Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Wildrose Alliance Maintain Lead

On March 11, Angus-Reid released a new poll of Alberta provincial politics. It confirmed what they had discovered back in November.The Wildrose Alliance has maintained its lead, and even enlarged it. They are up three points from that November poll and stand at 42%. The Progressive Conservatives are showing the smallest bit of life with a gain of two points to 27%.

The provincial Liberals have lost a bit of their shine, dropping six points to 19%. The NDP has remained steady at 9%.

The Wildrose Alliance leads in all demographics: gender, age, and income levels. The Progressive Conservatives are strongest, but still behind, among older and middle class voters.

The WRA leads in Calgary, 48% to 25%. The Liberals are behind at 18%.

In Edmonton, the WRA leads with 35%. The Liberals follow with 27% and the Progressive Conservatives are third with 25%.

In the rest of the province, the WRA leads the PCs 43% to 29%. The Liberals are out of it at 13%.

Coupled with the recent poll by Angus-Reid on Premier approval ratings, this is bad news for Premier Ed Stelmach. He is unpopular and his party is on the rails. The only question is whether the Wildrose Alliance can continue this momentum through to the election campaign, and convince Albertans that they can actually govern the province.

But, as the ADQ has shown us in Quebec, leading in the polls between elections does not mean future government for new parties. The ADQ grew too big too fast, and collapsed upon itself following the 2007 and 2008 provincial elections. The Wildrose Alliance is in danger of the same thing.

120 comments:

  1. 49

    Wonder what effect this will have on the federal Tories??

    I know Wild Rose aren't running federally but you wonder what this does to federal Tory support in Alberta ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter,

    Do you remember all those high minded principles of the reform party?

    I have no need to go through that list.

    However my question:

    Stephen Harper threw any principle he had out the window.

    How ling before there is disenchantment again with the CPC.

    Our CPC friends are always pointing out what they perceive to be fractures in the LPOC.

    What about fractures in the CPC?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 49

    "What about fractures in the CPC? "

    I think we are seeing a major one. Now WR is well off to the right of the current CPC. If they gain any traction federally then I could see the Red Tories splitting away ?

    Interesting times

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter,

    Sorry I have another point.

    I keep hearing CPC apologists, saying "Wait until Harper gets a majority"

    Harper is only governing the way he is because he has a minority.

    So that is an admission , the man has absolutely no principles.

    What is the grand plan if he gets a majority.

    Are the CPC admitting they have a secret plan that cannot be unveiled until they have a majority?

    Truly frightening points to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 49
    "Are the CPC admitting they have a secret plan that cannot be unveiled until they have a majority?

    Truly frightening points to ponder.
    "

    The "Hidden Agenda"thing? Sure it's been bandied around a lot and for sure if he should get a majority it will appear. He's a "Grover Norquist" school follower and that means smaller and smaller Govt, the "market" can rule. Just like the neo-cons in the USA. With the addition of rolling back all the social policy advances of the last couple of decades to. Abortion, gay marriage etc GONE !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter,

    CPC apologists forgive and excuse everything.

    Do you remember the reform pary MPs who stood so self righteously, and declared they would not opt into the MP pension plan.

    You know what they have all opted back into that plan.

    Why no outrage from the CPC apologists.

    How about the $100 million in taxpayer dollars to advertise the EAP.

    Where is the outrage?

    How about the wasteful spending,
    (ie $1000 on a plant for a federal building)

    Why no outrage on Harper appointing the greatest amount of senators, at one time.

    AFTER A SPECIFIC PROMISE NOT TO

    Where is the outrage

    What about the promise of fixed election dates.

    Then turning around and breaking that.

    Where is the outrage?

    What about open transparent,and accountable government.

    Where is the outrage?

    I could go on ad nauseum, you get the picture.

    Pretty hillarious coming from a party that says the Liberals have no principles.

    More thoughts to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 49

    In essence:

    NO POLITICAL PARTY HAS "PRINCIPLES" !

    It is all about POWER !! And GREED

    On the latter the CPC has proven even worse than the Liberals !! As well as turning their collective backs on any issue from their platform that might cost them MONEY!!

    That's why No complaint. Greed triumphs all !

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter,

    Yes those beautiful tough on crime tories.

    I guess we don't have to listen to any lectures from thme on anyhing now do we?

    Where you stand depends on where you sit.

    Stephen Harper and the CPC have proven themselves to be quite adaptable, when the situation warrants it.

    Did you see him on youtube?

    I didn't think it was a great performance.

    He never misses an opportunity to make himself look foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There was also an Environics poll that came out last week that had the Tories leading Wild Rose by 4 points.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Alberta+Tories+remain+tied+with+Wildrose+Alliance+poll/2669540/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. 49

    "Did you see him on youtube?"

    No, touchy tummy etc !

    ReplyDelete
  11. DL
    "There was also an Environics poll that came out last week that had the Tories leading Wild Rose by 4 points."

    He who pays the piper calls the tune, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who do you think is "paying the piper?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. 49 steps the "hidden agenda" is simply passing everything that's been blocked by the opposition in a minority.

    And there are no fractures in the CPC.

    The WRA is firmly behind Harper. She compliments him every time she can and points out that political reality (a minority gov't) constraints them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Who do you think is "paying the piper?"
    "

    The paper to get whatever result they want.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 49

    "And there are no fractures in the CPC. "

    Still resident in Dreamland I see

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peter they do polls on this sort of thing you know ?

    It showed that Conservatives were very happy with Harper's leadership.

    Liberals ? Not so much.

    And as I said Danielle Smith is firmly behind Harper.

    So please if you know something about divisions in the CPC please tell me ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "
    So please if you know something about divisions in the CPC please tell me ? "

    There has NEVER been nor ever will be a political party without factions, cracks, splits. It doesn't matter what the flavour of the party is they are all the same.

