Thursday, April 15, 2010

New Ekos Poll: 2.4-pt Conservative Lead

EKOS's weekly poll shows a drop for the Conservatives in the wake of the Guergis affair, which seems to be becoming stranger by the day.Compared to last week's polling, the Conservatives have dropped 2.2 points to 31.4%. The Liberals took advantage, gaining 1.7 points. They now stand at 29.0%. The New Democrats also gained, 0.5 points to 16.4%. The Bloc Québécois is down 0.8 points nationally while the Greens are down 0.6 points to 11.1%. "Other" gained by 1.5 points to 3.3%.

In EKOS's analysis, they say that polling closed to a tie between the Liberals and Conservatives over the last few days. The scandal might be having an effect, and it will be interesting to see what the results will be next week. Of course, whether it will have any long-term effect is another question entirely. My gut says it won't, but also that it just makes it all the harder for the Tories to gain the votes they need to surpass their 2008 electoral result.

In Ontario, the Liberals have gained give points and stand at 36.6%, followed by the Conservatives at a very low 31.1% (down nine points). The NDP is up one point to 16.5%. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 38.7%, followed by the Conservatives at 29.9% (down eight points). In Ottawa, the Conservatives have dropped 11 points to 41.0% but still lead. The NDP is up 15 points to 21.1%.

In Quebec, the Bloc drops four points but is still in front with 34.7%. The Liberals are steady with 24.1%, while the Conservatives are down one to 16.0%. The NDP gains two to 12.3%. In Montreal, the Bloc leads with 36.3%.

In British Columbia, the Tories have gained three points and re-gained the lead with 32.5%. The Liberals are up six to 25.7% and the NDP is down six to 24.3%. The Greens have dropped five to 12.9%. In Vancouver, the Conservatives lead a three-way race with 30.5%.

In the other regions, the Conservatives narrowly lead in Atlantic Canada with 37.2% and in Alberta with 59.5% (not so narrow there). A lot of movement in the Prairies, likely due to the sample size. The Conservatives are up nine to 41.6%, the Liberals are down 11 to 24.1%, and the NDP is up five to 23.8%.


The Conservatives would win 67 seats in the West with this poll. They'd also win 32 in Ontario, 7 in Quebec, and 11 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 117.

The Liberals would win 18 seats in the West, 57 in Ontario, 16 in Quebec, and 19 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 110.

The Bloc, though down in support but facing weaker opposition, wins 50 seats.

The NDP win 10 seats in the West, 17 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 2 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 31.

Could the Conservatives form a government with only 117 MPs? Unlikely. Rather, we'd probably be looking at an NDP-backed Ignatieff government with these sorts of numbers. And while the Liberals stand to pick up a lot of seats with a poll like this, they still can't be happy with 29% support.

66 comments:

  1. There is no doubt I think that the Liberals would form the government with these numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eric:

    Really interesting contrast to the I-R Poll out earlier this week.

    Question becomes who is the more accurate ??

    ReplyDelete
  3. The two polls were taken over different days, so it isn't entirely fair to compare the two. With the MOE and all, the IR wasn't too problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder why Ekos still surveyed less than their usual 2,500? I don't think it affects the results much, but still.

    Anyways, with this kind of result, a coalition would almost be second nature. Harper couldn't stay on after a loss of 24 seats and pretty much government. It'd almost be an affront!

    Those Ontario numbers impress me the most. I'll be swimming in red around the Golden Horseshoe to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter I don't mind answering that.

    I-R poll was more credible. Anyone with Greens over 10% stretches the imagination. Then of course this:

    Other: 3.3 (+1.5)

    Really ? What was behind that huge surge. Never mind the fact that other parties will get less then 1% next election, just like in every other election.


