Wednesday, April 7, 2010

New HD Poll: 3-pt Conservative Lead

Harris-Decima has a new poll out, showing a closer race between the Conservatives and the Liberals than a month ago.The Conservatives have dropped one point to 32%, while the Liberals have remained steady at 29%. The New Democrats are up one point to 17%, while the Greens are steady and the Bloc Québécois has dropped one point at the national level.

Despite their weakness nationally, the Liberals are doing very well in the most important province: Ontario. They've dropped only one point to 38%, but the Conservatives are down three to 32%. That is a troublesome number for the Tories. A gain of three points for the NDP, now at 17%, is good news for them.

In Quebec, the Bloc drops five points but is still very strong at 39%. The Liberals are up one point but are only at 23%, well below where they need to be. The Conservatives and NDP have each gained one point to 16% and 11%, respectively.

In British Columbia, the Tories are down two to 33%, putting the NDP within range at 29%, up four points. The Liberals are up one to 22%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have gained five points and lead with 39%. In Alberta, the Conservatives lead with 53% while the NDP has dropped five points to 9%. In the Prairies, the Tories are solidly ahead with 49%. The Liberals have dropped five points here.

The Conservatives win 69 seats out West, 33 in Ontario, 6 in Quebec, and 8 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 116. Their weak Ontario numbers sink them.

The Liberals win 11 seats in the West, 57 in Ontario, 15 in Quebec, and 20 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 103.

The Bloc, taking advantage of weak Conservative and Liberal numbers, wins 52 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 15 seats in the West, 16 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 4 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 37.

The Liberal and NDP numbers are significant, because together they hold 140 seats, much more than the Tories at 116. It is difficult to imagine the Conservatives governing with only 116 seats, and with the NDP outnumbering the Liberals in the West, the NDP would have a good argument for having an important role in an Ignatieff government.

116 comments:

  1. Conservatives are blue.

    116 beats 103

    Scream illegal coaliton.

    Harper knows the game, he fights,
    he wins.

    Liberals dead, they just haven't brain to figure.

    Facts are facts,words have meanings.

    Game is up for Liberals.

    Harper doing great

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, I didn't know that Ontario number was so big. That's surprising - and excellent. And yes, I do that in full Monty Burns style.

    No Green seats yet though, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think we've entered a period where no party will want to risk an election.

    But depending on what happens with the speaker we may be forced into one anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does anyone else get the feeling we're coming to a crossroads soon?

    I don't mean a crossroads where the Liberals fall into third place. That isn't happening. But its becoming increasingly clear that unless something happens where either all three opposition parties collapse (whether its Lib, NDP or Bloc, or Con, NDP or Bloc), no party will get a majority government unless they actually work in tandem.

    I hate to say it, but a coalition is an option thats becoming increasingly pretty to look at. Damnit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @49 steps "Harper is doing great".

    Delusional. No one is doing "great"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Volkov why not just learn to enjoy minority governments ?

    Why should the Liberals bother with coalitions and accords. You were once a proud party.

    A Liberal minority gov't or nothing should be your goal.

    Any other arrangement will strengthen the hand of Bob Rae and those who believe that a "unite the left" strategy is needed.

    If we polarize left to right in this country a lot of you guys in the center are going to be in a weird place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Left Hand,

    I am a Liberal.

    That post was sarcasm.

    If you were a regular here, you would have known that immediately.

    I do not support Harper, in any way shape or form.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shadow,

    It's called responding to the facts on the ground. There's only so much you can do when you have five fairly strong parties vying for seats, two parties vying for power, but one of them presents a united front against the other.

    If I had my way, I'd never enter into a coalition. Accord, maybe, but probably not. However, I don't get my way. I, and the Liberals, and the NDP, need to look at the situation and ask ourselves what is the best way to solve it. The idea of a coalition is mighty promising. Because really, we can't control the voters, we can only adapt to them.

    And the polarization thing doesn't work here. What you're talking about is ideological polarization, which is different from party polarization. When the parties polarize, they tend to become more moderate. Look at the Manitoba NDP. They're not called "Red Dippers" for nothing.

    The thing party polarization does is that it disenfranchises the more extremist voters, not the centrist voters. Extremist parties are bred out of polarized systems, not the other way around. This is why you'll be hard pressed to find a centrist party in a polarized electorate making gains except in circumstances of party apathy and/or protest votes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Volkov why not just learn to enjoy minority governments?"

    Because minority governments are bigger governments. Do you really think Harper wouldn't be governing very differently (and better) if he had a majority?

    If the country can't produce majority governments on a regular basis, then the country needs to be broken into smaller pieces that can.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is, I should say polarized electorates which are mature. Places like the US, UK, France, etc., where the electorate is polarized but the two competing parties are essentially clustered around the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Welcome to the 21st century.

    The era of coalition Govts. Watch the current UK election closely. They to could be in coalition territory !

    This is basically the norm on the continent. Now it's arriving here.

