Friday, July 30, 2010

The NDP Resurgence in Quebec

From the depths of 1.5%, the New Democrats under Jack Layton have roared back to prominence in Quebec, earning 12.2% of the vote in the 2008 election and electing one MP in the riding of Outremont. But this is not a new phenomenon.

The party has three times gotten into the double digits in Quebec: in 1965 under Tommy Douglas (12.0%), in 1988 under Ed Broadbent (14.4%), and in 2008 under Layton. But while Layton's performance was part of a consistent growth in support for the party from 4.6% in 2004 and 7.5% in 2006, both Douglas and Broadbent presided over spikes of support after some middling, but consistent, performances.Douglas's average in four elections was 7.8%. Broadbent's was 9.4% in the same amount of elections, while Layton's has been 8.1% in three. So, we can argue that Jack Layton is performing as well in Quebec as his two illustrious predecessors have performed.

But things were bad under Lewis (6.7% average in two elections) and they got even worse under McLaughlin (1.5%) and McDonough (1.9% in two elections). Part of their sorry performances can be blamed on the emergence of the Bloc Québécois, but throughout the 1990s the NDP was virtually non-existent in Quebec, and even Layton's 4.6% in 2004 was nothing much.

So what has Layton done to bring his party back to a respectable position in Quebec? For one, out of all of the party's past leaders, he is probably the most comfortable in French. And he has done this in a much more difficult climate than either Douglas or Broadbent had to deal with. The Bloc Québécois shares a lot of the NDP's social democratic values, and eats up about 40% of the vote in the province. From what "second choice" polls have shown us, if the Bloc did not exist Jack Layton and the NDP would be competing for a leading place in the province.

But where has this growth come from? And how does it compare to previous elections?

It's plain from this chart below that the NDP has grown throughout the province since Jack Layton's first election in 2004. In no one region did the NDP lose support. In two regions, on the South Shore (west and southwest of Montreal) and in the Laurentides, the party's support increase four-fold. It increased by three times in Chaudière-Appalaches, the Cantons de l'Est, Mauricie-Laurentides, and Montérégie. So this is growth across the board.
The NDP took off in two places, in Montreal Centre and in the Outaouais, with 18.7% and 20.8%, respectively. This should come as no surprise, as Outremont is in the former region and Gatineau in the latter. Those are the two ridings the NDP has the most chance of winning in the next election.

I had originally thought that this investigation would reveal that much of the support has come from the Bloc. In a time where the National Question is on the backburner, it makes sense that many social democratic Quebecers would move over to the NDP to give another party a try. The truth of the matter, however, is that voting preference shifts have been relatively uniform throughout the province. The Liberals seem to have lost about 10 points and the Conservatives about the same amount, while NDP growth and Bloc losses are also in similar proportions. So what does that tell us? Perhaps Liberal voters are going over to the Conservatives and Bloc voters are going to the NDP. Or, more likely, it is much more complicated than that and all we can say is that the NDP and the Tories have benefited from the reduction in support for the Liberals and the Bloc.

If we compare the 2008 election to the last time the NDP has done well in Quebec, in 1988, we see that some ridings have always had good NDP support while others have either fallen out of the NDP fold or fallen into it.

During Jack Layton's tenure, the same few ridings have always been the best performers for the NDP. They are located primarily in the Outaouais and the centre and eastern portions of Montreal. The top riding for the last three elections has been Outremont, with 14% in 2004, 17% in 2006, and 40% in 2008. That is a good base for Thomas Mulcair.

Gatineau has recently become a good riding thanks to Francoise Boivin, as the party had 26% support there in 2008. But this is mostly the case of Boivin, as the party's support in 2006 was only 10% and 6% in 2004.

Two other Montreal ridings, Westmount-Ville-Marie and Laurier-Sainte-Marie, have also been good spots for the NDP. Support has gone from 12% to 15% to 23% in the first riding, while it has gone from 12% to 17% to 17% (again) in the latter riding. However, as LSM is Gilles Duceppe's riding, it is unlikely the NDP can take advantage of their strength.