    Regardless, a bad Tory result. We'll see if the Iggy election speculation starts heating up again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CBC

    "was conducted from April 7 until Tuesday,"

    Isn't that an overlap ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Guergis-gate and Jaffer-gate are the gift that keeps on giving - and it also creates yet another example of Harper's obsession with secrecy and deviousness unparalleled since the time of Nixon. I think that Tory numbers go down every time the channel gets changed to shady Tory tactics and secrecy. It wasn't just the latest revelations of the family values Tory party being honeycombed with high-flying cabinet ministers doing cocaine and and partying with escorts. What about the latest revelations about the Information Commissioner giving the government a failing grade for being so untransparent and making it so difficult for people to access any information? What about the latest revelations about the Afghan detainees. You put all this in the context of the manipulations around prorogation and it all fits together. On top of that, the Harper government is devoid of any vision and so busy playing around with little tactical games that they have nothing else to put in the window.

    Canada is now polarized along a fault line named Helena Guergis and her dead-beat husband. Those who approve of her are the Tory base. Those who disapprove of her support all the other parties.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shadow: I-R poll was more credible. Anyone with Greens over 10% stretches the imagination.

    Looking at the graph at the bottom of page 3 of the Ekos survey, 11.1% for the Greens looks dead on. (Last week's number appeared inflated as I observed at the time.) If the writ was dropped tomorrow, the Green vote would be somewhere between 9.5% and 11% depending on GPC campaign execution. Come the actual election we'll see this fall, the range will be a few ticks higher.

    Then of course this:
    Other: 3.3 (+1.5)
    Really ? What was behind that huge surge.


    It wasn't a surge; last week's "Other" was anomalously low. Again, look at the trend graph. "Other" does seem to be edging slowly up. The word "disgust" pops into my mind. As does the phrase, "negative politics".

    Never mind the fact that other parties will get less then 1% next election, just like in every other election.

    Indeed they will, but in large part because fringe party campaign budgets, organization and GOTV are virtually nonexistent.

    The sound of the lash on the dead horse has frequencies inaudible to some, but polls are not predictors of final vote tallies. They report voter preferences. The two are not the same, and it's a mistake to delegate the mapping between them to the pollster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harper would be done with these numbers.

    However it is not EKOS which puts the cons at 31% it is reality.

    I predict the next batch of polls to come out will have the cons at around the 30-32% range.

    That is just plain reality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why can't the Greens support be over 10% Shadow?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Éric: A lot of movement in the Prairies, likely due to the sample size.

    Especially in my favourite demographic, the under-25s. Remember how none of them would vote Tory last week? Well this week they've seen the light, and 56.6% back the CPC. Zero to hero in seven easy days.

    Oh, with a MOE of 32.7% based on a sample size of 9.

    The BC Green drop of 5% and the Quebec Bloc drop of 4% are in the same category. Some tea leaves aren't worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Actually Shadow since they overlap the question becomes which is more accurate? And since the EKOS uses a larger number of respondents I would say it is closer to reality.

    N.B. Look at the Greens as being "None Of The Above" and you find their rightful place.

    IR Apr 6-8
    EKOS Apr 7-13

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter the sample size is irrelevent if your methedology is bad.

    A large sample just compounds the problem, they could sample 10,000 people and the inclusion of the choice of "other" would still be an embarrasing problem for them.

    The week EKOS included that option there was a drop in CPC support greater then the gain for Other. And we already know EKOS over samples Greens.

    Basically take this poll, add other to CPC, subtract 3 from the Greens and give that to the Tories and you have a clear picture of true levels of support:

    CPC 37.7, LPC 29, NDP 16.4.

    An 8.4% spread! Down slightly from the 10 point spread of IR but that's to be expected after the bad Geurgis news.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eric:

    I-R does 1000 polls in three days = 300+ per day

    EKOS does 1550 in 7 days = 200+ per day.

    I-R has to be going right across the country in those 3 days.

    EKOS however can, as an example, start on the West Coast and step east each day.

    I'm wondering if that is why they are different. That events get thrown into their polls much more than say I-R ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The question, my opposition friends is - wiil the CPC losses be sustained this time or will this be a mere bump in the road. Nanos said the LPOC needed a scandal. They have it. Now can they take the lead?