    It is a fact of political life. Don't believe all that bumpf from the PMO. It isn't true.

    Depending on the strength of the leadership these problems will be very obvious or well hidden.

    Hell you couldn't ever get a stronger leader than Joseph Stalin and yet it was well known that there were factions and fractures within the Russian Communist Party.

    If something as monolithic as that, in command of a major country, had problems why shouldn't any Western political party have them to. They ALL do, get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If there are no divisions in the CPC, Maxime Bernier is certainly trying to create one.

    And I still don't believe that the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives wings are completely reconciled.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Once the Conservatives go back to the Opposition ranks, we'll find out about any lingering divisions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shadow,

    You must really tell me about this pipeline you have into LPOC headquarters.

    We have discussed Ignatieff's leadership already.

    You were demolished on that front.

    You are basing your points on polls, and comments that you read.

    So what

    Ignatieff is fine and so is the LPOC.

    At the end of the day the CPC will have more problems than the LPOC

    You can take that one to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Eric:

    "Once the Conservatives go back to the Opposition ranks, we'll find out about any lingering divisions. "

    And depending on just how badly they do we may see a "Night Of The Long Knives" !!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eric:

    "And I still don't believe that the Reform/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives wings are completely reconciled."

    Since ideologically they are very divergent plus the East/West difference in vision I'm actually rather surprised they have lasted this long !!

    Did you see in today's Star, I think. the stuff about Danny Williams 80% approval rate, if he wanted he could take at least the Atlantic Canada conservatives, who are really still PC, away from the national party and create the PC Party again. Chantal Hebert column I think.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ""Who do you think is "paying the piper?"
    "The paper to get whatever result they want."

    How do you know that the Edmonton Journal paid one red cent for the poll - as opposed to just reporting on it and also what evidence do you have that reputable polling companies would make results out of thin air?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yeah, that sort of stuff leads to bad places. Let's just stick to the actual results.

    ReplyDelete
  25. also what evidence do you have that reputable polling companies would make results out of thin air?

    Prompting !!

    ReplyDelete
  26. "prompting"??? as in reading the names of the parties? well I suspect that any poll in Alberta will include prompting of the Wildrose Alliance as well as the PCs 9and Liberals and NDP) so what's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The paper is going to want to publish what it thinks its readers want to read.

    Edmonton is a Govt town. The resident Govt is Conservative.

    Therefor they will get a slanted poll that says the Cons lead.

    It's only common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The same poll was also reported in the Calgary Herald and calgary is NOT a government town and is thought to be a hotbed of Wildrose support.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shadow,

    "WRA is firmly behind Harper. She compliments him every time she can and points out that political reality (a minority govt) constraints them"

    How is a minority government constraining the Harperites.

    Are you admitting that they are constrained from implememting an agenda we know nothing about.

    What is the real agenda?

    If Harper is handed this majority, what exactly does he intend to do?

    Introduce a socially conservative agenda, that most Canadians find repulsive?

    Please explain in detail, if you will about this agenda.

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete
  30. "The same poll was also reported in the Calgary Herald "

    And what is the ownership connection between the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton paper ??

    It's actually pretty useless talking to you isn't it? You have real trouble seeing the forest for the trees !!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eric in response to this statement, have you ever heard of the term "trial balloon" ? Or "good cop, bad cop" ?

    "If there are no divisions in the CPC, Maxime Bernier is certainly trying to create one."

    Bernier is holding down the right flank. The result is a MORE united party, instead of right wing breaking off.

    ReplyDelete
  32. BTW Peter, the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald both also reported on the ARG poll that has the WRA in the lead. Let's not get bogged down in mad conspiracy theories about newspapers paying reputable polling companies to put out fictitious polling data.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 49 steps a minority constrains Harper because he introduces bills that are defeated, ammended to the point of worthlessness, or lost in the senate.

    If he gets a majority he'll do the things he's talked about in various throne speeches.

    There is no "hidden agenda".

    If a minority was formed here's some of the things we'd see:

    *Long gun registry abolished

    *Tough on crime legislation passed

    *Subsidies for political parties removed

    *Telecom and broadcasting deregulated, CBC's funding gradually reduced with the goal of achieving self sufficiency

    *Nuclear power plants build

    *Free trade with Columbia and others


    Harper's style is naturally cautious and methodical.

    In his first term of a majority he wouldn't do anything crazy. Just a gradual shift to the right.

    Maybe in the second term we'd see a bolder agenda. But he'd be sure to campaign on it first to get a mandate from the people.

    ReplyDelete
  34. --- "Bernier is holding down the right flank. The result is a MORE united party, instead of right wing breaking off."

    And Bob Rae is keeping the left wing behind Ignatieff.

    --- Maybe in the second term we'd see a bolder agenda. But he'd be sure to campaign on it first to get a mandate from the people.

    The unlikeliness of getting a second majority (which would mean 10-15 years in power) means Harper is likely to do anything bold in his first majority mandate, since it is likely to be his only one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eric:
    "Bernier is holding down the right flank. The result is a MORE united party, instead of right wing breaking off."

    If I wasn't laughing so hard I'd take rhe time to shoot this one down !!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eric the comparison to Bob Rae is not apt.

    He's not holding down the left flank FOR Ignatieff, he's using it as a power base from which to undermine and attack Ignatieff to get the leadership.

    The distinction becomes clear when you listen to reporters talk about how Bob Rae's people are always anonymously sourcing quotes that second guess Iggy's leadership.

    Not to mention Dennis Coddere's people, who are basically all the Quebec candidates he recruited like Nancy Charest.


    When I start to hear Maxime Bernier underminine Harper either publically or privately then the comparison to Bob Rae is fair.