Finally, Hull-Aylmer has been a strong place for the NDP, as they had 12% support there in 2004, 15% in 2006, and 20% in 2008. This was helped by a strong NDP candidate, who had previously run in Manicouagan on the Côte-Nord. While he was running there, the party's support was 10% in 2004 and 13% in 2006, making it the NDP's fifth-best riding in the province. When he left, Manicouagan dropped to 5% and became one of the NDP's worst ridings.

Interestingly, it seems that over the last 20 years NDP support has shifted. While it is now on the island of Montreal (primarily in the centre and east) and in the Outaouais, back in 1988 the areas of strength were in the north, in Montérégie, in Mauricie, around Quebec City, and, implausibly, in the Saguenay.

But compare their top ridings in 1988 to their top ridings in 2008. The NDP's top five back in 1988 were Témiscamingue with 38% (but they had 10% in Abitibi-Témiscamingue in 2008), Chambly in Montérégie with 32% (now 14%), St-Maurice in Mauricie with 30% (now 8%), Abitibi with 26% (now 8%), and Jonquière with 21% (now 5%).

Clearly the areas of greatest strength for the NDP back in 1988 are no longer areas of strength. But some things have not changed. The NDP had 22% support in Laurier-Sainte-Marie in 1988 and 20% support in Outremont. Hull-Aylmer was at 15% while Gatineau was also at 15%. Westmount-Ville-Marie was at 13%. So, the top ridings for the NDP today have not come out of the blue.

But while the party was getting 20% in today's Québec and Lévis-Bellechasse ridings in 1988, that support has halved twenty years later. The support they had in northern Quebec is gone, as it also is in the Mauricie region.

While the party has drifted away from some of its rural Quebec roots, it is still solidly founded in Montreal and the Outaouais. It bodes well for the NDP's future in Quebec.

Many thanks to the Pundits' Guide for the compilation of most of this data and its ease of access.

Note: I am going to be taking a break from blogging for about a week, so don't expect any posts for the next few days.

108 comments:

  1. I'm delighted to be able to see my database used in political analysis of this detail.

    Thank you for the citation.

    I'm sure you have some comments on the allocation of the ridings to those groupings, so let me know if you think some were not quite right. I am intending to split Montréal East into two sections that better reflect the Liberal strength in Montréal North and the Bloc strength further southeast.

    Enjoy your holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks!

    I think you have it broken down well, and the further splitting up of Montreal sounds like a good idea.

    But putting Manicouagan with the two Abitibi ridings is odd from a geographic and administrative point of view as the Côte-Nord, Nunavik, and Abitibi-Témiscamingue are very separate places that have been administered separately. Putting Nunavik and AT together makes sense as the northernmost riding already does this, but Manicouagan in this group is, to me, odd. It would fit in better with the Lac-St-Jean region, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a very interesting analysis. It seems to be that there have been two periods when the NDP was poised for takeoff in Quebec - and then events intervened to cause the takeoff to abort. In the mid-60s the NDP seemed to be going places in Quebec. The party came close in a few seats in 1965 and attracted a real dream team of candidates such as Robert Cliche, Charles Taylor, "Giff" Gifford, Laurier LaPierre (yes the one who is now a senator). The current speaker of the Quebec National Assembly Michel Bissonette ran for the NDP in the 60s and so did Denis lazure who later became a PQ cabinet minister. What totally short-circuited the NDP in the 60s was the rise of Pierre Trudeau and the polarization of Quebec around the national question. Trudeau sucked all the oxygen out of the room and the NDP had to wait for him to quit before the next big hope happened in the mid-80s. That surge in the 80s actually went past the 1988 election. In 1989 the NDP was still polling well and won the Chambly byelection in a landslide - but then came the failure of Meech lake and the founding of the BQ and once again the boulder rolled back down the hill.

    The NDP would already be probably be a major player in Quebec if we pose two "what ifs?"

    What if the Liberals had picked Robert Winters and not Trudeau as leader in 1968?