    As for who would head up the government should this result come to pass it would seem to depend on the Bloc. If they voted in favour of Harper the CPC remains the government. Unlikely but certainly possible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. --- Basically take this poll, add other to CPC, subtract 3 from the Greens and give that to the Tories and you have a clear picture of true levels of support:

    Those are some pretty ridiculous assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter: N.B. Look at the Greens as being "None Of The Above" and you find their rightful place.

    This is certainly the wishful thinking of many older party supporters, but there's little evidence for it. NOTA voters end up in "Other" or "Undecided". Greens are actively supporting an approach to politics.

    In round figures, for every three Tory or Grit supporter there's a Green. For every three Dippers there are two Greens. And for every Bloquiste, there's a Green. Over time, these ratios are decreasing (apart from the recent Green-Bloc crossover). Greens aren't the marginal and disaffected; there are simply too many.

    Green growth has been slow and steady unlike the Reform/CA and Wildrose Alliance, but that makes it more real and reasoned, not less. What we're seeing is sustainable politics, not a flash-in-the-pan tantrum.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Éric Those are some pretty ridiculous assumptions.

    I'd hesitate to use that adjective. Just think of them as the application of bistromathics to poll-space.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Basically take this poll, add other to CPC, subtract 3 from the Greens and give that to the Tories and you have a clear picture of true levels of support:

    Would that be called the Shadow "trick" for "hiding the decline"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will offer my own analogy ala Shadow.

    IR was obviously an outlier, so take 10 points of the CPC number in that poll, give the 10 points to the Liberals, and there is the true picture.

    I say Liberals are really at about 37% and the tories at about 29% because obviously, a lot of green support belongs to the Liberals.

    So using the Shadow logic I have given you the proper poll results.

    ReplyDelete
  21. John:

    I disagree actually. Talked to a lot of people lately and they cannot figure out why the Green numbers go up. Suggest that maybe that represents NOTA and they are immediately agreeing.

    There is something going on out there and until the polls give us a NOTA category I firmly believe at least part of the Green numbers actually represent NOTA.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One of the (many) reasons why I'm so sceptical of the Green numbers that Ekos reports is that there is no valid explanation for why the Green party would actually be doing any better than they did in the last election. In the year leading up to the 2008 election, there was (by Green standards) and orgy of media attention being paid to them due to the novelty factor, and the crazy notion that Elizabeth may was an attractive figure and all the publicity around the shady May/Dion deal in Central Nova, PLUS environmental issues were all anyone was talking about.

    Compare that to the current situation. Environmental issues have vanished off the radar screen. The mainstream media has lost all interest in the the Green party and they I honestly have not seen ANY reference to the Green party or to May in months. Honestly, is there even 1 Canadian in a thousand who could name anyone in the Green party besides Ellie May?

    I'm left with the theory that the only reason that Ekos has support for them being higher is (counter-intuitively) precisely because they are getting no publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What really happened:

    I-R starts polling on the Wed and closes down on the Friday. Harper fires Guergis on the Friday. Thus most people wouldn't have heard of it at all.

    EKOS starts on the Thursday and polls over the weekend to the following Tuesday.

    Full impact of the Guergis affair is taken into account.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Green supporters aren't actually crossing over to the Tories.

    They're staying home. Same with OTHER. These are folks who aren't serious about the political process and a just voicing dissaproval.

    Last election EKOS was bang on with Liberal, NDP, and BQ numbers but was -3 CPC, +3 Greens.

    EKOS weights to census but not to past turnout figures. Younger voters stay home (Green), Older voters turn out (CPC).

    Also everyone knows that the CPC has a superior organization, more money, and hence a better GOTV operation.

    Formula for all EKOS polls from now on will be Others to CPC +3, -3 for Greens.

    Its a set of perfectly sound assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Peter: Talked to a lot of people lately and they cannot figure out why the Green numbers go up. Suggest that maybe that represents NOTA and they are immediately agreeing.

