently switched to either of the other parties. As well the Liberals have a lot of their former MPs nominated in those seats so I'd say this projection is fairly acurate.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Volkov said...
    CanadianSense,

    This is as close as you'll get, though I question the numbers myself on a lot of them.


    I looked at that site and I agree. In NL for example the Conservatives support is higher then their national support.

    Also weird is that the Conservatives are suppose to win a seat where they won 12% of the vote in 2008, even though they don't have a candidate in place and the Liberal shadow cabinet minister and the NDP candidate are still running.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It is funny arguing from both sides.

    a) Incumbency has 'real' benefits or it does not.

    b) 145 seats are held by CPC incumbents

    Explain how the pro-incumbency debate works against the CPC?

    http://www.punditsguide.ca/labels/Incumbency.php

    ReplyDelete
  50. CanadianSense,

    --- Your statement regarding the "north" being unpredictable and a single issue is going to change an outcome.

    Do you have actual links to back that up or is an opinion?


    Are you suggesting it isn't a possibility?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I require actual evidence vs reliance on a computer model for predicting


    a) Elections
    b) End of World AGW

    Example: Shelly Glover worked 2+ years actively promoting her candidacy in her riding. (Need artlicles)

    The seat does not have a +10% swing volatilty margin -/+ for the last 3 elections.

    Look for -/+ does it mirror the national, provincial trend?

    ReplyDelete
  52. CS thanks for the link.

    Of particular note is the fact that the CPC has the highest incumbency advantage of all parties.

    It also has the lowest variation across elections, meaning that even marginal seats once won are hard to shake loose regardless of the national picture.

    Fundraising and organizational advantages like GOTV make it hard to believe that as many seats are in danger as the polling would suggest.

    The flip side is that its going to get harder and harder to win the 10 seats needed for a majority. Anyone who survived the Dion blowout is likely to survive the Ignatieff disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eric,

    If you answer my question with facts or evidence I can answer yours.


    You first.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shadow,

    you are welcome. I always find it very amusing I am labelled a partisan by requiring proof of CPC not gaining another 2-3% at the next election.

    In my analysis I include the NDP, Green Ontario shift. I narrow the Bloc advantage to anti-federal vote and french.

    Brian Mulroney was able to break the regional camps with his 211 Blue Wave.

    I think the current party is capable of delivering another Blue Wave Part II for many reasons.

    Factor in GOTV, finances and largesse.

    Want a rink, vote CPC! - compliments of the Liberals who have spent 2009 complaining the CPC ridings are getting all the spending.

    Nik Nanos has suggested a scandal is needed to turn the tables.

    ReplyDelete
  55. CS this list of target seats is interesting:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41st_Canadian_federal_election#Target_seats

    I don't know if i'd call 2 to 3% more of the vote a wave. Only 9 seats were within 3% of a CPC victory last election.

    A gain of 7 or 8 seats and a loss of 2 or 3 for a net +5 seems like the most likely outcome of the next election. 5 seats short of a majority but close enough to govern as if he did.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shadow,

    Bear with me, computer is acting like Vic-20.

    Ignore noise (media,pollsters,armchair 20/20 experts), me too.

    Look at only "ACTUAL" election results from ballots.

    Plot a line 2000-2008.

    2008 Election results, every pollster under polled CPC?

    Add +2-3 to CPC depending on Pollster

    0-3 to Lib " "

    If computer does not melt, will add links.

    Check out Angus Recap/Nanos Recap 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  57. CanadianSense: I require actual evidence vs reliance on a computer model for predicting

    a) Elections
    b) End of World AGW


    Do you mean this sort of evidence?

    Definitely hard to come by for elections. For AGW (without the "end of world" content remover), it's a done deal.

    Horses to water and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  58. John,

    I enjoY watching hollyood movies too. The Goreist, AGWist end of world stuff was highly entertaining.

    Scaring kids, not cool.

    Simple question all you hollywood types can't answer.

    How do you unplug China, India in joining us?

    The WWF had a novel idea of selling carbon credits for 60 billion back to companies to buy offsets in a remote part of the Amazon that was not being cut.

    Are we going to nuke the developing countries into submission to avoid your frying nemo scenario?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Regardless of how this is spun or weaseled every poll for the last couple of months has shown a Tory reduced minority.