    Until then a couple speeches and the trial balloon Bernier released for the PMO to sow doubts about climate change are not a rebellion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eric:

    "And Bob Rae is keeping the left wing behind Ignatieff."

    Nice little touch of sarc, there

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bernier isn't nearly as smart or influential as Rae. That's the best he can do. This is the beginning of his lumbering, failed rebellion.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Eric why is a second majority unlikely, especially with the increased Western seats and the benefit of incumbency/money/organizsation ??

    If its the length in office you're objecting to it should be noted that Trudeau served for 15 years.

    Assuming Harper eeks out a majority in the next election its likely he'll serve a full term, win a second majority and serve half of it before passing off power.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lol Eric nobody is dumb enough to lead a rebellion.

    The Quebec caucus is non-existent so he has no power base.

    His speech in Calgary was nice but no way anybody in Alberta crosses Harper.

    So Bernier and a few disgruntled bloggers are going to try and push out Harper ??


    C'mon, that's ridiculous. More likely scenarios are:

    A) A wink and a nod strategy where he holds down the base on climate change and spending while Prentice and Flaherty hold down the center.

    B) He's trying to put pressure on Harper to get back into cabinet.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter,

    Do you remember when Jean Chretien became leader of the Liberal party, and thus LOO.

    Do you remember all the questions about his leadership of the party?

    Do you remember all the critiques of his performance?

    Do you remember all the talking heads saying he would never become Prime Minister of Canada?

    Do you remember how he was dismised as "Yesterday's man" by the CPC?

    Do you remember all the talk of how he would be replaced, probably from people like Shadow.

    Thoughts for the CPC to ponder

    Never under estimate the strenght of the LPOC

    Do so at your own peril.

    More thoughts to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Before people start speculating about a SECOND Harper majority - let's face up to the fact that a FIRST majority is already a virtual mathematical impossibility!

    ReplyDelete
  43. --- "Eric why is a second majority unlikely, especially with the increased Western seats and the benefit of incumbency/money/organizsation ??"

    Merely because that is how it goes. If Harper wins a majority in 2010, that means the next election will be in 2014. He will have been in power for 8 years by then, and a second majority puts the Harper government up to 12 years.

    For him to last so far would be an exception to the rule, which means it is unlikely to happen.

    And I'm also going by my gut. The Liberals were a bit of a do-nothing, don't-rock-the-boat kind of government. A Harper majority would be a lot more active, as the party's roots were founded in over-throwing the things Chretien and, to a lesser extent, Mulroney stood for. This sort of change is unlikely to make for a second majority, particularly in this political climate.

    As to the new seats, don't count your eggs before they hatch. We have yet to see that they will give the Tories any significant advantage.

    --- "If its the length in office you're objecting to it should be noted that Trudeau served for 15 years."

    Harper is no Trudeau.

    ReplyDelete
  44. --- "So Bernier and a few disgruntled bloggers are going to try and push out Harper ??"
    C'mon, that's ridiculous.

    No, but to say that there are no divisions in the Conservative Party is ridiculous. Every party has some level of division. Those polls about how party supporters felt about their leader still had about 10% to 15% of Conservatives unhappy with Harper.

    --- "A wink and a nod strategy where he holds down the base on climate change and spending while Prentice and Flaherty hold down the center."

    No Conservative strategist would give Bernier a job like that. He'd muck it up.

    --- "He's trying to put pressure on Harper to get back into cabinet."

    And to flip him the bird if he doesn't. That's my take.

    --- "let's face up to the fact that a FIRST majority is already a virtual mathematical impossibility!"

    Like I've said before, we shouldn't discount the possibility that Ignatieff will step on a baby during the campaign.

    But even then...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Eric

    "Harper is no Trudeau"

    Truer words were never spoken.

    He also is no Laurier, St Laurent, or Pearson either.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Eric,

    Good point on Levesque.

    You can disagree with his politics, but he was a very intelligent, passionate and charismatic man.

    RIP good sir

    ReplyDelete
  47. Eric I agree with the premise that every party has a degree of division and various factions.

    Let's just preface everything then by saying "relatively speaking".

    Relatively speaking the CPC is united.

    Relatively speaking the LPC is not as united.

    "Harper is no Trudeau"

    Thank God for that !!

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'll agree to all of that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh!

    Another possibility about Bernier.

    Maybe he's planning to go into provincial politics with a new right wing party.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Eric,

    I am not familiar with local Alberta politics but here is a link including a video of Danielle Smith

    http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2010/02/danielle-smith-out-out-brief-candle.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. ERic


    I figure Bernier is trying to set himself up as the "Saviour" when Harper fails to get a majority and is dumped ?

    Of course he's nuts. But Shadow claiming there is no splits in the Tories is about as insane.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Peter I think you missed me above post.

    Relatively speaking the CPC is united.

    Relitively speaking the LPC is NOT as united.


    I conceded the point that every party has some degree of division and factions.

    The LPC's is just dramatically worse at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wouldn't Harper's principles involve getting what he thinks is good policy passed into law? If that policy is unpopular, and he has only a minority, then proposing that policy is a quick way to get him kicked out of office.

    His political expediency therefore has nothing to do with principles. The act that moves him closer to enacting policy consistent with his principles is waiting until he has a majority to do it.

    Think your accusations through before you make them public.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ira,

    So harper would not introduce any policy he thought was unpopopular, because he does not want to get kicked out of office.

    Even if that was one of his core principles.

    He has to wait for a majority to fool the Canadian people.

    Thank you

    Harper has no principles

    ReplyDelete
  55. 49 steps according to your standards Michael Ignatieff has no principles.

    *Supposedly he was against the budget but then 40% of the caucus didn't show up for budget votes and he failed to introduce ANY ammendments to it.