    Did you talk to Greens? And in the end, does it matter?

    I moved from voting for a traditional party to active Green support in part because I was fed up with business-as-usual politics and especially environmental inaction. That was a couple of elections ago. I like to feel that I've made a significant contribution to the success of our candidates since then.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One data point, i.e. EKOS dart-throw in 2008, is not a sound basis for such an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John:
    Did you talk to Greens? And in the end, does it matter?

    I moved from voting for a traditional party to active Green support in part because I was fed up with business-as-usual politics and especially environmental inaction.


    You just answered your own point !! If you are fed up with current national politics then you go look for something else. NOTA isn't available so you look for something with no real chance !! Voila !! Greens.

    ReplyDelete
  28. No, John still votes Green.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My assumptions are sound as well.

    A lot of people in Canada, do not like Harper.

    They just tolerate him on most days.

    I will assume that things are going to get a lot worse for the tories.

    I will also assume a lot of people in Canada, want to see the back of Harper.

    I will also assume that voters will turn out, in record numbers to turf Harper, and the cons out of office.

    This is all a perfectly logical set of assumptions based on my own opinions of course.

    But if other people assume themselves to always be right, I can assume the same of myself.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ... and if you take EKOS' Green number; multiply it by pi; add the year of Confederation; then divide by the MOE, you get part of Helena Guergis' phone number.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Assumptions must be made. Taking these polls at face value is useless.

    Peter said that after looking at the EKOS results IR was an outlier.

    Eric tried to explain it away with MOE and the slightly, ever so slight, difference in polling dates.

    But we're seeing a consistent difference here so we can forget MOE and the polling dates weren't all that difference.


    Quite frankly somebody is wrong. Either EKOS or IR.

    I've made my call. Peter has made his.

    My assumptions are perfectly sound using countless data points. 08 is just an example, we're seeing consistently high Green numbers from EKOS that make no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  32. DL: One of the (many) reasons why I'm so sceptical of the Green numbers that Ekos reports is that there is no valid explanation for why the Green party would actually be doing any better than they did in the last election... Environmental issues have vanished off the radar screen.

    Open any newspaper and see how far you get before the first story using the word "green". For extra points, look for the word in ads and on product labels.

    The Green Party has 24/7 unpaid advertising in all media precisely because environmental issues haven't vanished. They may be the elephant in the room for traditional politicians, but increasing numbers of people are becoming deeply concerned about the peanut breath. Even when the environment isn't the top issue for all Canadians, the Green Party represents those Canadians who put it first.

    This is unpalatable to some with traditional party support baked into their DNA. However, don't assume that Tory denial validates Dipper denial and vice versa. Also, never underestimate the power of an idea whose time has come.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Eric:

    No, John still votes Green.

    Sure he does but the point I was pursuing is how he got there.

    Fed up with the major parties is becoming more common in the West so the idea of registering a protest vote is not unusual. The Greens can certainly be looked at as a "protest" so why not?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sure, but if those protest votes are actually votes, then it doesn't matter what motivation is behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eric:

    Sure, but if those protest votes are actually votes, then it doesn't matter what motivation is behind them.

    Up to a point yes. But they are extremely volatile unlike the more hard core major party supporters. So if something comes along in say an election which attracts these people they are likely to switch to one of the major parties. But it is unpredictable and that's the rub.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Last election the Liberals dropped 8 pts over the campaign.

    If there was a possible Liberal non-plurality minority government as suggested as likely with this poll it changes the ballot question.

    Would the Liberal vote switch to CPC with the prospect of Layton in cabinet?

    Would it be a Liberal PM or an NDP PM. Layton has much higher leadership rating.

    Rae fits with the NDP (basically is one), but Ignatieff's (take away the Liberal label and personalities) position on most things would have him far more comfortable in the CPC cabinet than a NDP cabinet.

    Ignatieff's sane stance on letting Quebec tweak with Health care surcharges was shot down by the NDP back room boys running the Liberal party.