    When 2/3rds of the public goes elsewhere the notion of majority is simply untenable. And that's without factoring in the Bloc lock on Quebec.

    In fact looking at the stuff Eric has produced we can safely say that it doesn't matter which of the main parities leads. The result is always minority.

    So we really need to look at coalition or co-operative or whatever else you want to call it. Realistically this looks like the future for some time.

    Currently the Tories are close enough to that majority they can rule with only partial support from some other party, but if the polls really tell the story then the next Govt will have a much tougher time. No matter who forms the Govt.

    ReplyDelete
  60. CS,

    There were about 8,000 voters in Nunavut. With so few voters, results are less predictable and small things can cause swings. In such a region with specific issues and needs, local issues are more important than national ones. This is all rather obvious.

    As to incumbency, that only goes so far and is only one of many factors in determining whether someone can win an election. But if relied upon incumbency only, the same people would always be re-elected, which doesn't happen.

    What happened in 2008, 2006, 2004, or 2000 doesn't determine what will happen in 2010 and 2011, when there are different leaders, different parties, different issues, and different candidates.

    This is a site about projections. Based on current polls, current trends, AND past results, I make educated guesses and estimations of what the next election will look like. Your constant requests for "riding-by-riding" polling are getting tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Shadow

    http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-SU08-T319.pdf

    will try later more links.


    @$%$#% computer.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I believe Eric is right about voting in the north. It's like local elections for council and mayor in a small town. During a campaign a single issue can become the issue. It has happened in province. NB and Bernard Lord. After what appeared to be a successful first term (1999-2003), soaring insurance rates in the middle of the campaign took over as the issue and Lord scraped into power for a second term (2003-2006). The third election was dominated by soaring gasoline prices and Lord lost the election. In both campaigns a single issue came to dominate.

    http://www.jameslaxer.com/2006/08/bernard-lord-election-too-far.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick_general_election,_2006

    ReplyDelete
  63. CS interesting link but the headline is slightly misleading.

    My guess is a lot of the undecided are left spectrum voters unsure of going green, NDP, or Liberal.

    Low "second choice" responses in other polls, where very few of other party members would shift to CPC.

    The existence of the BQ precludes an '84 or '88 result.

    In '88 the PC vote in Quebec was 52.7%.

    In '93 PC in Quebec was 13.5% while BQ took 49.3%.

    Quebec = 23.4% of population.

    If Mulroney had to deal with BQ then Harper would be outperforming his as best CPC leader in terms of national support.

    Its why I chuckle when Peter, 49 steps, or Volkov say Harper should be replaced since he can't win a majority.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Earl, Eric the north is NOT small in geographic terms.

    Iqaluit is 21% of population. The other 79% of the poulation is spread out in about 24 different communities.

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

    Small local issues usually concern an indvidual community.

    Only province or territory wide issues would concern everybody.

    Such an issue would have the same effect no matter what the population size since it by defintion concerns everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Obviously, by local, I meant local to the riding. I said nothing about it being small geographically.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Plainly put Shadow we disagree. I think the determining factor here is population, who despite the large geographical area, may well tend to be polarized by one "local" issue. In any event you've now made the discussion trivial. We'll agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Shadow,

    Realm of possibility, I might blog with graphs in the near future.

    Can 155 seats take place without a significant Quebec breakthrough? I did not suggest we will repeat BM path to majority.

    4 in BC, 7 in ON look at those announcements, follow Jason Kenney

    http://punditsguide.ca/elections_e.php

    42 ridings from 0-5% in 2008 ( 16 in play for gains)

    1-10 Gap 0-3%
    11-15 Gap 4-5%

    1 Vancouver South (BC)
    2 Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca (BC)
    3 Brampton West (ON)
    4 Welland )ON)
    5 Edmonton-Strathcona (AB)
    6 Burnaby Douglas (BC)
    7 Brampton-Springdale (ON)
    8 Sault Ste. Marie
    9 New Westminster-Coquitlam (BC)
    10 Guelph (ON)
    11 Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe (NB)
    12 Western Arctic (NT)
    13 Mississaug South (ON)
    14 Eglinton-Lawrence (ON)
    15 Malpeque (PE)
    16 Sudbury (ON)

    I will link two Liberal bloggers:

    http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2008/12/choice-for-liberalswimp-or-warrior.html

    http://politicalcivildiscourse.blogspot.com/2010/03/hell-be-on-ropes-tomorrow.html

    ReplyDelete
  68. Eric,

    You and DL chat about apply national trend numbers into the North?