    *He complained about prorogation but has taken this week off.

    *He complained about the detainee issue and did NOTHING to hold the gov't acountable.

    Clearly he has no principles !

    Or the more nuanced and accurate conclusion to draw would be that he does indeed have principles but like all politicians he's bending to reality.


    If you're kicked out of office you can't exactly impliment any policy now can you ??

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shadow,

    OUCH, so now who is a little sensitive and touchy.

    Pointing out Harper's many short comings is clearly a sensitive issue for conservatives.

    So you are saying the same thing as Ira.

    Harper will not introduce anything he knows is unpopular, because he doesn't want to get the boot.

    He has to save all that unpopular policy until he fools the public into a majority.

    Thank you for informing us.

    The secret is now out.

    Now you know why Harper will never get a majority.

    People are on to him and the conservatives and do not trust them.

    I thank you very much for helping me to make that point.

    I will point out another truth to you my friend

    Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, not Michael Ignatieff.

    He has been Prime Minister for over four years now.

    It is high time Harper grew up, and started acting like and adult, and the strong leader he is supposed to be and started taking responsibility for things that happen on his watch.

    Stop worrying about what Ignatieff is doing.

    Conservatives seem awfully interested in his ideas.

    Is that an admission from you that you know he stands head and shoulders above your guy.

    He will become Canada's 23rd Prime Minister in due time, and thats when you can place the responsibility of the government on his shoulders.

    Right now that is Harper's job.

    Just remember that, and stop your pathetic whining about Ignatieff.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 49

    The House votes to end the 10 percenters outside the members own ridings, The PM agrees in the House today.

    The PMO sends our a mailing saying it isn't bound by the motion passed by the House !!

    Hello ???

    ReplyDelete
  58. Eric, no comment on latest Quebec poll showing the PQ at 38% against Charest's Libs at 32%? THAT's a story! :)

    Peter, I'm not sure what effect it will have but it should send a loud message to Harper's tories : get back to the fiscal right or else... the biggest mistake for Harper to do is to take Western Canada for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  59. jay:

    "get back to the fiscal right or else..."

    Quite possibly that isn't getting across. The "core" aren't happy as that WR poll shows.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 49 steps that was a bit of a rant.

    Harper is PM? Yeah, thanks for the breaking news. He has introduced exciting policy proposals, many of which have passed.

    Michael Ignatieff may not be the PM but he is of the official leader of her Majesty's loyal opposition and has a responsibility to provide alternative ideas.

    So clearly he does have a role to play in our system, he does have responsibilities, and has shown that he has completely abandonded them.

    Using your logic Michael Ignatieff has no priniciples.

    Why focus on this ? Because if the man can't do his job as leader of the opposition what makes you think he can do the job of PM ?


    Oh and hidden agends work both ways. The Liberals are promising balanced budgets AND childcare which means HIGHER TAXES.

    Yet Iggy is petrified to mention it. When he did at Sudbury he was promptly smacked down.

    So he sends out Gerrard Kennedy to float trial balloons about raising the GST.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Shadow,

    If you examine the road trip by Ignatieff in the summer,fall and spring and compare with Dion what is the pattern?

    It is a defensive strategy to retain the dwindling number of seats. Dion lost 17 in 2008. In 2009 four more did not go to the Liberals.

    Every party has been traveling in 2009 and will in 2010 in preparation for the campaign.

    Most of the parties have the candidates already selected.

    The key is to watch where the leaders travel and if they are visiting ridings they don't hold.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have a feeling the PC party will end up gaining back support before 2012 with the economy picking up again. It will be very interesting to see what happens with the vote splitting in Alberta come the next election.

    As for the Conservatives, I think there is definitly cracks in the party. There is a big difference in the views of alot of the MPs and they will start showing sooner rather then later. As well Stephen Harper has shown himself not to be a great leader, the Conservatives might like him, for now, but Canadians obviously don't. His MPs will soon want to get rid of him. It is after Harper leaves that I think you will see the Conservative party fall apart with the blue tory's and the red tory's having seperate parties.

    ReplyDelete
  63. " His MPs will soon want to get rid of him. It is after Harper leaves that I think you will see the Conservative party fall apart with the blue tory's and the red tory's having seperate parties. "

    Finally a voice of reality. Something foairly rare on here !

    ReplyDelete
  64. This would give them an overwhelming majority. In fact, the Liberals would have more seats than the Tories.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Peter and J how about consulting the facts.

    The assertion that Harper isn't popular or isn't a good leader falls apart when you look at these numbers from AR. Relatively speaking he's actually doing quite well:

    Danny Williams: 80% approve, 11% disapprove
    Brad Wall: 56% approve, 24% disapprove
    Greg Selinger: 27% approve, 28% disapprove
    Darrel Dexter: 23% approve, 53% disapprove
    Gordon Campbell: 23% approve, 60% disapprove
    Jean Charest: 22% approve, 53% disapprove
    Dalton McGuinty: 21% approve, 52% disapprove
    Ed Stelmach: 16% approve, 62% disapprove
    Shawn Graham: 15% approve, 62% disapprove


    Harper ranks third in that list. Iggy is down there in the basement with Stelmach and Graham.

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

    ReplyDelete
  67. Harper ranks third in that list. Iggy is down there in the basement with Stelmach and Graham. "

    C'mon Shadow you've got NO listing for Harper or Iggy and no link to your source of these possibly specious claims !!

    C'mon man you can do better !

    ReplyDelete
  68. Shadow,

    I admire get a chuckle how you keep adding facts to dispel the rumours.

    Providing links usually helps.