    Experience with something much like this in the past has proven succesful

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Liberals need to start getting some of that NDP vote and bring their seat count down big time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter,

    It might be a reality, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

    Besides, the UK is a very different situation. They may end up in a hung parliament, but only because of the weakness of the Conservatives and their inability to get a huge swing from Labour. In the UK, there is only three parties which really take up any major share of the vote.

    That's a different situation from here, where we have five parties that take up big shares. Actually, the more apt comparison would be with the electorate in New Zealand. Even though their system is different, the parties all take up fairly big shares, while only two parties are actually able to form the government. They're forced to enter into coalitions or deal all the time. Neither party actually has a chance of winning a majority.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DL I see you choose not respond to my post:


    Earl said...
    Hey DL while I commend the responsible action Dexter took on the NS deficit I do note that he broke his promise on tax increases. Now that we have Campbell in BC, a putative Liberal, McGuinty in ON, a real Liberal and Dexter in NS all breaking campaign promises on taxes maybe we can stop trying to attack the Harper Conservatives for the EI hike which is mandated by law. Every party breaks promises out of necessity. Not to do so would reflect a closed mind and not a flexible one.

    07 April, 2010 11:53

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter,

    I read that article.

    I left my thoughts on it on the other thread.

    Harper is involved in a major cover up, and I think we know why.

    ReplyDelete
  16. " Neither party actually has a chance of winning a majority. "

    Guess what?? You are actually describing us !!

    Plus there are only three National parties, not five.

    The Bloc is NOT a National party and the Greens are irrelevant!

    Our problem is the strength of the Bloc and that 50 seats they usually take.

    That's majority GONE !! No matter which of the main two leads !

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Earl,

    I read your post on the other thread in response to mine.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    You are right, the Liberals do not have clean hands, and are not choir boys, in terms of being negative.

    I just feel Harper has raised it to a whole new level.

    So we will agree to disagree on that score.

    I always enjoy an exchange of views with you.

    Your Humble Servant,

    49 Steps

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Experience with something much like this in the past has proven succesful"

    Successful in what way? Look at the size of the governments in continental Europe. Look at their rates of job creation and economic growth.

    Germany hasn't created a net private sector job since 1986.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's what I see happening. Next election we end up just about where we are now barring some interesting developments for either side.

    Harper will correctly campaign against a coalition of the LPC and the NDP with Bloc support. The people of Canada will have a clear choice. Iggy can deny it. Jack or his successor won't. So we will have a choice. It may be that Harper is repudiated. It may be that Harper gets his elusive majority. The issue of a coalition will hang over the campaign unless another dominating issue emerges. Right now I don't see one. As Nanos said the Liberals have to hope for a major scandal. So if we end up going to polls with conditions about the same as they are now do we end up with a coalition? I think not. Other views will no doubt vary.

    ReplyDelete
  20. so if every party "breaks promises out of necessity" what difference does it make what Harper or Ignatieff or Layton or Duceppe say about what they will or won't do after the next election if no one has a majority?? In the end i think we all have to vote for the party and leader we like best and trust them to make the right decisions post election. I will vote NDP because I am confident they will not prop up Harper indefinitely in exchange for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If Harper actually spends the entire campaign say its "me or a coalition of Liberals, Socialists and Separatists" then how do we interpret the results of the election if a majority of seats goes to "liberals, socialists and separatists"?? To ask the question is to answer it. Either Harper gets a majority or he is toast. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 49
    "Paul Champ, says NDS, can't be trusted with detainees transfered into it's authority by Canadian soldiers, and the Conservative Government is well aware of this.

    HMM!!

    What does it smell like to you?

    Harper is going to fight tooth and nail, to hang onto those documents.

    And we can pretty much guess why can't we?"

    Oh I don't think we need a crystal ball for this. There is no doubt the Govt is "dirty" over this the only question being "How Dirty" ??

    That they knew is a given after that revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. For those interested in following the UK election I have a pretty good polling site:


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-polling

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ira, just three words

    National Health Care

    That's the easiest one to comprehend. Wouldn't have existed if left to the two main parties. Douglas price for supporting Pearson !

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's time for all party leaders to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Earl,

    I have a different view, er, sort of.

    Depending on which way the wind blows for the election, I think it'll be a battle over two things; accountability and vision, unless the economy messes up again before then.

    I won't make predictions on the outcome, but if there does appear to be something whereby the Liberals and NDP have to work together, Iggy and Layton will work to cut off Harper's line and specifically exclude Bloc support. Its the only way it will be palatable to the public. I don't think Canadians are really against the idea of a coalition government, they're just against the idea of the Bloc in a coalition government.

    I've never really realized how much hatred is reserved for the Bloc in the minds of English voters before. During canvassing, a lady walked up to our candidate and said, "if I vote for you, I want you to work on taking away federal funding for the Bloc." Flat out said it. Never seen that before.

    So, Harper can wail about the Bloc, but the Liberals and NDP say, we'll do this without the Bloc included, I think it will go over a lot better.