    We have no polling in any territories?

    You than follow up citing the north is not typical with the rest and the small size is a factor.

    I challenged you to produce statistical evidence of your post or correct it as an opinion.

    You than ask me if your post is possible.

    In your posts you suggest the North is likely or unlikely to follow the national trend I am still not clear.

    You than suggested a single statement in the 20th day may change the minds of the majority.


    Are "northerners" more tuned into the campaign messaging from our media outlets?

    As an example of what I mean.
    In my own riding with articles about my new MP, projects as a reason to influence my vote.

    The CPC candidate asked us to compare what the previous MP delivered for Oakville in her 13 years.

    Is the North getting more or less money and focus will the alternative do more or less?

    I pointed out without actual evidence of Polls, apply national numbers, or a computer model may not be accurate.

    I have reviewed the results from the General Election in 2008. Every pollster underpolled the CPC.

    Do we not tell the pollster the truth, are the CPC are little secret and we mark them on ballot?

    Nik Nanos stated we in Ontario decided around the thankgiving table with family and friends.

    We knew the economy was tanking and sent more CPC MP's to Ottawa.

    Some would like to scapegoat Dion, TV ads etc.

    This is of course only "my opinion" based on reading articles from the elections Canada on finances, travel into ridings delivering results.

    I am not sure how the CPC lose votes for delivering a rink or a water treatment plant that has the province, city has equal partners.

    The opposition made a tactical mistake in endorsing the largest campaign budget in history.

    Again my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  69. CanadianSense: How do you unplug China, India in joining us?

    I interpret the quoted comment to mean that you accept the science and acknowledge that AGW is real. However, you feel that any actions on our part are useless because the BRIC countries won't freeze their emissions at current levels. Therefore, we might as well enjoy the trip to hell in a Hummer H1.

    For one path to a solution, read Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning by George Monbiot. He assumes that every person on the planet must emit no more CO2 than their share, and explains how we in developed countries can do so without significantly affecting our quality of life.

    If we can move down to the required world per-capita level of CO2 emissions, we can certainly convince the developing countries not to emit more than us. The Chinese and Indians have more at stake than we do, and their expectations are a lot lower.

    Monbiot certainly doesn't have the only set of answers, nor is he necessarily right on every detail. However, he provides a good first-pass roadmap.

    If you want pointers to more answers and more literature, just ask. I've provided some in past but I can point you at a lot more if you'll read it.

    [Éric, I'll comply immediately if you want this thread shut down at any point.]

    ReplyDelete
  70. Earl i'm always fine with agreeing to disagree. But I was a bit puzzled by this line, I hope it wasn't a passive agressive slap:

    "In any event you've now made the discussion trivial."

    ReplyDelete
  71. John,

    I don't argue with anyone belief system. You are free to believe in AGW.

    I have only asked for to explain the geopolitical realities.

    You keep citing a journalist as a subject matter expert, the same guy who trashes our country at every opportunity for our 2% contribution to AGWism.

    Do you really think he helps your team?

    Can you list someone who is qualified, realistic, balanced and has a solution to stop the BRIC?

    Also where does this person get his funding, we don't want to hear he has a conflict with Carbon Credits, Green Technology?

    You refuse to include the reality of abuse/fraud by those who are making milllions from asking us to implement a Carbon Tax.

    You won't comment on any examples of the fraud I have regularly included.
    Recap:
    Billions on European Exchange
    Hungary double selling credits
    WWF in Amazon conflict.
    Pach, Gore, Suzuki on "climate change" who is funding them, conflicts?

    ReplyDelete
  72. CanadianSense,

    Ridings in the North can be unpredictable because they have small voter pools. They can also be dominated by local issues because of their specific nature.

    This is obvious to anyone who pays close attention to politics.

    There are no polls for the North, so as a projector I have no data other than the national trends and the results of previous elections.