    I posted a blog outlining how Jack Layton has improved on his leadership numbers at the expense of Ignatieff. It took Dion two years to poll this low. Michael Ignatieff was able to finally beat Dion.
    (Includes links to Nanos Leadership Dec-Feb)
    http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/02/dump-ignatieff-for-layton-gains-steam.html

    ReplyDelete
  69. Shadow,

    Thanks for that.

    It must be true coming from you.

    I guess that massive Stephen Harper majority really is around the corner.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Peter,

    Did you read my earlier post about Jean Chretien.

    If you haven't go give it a read.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eric you might actually be interested in these numbers.

    Peter and 49 steps in the time it took you to post a comment suggesting I was fabricating numbers you could just headed over to Angus Reid's website yourself !

    That's why I named my source, so you could double check if you didn't trust my good word.

    But if you want me to do the leg work for you i'd be happy to.

    Here's the premiers approval ratings that were released 2 days ago:

    http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010.03.15_Premiers_CAN.pdf

    Here's the last poll AR did on march 2. Compare the two sets of data and you'll realize Harper isn't all that unpopular, relatively speaking.

    http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010.03.02_Politics_CAN.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  72. CS

    I'm glad you are here.

    You didn't show up yesterday.

    I had some questions for you, that I would very much appreciate if you would do me the kindness of answering.

    You have had some very grand pontifications about the LPOC of late.

    I guess your prognostications about the LPOC were maybe just a tad exaggerated.

    I think you said they were dead.

    Do you have any thoughts, on why they are tied with the CPC?

    Do you have any thoughts as to why Harper can never seem to break into majority territory?

    How about the liberals polling 42% in Ontario?

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hey Canadian Sense follow those links I posted above.

    Jack Layton would also be third in that list with 36% approval.

    Of course, the lesson of Darrel Dexter and his massive drop in popularity is that NDP is popular until they're actually given responsibility for something.

    When the rubber hits the road they fall apart.

    ReplyDelete
  74. 49 steps be patient.

    A party does not die overnight. But in the long term I do believe that the Liberal party will not exist.

    The most likely outcome is some kind of NDP-Liberal merger.

    ReplyDelete
  75. 49 Steps,
    Reminder again,your numerous personal attacks eliminates any response to any questions.

    Best of luck with engaging others.

    ReplyDelete
  76. CS

    I would like to follow up on a point you made earlier.

    I think you were saying to watch where the leaders go.

    Outside of the olympics Stephen Harper seems to be spending a lot of time in BC

    Why do you think that is?

    Following your logic, it must mean Harper is in trouble in BC

    Do you think this to be the case?

    Wle in thhat are your thoughts on the CPC polling below their 08 election total in BC?

    What are your thoughts on their poor showing in Atlantic Canada?

    What are your thoughts about the poor Quebec showing?

    Do you think it possible that the CPC will hang on to all their seats in the next election and suffer no losses?

    ReplyDelete
  77. CS

    I did not attack you personally at all.

    I was asking you about your statements.

    You had quite a few about the LPOC

    Prognostications, and pontifications to describe your statements is not a personal attack.

    I guess this means you have no answers for my very valid questions.

    My point is therefore has been proven.

    You had no basis in fact, for your statements.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 49 steps let's look at some facts again.

    Harper has a proven record of being a damn good CPC leader when it comes to winning seats.

    Even if individual seats are lost he's been in 3 elections and in every election our total seat count has increased.

    An unbroken record of electoral success is pretty impressive.

    Its going to take more than some idle speculation from you to suggest that he's underperforming as leader.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Shadow,

    Am I not allowed a little idle speculation as you call it?

    After all you practice it on a daily basis.

    What's fair is fair.

    And for your information my friend the death of the LPOC has been predicted for many years.

    It never seems to come true does it?

    They are still here.

    I suspect (more idle speculation)
    that they will be here for a long time yet.

    Thank you for your concern for my party.

    I will extend you the same courtesy, and have some concern for yours.

    ReplyDelete
  80. 49 steps i'm just pointing out that there is no factual basis for anyone's claim that Stephen Harper isn't a good leader for the CPC or that our party is divided, relatively speaking.

    The claim can, however, be made with some factual evidence that Michael Ignatieff is a bad leader for the LPC due to those by-elections loses, poor polling last fall, and the divisions within the party.


    Who's been saying the Liberal party would die for years ?

    I'm the only one I know who makes that prediction.

    Everyone else seems to think that the CPC winning was a weird accident that would quickly correct itself when Canada's natural governing party simply chose a good leader.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Shadow,

    After the Liberals were crushed in 1984 (I am not that old wasn't even born yet, but I read a lot)
    the death of the LPOC was predicted by a great many people. Ed broadbent being one.

    There was a great amount of thought that the LPOC would go the way of most centrist parties in Europe. The liberal democrats of the UK as an example. They would be squeezed out, as it would become a choice between a right party or a left party.

    That was the thought.

    It never happened, and the Liberals did rebound.

    Let us remember that the LPOC has governed Canada longer than the CPC or the PC party.

    The roots run deep, and the traditions run deep.

    Many people in Canada are hard wired to vote LPOC (as well as CPC)

    After the crushing defeat in 1984, Brian Mulroney, said the LPOC were important to Canadian democracy, they were a party who he said he respected, and were needed in Canada.

    I am just saying that predicting the death of a political party is silly.

    In 1993 the PC's wen't down to two seats. They were a splintered party for many years, and their prospects also looked very poor.

    What happened?

    They put the pieces together, and now they are the government.

    But the day will come, when people will want a change, and the LPOC will be the choice.

    The LPOC has governed Canada before,and are a larger party than the NDP.

    For all it's years in existence, the NDP, has never even been an official opposition.

    There is a reason for that.

    Every party goes through their ebbs,and flows, writing off the LPOC is a mistake.

