Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Voting Intentions of Manitoba Natives

This is an interesting poll from Probe Research, reported by the Winnipeg Free Press.

In short, the New Democrats, both federally and provincially, are the choice of Manitoban natives.

Provincially, the NDP has 57% support, followed by the Liberals at 21% and the Progressive Conservatives at 17%. Among the Métis, however, there is stronger support for the PCs but the NDP are nevertheless well in front.

Federally, it is closer but the NDP still holds the lead. They have 36% support among natives in Manitoba, followed by the Liberals at 33% and the Conservatives at 24%. Here again, the Tories find stronger support among Métis.

However, this group does not vote in high numbers. If it would be possible for the NDP to "get the vote out" in native communities in Manitoba, they could see a big swing in their favour, considering that the group makes up 15% of the province's population.

76 comments:

  1. It would be interesting to see if there were any differences between natives who don't vote NDP and those who do.

    I'd wager the more successful you are the less likely you are to vote NDP.

    Also of note:

    http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2747660

    Economy grows by whopping 6.9% annualized, blows BOC of 3.5% out of the water, which in turn deeply, deeply discredits Kevin Page who was even more pessimistic.

    At this rate the deficit will close itself much sooner than expected.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Successful people care about social issues and the growing gap between rich and poor etc... I suspect that aboriginal people who vote Tory are probably brainwashed members of fundamentalist churches who don't know any better - pluds a few people who just support whoever is in power because they think it will mean getting more patronage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shadow,

    That was a little insulting to the native population in Manitoba.

    We have many successful natives in Manitoba who support the NDP, for the reasons DL mentioned.

    The NDP, has a very good relationship with our native population, and listens to their concerns and needs.

    I am not an NDP supporter, but the NDP in Manitoba shows a hugh amount of respect for native communities.

    That is why they get a lot of support. It has nothing to do with success.

    In fact the speaker of the Manitoba legislature, is Eric Robinson, who is very respected from all parties.

    You are playing into a stereo type of natives, which is not helpful.

    They contribute a great deal to the fabric of Manitoba.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 49 steps please go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote instead of what you imagined I wrote.

    I was suggesting a possible correlation between success and not voting NDP.

    Your statement here does not contradict that:

    "We have many successful natives in Manitoba who support the NDP, for the reasons DL mentioned."

    My original statement does NOT mean that there are not some successful dippers. It also does NOT mean that there are not some unsuccessful non-dippers.

    This statement is also illogical:

    "the NDP in Manitoba shows a hugh amount of respect for native communities.

    That is why they get a lot of support. It has nothing to do with success."

    Non-NDP native voters are ALSO NATIVE. Are you suggesting they don't care about being respected ?

    Such a statement might explain high levels of support amongst natives for the NDP it would NOT explain why some natives vote NDP and some do not.

    "You are playing into a stereo type of natives, which is not helpful.

    They contribute a great deal to the fabric of Manitoba."

    I'm not playing into anything. You are twisting my words by using racial politics to smear me. Its not at all helpful and insulting to natives to use them as pawns in one of your attacks.

    Nowhere did I ever say that natives do not contribute a great deal to the fabric of Manitoba.

    Some do. Some don't.

    Same with any other demographic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Privilege Watch update from Kady:

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/privilegewatch-is-today-the-day.html

    Today might be the day.

    Kinda weird to distract from those AWESOME GDP numbers though ?

    Maybe with the economy running so good its put up or shut up time for the opposition.

    This thing ends NOW or we go to an election. Pick your poison.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shadow,

    I am really happy that you are so pleased with the GDP numbers.

    I guess the liberal economic action plan really is working.

    After all Harper enacted that on the advice of the Liberal party.

    You see what good economic managers the liberals really are.

    No wonder the CPC, brain trust always wants their ideas.

    They know where to go for advice, seeing that they have no ideas of their own.

    My congratulations to the LPOC.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 49 steps I wasn't aware that Keynes belonged to the Liberal party of Canada.

    Probably something Harper came across when training as an economist.

    Also there's an arguement as to whether the stimulus actually did anything at all.

    I pass no judgement on such things, just pointing out how the GDP numbers will improve perceptions of Harper, the CPC, and right track/wrong track numbers.

    Public opinion is what it is. Whether or not the stimulus actually did anything it created the perception that it did.