    What is Meech had passed in 1989?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The parallel with CCF/NDP QB performance in the 50-60s with today is notable:

    1953: 1.5% 1993: 1.5%
    1957: 1.8% 1997: 2.0%
    1958: 2.3% 2000: 1.8%
    1962: 4.4% 2004: 4.6%
    1963: 7.1% 2006: 7.5%
    1965: 12.0% 2008: 12.2%

    I don't think it's more than coincidence though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the 50s, the CCF didn't even run candidates in most Quebec ridings and the Duplessis dominated Catholic church was still telling people they would burn in hell if they voted for "socialists". You cannot even translate Cooperative Commonwealth Federation into French! (try it if you don't believe me)The Quiet Revolution and the creation of the NDP helped "detoxify" the CCF/NDP brand in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The NDP run in Quebec will fizzle out after the next election when they realize that their election money is better spent in the vote rich provinces.

    The NDP max is 5-6 of the 25-30 federalist ridings.

    They are far better off focusing their efforts on Ontario's 124 seats, BC's 43 seats , Atlantic Canada's 32 seats or the Man/Sask 28 seats.

    It will be a simple analysis that no matter what they do or whatever concessions they make to court the Quebec voter there is a very limited reward. The money needs to be focused where there is a chance to win seats and have an impact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The NDP will funnel more and more money into Quebec because a party needs Quebec representation to be considered a national party (attention Tories), because bringing up the popular vote in Quebec means more cash through the public financing of parties and because there a potential to his the jackpot in Quebec. Most BQ voters have the NDP as their second choice - there is always the possibility that if the NDP gets more seats and after Duceppe retires - the NDP could peck at the BQ corpse like a vulture.

    So, its as good a place to spend money as any.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "a party needs Quebec representation to be considered a national party (attention Tories)"

    Excuse me?

    You're talking to the party who most recently won a by-election in the province of Quebec, has a healthy 11 member (+1 independent) Quebec caucus, and who appears to be making a major play:

    http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1194353.html


    I guess Harper decided to gamble on Quebec gains and write off Newfoundland after all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm (surprisingly) with BC VoR on this - the NDP vote will start to fizzle as the start to play defensive other places, and see better opportunities out of BC, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. They can try and spend more time on Quebec, yes, but they will not have the major success they're looking for. The only reason they've got the one seat is because of Dion, and the only reason they might get Gatineau is because of Boivin. If neither of these options existed, would Layton's NDP be in the position they are in Quebec? There are no other seats anywhere close to attainable in the next election alone.

    I think if the NDP see that they're going to be on the defensive, they'll pull back from Quebec and try and cover themselves in Outremont, and not much else. It'll be a repeat of Douglas' performance - 4%, 7%, 12%, back down to 7%.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The NDP vote in Quebec fell back from 12% in 1965 to 8% in 1968 because the Liberals replaced Pearson (who spoke no French) with Trudeau.

    In this case the reverse is happening, Dion was unpopular enough in Quebec, but at least he was Quebecois and a native French speaker. By all accounts Ignatieff is even more unpopular in Quebec than Dion was and his stuffy French from France accent is a big turn off.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To be a national party, I'd suggest you'd need MPs in Ontario, Quebec, BC, Alberta, at least one of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and at least two of the atlantic provinces.

    The current distribution of support for the parties makes it entirely possible that none of them would meet that standard. But I'd say the CPC has the best shot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I see the trolls hit fast (sigh)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does this mean Éric turned off comment moderation?

    That seems like a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ira:
    Does this mean Éric turned off comment moderation?

    That seems like a bad idea.


    Who would move the comments through the system if Eric is away.

    It's not great but shouldn't cause any major problems.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The growth comes from two main directions: disaffected anglophone Liberal voters and left-leaning PQ/Bloc voters strategically voting to oust Liberals in their Montreal and Hull/Gatineau strongholds.

    Another critical factor is related to provincial politics. The PQ voter base has been fragmenting over at least two decades. This is most apparent in the formation of Quebec solidaire. Perceived as a social democratic but nationalist party, the PQ always put the "national question" before the "social question." They held their referendums in 1980 and 1995 but at the same time they introduced austerity measures against their working-class, social movement and trade union base built during the height of Quebec's social struggles in the early 1970s. Quebec solidaire has emerged from a long-term process of "left regroupment" which, while largely composed of sovereigntists, places the "national question" SECOND to social democratic reform. In this context, the NDP, which has been pretty odious for Quebec nationalists on the national question, has gained a new strategic relevance, especially to Quebec solidaire voters - of which there were 144,000 in 2007 and 122,000 in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When we have two parties essentially occupying the same political space, as the NDP and BLoc do on the left the party that speaks to the people, as the Bloc does far better than the NDP, the result will be obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/a-fall-election/article1660073/

    Another mention in the globe for you :)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aaron Wherry, Brian Topp, and Rob Silver have a habit of linking to Eric's work quite a bit actually.