    Just as an aside after the 1993 disaster for the PC party, Jean Chretien following Mulroney's lead said the PC party had been with us since confederation. They were important to Canadian democracy, and they were a party he respected.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 49 steps the PC party no longer exists.

    A great deal of parties have come and gone in history.

    In fact the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against a party surviving for as long as the Liberals have.

    So your arguement is that because they've lasted this long they're bound to last longer.

    Couldn't one just as easily say that the party is long past its expiration date ?


    Anyways there are multiple factors that I believe will lead to the death of the LPC and an eventual merger with the NDP or Greens.

    1) Power and population is shifting West.

    2) The internet, blogs, 24 news cycle, and radicalization of youth mean greater polarization in this country. More left/right divide, the center won't hold.

    3) Limits on campaign contributions hurt the big bussiness, bay street buddies of the LPC.

    4) FPTP punishes a divided left. Bob Rae and many others are convinced that a Unite The Left strategy is needed, to the discomfort of centerist Liberals like Ignatieff.

    ReplyDelete
  83. We sit around beating on each other as to which party is the "best".

    We are ALL wrong. Right now in Canadian politics all the parties are essentially crap !!

    Not one of them espouses or promotes a coherent National Vision.

    Not one of them promotes a coherent platform to handle the national problems.

    Not one of them gives any real solutions.

    They are all to busy trying to shaft each other to gain some kind of "superior" position.

    Partisan politics has triumphed over the needs of the nation.

    A pox on all their houses !

    Where is that paradigm shift which energizes the nation?

    Nowhere apparently, certainly none of the national parties right now display it.

    Let's not get all picky, the "Grand Vision" is what I'm talking about here not the "tax & spend" or "hidden agenda" or "punish the rich" or "screw the poor" that all of you are about to unload. If that's all you can say then be quiet, you are an impediment to the discussion

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter,

    Your points are all valid.

    Letus remember one thing though.

    Dion did try a "grand vision" and look where that got him.

    The liberals I think feel paralyzed.

    If they do espouse anything, the CPC attack machine goes into overdrive.

    I know every party does their fair share of attacking and criticizing the other parties.

    However the CPC has brought it to a new level.

    Think of all the negative advertising used by the CPC between elections to attack others.

    What they did to Dion was an abomination.

    We have the Karl Rove strategy of attack politics.

    The CPC are not even trying to reach out and form a consenus.

    All they care about is keeping that 35 to 36% happy.

    It was the strategy Harris used in Ontario.

    Now I am not saying all parties haven't done their fair share.

    However the CPC has us in the gutter.

    That is where we are in Canadian politics today.

    It makes me sad as a Canadian, when you think of our leaders in the past who did put the nation ahead of their own party.

    I could name you great leaders from all parties, who did this.

    That is why I will rejoice, when the moderate party that was the PC party of Canada returns.

    What we have now is a CPC party that is not a moderate conservative party, but rather a US style republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 49

    "However the CPC has us in the gutter."

    while I won't disagree with you completely they have been allowed to do this because we, the public, have allowed them to!!

    As to the rest I agree re return of the PC party but don't expect that to happen for years. The Question is "how to get our current mainstream parties back to where they should be??"

    ReplyDelete
  86. Peter,

    I am hoping for a return of the PC party on federal level.

    If not in name at least in policy.

    I am sure as I am sitting here if Harper had a free rein to do what he wanted to do, moderates would all be crying.

    I actually liked the PC party.

    I vote Liberal, but there was quite a lot in their platform I would support.

    I know I could vote for them.

    As it stands now there is no way under any circumstance I could vote CPC.

    The same goes for the NDP.

    There is quite a lot of their social policy I like.

    However their economic and fiscal policy, is something I could never support under any scenario.

    That leaves me stuck where I am.

    Canadians have allowed the CPC to take us into the gutter.

    I think that is a CPC strategy though.

    Turn off enough people, drive voter turnout so low, as to ensure yourself victory.

    I hope that what comes around goes around and Stephen Harper will one day reaps what he has sown.

    His scorched earth tactics are frankly disgusting.

    I hope the red tories, and moderates regain control of that party after he is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Shadow,

    another Ekos Poll out

    CONSERVATIVES TIED OR LEADING IN EVERY REGION BUT QUEBEC

    [Ottawa – March 18, 2010] - The federal Conservative Party has re-established a clear, statistically significant lead over the second-place Liberals. This follows a six-month period during which the governing party fell from majority-government territory into a virtual tie with the opposition Liberals.


    Highlights on demographics that reinforce long game excuse for the Liberals.

    * Male vote (CPC)
    * Female vote within M.O.E
    * <25 advantage (LPC)11.2% (M.O.E 7.52)
    * 25-44 vote within M.O.E.
    * 45-64 advantage (CPC) 9.8%
    * 65+ advantage (CPC) 16.9%

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I actually liked the PC party." As did I and in fact voted for them at least once. Oddly I have also voted once for the NDP, special circumstance mind.

    Lets go back a bit.

    Borden, King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, and of course Trudeau. You may not have liked their policies but you never attacked the person.

    You attacked their policies. Fine, as it should be.

    Until the advent of Reform and their importation of American style gutter politics. That's when things went downhill.

    Another thing. That list I gave here all had or developed the ability to raise in the country a "vision" of where it should go. Some were better than others but they all did it to a certain extent.

    Where's the vision now? From anybody.

    Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Ed Broadbent, even M.J.Coldwell all had a visionary integrity you couldn't argue with.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 49

    Kady O'Malley/CBC

    "10:18 AM
    Well, this is a bit of an unexpected turn of events -- Derek Lee has beaten Jack Harris to the punch on the privilege front, and is now on his feet, arguing his motion of privilege -- which may or may not be the same as the draft motion that has been the subject of so much discussion and speculation in the weeks leading up to"

    ReplyDelete
  90. Peter,

    I agree with your points.