    I could see a disastrous Liberal election campaign where part of the Liberal party was running on the NDP platform.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Éric: Sure, but if those protest votes are actually votes, then it doesn't matter what motivation is behind them.

    Case in point: how did the current government get into power? Does the word "positive" figure largely in any credible explanation? Following this thought, are votes driven by "Not a Leader" or "Just Visiting" real or protest?

    The most important question is not where supporters come from; it's whether they stay. Green issues are steadily growing in importance and mind share. So is Green support. It isn't "volatile"; that word could describe Tory and Grit polls since the last election, but definitely not Green progress.

    Given this, Peter may need guidance on one point:

    NOTA isn't available so you look for something with no real chance !!

    Patience, Grasshopper.

    ReplyDelete
  38. BC

    If there is a Spring election it will be ought on the Guergis affair, the rotten performance and cost of the EAP, plus the Govt's refusal to bend to the Will of Parliament.

    All strong issues despite the spinmeisters in the PMO.

    If it's a Fall election then the scene will be entirely different.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Iggy's flip flop on health premiums has completely destroyed the recent flirtation between the federal Liberals and the Quebec PLQ.

    Supposedly the reasoning was that it was worth throwing him under the bus, as opposed to McGuinty/Campbell over HST, because he is very unpopular.

    That might be the case (at the moment) but he has a very strong provincial machine that handed the Tories their recent by-election victory.

    Next election we can expect Charest to stay in line with Harper. No complaints on the arts. Same with Danny Williams. No ABC.

    Provincial machines quietly working in the background to ensure some surprise CPC victories.

    Important to have a seat at the governing table!

    ReplyDelete
  40. OTTAWA-Following today's EKOS poll which indicated that "Other" would obtain 3.3% of the vote if a federal election were to be held today, the Christian Heritage Party, Communist Party, Communist Party (Marxist Leninist), Marijuana Party, neorhino.ca, Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party, and Western Block Party have signed an MOU to merge to form an "Other" Party. Communist Party leader Miguel Figueroa stated that "Clearly, our worker's struggle cannot go on by obtaining 0.05% of the vote. We stand side by side with our reactionary religious and bourgeois comrades to provide a true choice for the 3.3% of comrades who desire an Other choice." Sources also confirm that logos and symbols are being developed, and candidates are being recruited in the next federal election.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Peter

    I am just saying that whatever should be the election issues:

    Canada's performance in the world wide recession, the economy growing, the debt being paid down by the recovering economy and the huge unplanned influx of petro tax dollars to the govt, the impending labour shortage and impact of full employment, national security commission, the inequality of private vs public pension plans and benefits, the immigration revisions, the exit from A'stan, bringing democracy and mainstreaming first nations, working on the obvious failure of equalization where one province gets $ to provide far more generous social programs that the contributing provinces, establishing a fair workable relationship with Quebec.

    I hope that we don't end up like Ontario and get side tracked by minor issues like government committees being dysfunctional in a minority parliament... duh. or a personal melt down by a junior cabinet minster. The country needs the more important issues dealt with.

    Sorry for the run on, but my point is that if it looks like a Liberal/NDP government is a likely outcome (based on the stances/policies on the important issues) that there would be a very difficult time keeping Liberal support from bleeding to the CPC to keep the NDP away from power.

    There would be over half of the Liberal voters that would be very uncomfortable with an NDP Cabinet Minister.

    The Liberals, along with other problems, are still paying for letting Jack write a budget under Paul Martin.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shadow,

    You accused Ignatieff of throwing an abortion hand grenade.

    What about Bruinooge and his private members bill?

    Is that wise on the part of the CPC?

    I will predict right now, with a good amount of certainty, that good old Rod, can kiss his seat goodbye.

    It is important to have a seat at the government table, thats why in the next election a lot of people in Quebec, and Ontario, will vote Liberal.

    To have a seat at the government table.

    ReplyDelete
  43. BC Voice of Reason: [I]f it looks like a Liberal/NDP government is a likely outcome (based on the stances/policies on the important issues) that there would be a very difficult time keeping Liberal support from bleeding to the CPC to keep the NDP away from power.