    Incumbency is not a good option to use. Both Nunavut and the Western Arctic have changed hands over the last three elections, and it is a lazy option for a projector. As a projector, I have to make educated guesses, not just go with what happened last time.

    And look at the history of Nunavut since 2000. Between 2000 and 2004, the Liberal vote dropped 26% in the riding. Nationally, the Liberal vote dropped by 10%. Between 2004 and 2006, the Nunavut Liberal vote dropped by 22%, nationally it dropped by 18%. And between 2006 and 2008, the Nunavut Liberal vote dropped 27%, 13% nationally.

    While the rate of decrease isn't the same, the trend is. So, following national trends is not a bad choice to make. In fact, Nunavut shows that it is a good choice to make, as choosing incumbency would've resulted in a mistake.

    That doesn't change the fact that ridings with smaller voting populations and more regional issues have the potential to be very unpredictable. Look at the Western Arctic. While the vote hardly moved (the Liberals dropped 4 points and the NDP gained 3) between 2004 and 2006, it meant the defeat of the incumbent. But then between 2006 and 2008, the incumbent maintained their vote but the vote swung by about 20% between the Liberals and the Conservatives, while nationally the Conservative vote hardly grew at all.

    No one option is better than the other.

    ReplyDelete
  73. John, don't both anymore. CS is not interested in a real discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Eric,

    I don't wish to debate what we view as "detail", reliance computer models, impressions from national newpsaper, tv opinion pundits to make voters switch between parties.

    I discount the ability of CBC News to shape public opinion(ratings BBM) as an example. CTV clearly earn Top 30 ratings.

    I cited specific examples like spending, projects, visits in your riding delivering, fixing engagement by candidates, MP's.

    How important is that in helping someone decide.


    In my 25+ years of voting memory I don't remember a political party delivering (or pandering) MORE to this region. Do you?

    In my opinion it will make a difference beyond the three seats. I give credit to the Liberals when they were in power to target key ridings with extra attention. The CPC have repeated the same with "winnable" ridings to a new level.

    I used Shelly Glover as an example earlier about visibility, working the riding in advance of actual campaign.

    I regularly hear complaints in the media, in QP of CPC "candidates" appearing at functions, spending announcements and events. I have chatted with bloggers if they have aware of a door to door visit from "x" in this riding.

    Some have said yes already 2x at door!

    I can tell you Bob and Mary worked York South Weston and visited our door on many occassions.

    Eric for me it is a pursuit of the narrative, on detail, local information. I was curious if you had some to make you claim about the north.

    I can agree to disagree with your analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eric

    the cheapshot about real discussion is unneccessary.

    John and you may both share a "carbon tax" view to solve the AGW theory.

    I am a skeptic to sending more money to gov't, have gone through this with the Ice Age. Every time a government wants to raise taxes I am told doom and gloom scnenarios.

    Is Canada responsible for 2%?

    Do we tax reduce our own competitiveness without a global deal?

    That is pragmatic.

    The US and China account for how much and they are growing?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hi Peter,

    Another challenging day on the board.

    I have been following the conference, and from what I can see so far it does look encouraging.

    Ignatieff is the leader Peter, and we must unite behind him.

    We must present a united and disciplined front, to the Canadian public.

    If the liberals do not, we will again hand it to Harper on a plate.

    Is that what you want?

    I was also looking at the info Volkov provided.

    Guess what, my riding goes from Tory to Liberal.

    The loss of Rod Bruinooge, will be deeply felt by myself.

    I am now going to give you some unwarranted free advice.

    Read Eric's posting to John near the end of the thread, take that to heart. Stop taking the bait.

    It is really a waste of your time.

    And your comments about minority parliament being with us, for the forseeable, future were bang on.

    ReplyDelete
  77. CS, don't both anymore. John is not interested in a real discussion.

    He's arguing AGW exists. You're trying to ask him what Canadians could even do about it.

    He goes back to arguing AGW exists.

    Two seperate conversations.

    You trying to have a discussion. Lefties plugging their ears and repeating AGW AGW AGW ...

    ReplyDelete
  78. John,

    I will admit it.

    I am a self proclaimed ignoramus, on the climate change file.

    However I have read some of the very usefull links, you provided on previous threads.