    However, thats only if the wind blows that way. If the Liberals think they can win without the NDP, it's bye-bye Dippers.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Earl,

    Ew! Guardian's polling site is atrocious. This is much better.

    ReplyDelete
  28. DL my only point was that it is not fair to be solely critical of Harper when every party, unfortunately breaks promises. Some make such promises solely for political gain knowing they will break them. I believe Harper did this with income trusts. Chretien did it with the free FTA and GST. That kind of behavior only creates cynicism in voters. Trudeau may have done the same thing with Price and Wage controls and Clark with mortgage interest deduction. That kind of behavior seems to infect every party. I wonder how Dexter could not know that tax increases would be necessary to deal with deficit but I will give him the benefit of the doubt because I don't know enough about the background.

    Everyone should do as you do and vote for the party and leader that they see best serving the nation's interests.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The reality is that when politicians break promises - they usually get away with it. Chretien promised to ditch the GST, broke his promise and still won two subsequent elections. The Liberals also won numerous elections despite having broken promises to bring in child care and won anyways. McGuinty promised no new taxes, brought in tax increases in 2004 and won re-election in 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 49 steps: thanks for your reply.
    Good fortune,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  31. 49 From CTV website

    "OTTAWA — Canadians have little confidence in either the Conservatives or Liberals to manage the economy, balance the books or reflect their values, a new poll suggests.

    Indeed, more Canadians picked "None of the above" and "Don't know" than chose any federal party on those key issues, according to The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey.

    Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg said the findings are "an indictment" of Canada's political parties and help explain why support remains tepid for both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

    The poll put the Conservatives at 32 per cent nationally, with the Liberals close behind at 29 per cent. The NDP stood at 17 per cent and the Greens at 11 per cent. "


    Knew if they put in that "None Of The Above" it would be a shocker !!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Shadow: I think we've entered a period where no party will want to risk an election.

    But depending on what happens with the speaker we may be forced into one anyways.


    We are on course for a fall election but we won't see one before then. The opposition parties are emphatically not trying to defeat the government at this time. Bluster notwithstanding, Stephen Harper won't make the contempt motions votes of confidence. He is determined to play the pleasant host to his friends at Pen Lake in late June. We're election-proof for the next few months.

    To forestall an objection, yes, Gordon Brown hit the hustings. He's in a different position on several counts. The G8 and G20 matter much less to him and the UK election will be long past by those meetings. He also stands a chance of forming the government at that point. If Harper goes to the polls, he's out unless he comes back with a majority or something very close to it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Volkov: No Green seats yet though, eh?

    Éric has a reasonable model of seat assignments in bulk, but predicting individual riding winners is a different matter. It's similar to predicting outcomes of rolling many dice versus a small number.

    That's the Green situation at this point. Because Green support is so evenly distributed across the country and between ridings, very few are in play. Three Green seats in the next Parliament would be very good with the current numbers. Status quo is entirely possible.

    When BC or Ontario hit steady Green levels of 20%, multiple Green MPs are a given. At this point, however, the error bars are large and Éric's analysis is at the wrong level to predict Green fortunes.

    If you see a recent poll for Saanich-Gulf Islands, do share it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Volkov the liberal party would move LEFT if it united with the NDP. There are no two ways about it.

    Do left-right polarized countries always hang around the middle ?

    Using your example of the US i'd say not nessecarily.

    Before Bill Clinton the democrats were nominating some pretty out there lefties for prez.

    The Republicans are entering a period where they are doing the same. The tea party thing. Sarah Palin will likely by the 2012 nominee. Marco Rubio as VP.

    More accurately i'd say one party captures the middle + base while the other party is just their base. These things move in cycles.


    Being in government tends to moderate things. Given time an NDP-Liberal alliance might move to the center.

    But you'd always be under threat of an NDP rebellion where the lefties split and you're left with a center rump. Think PC party and Reform.

    I'm just telling you Volkov if you get in bed with the NDP things are going to get pretty weird.

    You'd see some of the Grits who lean right becoming Tories.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Peter - Not really a compelling argument, given how that program has allowed the federal government to strong-arm the provinces.

    Why not let each province operate its own system as they see fit? The feds have mostly stopped funding them anyway. Why does it need to be a national system with a national bureaucracy when different regions have different preferences?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Shadow,

    I have no doubt about that, but some left-leaning Liberals might come out and support the coalition even more. And hello, the Liberals are the major partner in such an alliance - they've already been in government. Just like when the Conservatives moderated after their merger with the Tories, the same is likely to happen with any Liberal-NDP merger.

    But that is besides the point. Those who refuse to respond to the facts on the ground are doomed to a very squalid existence. You could say all the things you've said to me about the Liberals and NDP working together about the Alliance-PC merger. You're blowing it out of proportion, maybe for good reason, but still.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ira

    "Why not let each province operate its own system as they see fit? "

    One single word

    EQUALITY

    Got it ?? And of course the National Govt must control it. Only an idiot would allow every province to go off in its own direction let alone the question of portability.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think the real difference between a coalition or a straight minority is ground rules. In the former circumstance, measures are agreed to ahead of time, and support is supposed to come from the same group every time.