    Topp is a dipper, Silver a liberal, and Wherry is ostensibly a non-partisan journalist but widely recognized as a left wing idealogue.

    From what I know nobody from the right side of the spectrum has found it useful to link to Eric's work.

    This tells us one of two things:

    A) The position of the Tories has eroded since the last election, a point those on the right wish to ignore and those on the left are happy to trumpet.

    B) Something about Eric's methodology understates Tory support which creates the appearance of eroded support and is thus useful for partisan spin purposes.


    Obviously we'll know more after the next election. Depending on the accuracy of Eric's model its possible we'll start to see him being linked to by commentators and journalists across the political spectrum.

    The gold standard is something like The Pundits' Guide, which is used by everyone and celebrated by people on all sides of the spectrum.

    That may be hard for Eric to achieve, even if his model is 100% accurate, given the perception that his editorial voice skews to the left.

    (He would probably reject my last point and has in the past resisted attempts to be defined as a leftist, whatever the case may be what matters is perception and the perception is certainly there.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is nothing about Eric's "method" that understates Tory support since his projection is based on what the polls are telling us. If you want to make the case that all polls understate Tory support - go ahead and try - but Eric is not here to fabricate polling results - his projections are based on what the polls are saying - nothing more.

    Its obvious that Tory bloggers are not going to be interested in citing polls or seat projections right now since just about every single solitary poll that has come out in the year 2010 shows Tory support has declined to some extent since the last election.

    ReplyDelete
  20. DL let me start off by stating the obvious. Nobody, including myself, has suggested that Eric is "fabricating" anything or intentionally trying to create certain results from the data.

    However, simply saying that his model is "based on what the polls are telling us" completely misses the point.

    There are different models out there that create a range of scenarios. They are all "based on the polls" and yet they differ.

    A great deal of assumptions are built into any model. Different assumptions create different results.

    Thus it is very easy to see a circusmtance where someone's model understaes Tory support.

    "just about every single solitary poll that has come out in the year 2010 shows Tory support has declined to some extent since the last election."

    Apples and Oranges DL.

    Election day results are NOT a poll.

    We've examined countless differences lately - pre-writ vs post-writ polling, ballot box effects, pollster sample bias, pollster methedology bias, GOTV efforts, voter enthusiasm, etc etc.


    If you want a direct apples to apples comparison I believe the Tories are somewhere around +3 from where they were at this time in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (He would probably reject my last point and has in the past resisted attempts to be defined as a leftist, whatever the case may be what matters is perception and the perception is certainly there.)

    I certainly think he's a leftist, but then I think Milton Friedman was a leftist (he supported the federal reserve and fiat currency).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shadow, Eric is not trying to predict what will happen at the end of a six week federal election campaign that has not even taken place yet. He is building a model of what the seat distribution would be in parliament if the average of current poll numbers were replicated on election day.

    We can speculate on what might or might not happen at the end of an election campaign - but for now all we can do is use the numbers we have at hand. In 2008 the Tories did slightly better than the final polls predicted. In both the 2004 and 2006 election, the opposite happened and the Liberals were the ones who did better than expected in the final polls. In the UK, the conventional wisdom was that the Tories always do better than the polls say due to the so-called "shy Tory" factor - but in this year's election there turned out to be a "shy Labour" factor and it was Labour who did better than any polls predicted.

    If you want to create your own seat projection model where you take what the polls are saying and then add copious amounts of your "special sauce" to play with the numbers until you get the Tories winning a majority - then go right ahead and then see if you can get any pundits to start referring to your model.

    BTW: Norman Spector - who is just about the biggest Harper-loving Tory apologist in the entire blogosphere also has referenced this site.

    ReplyDelete
  23. given the perception that his editorial voice skews to the left.

    That may be your impression but not everybody's.