    Doesn't it make you sad as a Canadian to see where we are at?

    Sir John A Macdonald, our first Prime Minister, a conservative, a father of confederation.

    Pierre Trudeau, and the charter.

    Robert Stanfield, he never became Prime Minister, but a throughly decent, and honourable gentleman.

    Jean Chretien had his quirks, but he did keep us out of Iraq, and brought the nation's finances under control.

    Stephen Harper in no way shape or form measures up to any of them.

    He practices politics of survival, and gutter politics.

    We as a nation are the sorrier for it.

    Look at Michael Ignatieff.

    The CPC attacks him for having been a Harvard professor, and an intellectual.

    That is a bad thing I guess, in their books.

    That is why I say Harper can not go fast enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The Conservative Party of today IS the PC party of yesteryear. The PC party split on the 90s when Reform came onto the scene - but then it reunited and now the CPC is EXACTLY 100% the same as it would have been if no Reform Party had ever been created. Harper himself was an assistant to a Tory MP in the 80s, then went to Reform then back to the CPC. Ironically, he says he left the PCs because under Mulroney they were too fiscally irresponsible - now Harper is even more of a fiscally irresponsible big spender than Mulroney was. You don't have to be an ex-Reform party type to be one of thee hateful neocons. Mike Harris is bad as they come and he was a PC not a Reformer. In fact some of the most revolting people in the Harper government are people who came out of provincial PROGRESSIVE Conservative parties (ie: Toews, Baird, Flaherty etc...).

    Parties evolve. The Republican Party of today has the same name and logo that it always had - but the party of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller is now the party of Sarah Palin and the teabaggers.

    ReplyDelete
  92. DL

    You have done precisely what I told you not to do.

    Go back to my first post on this subject and refrain from further partisan twaddle!

    ReplyDelete
  93. 49 - O'Malley

    "10:52
    AM
    AM
    The motion, Harris reminds the speaker and the rest of us, did not call for those unredacted documents to be posted on the internet, or handed out to all and sundry on the front steps of Centre Block; the committee is willing to work with the government on a process for handling any protected material that would prevent unnecessary disclosure to non-parliamentarians. For the record, here's the text of his motion, which would see ministers called to the Bar, as is the case with Lee's proposal, and lays out a thirty day timeline for compliance with the House order:

    That the House considers the government's failure to provide the documents specified in the Order of December 10, 2009, is tantamount to contempt, and therefore orders the Minister of National Defence, the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be called to the Bar of the House immediately and hear the Speaker read this order to them;

    That it be an instruction to the Special Committee on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan to adopt rules and procedures for the reception and handling of the documents demanded by the House Order of December 10, 2009, in a manner that safeguards national security and other confidentiality requirements while respecting parliamentary privilege; after receiving advice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel,",

    ReplyDelete
  94. 10:57AM

    And now, the Bloc Quebecois -- and it is that impish little arch-parliamentarian Claude Bachand after all, which makes sense since he is a permanent member of the committee trying to pry those documents out of the hands of the government in unexpurgated form.

    11:00AM
    Bachand excoriates various ministers for "flying in the face" of parliamentary privilege, which makes me momentarily picture a cloud of bats hovering outside the Peace Tower. What is the correct noun of collective for bats, by the way? I know owls have a parliament and larks have an exultation. Sorry, back to the privilege battle -- Bachand reminds the House that, in the opinion of Maignot, it is up to the House and the House alone to stand up for its powers; when ministers refuse to provide information in particularly delicate or sensitive situations, the House will acquiesce when "sufficient reason" is given to do so, but it is the will of the House that must prevail. ,The power to compel production is not subject to common law, and it is, again, up to the House -- not the government, or an independent counselor, no matter how respected, or the executive to decide which documents to disclose.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Peter, All I'm saying is that to the extent that you don't like the tone of debate in Canadian politics these days - I think it has NOTHING to do with the fact that there was a schism and reunification in the Tory party in the 1990s. Its because of the advent of a 24 hour news cycle, new technology, decline of party affiliation and all kinds of other broader social trends. The problem with Stephen Harper is NOT that he is a Conservative-turned Reform-turned Canadian Alliance-turned Conservative. The problem is that he exists in a political culture of Canada 2010 which has become very nasty. Harper does have a vision for Canada - I find it 100% nauseating but it is there.

    ReplyDelete
  96. 11:27AM

    Okay, that's it for the interventions -- there was another Liberal speaking in indirect, but clear endorsement of Lee's motion, and the speaker is up now. He won't rule right away -- possibly not even today, in fact -- but he pretty much dismisses Lukiwski's question on time; he was the one who asked Lee to hold off until the Iacobucci terms had been made public, so there's no question of timeliness in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  97. DL,

    Having voted for Bob Rae, John Nunziata never the PC party until leaving York South Weston your refusal to admit to basic facts.

    Our first past the post system has never rewarded the NDP at the Federal level. EVER.

    Only two parties have been given the opportunity to hold power.

    The merger of a regional party with the PC holds roughly 30-35% and running in several elections the voters marked the ballot box.

    The NDP have recovered from their 8.5% in 2000, 2008 18.2%.

    The other progressive parties exist and voters have those choices on the ballot. Result?

    Some political parties adapt, form the government.

    Adapt or die, look at CFC, PC, Reform. Alliance.

    ReplyDelete
  98. DL
    "The problem is that he exists in a political culture of Canada 2010 which has become very nasty. Harper does have a vision for Canada - I find it 100% nauseating but it is there."

    That I agree with. The question is "Why has it become so nasty?" and like 49 I attribute that to the introduction of American Republican attack politics by the Reform/Alliance group.