    A Harper style minority would be more risky and flexible. It's survival would depend not on policy agreement so much as relative popularity. I don't think it's as desirable even being a Liberal. (Ok, a lefty-Liberal, but still)

    ReplyDelete
  39. But equality doesn't have any intrinsic value. Simply being equal isn't worth anything unless that equality rpovides some other benefit (like better service, or services more responsive to demand).

    Portability is only in the Health Act because the federal government wanted an excuse to control the whole thing. I think we should throw that out and start over.

    And I'd like to point out that you didn't offer any reasons why we shouldn't let the provinces do it themselves. You simply derided the idea as idiotic, but without any basis for that.

    I await actual reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I await actual reasons. "

    You are as bad as that twit CS.

    I can't be bothered wasting my time on a brainwashed primitive

    ReplyDelete
  41. John McCain the anatomy of an unprincipled politician:


    http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip285109

    ReplyDelete
  42. Of the two of us, which one is making broad assertions of value based on buzzwords alone?

    I suggest that is greater evidence of brainwashing than me asking questions ever could be.

    What does equality give you? What do any of us get from equality? Is being equally poor better than being differently wealthy?

    I'm suggesting that the different regions of the country, since they clearly have different preferences with regard to governance (note the clear regional differences in polling and election results) would be better served by having different government services and different levels of taxation, chosen by them, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all national program which, at best, is a compromise that makes no one happy (and at worst, is the system preferred by some regions, but not others - a simple tyranny of the majority).

    Bringing the government closer to the people provides the people with government more like what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Earl,

    How right you are! You know McCain's in deep trouble when he tries to deny all those "maverick" ads from 2008!

    Its a shame, though. I don't want that Hayworth guy to win; McCain isn't great, but he isn't like Hayworth. And really, if the Tea Party can overthrow a titan like McCain, the GOP is in big trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Bringing the government closer to the people provides the people with government more like what they want.
    "

    Yes and in the case of brainwashed primitives like you that means NO Govt.

    You probably have your Tea Party membership card, believe wholeheartedly in the "Free Market" and "Trickle Down' in the face of clear facts that NONE of them work!!

    Without Govt controls and regulation we are nothing but savages, like it or lump it !!

    Discussion over.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "John McCain the anatomy of an unprincipled politician"

    Wow the guy changed some positions during decades in the senate !

    I know I don't share all the same positions from 10 years ago.

    Do you ?


    As for the maverick quote its taken out of context, like most of this is.

    He said he didn't consider himself a maverick but primarily a servant of Arizona and America above all else.

    Which is to say his actions are motivated out of doing what's best and not what goes against his party for its own sake.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hey, you know what? You don't have to defend everyone who is even remotely on "your side". And, you can admit when you or people you support have made mistakes.

    It's nice that my site has groupies, but a lot of you are beyond predictable. In fact, I could moderate these comments completely, write them all under your names, and no one would notice the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And now for something completely off topic.

    How about Princess Helena and her $880000, mortgage.

    The Liberals are asking the ethics commisioner to look into it to see if she received special treatment, other Canadians do not get.

    I also see Raitt, is involved in two investigations against her.

    I seem to recall those honest and ethical conservatives screaming bloody blue murder over Dhalla.

    They dragged her through the mud.

    I believe it is now Helena's and Raitt's turn.

    Shadow show some outrage, for gawds sake.

    Remember how outraged you were about Ignatieff mixing up Mount Pearl with St. John's?

    (As for Guergis well I wont go into what most people are thinking about where she got the money)

    Shadow likes a drama free blog.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 49
    "Shadow likes a drama free blog."

    Yes as long as it is a paean of praise for the Tories. He's so predictable !

    ReplyDelete
  49. 49 Helena got the money from an Edmonton branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia. End of story!

    http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/07/tasha-kheiriddin-the-guergis-circus-benefitting-the-tories.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  50. 49 steps you guys got blasted over that on Power Play today !

    Tom Clark ridiculed the Liberal research team for not simply calling Scotiabank.

    Turns out anyone can get the deal she got. Its a seperate line of credit they've just rolled into her mortage to cut down on the papework and legal filing fees. Everything is still asset backed at appropriate levels.

    Lol.

    Poor Wayne Easter. Glover was her usual poised self.

    She even asked to opt out of her gov't pension. Easter was busy defending his.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Volkov I would like nothing better than to see the GOP sell its soul the tea partiers. Let them embrace the fringe they have courted and encouraged for so long. Let Americans see their true colours. Then maybe the party can be taken back from the lunitic fringe and once again form a legitimate counterbalance to the Democrats

    ReplyDelete
  52. Eric if you're addressing me I defend McCain because he is honourable and would have made a better president than Barack Obama by a mile.

    Stewart took a few things, almost a decade apart, and said it was the equivalent of selling his soul. Actually a decade is a long time and political positions evolve.

    But its for comedy.