    Liberals chose to bet against Canada. Instead of trumpeting their votes for the plan and enjoying in our success they let the budget pass and then insulted it every step of the way.

    Now they get none of the credit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 49

    "I guess the liberal economic action plan really is working."

    Don't you love the way shadow flip-flops ?? Almost as good as John Kerry

    Because he was proclaiming in the previous thread that the Economic Action Plan was forced on the Tories by the Liberals!! Likes to have it both way he does, comes of only using "talking points" apparently ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shadow,

    May I please have your thoughts on the following issues.

    1. Helena Guergis, and Jessica
    Craven, who is in her staff
    writing letters, to praise
    Guergis to the local news
    papers. Guergis, as usual
    knows nothing.

    2. Hillary Clinton, panning the
    maternal health plan, because
    the initiative fails to include
    family planning. (Other
    countries are noting same)

    3. Canada pulling the plug on
    funding, to one of the largest
    AIDS vaccine development
    agencies in the world.

    4. Lawrence Cannon, and the
    Arctic council debacle. (again
    Clinton pointing out the error
    of Canada's ways.
    (Please note the Arctic council
    was not an initiative of the
    Harper government)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter the stimulus and the debt associated with it WAS forced on the gov't by the opposition.

    Its unclear whether it worked or not.

    What is clear is that it has created the perception that it has worked and that any increase in GDP is going to be good for Harper.

    These aren't exactly complex statements. Nor do they contradict each other.


    I guess some people have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shadow,

    Yes I guess the LPOC bets against Canada at every turn.

    Funny I can't seem to recall a Liberal Prime Minister calling Canada a third rate Northern European welfare state, and proud to be basking in that third rate status.

    I can't seem to recall a Liberal Prime Minister, who went on Fox news bemoaning the fact that we were not sending troops to Iraq.

    I can't seem to recall a Liberal Prime Minister running down Quebec, to the extent the reform party, and Stephen Harper did.

    I can't seem to recall a Liberal Prime Minister going into Atlantic Canada, and telling them they suffered from a culture of defeat.

    I also can't seem to recall a Liberal Prime Minister who ever received the lack of respect Harper did at an international conference (Copenhagen)

    Guess what big boy, we are also not going to get that rotating seat on the UN security council, you know like the Liberals did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shadow,

    You are being unfair. MI did not have the courage, political wisdom to honour his signature with coalition.

    He later confessed he did not trust his partners or think the deal was legit.(May)

    He dumped Jack & Gilles believing he would be able to win in June with the economy tanking.

    He was holding up the Budget until they discovered the EI extension was retroactive. They folded quickly.

    They spent the entire year refusing to act responsibly and present alternative policy to the CPC agenda.

    In Sudbury he imploded by declared the "Time was up" without introducing any substantive reasons. The drop to 26-23% lasted for four weeks.

    We are back to silly partisan games from each party looking to score cheapshots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok 49 steps i'll bite.

    1) Who cares ? Meaningless gossip about a failed media strategy. I'm ignoring the story and so should the opposition.

    Canadians forget about this "gotcha" stuff real fast.

    2) Hilary is a pro-abortion democrat speaking to a democratic base back home so she doesn't blow any 2016 chances like she did by voting for Ignatieff's Iraq war.

    Not surprising. Also meaningless.

    Canada determines its own policies regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

    3) My understanding is that the project was deemed wasteful because it duplicated existing knowledge infrastructure.

    4) Iceland, Sweden, and Finland don't have an arctic coast. They have no land claims in dispute.

    Having them there would have been a wasteful distraction.

    Hilary paid lipservice to some upset Europeans. Not surprising. Also meaningless.

    Cannon did the right thing for Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 49 steps you clearly don't know the difference between tough love (wanting the country you love to improve itself) and what the Liberals did.

    The Liberals bet against Canada hoping to use the world wide economic disaster to their advantage in an election.

    Canadians have long memories and won't forget such a shameful lack of patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 49
    Monday, March 29, 2010
    New AR Poll: 6-pt Conservative Lead

    Shadow said...

    Peter the economic action plan exists because of the Liberal party.


    Wednesday, March 31, 2010
    Voting Intentions of Manitoba Natives
    Shadow said...

    49 steps I wasn't aware that Keynes belonged to the Liberal party of Canada.
    ----
    I rest my case

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shadow,

    Yes the stimulus, and the debt were forced on Harper.