    This line plays very well with the Tory base who threaten their children with Dipper hands on the levers of power if they don't behave. It's not clear how well it resonates with swing voters. They don't all see the NDP as nightmares in orange.

    Try shopping this statement outside your normal comfort circle. The results might be surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shadow,

    I would like to provide you with an example of Bruinooge's IQ.

    In one part of the bill he words it "Pregnancy of a female person"

    I guess he failed sex education class. and doesn't realize that males can't have children.

    ReplyDelete
  45. They don't all see the NDP as nightmares in orange.
    The biggest problem when the NDP ran Ontario was they did not have enough real cabinet material. The second biggest was that Bob Rae could not effectively control them or the unions.

    But a couple of NDP ministers in the federal government wouldn't be a bad thing. "Mean old Iggy" will be the excuse when the more radical NDP policies are not adopted. While a few NDP ministers will keep the Liberals honest. I'd put May in environment if she had a seat. She needs real governing experience to combine with her Green outlook to come up with some sound policy. I'd even consider a cabinet post for Clement, since he probably knows where all the skeletons are.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ls
    The biggest problem when the NDP ran Ontario was they did not have enough real cabinet material.

    Which is precisely Harper's problem, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  47. 49 steps i'd question your IQ if you're seriously suggesting Bruinooge doesn't know women have babies and men don't.

    That's just legalese, even if the wording seems weird legislation needs to be as specific as possible to avoid confusion.

    Such language specifies that a man cannot be a victim of coercive abortion. So its not a crime to badger your son into telling his girlfriend to get an abortion, for instance. But it would be if its your daughter.


    Anyways if you're pro-choice then you SHOULD support this legislation.

    Women who don't want abortions shouldn't be pressured into having them. They should be given the financial support they need to carry their baby to term until it can be put up for adoption.

    Let's be clear - coercive abortion is rape. The fact that the majority of aborted babies are women (in asia) and minorities (in the west) suggests that this terrible racist and sexist genocidal practice involves economic conditions instead of a true choice for family planning.

    Such social and economic injustices should be addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The local Liberal candidate in the riding should make it clear who Bruinooge is and what his main concern in the HoC seems to be. Then Bruinooge would be easily defeated.

    Hoping Pierre Lemieux in GPR has the same fate.

    I wonder how many members of the secret anti-choice caucus are women? Few, I'd imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  49. From the Star article:

    Bruinooge, who hopes that debate on his “coerced abortion” bill will start in the Commons in coming months, said he was moved to draw up this legislation because of the 2007 murder of a young woman in his riding, Roxanne Fernando.

    Fernando was killed after her boyfriend attempted to force her into having an abortion and she backed away from the decision. Bruinooge says he’s satisfied that Fernando’s killers have been punished severely, but he’s hoping that a more specific law against coerced abortions would deter similar crimes in the future.


    Can someone explain to me what Bruinooge is trying to say? It seems to me this law would have played no role at all in this crime. If the severe punishments in place for killing someone didn't deter this person, it's unlikely Bruinooge's law would've had any more luck.

    A transparent attempt to sentimentalize the reason for this law. Too bad it has enormous plot holes in it.

    This bill seems to be removing choice from the man. One wonders how vague "coercion" can be defined, and whether these charges can be laid by the woman alone. Are we going to start seeing men falsely charged if a relationship turns sour after an abortion?

    It is clearly an attempt to chip away at the rights we currently have in place, which is the SOP of the anti-choice caucus. Any other motivations they may state are false. Concern for the mother is feigned, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Shadow,

    Bruinooge's goal is to get abortion out lawed in Canada.

    He is using the coercion crap, to intimidate doctors, into not providing women with a safe abortion.

    This is only his first step.

    He has been on this kick ever since he got to office.

    That is what this "coercion" crap is all about.

    He wants to intimidate abortion providers, with the threat of prison.