    I feel he is either in the centre or a tiny bit to the right.

    Follow what I mean, personal impressions are just that, personal. They may or may not reflect reality. Thus pronouncing them changes the dynamic in ways you may not foresee

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you want a direct apples to apples comparison I believe the Tories are somewhere around +3 from where they were at this time in 2008.

    Again a personal impression. You may think that.

    I think just the opposite and would say they are -3 to -4 of where they were in 2008.

    Again promoting personal impressions as FACT is NOT a bright thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. DL I am well aware of the fact that Eric's projections are meant to show what would happen if an election were held today.

    But even leaving aside questions about the validity of polling data (Eric now uses a ballot box adjustment so you're kinda contradicting yourself...) there are still methodological assumptions that can impact the results.

    I understand he has some min/max figures for party support by province. And changes in vote distribution is modeled after shifts between '04, '06, and '08 as opposed to using the uniform swing formula.

    (538 had a debate about uniform swing vs modeling vote shifts based on past elections for the recent UK elections. Both ways of doing things ended up missing the mark.)


    Regardless, back to the original point.

    Your claim that it is not possible for Eric's model to understate Tory support is completely without merit.

    Unless you are claiming his model is automatically 100% correct then by definition its going to end up short changing someone.


    Haven't you complained in the past about the amount of seats being assigned to the NDP in British Columbia based on polling data ?

    Now you sound a bit rich, eh DL ?


    (Thanks for the tip on Norman Spector. Do you have a link ? It would be interesting to see in what context he mentioned 308.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter I wasn't aware that you read or were in contact with the right wing community on the internet.

    As someone who is i'm simply giving my impression of what their impression of Eric's editorial voice is.

    Weighing in against the census changes, against prorogation, and against the Prime Minister's abortion policy isn't going to win Eric any fans on the right no matter how good his model is.

    Who knows or cares where he is on the spectrum in real life.

    Again, the reality is irrelevant, its the impression that matters when analyzing whether 308 can attain a sort of non-partisan, respected status as a referee everybody is willing to point to and a source strategists are willing to use.

    ***

    "I think just the opposite and would say they are -3 to -4 of where they were in 2008."

    Really ? Wow. You're just flat out wrong.

    I'll match up some recent polls to their respective summer 2008 polls.

    Pollster/Now/Then

    HD-31-30 or 32
    Environics-35-35
    AR-36-33 or 35
    IR-35-33

    So we're looking at 0,0,+2,+2

    Given that we can expect either an exact repeat of the 2008 election OR a slight increase in Tory support.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Shadow, you need to retract lies you have told about me. You claimed I said:
    Slavery isn't so bad and some slaves like it! So its not always evil and its wrong to choose to ban slavery for others, they can make up their own minds !!
    I did not.
    You lied.
    Apologize, liar.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hmm the sooner Eric gets back and turns on comment moderation the better.

    Liberal Supporter let me start by saying its bad form to try to re-open a closed debate from a previous thread in a new thread.

    No doubt you've already written me one of your classic point by point retorts, although I won't bother to check because I don't much care either way (it'll be like if Schrodinger had an annoying cat.)


    3 uses of the word lie and an apology demand - this burqua thing has clearly gotten under your skin.

    Regardless, your claim is baseless.

    I never used direct quotations, implied or in any way said you said any of those things.

    I said what your arguement boiled down to. Simplifying someone's muddled thinking and then swapping out the subject to illuminate just how untenable their position is happens to be a pretty common rhetorical device.

    Your inability to understand my comments should probably recommend to you that you don't bother responding to them in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To be fair to you liberal supporter, you were talking about a religious practice (of which there is some debate on the merits of, and even whether it is required by religion).

    Shadow has characterized the practice as foisted upon people, and a human rights issue. (again, up for debate).


    His paraphrase of you is essentially correct given those 2 differing characterizations.... He didn't put it in quotes... he suggested your position amounted to, well to what he paraphrased. (And yes, I happen to agree with him, both on his position, and his characterization of yours).


    But since you are asking people to stop lying... May I ask of you that you stop accusing people (like me) of lying, making stuff up.... unless you have some evidence to the contrary?? In other words, would you please stop lying??