    I feel bad for people who take the Daily Show seriously, as a serious source of news.

    Earl seems to have.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Shadow I hate to disappoint you but the only people who watch Power Play, particlarly when there is no election campaign, those off us who are political junkies. What happens on there is of little consequence, although I'm pleased Wayne easter was put in his place over Helena affair. Give the women a break.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Eric I'm going to try and be less predictable! Hope that will cheer you up. LOL.

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  55. Shadow,

    Glover has asked to opt out of the MP pension plan has she?

    Just like all those other 2 faced reformers who did the same, and quietly opted back in.

    Deb Grey ring a bell to you?

    As in the words of CS, you are too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'd take the "Leave Helena Alone!" cries seriously if anyone had ever listened to the "Leave Ruby/Judy/Sheila/Marlene/Hedy Alone!" cries as well.

    But, alas, you reap what you sow, suckers.

    ReplyDelete
  57. And to point out, I don't think Glover needs a pension - she has a job already, one she can go back to easily if she isn't re-elected. Wayne Easter, on the other hand, is, well, old. He won't be doing much else after he retires ('cause he ain't losing an election, thats for sure).

    ReplyDelete
  58. Glover will end up doing what all self righteous conservatives do.

    She will quietly opt back in, if she is lucky enough to serve 6 years.

    The reformers/conservatives used to be outraged about pensions, that is until they saw the package and leapt with joy.

    Conservatives sure like throwing those rocks at everyone, but throw one back at them, and they scream at the top of their lungs like a spoiled 2 year old.

    I love the line Shadow, now trots out on Guergis, that she is only being attacked because she is a woman.

    Really? Nothing to do with her behaviour, which he still to this day sees nothing wrong with.

    Liberal woman were attacked on a regular basis by conservatives.

    Payback is a bitch aint it?

    ReplyDelete
  59. 49 I was Pearson Liberal and thought Guy Favreau got a really raw deal. I always liked Favreau and wished that Pearson had been a more ardent defender.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Why are We Still In Afghanistan?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36196464/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

    ReplyDelete
  61. Andrew Coyne on the future of the LPC:

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/07/the-end-of-the-liberal-empire/

    ReplyDelete
  62. Earl: Eric I'm going to try and be less predictable!

    Earl, you're not predictable. Civil, but not predictable. That's why I frequently blast through the bunfight comments without reading them, then stop when I get to yours.

    Back in 1984 the rn Usenet newsreader had killfiles. Those were the good old days.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 49 steps Glover TRIED to opt out but the adminstrator told her she was legally obligated to accept the pension.

    Apparently they don't want parliament to be divided into people who take pensions and those who don't.

    My guess is all those reformers you're talking about give away a large chunk of their income to charity anyways.

    All that money they're legally forced to accept probably just goes there.

    I'd like to see the system reformed to make the pension plan more modest, have it built around matching contributions, and don't have legally mandated growth - let them determine an appropriate level of risk and go into the markets like everyone else.

    Wayne Easter is opposed to that though.

    Said he's please with his gold plated pension.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Shadow,

    All those former reformers are now giving a large chunk of their pension (that they are legally obligated to take) to charity now are they.

    I suppose you have proof of that.

    As for Wayne Easter, being happy with his gold plated pension. Yes I suppose he is.

    Just like all the Conservative piggies, are happy with theirs,as well.

    I dont see Harper bringing in any legislation to change the MP's pension plan.

    Do you?

    You can correct me if I am wrong, but when Chretien was PM, he actually allowed those Reformers to opt out of the pension plan.

    Cagey old bird knew those self righteous hypocrites, would opt back in.

    How do you feel about all that.

    All that sanctimony, about the pensions, all the "I refuse my pension" Then opting back in.

    I guess the CPC really is the say one thing and do another party.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I remember reading that a large proportion, if not a majority, of those MPs who become eligible for the pension this year are Conservatives.

    So, in the same spirit of the questions asked last year about Bloc MPs and their pensions, I assume the Conservatives try all they can to avoid an election so that their MPs get their pension? Wait until 2011, then?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Pierre Polievre, will be 31, when he serves his six years.

    Now there is one gigantic reason to slash those pensions.

    I think the conservative MPs want those pensions just as much as the rest of them do.

    Even if they try and pretend they are as pure as the driven snow.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Eric that's a rather silly statement.

    Its 6 years for the basic pension. If you won in '04, in '06, and in '08 I have little doubt you're in danger of losing an election held this year.

    Its a lame conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 49 steps the MPs pensions are in a fund with senior public servants and various functionaries around Ottawa.

    Probably Kevin Page too !

    We haven't seen legislation to reform the system because its not smart to pick a fight with a big public sector union in a minority gov't.

    I'd like to see a source for this nonsense about opting back in during the Chretien years.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Nonsense indeed.

    I don't see how taking something you're legally obligated to take is opting back in.

    Without further clarification i'm left to believe that either The Star or the Tax Payer's Federation has their facts wrong.


    Wouldn't be the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hmm Tory lead increases in new EKOS to 6.3%.