    I do acknowledge we have a problem.

    We have to start seriously thinking about the health of the planet,

    However trying to have an adult conversation on the enviroment, is almost certain deatth to any politician. Remember Stephene Dion?

    I have an open mind, and will cede the floor to you, and I will keep trying to educate myself, on this matter.

    I really do hope some Greens, can be elected.

    We need their perspective in the HOC

    ReplyDelete
  79. 49
    "Read Eric's posting to John near the end of the thread, take that to heart. Stop taking the bait.

    It is really a waste of your time.

    And your comments about minority parliament being with us, for the foreseeable, future were bang on."
    --------
    I think if I hadn't indulged in that scrap with CS Eric would never have realised what CS is. So it did some good. Note that at no time did I drop to the "insult" level.

    And rather than "taking the bait" in fact it was CS taking it in response to an early post of mine about tea baggers etc.
    ---------
    Yes I note a lack of desire on anybodies part to tackle the minority Govt issue although I feel that for probably the next two or three elections it will be a fact of life.

    ReplyDelete
  80. John, Peter, 49 and Eric:

    I am not convinced that Climate Change, which I believe is happening, is caused by man. I do believe that if it is the case that CC is caused by man that one of the solutions we have to look at is reducing global population.

    My second point is that I can support a carbon tax IF all the money is returned to those from whom it is taken in the form of tax reductions and rebates for low income people. No spending on green projects. Make the tax totally revenue nuetral and I can support it. The tax cuts also need to be structured so that those who pay the carbon taxes get the tax cuts. IOW no redistribution of income using the carbon tax.

    We also need to look at switching motor vehicles from gasoline to natural gas. We are awash in NG but oil is precious. Implementing this kind of change on a national basis would create jobs and reduce emissions. Practical solutions like these I can support.

    Wind power looks to me to be a huge boondogle. Wind is expensive, and unreliable. It may cause health problems for those who live near wind turbines. JMHO.

    Good fortune,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  81. Earl:
    "I do believe that if it is the case that CC is caused by man that one of the solutions we have to look at is reducing global population."

    Regardless of whether CC is caused by man or not reducing global population is absolutely essential.

    Estimated long term capacity of the planet is 3.5 billion people.

    Current population = 6.5 billion

    Estimated by 2050 = 10 billion

    We can't support what we have now, by 2050 the disaster will be complete.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Peter sort of like this:

    "the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man"

    Malthus wrote that in 1798.

    Except famine rates on a per capita basis have DECREASED while the total population has substantially INCREASED.

    The problem with such "estimates" of earth's total capacity is that they are static.

    Technological improvements have increased productivity and efficiency exponentially while reducing pollution and ecological impact.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Shadow:
    "The problem with such "estimates" of earth's total capacity is that they are static.

    Technological improvements have increased productivity and efficiency exponentially while reducing pollution and ecological impact."

    Yes I would agree except for one thing. We are using up resources at rates that are not sustainable. As well we are producing pollution from all those bodies at rates that it appears the earth can't absorb

    Think of 10 billion shits a day !! How the Hell do we handle that much waste ??

    Plus the consumption of oil, minerals and other necessities like water can't be handled at all. Let alone the necessity of farming in the face of the demand for space to live.

    There is a finite limit to what the planet can sustain and right now we're actually exceeding it. 40 more years and it will really be totally unsustainable.

    Malthus was right

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter I agree. Just think of all the CO2 produced by those extra bodies. Technology can go far, but it can't catch up to an exploding population, particularly when the population is also seeking to live well above its sustainability rate.

    The desire by here to fore third world nations for first world status will prove to be the tipping point IMO. Technology may delay the day of reckoning. Indded that is precisely what it has done.

    Good fortune,

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
  85. What I really like is the fact that the UBC prediction matrix includes a non-voter percentage. Because as many have shown that the main difference between the 2008 and 2006 election, is that the CPC vote did not increase by much in many ridings (or not at all), and that many Liberals stayed at home.

    How I figure the next election may play out, with a 4% shift to CPC, 3% to NDP, and 3% to NON-VOTERS from LIB; a 1% shift from BQ to CPC and NDP, and a 10% shift from Green to NDP would produce an electoral result of
    CPC 154, LIB 63, NDP 38, BLQ 51, and IND 2. But I would consider the CCMV and Riviere-Du-Loop would be staying CPC, so CPC 156, LIB 63, NDP 38, BLQ 50, and IND 1.