    ReplyDelete
  30. As someone who is i'm simply giving my impression of what their impression of Eric's editorial voice is.

    Weighing in against the census changes, against prorogation, and against the Prime Minister's abortion policy isn't going to win Eric any fans on the right no matter how good his model is.


    And again you LIE. The first sentence is acceptable, the rest is nothing more than polemic supporting the CRAP position

    Lots of right wingers as you well know oppose for example the long form mandatory being dropped but in your "talking points" world they don't count !.

    Who knows or cares where he is on the spectrum in real life. Because that would give the lie to your specious "talking point" wouldn't it ?

    In your view if somebody does not support every last thing pushed by this ghastly Govt they are way off on the left.

    More PMO barf !!


    Given that we can expect either an exact repeat of the 2008 election OR a slight increase in Tory support.


    Guess what ? Every poll we have looked at since this year began, with one exception. has shown slowly declining support for the CRAP.

    I think if they go to the polls in the fall they won't come back in Govt !!

    And I'll do everything in my power to bring that result about.

    I'm a member of NO party but bluntly the CRAP has to the worst thing we've had in decades.


    New
    Forum

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Security footage doesn't jibe with airport employee's account of Guergis 'meltdown' in Charlottetown"


    ......five and a half months later....is that how long it took the responsible journalists to do the research that the others skipped?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "And again you LIE. The first sentence is acceptable, the rest is nothing more than polemic supporting the CRAP position"

    One might say the same, Peter, about your characterization of where Eric might be on the political spectrum....



    ""talking points" world"

    ..... MY reasoned logic... YOUR talking points...

    Lmao....

    I am not sure I can stop laughing. Aside from "that's just a tory talking point" being one of the lefts most used... talking points. You, Peter, seem to put just as much spin on as anybody, if not more (I am quite dizzy after your last couple).

    ReplyDelete
  33. You, Peter, seem to put just as much spin on as anybody, if not more (I am quite dizzy after your last couple).


    Well "dizzy" certainly suits you. Enjoy

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peter please stop the name calling.

    "Lots of right wingers as you well know oppose for example the long form mandatory being dropped"

    Seems like a fair assumption, polling tells us that about 1/3 of CPC members do not support the move and about 1/3 of opposition party members do.

    And while its not at all uncommon for someone on the right to disagree on specific positions it seems unlikely that they would disagree on ALL three positions I mentioned (even more so if I add in a fourth, the release of the detainee documents.)

    The four positions, taken in their totality, tend to give a picture of where on the spectrum 308's editorial voice is.

    In the US the website 538 is generally seen as providing excellent analysis but it blogs from the left.

    Fox News is generally seen as providing excellent news coverage but also has right wing opinion shows.

    Eric's personal political leanings are irrelevent because people can only judge a webiste by what appears on it. Thus 308 is distinct from him personally.

    (He's claimed to like various positions of all the parties and said he has voted for multiple parties in the past.)

    "Every poll we have looked at since this year began, with one exception. has shown slowly declining support for the CRAP."

    Not sure what you're talking about.

    Polling has improved since the start of the year for the CPC.

    If you're comparing their polling to their previous election results i've already explained that's an apples to oranges comparison.

    The apples to apples comparison shows them in the same or better position relative to just before the 2008 election.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shadow:

    The apples to apples comparison shows them in the same or better position relative to just before the 2008 election.


    BULLSHIT does not always baffle brains. Get used to it.


    New
    Forum

    ReplyDelete
  36. Barcs there's been a lot of talk about Geurgis suing the prime minister lately.

    However, if she wants to sue somebody it should be the airport and Liberal MP Wayne Easter who released that letter and acted as though it was 100% gospel without any due dilligence.


    Instead of money if I was her i'd demand the public release of all recordings of her at the airport that day as well as a writen apology attesting that she acted properly at all times.

    I'd then use that information to demand that almost every single media outlet in Canada print/broadcast a retraction for claiming she had a "meltdown" or threw a "tantrum" at the airport.

    Simply put the event NEVER happened. It was a 100% manufactured story by the Liberals and their friends in the media.

    Wafer gate all over again I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Barcs speaking of airports did you see that outrageous burqua story ?

    Nevermind the fact that wearing them is abusive, they're clearly a PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT!