    I guess he just wasn't a strong enough leader to stand up and say this is not the direction he wanted to go in. Let the chips fall where they may.

    I guess the EAP, benefits him as well, even thogh he never thought of it, or wanted it.

    Harper seems to live in a parallel universe. He also failed to acknowledge, a deficit, or recession were even possible.

    In your world everything positive is great for Harper, and everything negative, well that is all the fault of the liberals.

    You contradict yourself at every junction. It's enjoying to watch though.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shadow,

    I do enjoy watching you flail about, and descend into nonsensical
    rhetoric.

    Shadow, thy name is CONTRADICT, CONTRADICT, CONTRADICT.

    Patriotism is the last refuge, of a scoundrel. You have very neatly proven that today.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If it was the Liberal action plan why didn't the LPC support it? If it was the Liberal action plan why did Iggy criticize it at every turn: It was too large, not enough infrastructure, to much aid to the auto industry; not enough aid to research and development. It is a little rich when you criticize something at every turn and then try and take credit for it. Yes the opposition forced the government to react to the recession, but I suspect they'd of had to react in any event. The important point is that when the government did react to the recession everything they did was wrong in the view of the opposition. I sometimes get a little peeved that we can't have longer memories.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Peter once again you're getting yourself confused.

    1) The action plan exists because of political pressure put on the CPC by opposition and then the votes of the Liberals which passed the budget.

    2) The stimulus was brought up first by the Americans and then the NDP working off ideas developed by Keynes. Liberals didn't event the concept, it wasn't their idea.

    Do you see how the two are seperate things that don't contradict each other ?

    I can represent the events like so if you'd find it easier to understand:

    Keynes develops stimuls theory -> Opposition asks for stimulus -> Gov't bring in stimulus.

    Each one is a pre-condition for the other. They don't contradict each other.

    Tough stuff I know!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Helena Guergis ought to resign or be fired! Her behavior is deplorable.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 49 steps you have an unfortunate habit of trying to pile on when someone else makes a point.

    Since Peter's original point has been refuted the blather you tacked on to it can also be dismissed.

    1) EAP exists because the opposition asked for it.

    2) Liberals voted for it but then attacked it at every turn.

    3) Since CPC was only party left willing to defend their vote for the EAP they get credit from the public for improving economy.

    If at step 2 the Liberals proudly defended their vote in the HOC they could also take credit for Canada's amazing performance right now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shadow,

    I love your selective outrage.

    You came on here screaming bloody blue murder over Ignatieff, mixing up Mount Pearl, and St John's.

    You went on and on about it.

    Now you dismiss the behaviour of Guergis once again.

    Just like you dismiss the behaviour of any conservative MP.

    You have no consistency, and like I said, you practice Faux outrage.

    Shadow, thy name is CONTRADICT, CONTRADICT, CONTRADICT

    ReplyDelete
  24. Shadow,

    Yes I pile on.

    Playing victim now are we?

    You just don't like your inconsistencies pointed out to you.

    You flail around, and try to come with anything to then justify your point of view.

    I was not piling on, I am having a separate conversation with you.

    What others do is their own affair.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 49 steps a normal person would be chastised by having their points struck down time and time again but you just seem to shamelessly move on to a fresh attack.

    Let me once again point out an incorrect statement from you:

    "Now you dismiss the behaviour of Guergis once again."

    Guergis ?

    You mean the behaviour of an employee.

    Her employee likes her. Big deal. What a surprise.

    Because you work for somebody you're not allowed to publically defend them ?

    ReplyDelete
  26. --- Her employee likes her. Big deal. What a surprise.

    Actually, it is.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Shadow,

    You can not even see that it was wrong for her employee to do that?

    You believe she knew nothing?

    WOW

    You are really out of it.

    You actully haven't refuted one damn thing today.

    What a big surprise there.

    But hey you are alway's right.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Really Eric ?

    Explain how it is a big deal. What law or ethics rule was broken ?

    An employee is a private citizen with just as much right to speak out as anyone else.

    They also have a right to privacy and to speak out without disclosing their occupation or anything else about them they do not wish to.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In the campaign in Fall 2008 the CPC offered the most modest campaign promises around 10-15 billion with an eye to the softening global market.
    The opposition were in excess of $ 40 Billion.
    In November a wait and see approach was rejected by the majority of MP's in the opposition.
    Three ideas were introduced and removed, only one did not get introduced in 2009.
    In December the G8, Premiers agreed to a substantive deficit global, national budget.