    Some weird regional changes though, I think some of them might have been on the outer edge of the MOE last week and are correcting.

    Do the Liberals want to go to the polls in these numbers ?

    Things will move fast next week. I believe the speaker will finally have a ruling and a vote will be scheduled.

    A confidence vote.

    That will be defeated.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Eric

    New Ekos poll is so damned small I question putting it up.

    Certainly a poll of only 900 people, according to the CBC, is so small the results are very questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eric,

    Great question why:

    • Reported incidents of ‘combatants taking food away’ are down from 49% to 27%;
    • Fewer people have had their homes looted: down from 51% to 33%;
    • Reported conflict-related deaths in respondents’ families are down from 53% to 35%;
    • Those having to leave their home is down from 83% to 60%;
    • Those who report having been tortured are down from 43% to 29%.


    http://unambig.com/some-statistics-for-the-torture-rendition-war-crimes-crowd/

    ReplyDelete
  73. Shadow,

    Ekos Poll was very funny.

    I think they called Ralph Goodale's house twenty times.

    The swing is in MB/SK, must be attributed 49steps taking over the phone lines in Winnipeg.

    Interesting divergence on Ontario Ekos/HD Ontario.

    ReplyDelete
  74. That Ekos poll is one that's made me refresh quite a few times.

    10-point drop in BC, 14-point gain in SK/MN, 7-point gain for the Conservatives in the Atlantic, larger-than-usual margin of error in Ontario... what the Hell is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Volkov,

    confess, you spiked the Ekos punch last week!

    ReplyDelete
  76. The Ekos poll is strange.

    Maybe the 20th poll?


    I confess I took over the phone lines in Manitoba.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Volkov

    "That Ekos poll is one that's made me refresh quite a few times."

    Apparently the Easter weekend totally screwed the Ekos pollsters. Ended up with a poll of about 900 people instead of their normal 3000

    I wouldn't put much faith in the numbers

    ReplyDelete
  78. Lol, I probably should have - might've gotten more accurate results.

    I honestly would love to ask Frank Graves what he was smoking when he approved the Liberal lead in Saskitoba, because it must be some crazy shit.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Interesting story on Jaffer.

    Thestar.com

    ReplyDelete
  80. Rahim Jaffer is the heart and soul of the Conservative Party.

    ReplyDelete
  81. 49 and Hinchly Stores:

    Do either of you remember when Duff Roblin was Premier? I was disappointed when Stanfield beat Roblin for PC leader. Thought the fluently bilingual Roblin would have been a much better choice. Just wondered if you had any perspective on what kind of Premier he was and what kind of PM he might have been.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hi Earl,

    Duff Roblin is way before my time.

    I can tell you he is regarded as a God in Manitoba.

    He was responsible for the Red River Floodway, affectionately known as "Duffs Ditch"

    He was a very progressive Premier, who upgraded highways, expanded social spending, and upgraded welfare programs.

    Trudeau liked and respected him. So much so that he appointed him to the senate.

    By all accounts he also did a very fine job there.

    A throughly honest, and decent gentleman.

    In my opinion, he would have made an excellent Prime Minister, if he had ever got the chance.

    He was (and still is) a credit to Manitoba, and Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  83. 49 just read the Star article. I think the people in Edmonton made a wise choice in getting rid of Jaffer. However many politicians from both governing parties have made similar claims after they were out of office.

    My guess is that Jaffer made a plea deal. This doesn't bode well for Helena though. The CPC would do well to replace her as the candidate in her riding.

    ReplyDelete
  84. 49 you can see now that Shadow had it right, at least about me being an old man, or a youngster who took an unusual interest in politics. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Earl,

    You are not old.

    You are a wise sage.

    Your knowledge on any subject, is incredible.

    I enjoy all your posts.

    Keep up the good work Sir.

    (I know you don't like the Sir bit, but I am going to use it anyway)

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't see how Helena of Troy can be allowed to spend one more nano-second as a cabinet minister. Her husband has been exposed as trying to engage in influence peddling - not mention associating with underworld figures and procuring illegal drugs and prostitutes. Those of us who are in the know realize that this is all standard operating procedure in the Conservative party - but now that its splashed all over the front pages - she has got to go. You cannot have someone being given access to cabinet secrets etc... who is sharing a bed with someone who is selling access to government contracts and associating with organized criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  87. 49

    You read the Star article to.

    Did you detect just the faintest of aroma's ??

    How the Hell they could get a Charter challenge out of that beats me?? But I do detect a lot of "influence" here ?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Eric..

    In your database of poll results is there enough information to provide an analysis to see how days of the week impact the results?

    Do the Greens do better in polls taken on Fridays? maybe worse on Sundays?

    This would be similar to the built in bias that you report on polling firms.

    ReplyDelete
  89. wow DL.... associating with known criminals....

    How many current Liberals were not in caucus with the Adscamers?

    Peddling influence and opening doors???

    Explain what Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney are doing as lobbyists that doesn't include access to important government officals?