    But there is another form of Conservative out there who don't use this "method" but do provide good government. I'm particularly referring to Danny Williams NL Govt. If memory serves he manged to blank Harper completely in the last election. Apparently the people of his province really approve, you can't argue with an 80% approval rate !

    ReplyDelete
  99. Peter,

    Yes siree!!!

    Lee has beaten Harris to the punch.

    Miracle of all miracles.

    Has the opposition finally found their spine?

    Stay tuned today could be a BIG day

    ReplyDelete
  100. Spine ?

    Its possible. Wait for the final vote count.

    And then we'll see if Harper refers this to the SOC or calls for an election.

    That was pretty funny, Derek Lee couldn't let Jack Harris be the one to do this because Lee wrote a book and wants to prove his arcane theories.

    Pardon my language but NDP definetly lit a fire under his ass.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 49
    Lee has beaten Harris to the punch.

    Not just Lee, Harris and Bachand from the Bloc each tabled a motion. None of these need a vote as they ask the Speaker to enforce the motion of Dec 10.

    ReplyDelete
  102. 49

    These are not votable motions, in each case they are a "Question Of Privilege" thus requiring only a ruling from the Speaker.

    Probably get that ruling tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Peter I need to correct you.

    You've made this error before, this WILL require a vote from parliament.

    Here's how it works:

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

    "Once the Speaker rules that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, the House of Commons immediately considers a motion from the Member who raised the matter."

    Source:

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

    ReplyDelete
  104. Just wondering peter... How did Willams blank Harper? He went negative on him. ABC..... not "I like Dion"

    It was all about negative because Harper didn't give into him.


    Every time I hear about how the tories are the ones with the Republican negative negative strategy I keep thinking back to previous elections. "Guns in the streets", "Hidden agenda, Hidden agenda, Hidden agenda" "Just like Bush"

    You can rewrite all you want... Harper and the conservatives didn't learn negative from Rove/Bush/Cheney.... They learned it from the Liberals. When the Tories do well, its because they play the liberals game better then them. When they do poorly.... its because they have forgotten that lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Barcs

    We'll agree to disagree !

    ReplyDelete
  106. "this WILL require a vote from parliament. "

    Not according to Kady O'Malley who I trust more than you.

    This is a request to the Speaker to rule on whether the Govt has complied with the Motion of Dec 10. Or not.

    If NOT then the question arises of what to do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Peter i'm sorry but you're flat out wrong.

    I'm not asking you to trust me, i'm asking you to go read PARLIAMENT'S website on how question of privilege are dealt with.

    And go re-read Kady's liveblog. Nowhere does she contradict parliament's rule book that I linked to.

    She refers to both the BQ and Liberal motion as a "question of privilege".

    She says that they'll argue over whether a "prima facie case" exists which the speaker will rule on.

    Here is the motion in question:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28561446/13-DraftMotion


    The speaker does NOT have the authority to pass a motion by himself.

    His ruling simply determines whether a privelege may have been violated and if so he gives leave to the member to introduce a remedy in the form of a motion that the house must adopt.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Sorry but in this case you are wrong.

    The Question Of Privilege" refers to the motion of Dec 10 which was passed by the House.

    None of today's Questions involved moving a motion. That has already been done and passed by the House.

    Today's questions involved asking the Speaker for a ruling on whether the Govt had complied with that motion. That's why the Speaker said that before he could rule he had to consult the relevant ministers. No motions were moved or seconded today. Thus there is nothing to vote on.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Peter its a two step process.

    Step 1 - The speaker is asked to rule whether there is prima facie case that privelege is violated.

    Step 2 - If speaker says YES then the member in question puts forward a motion that is voted upon.


    Step 1 is not any kind of finding of contempt or violation. Its simply the speaker saying the member has a fair point to make and can put it to a vote in the house in Step 2.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Again you miss the key point.

    The motion has been moved and passed !! Back on Dec 10.

    They are asking the Speaker to rule on whether the Govt has complied with that motion !!

    Get it straight!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Peter it doesn't work that way.

    The HOUSE makes the ruling not the SPEAKER.

    When someone raises a question of privelege they must identify a problem and include a remedy (a motion).

    The speaker rules whether their questions is OUT OF ORDER or NOT.

    He makes no ruling as to whether privelege has actually been violated or not.

    That is up to the full house to decide when they vote upon the motion.

    ReplyDelete
  112. The full house votes upon the motion only if the speaker rules the question of privelege to be in order.

    If its out of order the process stops there.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Then why you driveling idiot did the Speaker state he would RULE on the question of privilege later ??


    You can't even read !!!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Peter he's going to rule on whether Derek Lee can introduce his motion or not.

    ReplyDelete
  115. What the speaker will NOT be doing (and this is where you are mistaken) is ruling that the gov't is in contempt or that privilege has been violated.

    Speaker makes no such ruling.

    Only rules whether Derek Lee presents a prima facie case that privilege is violated.

    Here's a link to the definition of prima facie for you to learn what the term means:

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

    Here's the relvent part of the article I just linked to;

    "Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling."

    Its like an American grand jury. Speaker is ruling whether Derek Lee presents a strong enough case to present it to the house for a vote on his motion.

    He is not ruling whether Derek Lee is right or wrong. Whether the gov't is in contempt or has violated privilege.

    He makes no such ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Peter,

    For what it is worth, I know you interprtation is correct.

    Shadow, you have it ass backwards.

    I would try and explain but I know it would be pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  117. 49 steps please read the provided link to Parliament's website.

    There it lays out the 2 step process, the 4 requirements, what the speaker is and is not ruling upon.

    Don't make yourself look foolish by jumping into a conversation and taking cheap shots at people w/o actually doing your homework or offering an arguement.

    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.