    MI agreed to it but refused to offer any ideas to help.
    "It is not my budget, it is Harper's budget. It is not my job. It is his responsibility.
    My job is to set up a series of questions, and tests.

    Fall 2009 Ignatieff tried to pull the plug. 360 EI Plan was only idea but not introduced in parliament. In 2010 it still has NOT been introduced.

    What have the Liberals introduced?

    Funding for abortion 3rd world, and private members bill for compensation for internment of Canadians of Italian origin.

    Please correct me I am missing something else the LPOC have introduced.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Sigh. Whoosh."

    Arrogance is not an answer.

    The woman in question even used her real name instead of using a fake name, which would also have been her right to do so.

    Nobody I know lists their occuption when sending a letter to a newspaper.

    Still not seeing the big deal.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thank You CS
    "Funding for abortion 3rd world, and private members bill for compensation for internment of Canadians of Italian origin.

    Please correct me I am missing something else the LPOC have introduced.
    "

    Which effectively and completely refutes Shadow's "The liberals" introduced the Economic Action Plan.

    Well done

    ReplyDelete
  32. The joke went completely over your head. I won't dignify your ignorance with an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter it was the minister of finance who tabled the EAP in the house of commons.

    Obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eric apologies.

    Your joke came so far out of left field I thought you were defending the premise that it was a big deal in terms of its political impact.

    Looking back I now see what you were saying.

    Weird.

    From everything i've heard she's a really, really nice person who is beloved by her staff.

    I get your joke now though.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Éric, any idea what ate the comments on the previous (pollster leanings) entry? I see none there, not even my own pearls of wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Scroll down, I did another update for Quebec. The original one is still there.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The speaker will probably take awhile to deliver a ruling. We were all waiting on the gov'ts defence and now that it has happened the ruling should be in by monday at the latest:

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/privilegewatch-justice-minister-rob-nicholson-for-the-defence.html

    EKOS tommorow !

    Will it influence the vote ?

    Rememeber its going to be a confidence vote.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Successful people are more likely to recognise that a free and competitive market does more to help poor people than wealth redistribution does.

    Choosing right vs. left on fiscal issues isn't about values. It's about the effectiveness of thew two approaches in producing the desired outcome, that being prosperity.

    People who vote NDP seem to think that the only way to help poor people is to take money from the wealthy and redistribute it. People who vote Conservative recognise that that isn't the case.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 49

    "Peter it was the minister of finance who tabled the EAP in the house of commons.
    "

    So Shadow finally admits the Tories carry the can on the Economic Action Plan which the well know Right Wing Think Tank said has been useless!! Took long enough

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is what I heard about Helena Guergis.

    She has no friends in caucus, she has done nothing to try and reach out to anyone.

    She has a revolving door, of staff
    which is quite well known in Ottawa.

    Most of her colleagues, do not support her.

    Her colleagues wish she would do the honourable, thing and resign.

    Bob Fife CTV News

    ReplyDelete
  41. My only real comment on this post is that these numbers are not suprising.

    I'm even somewhat encouraged by the 24% who said CPC nationally. I'd say that's not too bad.

    I see this threads been hijacked by more interesting/suprising stories thou...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ira: Not true.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf

    The United States has far poorer economic mobility than other more redistributive nations.

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

    Redistributive nations do better on the Human poverty index as well.

    Also... what promted that topic in this thread?

    ReplyDelete
  43. It is great to see the Fraser Institute used a "source" of fact based opinion as in Bob Fife.

    Both can be cited to make Liberals look rather silly on a number of occassions.

    Next?

    Bob and Tom CTV both have cited leaks by Bob's team for months. (thanks for agreeing with Bob Fife)

    Fraser Inst.

    Yikes where to start. Social wealth redistribution bad...very bad. See Canada 150 ideas as bad ideas for social redistribution of wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Video evidence that Evan Soloman is dumber then Sarah Palin.

    This is old news of course.

    ReplyDelete
  45. --- Also... what promted that topic in this thread?

    Apparently, Manitoban natives have varied interests.

    It would be nice if people read my posts and then commented on them, rather than bring up other things and then start a thread on that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. --- Video evidence that Evan Soloman is dumber then Sarah Palin.

    14 minutes! I'll take your word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter the house is supreme !