    The seat changes would be:
    Lib to CPC:
    Egmont [PE]
    Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe [NB]
    Brampton--Springdale [ON]
    Brampton West [ON]
    Don Valley West [ON]
    Eglinton--Lawrence [ON] (Def. Joe Volpe)
    Guelph [ON]
    Mississauga South [ON]
    York Centre [ON]
    Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca [BC] (Def. Keith Martin)
    Vancouver South [BC] (Def Ujal Dosanj)

    Lib to NDP:
    St. John's South--Mount Pearl [NL]

    Lib to BQ:
    Brossard--La Prairie [QC]
    Papineau [QC] (Def Justin Trudeau)

    And of course due to local races, Edmonton-Strathcona switch from NDP to CPC.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I guess everyone is entitled to their wild fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Northern Raven you and CS tend to be more optimistic then I. I've predicted a net +5 CPC seats as opposed to the +11 you're talking about.

    However, watching the Liberal thinkers conference i'm starting to think writing off that party is a good idea.

    All the ideas have been horrid from a political perspective.

    2% GST increase on day 1, privatizing medicare and brining back the carbon tax on day 2, and unpatriotic insults to our nation on day 3.

    The party is torn between going left and going right. We've seen zero vision from Ignatieff on policy proposals.

    People say he's better than Dion because he has better english speaking skills. But every time he talks his popularity drops due to a perception of arrogance and elitism. Plus he uses big words the average voter can't understand.

    And the abortion vote debacle shows that the organization has not improved a bit.

    The next election very well may be a bloodbath.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Shadow,

    Like yourself, I am an observer.

    I like to dig deeper than computer models regarding projections.
    If a local poster can list "x" issue and how it will affect the riding. I am always interested in hearing about it.

    The trendline for the NDP, Green have not stopped growing.

    The Liberals have been losing 2-4% every election since 2000. I don't have any valid reason to suggest the slide will stop.

    Donolo is tacking left, going after corporate tax cuts to pay for social programs again (remember Redbook?)

    LSI (leadership score Nanos) shows trust. When we vote for parties we vote for "leaders".

    I have not seen any evidence to point how M.I. can recover his vision, trust, competence scores based on his decisions Dec 2008-March 2010.

    We don't have the 'perfect storm' for them to regain Ontario, Quebec voters that were responsible for the last majority.

    The NDP have learned if they allow themselves to be co-opted by the LPOC again they will lose a significant number of seats.

    Each party operates with the same self-interest, self-preservation thinking cap. I can't imagine the Bloc, NDP ever trusting the LPOC to another signed deal.

    It makes more sense for the other left of centre parties to pile on the Liberals and pick up the pieces vs some loose coalition part two.

    I already stated the NDP should have bit the bullet in 2008 and allowed the subsidy to get pulled crippling the Bloc, Lib, Green Parties.

    The NDP were not able to stop the LPOC in January caving in to everything two months later.

    In the campaign political subsidy will be cut, coalition narrative with Bloc will keep them busy.

    Do you believe voters will show up for Redbook redux?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "I already stated the NDP should have bit the bullet in 2008 and allowed the subsidy to get pulled crippling the Bloc, Lib, Green Parties."

    It would have been only slightly less crippling to the NDP if that had been allowed to pass since they get about 58% of their operating funds from the subsidy. In any case, letting that pass would have meant the NDP supporting a ridiculous economic statement full to the brim with poison pills like banning the right to strike and ending pay equity for women etc... if the Tories seriously thought they could get the NDP to support getting rid of the subsidy - they sure had a strange way of going about it. Of course the other thing the Tories COULD have done would have been to get rid of the subsidy as part of the federal budget in 2009 when it would have been too late for the opposition to stop them. But they got greedy and shot themselves in the foot instead.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your public service duty.

    Well done

    49 Steps

    ReplyDelete
  91. DL,


    Economic update, included 3 ideas and negotiated out? Yes.

    Brian Topper admitted deal in place months ago.