    I love the CPC, throw a doctor in jail for providing a woman with a safe abortion, but not respect the will of parliament and hand over unredacted documents.

    In essence breaking the law themselves. Not respecting the Canadian constitution.

    Letting creeps like Jaffer and Guergis prowl free.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Eric,

    Bruinooge is my MP.

    His activities are well known. He is a waste of time.

    He is garnering negative headlines for his wasting time on something that is none of his business.

    He is running against a well known Liberal, Terry Duguid.

    You can take it to the bank, he is going down.

    People are fed up with him.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Eric I believe Cheryl Gallant is the most strident anti-abortion MP in Ottawa. Sarah Palin across the border. There is certainly zero polling data to suggest pro-life activists tend to be men and annecdotally they tend to be women.

    Regardless women are under represented in Ottawa and politics in general so I wouldn't be surprised if a pro-life caucus, or any caucus on any issue, was dominated by men.


    As for your suggestion that voters don't know MPs are pro-life that seems laughable.

    Openly pro-life MPs are rather rare. The question always comes up one way or another, same with gay marriage.

    Voters know whether their MPs are pro-life. In some ridings it doesn't matter, in other ridings its a plus.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eric you're being illogical.

    By definition its IMPOSSIBLE for a mother to coerce herself into getting an abortion.

    If that's the case then how on earth could this chip away at abortion rights ?

    Since the people actually getting an abortion can never be charged.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Cheryl Gallant, what can you say about her.

    Is this the same twit that compared the beheading of US contractor Nicholas Berg's behaedaing in Iraq, to abortions performed in Canada.

    The same idiot, that wants sexual orientation not to be protected under Canada's hate laws, because she feels it encourages pedophilia.

    That Cheryl Gallant?

    I wouldn't use her as an example for anything.

    Unless as an example of a complete right wing whack job.

    ReplyDelete
  55. More on Guergis: All is not as it seemed!

    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2913135

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hi Earl. I think a bit of a backlash is starting.

    A lot of people, media + opposition, are going to look very foolish when the smoke clears.

    (Provided there's nothing to any of this. If there is then they'll look OK).

    Sympathies for Geurgis and her two miscarriages. It certainly puts her breakdown into perspective.

    When you're trying to have children every year that goes by makes it more difficult. The PEI incident was her birthday, it only makes sense that she'd be a wreck.

    ReplyDelete
  57. --- A lot of people, media + opposition, are going to look very foolish when the smoke clears.

    You might want to add Stephen Harper to that list, if he booted her out of caucus on the word of that PI.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 49
    Cheryl Gallant, what can you say about her.

    Is this the same twit that compared the beheading of US contractor Nicholas Berg's behaedaing in Iraq, to abortions performed in Canada.

    The same idiot, that wants sexual orientation not to be protected under Canada's hate laws, because she feels it encourages pedophilia.

    That Cheryl Gallant?

    I wouldn't use her as an example for anything.

    Unless as an example of a complete right wing whack job.


    And guess who the MP is in my riding ?? :-((

    ReplyDelete
  59. Eric:
    You might want to add Stephen Harper to that list, if he booted her out of caucus on the word of that PI.

    Particularly since he offered it first to the Liberals who said No Thanks !!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Harper has stated today that he will not support Bruinooge's private members bill. It is DOA! Stupid man. Giving the LPOC what it so clearly wants. Harper like him or not is on the right side of the issue!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hi Shadow: I hope you are correct. She has my sympathy now. The big if is the allegations which appear shaky at best!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Earl

    Look at the Toronto Star of today for another instance of Guergis getting it wrong !!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Eric I heard this lame storyline on At Issue last night.

    Harper did the right thing.

    First he was taking her too long to kick her out. Now he acted too fast.

    The Liberals are of two minds on this. Wayne Easter vs Warren Kinsella, Ignatieff vs Pearson, attack dogs vs sympathetic human beings.

    But the standard has always been clear.

    When a member of the CPC is under investigation or allegations have been made they step down until such time as their name is cleared.

    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.