    The finance minister tabled the budget and the house passed it with Liberal and Conservative votes.

    Both parties are responsible for the debt and deficit.

    Both parties are responsible for any good, if any, comes out of the EAP.

    But the Liberals won't be able to claim any of the credit they deserve because they trashed the plan for 2 years.

    So improving GDP numbers will help Harper alone.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 49 Steps,

    You came out with a formidable list to attack from, and then failed to follow thru.
    Allow me to demonstrate how to dismantle.

    1)The fact that Helena Guergis is still a minister pisses alot of Conservatives off. It is best played as a sign of Harper valuing loyalty over judgement, and could be played as a sign of his weakness in being able to control her.

    2) The Hillary abortion bitch slap pleases the hell out of me. I already admired her performance as SoS before that, but I like her more and more.

    I don't believe the window is open wide enough for her to run for POTUS thou. That seems fantastical.

    When challenged that Canada forms it's own policy, it wouldn't hurt to mention that any G8 initiative that does not have American support, will fall flat.

    Follow up cooly, don't bother chasing an EAP red herring contradiction.

    3)I haven't read the papers today, if this is news, you should provide a link.

    4) I would've stopped after the first 2, Shadows assesment seems a pretty close (non-story).

    Just trying to be helpful :)

    ReplyDelete
  49. AJR79

    But i did get "Sigh Whoosh"

    Immediately

    ReplyDelete
  50. kevinsutton - Both of those are relative measures. Use something that measures absolute poverty and then we can talk.

    And I was responding (indirectly) to DL, who associated voting for the NDP with caring about the gap between rich and poor.

    My point was that the gap isn't actually the problem - the actual wealth of poor people should be our concern. How big the gap is doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There's a reason why the homeless guy begging for change on a street corner in Chicago is among the 10% wealthiest people in the world. The United States is hugely wealthy, and that wealth benefits everyone who lives there.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Might I suggest a blog entry on these points of privilege as they may well cause an election. I know that this blog is about polls and polling but the natural destination of polls is an election. This issue seems to be setting up for an election call. Just a thought Eric from your humble servant.

    Cheers,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  53. "The finance minister tabled the budget and the house passed it with Liberal and Conservative votes.

    Both parties are responsible for the debt and deficit. "

    NO They are NOT. Your definition of Parliamentary Govt is so far off the map as to be unrecognizable !!

    Go forth and learn !

    Supporting a Govt Bill is one thing. Being responsible for the outcome is entirely a different matter.

    Since the Opposition has NO control over the implementation they have NO responsibility for the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Peter its the parliament who controls budgetary matters.

    They have exclusive power of the purse and authorize ALL SPENDING.

    Its such an important power that a gov't falls if their money bills are defeated.

    All debt and deficits are the responsibility of the parties who passed the budget.

    That includes the Liberals !!

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Eric would be acting somewhat prematurely in following your advice Earl.

    Official responses to Nicholson come down tommorow from NDP/BQ. Lee may take even more time to prepare a response.

    I suspect a ruling won't come until monday at the earliest.

    When the speaker hands down his ruling would probably be an appropriate time to mention something about it.

    Goodness knows these boards will be filled with off topic discussion of the ruling if he doesn't!

    ReplyDelete
  57. "All debt and deficits are the responsibility of the parties who passed the budget.

    That includes the Liberals !!"

    Bull Crap. The responsible party is that which moves the Bill!!

    Not those who acquiesce !!

    Don't know where your thinking comes from but it is really right off the wall. Give it up the Tories own the deficit !

    ReplyDelete
  58. 49

    Remember the Tory deal at the time of the Haiti earthquake, the one where they said the Govt would match public donations?

    Amounts now to almost $200 million

    Guss what? The public funds have moved into the Haiti situation. Not a penny of the Govt matching funds have left Ottawa.

    ReplyDelete
  59. 49

    Remember Harpers commitment to match funds with Canadian donors for Haiti ?

    Guess what that amounts to $220 million. None has been released yet and aid givers on the ground in Haiti are screaming.

    Today the Govt announced at the UN $400 million for aid which includes $110 million from the matching fund !! Hello ??

    ReplyDelete
  60. Peter you must know by now that parliament is supreme !

    Was the budget an order in council or was it a bill ?

    You know the answer. You know how bills are passed. We're in a minority.

    The house of commons passed the budget, not the government.