    So 2 of 3 of original ideas passed with Liberal support.

    In Fall 2009 the NDP jumped to save Liberals from themselves?

    Sadly the NDP castigate the Liberals for propping up the CPC the NDP on a regular basis.

    The CPC government since 2006 because both NDP, Liberals, Bloc have taken turns endorsing the CPC agenda for 4 years.

    The NDP have a better GOTV organization and the others may have not been able to survive crushing debt.

    The NDP have never won in Quebec and blew it for propping up Bloc 87% reliance on funding.

    Same with vulnerable seats in Ontario, the finances would have elminated a credible national campaign from either Green, Liberals.

    The NDP are alowing the funding their own 2nd choice competitors to be used in the next campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  92. DL you've got your events mixed up.

    Coalition didn't emerge because of the political subsidy issue (popular narrative).

    The political subsidy issue emerged because of the coalition.

    It was designed to make the coalition look self interested, not caring about Canadians, wanting to steal power to protect their entitlements.

    Other poison pills were added in so they could be removed later - see we're negotiating, we're reasonable, they're the inflexible ones who want power at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Looks like we'll have an election sooner than later. The LPC has the vague outlines of a leftish looking platform. They will freeze corporate tax tax rates at 18%. That's not a problem for me. The problem is they want to establish another costly national program - daycare - and fund more green spending.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=2737033

    Two problems as I see it they are promising to reduce the size of the deficit promptly which I like but are going to be in deficit over the longer term which I don't like. Secondly I don't see either a national child care program or more green spending as big vote getters. Looks to me that rather than fighting for the centre, the LPC has decided to fight the NDP and Greens for their votes. I have my doubts this will work well.

    The national child care program has been promised forever. It has never gained traction with voters. The mood of the nations suggests thats to me the conquering the deficit and attracting new business to create jobs has more appeal than what the LPC is suggesting.

    Finally climate change has lost its urgency as an issue in part because of the turbulence around the actual science and because people without jobs or who fear for their jobs have more immediate concerns.

    All in all I'm disappointed with what came out this weekends conference. I was looking for ways to deal with coming crisis in health care. Bold attempts to slay the deficit and finally the idea that government needs to narrow its focus to what really matters and separate the wheat from the chaf. There is a timidity to the Liberals platform that I think will handicap them in the coming election.

    If the LPC is serious about running on this platform I believe they will want an election sooner than later before their platform can be the subject of attack ads.

    ReplyDelete
  94. At least in general terms as he sets out I find Brian Topps ideas better than those of IGGY.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/

    As I drive around the roads of my community and on on the roads of Ontario I lament the days when governments actually kept up infrastructure rather than promising and delivering new spending that just disappears down a sinkhole. In the end we will pay dearly for neglect of simple infrastructure.

    Bad roads cause increased vehicle wear, more particulate insertion into our air - air pollution- , less tire life, and more fuel usage. Congested roads cause great amounts of CO2 emissions and lost time for people and business. When will governments everywhere concentrate on the basics our society needs and stop new spending on pie in the sky ideas? We need Common Sense in government and not of the Mike Harris variety.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Cancelling the scheduled 3% corporate tax rate deductions !

    Horrid idea. That money has already bene promised and factored into long term bussiness plans so its effectively going to be a job killing tax hike as companies move to write down profits.

    Important stats:

    http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#cci

    Download Table II.1

    Remember provincial rates average 12.4%. Combined rate = 31.32% Ontario + Canada have 5% reductions targetted by 2017, 26% rate. Optimal rate around 20%.

    Countries with lower rates who will take our jobs:

    Austria = 25%
    Czech = 25%
    Denmark = 20%
    Finland = 26%
    Greece = 25%
    Hungary = 20%
    Iceland = 15%
    Ireland = 12.5%
    Korea = 24.2%
    Netherlands = 25%
    Poland = 19%
    Portugal = 26.5%
    Slovakia = 19%
    Sweden = 26.3%
    Swizterland = 21.17%
    Turkey = 20%

    ReplyDelete
  96. 49
    The Liberal think tank only finished last night and already the punditry is yelling and screaming.

    Be realistic please. Tremendous amount of info and thought dispensed in three days, nobody can distill that down to policy or platform in only an overnight.