    ReplyDelete
  90. BCVR,

    No, I don't have the information needed for something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Jaffer gets my thumbs down, now and forever afte reading that article.

    As for Geurgis ?

    It doesn't affect my opinion of her in the slighest nor should it.

    I'm not sexist.

    DL's thinking seems to be that she needs to be kicked out of cabinet now because "Her husband has been exposed".


    I'm sorry, since when do women have to answer for the sins of their husbands ?

    Do you think she's particularily happy to find out that he was hanging around with hookers on his boys night out ?

    How does it affect her job in the slightest ?

    This sexism needs to end.

    Helena can answer for what she has done. Not what Jaffer has done.

    ReplyDelete
  92. 49 steps

    Were I a Liberal supporter I would want a full apology for asking the ethics commisioner to investigate the details of Helena Guergis mortgage. Right now the Liberals are looking petty and mean.

    The Bank indicated that the amount of the loan can be for the full or even in excess of the value of the property but only 80% of the value of the property can be drawn upon. The excess value of the loan amount is treated like a line of credit with a better (mortage rate) interest rate. These are fairly common when your net worth exceeds the amount of the mortage requirement. The bank is chasing your business.

    Now that the Liberals have opened this up I think it is only fair that we see the details of how the Liberals (Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, McCallum, Wayne Easter) finance their real estate holdings?

    How much did they pay? was it fair market value? How much do they owe? What bank do they deal with? How much is outstanding on their personal credit cards?


    It is really none of our business....

    I expect that if we take a look at personal finances of the other 307 MPs there would be more than one or two things that would make us say - OH?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yes,

    All uptight conservatives hate sex.

    They hate the thought of anybody having sex.

    I guess that is why they need hookers.

    Just like all those good moral upstanding republicans in the US.


    Guergis wants to throw people in prison for marijuana.

    What is wrong with that picture?

    ReplyDelete
  94. DL, 49 steps I hope this is satire.

    I'll leave aside the outrageous remark about the Taliban. Yes, Jaffer is muslim we all know that thanks. As if the sexism wasn't bad enough.

    Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that Geurgis was involved in ANY way in Jaffer's activities ?

    Never mind the PM which is a ridiculous allegation because its been demonstrated that Jaffer has no influence over him.

    Jaffer asked for his old riding back. PM said no.

    Jaffer asked that the open nomination be extended until his troubles were resolved. PM said no.


    So let's hear it ?

    Geurgis wasn't even there that night. What proof do you have that she has any involvement in Jaffer's activities beside the fact that they are married.

    "They're married!!" is not a reason.

    Its just sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  95. There's idiocy, but no sexism. No more of the former, no more accusations of the latter. M'kay?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Shadow,

    Ties to the Taliban have nothing to do with Jaffer being a muslim.

    Get it?

    Can you provide any evidence Guergis is not involved with Jaffer's activities.

    Are they running a prostitution ring?

    Lord knows what else those 2 are involved in.

    How many conservatives in Government know what is going on?

    Shadow be an honest conservative and show some outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Presumed innocent until proven guilty. No more of this Guergis stuff, alright?

    ReplyDelete
  98. No its not OK Eric.

    Making a woman answer for what her husband does is 100% sexism and harmful for women who want to enter politics.

    The fact that threehundredeight doesn't think so says more about you and less about Geurgis.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oh, shut up. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman but rather that they are married. The only person bringing up gender here is you.

    If Laureen Harper was in the same trouble, do you really thing we wouldn't be asking the same questions about the PM?

    ReplyDelete
  100. DL Bernier was never dropped for that association.

    He was dropped for leaving documents laying about.


    And it only is women. In politics there is an unspoken rule that you never go after a man's family.

    With a woman in politics its a completely different story. What's happening with her kids ? What has her husband done ?

    Frankly the sexism here is disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  101. 49

    And then there is this !!

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/31/afghan-detainees.html

    ReplyDelete
  102. Shadow,

    Calm down.

    It was just a little harmless mocking. That is all.

    It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

    After all the sanctimony, coming from conservatives, it is nice to know they are not perfect, and screw up just like the rest of us do.

    Gender is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  103. When a politician's spouse is engaged in criminal activity - there are no "unwritten rules". Its all fair game.

    Its funny to see the Keystone Cops messaging from the PMO. They tried to make a big ostentatious display of expressing outrage about Graham James the sex predator having been pardon by the Tory appointed National Parole Board three years ago! But where was the outrage when an ex-Tory MP, married to a Tory cabinet minister gets caught red-handed with hard drugs and gets let go?

    This is a government that is making a big fuss about their "anti-drug strategy" and their "tough on crime agenda" - and now both of these initiatives are smouldering ruin thanks to all this hypocrisy and exposes about Tories being drug addicts and associating with organized criminals and hookers.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Peter,

    We both know what is going on now, don't we?

    Harper will fight tooth and nail to hang onto those documents.

    Nicholson, is a fool.

    He asks a retired judge for an opinion (Who Cares what he thinks)

    Parliament is supreme.