    Liberals own the deficit just as much as the Tories do !

    ReplyDelete
  61. Peter what's your point ?

    Haiti is going to need long term rebuilding. It will take at least a decade.

    I see nothing wrong with choosing to spend that money on rebuilding the country instead of short term humanitarian relief of which capacity has already been reached, more money won't help short term because infrastructure bottlenecks and distribution networks are the problem.


    You just asserted none of its left Ottawa as if it was a self-evident bad things.

    On the contrary it is a great thing that some thought is being put into how government money is spent !

    ReplyDelete
  62. Shadow,

    the problem is you don't think like a Liberal.

    Liberal accountability means transferring to money to another level of gov't.

    Remember the publicity stunt when the Kennedy Ignatieff went to the wrong field, suggested giving it to the cities instead of the 1/3 partnership agreement? Giving it directly to the city won't be political!

    Classic liberal accountability.

    Re: Haiti

    Perhaps the Liberals have friends in Haiti, they want to transfer the money to hold onto while the planning and agreements are being negotiated.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't see how you can control these comment streams now Eric, short of shutting them down, or eraseing comments not relavent to the particular poll.

    Truth be told, I think there's only so much that can be said about the Manitoba native vote, and you said it all in your post.

    I did have a good read about Ontario aboriginals, recently, with which I am slightly more familiar.

    I have a humble suggestion about the comments, that would please the masses, and maintain the integrity of your poll posts.
    (and your sanity!)

    You could try posting a short one line post, for off topic stuff.

    I'm not sure if you would be O.K with that stylistically, but it couldn't hurt to give it a try and see.

    There is a good cross section of the Canadian spectrum that visit this site, it would be a shame to not let them clash on the "horse race, spin zone, talking point mess" of it all, and maybe some talk about income inequality as well.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Of course you would put that post on the bottom of your poll post.(posted first) I forgot to mention that.

    I would name it something funny too.

    It's just somthing I thought you might like to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It isn't that big of an issue, just an annoyance.

    ReplyDelete
  67. John Ibbitson tells it like it is, regarding Hillary's comments.

    It's nothing personal, all buisness.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Climategate" over. So this'll be the last time I hear that stupid word here.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/climategate-scientists-vindicated-in-investigation/article1519115/

    ReplyDelete
  69. Eric,

    How is the Quebec budget playing out with you.

    It seems like there are some heavy duty, tax increases in the budget.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Eric you're joking right ?

    A committee stacked with the British equivalent of NDP and Liberal members can't end climategate.

    The IPCC and East Anglia have fallen into such disrepute that they are completely tarnished.

    A leftist panel with a vested interest in clearing them isn't satisfactory in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  71. AJR79 I find Ibbitson's story somewhat contradictory.

    It echoes PM Harper in saying that Canada makes its own foriegn policy. So do the Americans.

    When it conflicts it conflicts, not a big deal and not a sign of animus on either side.

    But then Ibbitson also says Clinton sent Harper "reeling" and she "embarrasse[d] the Prime Minister of Canada".

    Well which is it?

    And how does Ibbitson know anything about Harper's emotional reaction to these events ?

    Sometimes this colour commentary sounds more like wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The science is "settled"? How will the Liberals, NDP, Bloc demand Billions for a Carbon exchange market? Risk an election?

    European countries can't afford to push the ponzi scheme. Germany has exempted their key industries. France has dumped Carbon Tax plans. The Bric countries will not be controlled to not adopt fossil fuel energy. Production of Coal plants in China are not slowing down.

    The shift is underway from Quebec, Atlantic provinces in power in Parliament.

    Legislation to rebalance the House of Commons by giving Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia more seats is expected today, setting off a political debate pitting urban against rural and large against small.

    This will dominate the back channels, and the coalition will scramble to block it.

    Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/legislation-to-rebalance-house-of-commons-set-to-be-introduced-today/article1519338/

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Liberals own the deficit just as much as the Tories do !"

    Too bad, nice try, wrong.

    The Liberals did NOTmove or present the bill.

    The Tories did. Once passed they own it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm just glad those silly deniers have had their feet cut out from under them. It was a pretty weak smoking gun to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eric yep you're right. A British commons panel cut people's feet out from under them!

    Or maybe like every other person in the world the findings of a parliamentary panel are completely and utterly ignored because politicians sitting around talking are not the best judge of things.

    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.