    Give them some time.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Peter,

    Of course the talking heads are blathering away. What did you expect?

    Do you expect the National Post to be happy?

    Do you expect anything positive from CTV?

    At least the Libs are finally starting to put some policy forward, and differentiate themselves from the conservatives.

    They are starting a discussion and dialogue.

    You can expect a whole swath of conservative MPs out today crapping all over this thing.

    But take note, they already wrote their script on this a week ago, before the conference even took place.

    So lets digest this, and see what is put forward as official policy, and go from there.

    I note Shadow is a little disapointed, big surprise there.

    And just take a look at some of those countries he put forward, where he figures Canadian jobs are going to flee to.

    All in all, not bad.

    Oh and just as an aside, Shelley Glover once again made a fool of herself on Question period yesterday. Quite neatly taken apart by Justin Trudeau. Geez she represents a riding in my province, and it is getting a little embarassing to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Hey Shadow,

    Looks like you're going to get your "big issue" election after all! Because, really, what bigger issue is there than the classic fight between right-wing tax-cut trickle-down ideology, and left-wing big-spending government-has-a-role ideology!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Peter/Volkov

    Shadow believes the corporate tax
    proposal is a job killer.

    The increase in EI premiums.

    Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  100. 49
    "Shadow believes the corporate tax
    proposal is a job killer.

    The increase in EI premiums.

    Not so much."

    He would, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Volkov

    "classic fight between right-wing tax-cut trickle-down ideology,"

    Why they go on adhering to this proven failure escapes me?

    Every country that has tried it has gone bad. Biggest example is South of the border.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Peter,

    Thats a great point on the good old USA. Definitely nothing to try and emulate there in terms of economic policy.

    Obama can't find a big enough shovel, to try and clean up the mess left by GW.

    All those vicious psychopath teabaggers do is attack him, and promote hatred and violence.

    Imagine the Republicans are all now standing up for fiscal discipline, and fiscal responsibility. What is wrong with that picture?

    Just like the conservatives here will be doing.

    They will go all ape shit over what the Liberals will propose, while neatly ignoring their own record on finances.

    It predictable what they are going to do and say. There is no finesse, out of that bunch.

    Let the games begin.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Earl: My second point is that I can support a carbon tax IF all the money is returned to those from whom it is taken in the form of tax reductions and rebates for low income people. No spending on green projects. Make the tax totally revenue nuetral and I can support it. The tax cuts also need to be structured so that those who pay the carbon taxes get the tax cuts. IOW no redistribution of income using the carbon tax.

    Absolutely.

    Dion succumbed to temptation and saw the carbon tax as a funding source for other things. They may or may not have been good ideas; that's immaterial. The mistake was fatal.

    Carbon tax should be revenue neutral. Period. The intent is to encourage green behaviour, not grab cash.

    Any government will put forward multiple programs and some will require tax increases. Those programs should stand or fall on their own merits. Yes, that includes green programs.

    ReplyDelete
  104. 49 Steps: However trying to have an adult conversation on the enviroment, is almost certain deatth to any politician. Remember Stephene Dion?

    While I respect Stéphane Dion for his vision, his execution was badly flawed and he lacked (in Donald Macdonald's words) the royal jelly to lead. He also lacked the street-fighting smarts of Jean Chrétien. That might not have mattered in other elections, but it mattered in the 2008 bottom-feeding campaign.

    The carbon tax was the club that the Tories used on Dion, but that's only because it was his lead issue. If he'd come out in favour of petting puppies they'd have clubbed him with that too. If a chair comes flying your way in a bar fight, it doesn't mean that chairs are a toxic idea.

    Dion's actions set back action on AGW, but that's temporary. The room is small and the elephant is growing.

    I really do hope some Greens, can be elected.

    I appreciate the sentiment. Parliament needs members with a wide range of views, working together. Every party has valuable ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Lol Peter, 49 steps nobody is following an American example here.

    You'll notice they aren't on the list.

    They have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.


    EI premium increases ? Of course they kill jobs.

    If only the Liberals hadn't stole 50 billion from the fund in the 90's.

    But its meant a self sustaining, self financing program so the question is whether we need EI in this country or not.

    I really, really doubt you guys are proposing we eliminate the program.

    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.