    Nicholson won't ask a sitting judge, because he knows the answer he will get back.

    This whole thing is becoming a farce.

    ReplyDelete
  105. There will be a vote.

    If you guys think you have enough to run a campaign on then we'll see.

    I've made the prediction before and i'll make it again.

    The speaker will allow a vote on the documents (and dismiss Derek Lee's other nonsense) and enough Liberals will stay away that the motion will fail.

    ReplyDelete
  106. DL the trouble is you have no evidence that Jafer was engaged in any criminal activity. Yes he spent a day with some people who were later arrested. Maybe he plea bargained his way out of the cocaine and lesser charges by telling the police information they needed to know about these crooks.

    The article in the Star is full of supposition. Who told them what happened the night Jaffer was arrested? Not the arresting officer. I don't see any attributed quotes. Who told the Star that Jaffer said he'd get off on the cocaine charges because it was in his coat pocket? Here's the quote from the Star:

    " Jaffer told associates that the cocaine was in his jacket pocket, which was hanging in the back seat of his car, which he said meant he would likely get off on a technicality. The police maintain the cocaine was in his pants pocket."

    Notice that the associates are unnamed. Nothing in the entire article is attributed. The reporter might as well have made the story up except for the details about the guys Jaffer was dealing with that night. No doubt there is some truth mixed in. But what is truth and what isn't?

    The Star has a dubious record on these kinds of things. It is above all a Liberal rag. Just read the the founding papers of the Atkinson Foundation which control the Star through a two tiered share system. The Toronto Star is REQUIRED to support the Liberal Party. This piece of yellow journalism is worse than but not much different from that which had the Liberals in open revolt against IGGY back in January because a TS contributor overheard a couple of people talking with Bob Rae one night in a bar. Consider that before hanging your hat on this particular story. Jaffer is done with the Conservative Party. His wife may soon follow.

    ReplyDelete
  107. DL, again, stop throwing around an accusation like that against Guergis. There's no reason to believe she was involved with or knew about any of this. The Tiger Woods and Sandra Bullock scandals right now demonstrate how spouses can be completely in the dark about things like this.

    Don't do it again, or I will delete your message.

    ReplyDelete
  108. 49
    "Nicholson won't ask a sitting judge, because he knows the answer he will get back.

    This whole thing is becoming a farce."

    It sure is but unfortunately the country is being damaged in ways it doesn't understand. Where is Millikens ruling ??

    ReplyDelete
  109. Eric I'd like to suggest respectfully that those comments by DL ought be deleted because they are libelous. I'd hate to see you get in trouble for someone thing DL wrote. No implied threat, just a concern.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Good idea. She seems the litigious type.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Earl it may be yellow journalism but i'm done with Jaffer.

    I want him to find a new line of work away from politics and lobbying.

    As for Geurgis I don't think it has any reflection on her whatsoever.

    Its my personal opinion that she should be demoted to a parliamentary secretary position and spend more time tending to her riding so she doesn't lose it in the next election.

    Shelly Glover should replace her in cabinet.

    But that is not based on anything Jaffer has done. They are two seperate individuals who should be judged for their own deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  112. From the Globe & Mail. This doesn't sound very good:

    And there is more: Mr. Jaffer was using his wife’s parliamentary email address to conduct some of his private business. (He is married to status of women minister Helena Guergis.)

    CTV’s Power Play has emails from Mr. Jaffer on the account – Guergis, Helena - Assistant 2 – and host Tom Clark will be discussing this issue on his show tonight at 5 p.m. ET. Although the emails do not deal with any business involving the Prime Minister or his office, it is clear the former MP had no issue in using his wife’s account.

    According to House of Commons rules, every MP’s office is permitted up to four wireless devices. It is not spelled out who can use these devices. It is left up to the discretion of the MP.

    ReplyDelete
  113. The only way Guergis can stay in cabinet, is if she has a few pictures of Harper and some sheep.

    Shadow,

    I know you like Glover, but if Guergis goes I would like a Manitoba woman in there.

    I am more impressed with Joy Smith
    (She brought forward a great bill, on human trafficking)

    I am also more impressed with Candace Hoeppner. Though I do not agree with her on her private members bill abolishing the long gun registry.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Eric

    "it is clear the former MP had no issue in using his wife’s account."

    Which apparently is a clear Conflict Of Interest according to House rules.

    Question is "Will anybody pay for this "???

    ReplyDelete
  115. Geurgis has no reason to be let go from cabinet from a public policy perspective, so says Andrew Coyne on tonight's At Issue.

    I agree.

    So its a question of politics.

    I personally think she should be demoted to a parliamentary secretary job this june so she can spend more time in her riding.

    Partisans can put up with a lot. But we hate losers.

    Losing a safe Tory seat was Jaffer's biggest sin, its also why its a laughable suggestion that he has any influence at all.

    Keeping her seat Tory blue has to be the #1 priority from a political perspective.

    So this summer in a mini-shuffle she should go.

    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.