    For all we know it could have been a wanted criminal fleeing the country under one of those things.

    Those airport security guards either need to be fired or face some major punishment.


    The next time someone robs a 711 and the police put out a description of the guy who did it he'll probably just throw on a burqua.

    Apparently nobody checks underneath the things!

    Just one more reason why they clearly need to be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  38. liberal supporter:
    Shadow, you need to retract lies you have told about me

    Why should he, all he has is LIES. It's been terribly obvious ever since I found this place. It's his stock in trade !!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well, well, well, now that Eric is away, the teeth are bared. Shadow is his old arrogant self, as is Peter. Two prima donnas sharing a stage in a near empty theatre.

    Why don't both of you babies grow up or go home to mama. Shadow you really you don't have a clue. Peter your hatred of the current government makes you easy prey for Shadow. Have you never learned how to argue a point, to debate? It really is quite simple my friend. A position begins with laying out a premise and from there one one supports the premise with facts. Try it sometime, rather than throwing online temper tantrums that a three year old would be proud of.

    Now let's see if we can avoid further polluting Eric's forum.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Earl i'll kindly direct you to my request that Peter stop with the name calling and extend the request to you.

    Eric's moderation can't come soon enough.

    I have no doubt your above post would not have made it through.

    Arrogant prima donnas everywhere, heal thine own self !

    ReplyDelete
  41. Shadow, I don't know what kind of case she would have against Harper.

    Harper supported her for a long time (or atleast didn't turf her or speak against her). He said only 1 thing on the issue "I have received allegations against Ms. Geurgis, I believe them to be credible enough that I am referring them to the police and to the ethics commissioner." He never said what they were about, never detailed any attack against her. She was removed from her position based on performance and the allegations pending investigations.


    I don't know how any of that could be considered libel. I think that anyone that suggests that she sue the PM, the PMO, or the tory party is quite simply off their rocker. It would at best be a publicity stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Barcs I completely agree that Geurgis has no case against the PM.

    That's a silly thing the media/opposition cooked up to make it look like Harper was a bully towards her.

    But what do you think about that airport employee ?

    Wouldn't you agree that the letter that was written to Wayne Easter contained lies that have now been debunked by two different reporters.

    I mean its pretty clear that the letter completely invented a "meltdown" or "tantrum" that was then widely reported, ruined her reputation, and sparked a chain reaction that got her kicked out of caucus.


    Whoever wrote that letter should seriously be getting sued.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wouldn't you agree that the letter that was written to Wayne Easter contained lies that have now been debunked by two different reporters.


    Will anyone hold Wayne Easter responsible for his role in the witch hunt? He has more than a small responsibility to validate accusations before spreading them nationally.

    His personality and public appearances berating Ms. Guergis was as slimy as one would hope to be confined to the sterotypical deep South Republican politicians.

    Once again Mr. Ignatieff has an opportunity to show some moral fiber and clean up his party.

    I would hope that the Liberals could force an open nomination for his seat and failing that that the good people of PEI send him to his political retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Earl:

    Have you never learned how to argue a point, to debate?

    One doesn't "debate" with Shadow. Specious "facts" or outright lies are not debating but they are Shadow's stock in trade.

    Further you are hardly one to call the kettle black if memory serves, your performance on politics Canada was lamentable.

    Enough said.

    New
    Forum

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Geurgis situation really reflects poorly on a few people/groups.

    1) The person who took the information from the airport to the public eye

    2) The MP (a Liberal) who released the information

    3) The PM who kicked Geurgis out of not just the cabinet but also from the CPC before the investigation was complete (suspended from caucus would've been a far better move) and now refuses to put her back into caucus now that she is cleared.

    4) The media for attacking without proof (sadly not the first or last time)

    I think all of the above looked very poor in this case. The various parties (political and otherwise) do owe her an apology.

    The mess with her husband was ugly too, but I would assume the RCMP and ethics commissioner checked into that mess and cleared her with a slap on the wrist for not keeping her husband away from the office & Blackberry.

    Given that others have done much, much worse things (leaving official documents at a lovers home for an obvious example) I don't see why she wasn't brought back into the Tory fold.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hmm the sooner Eric gets back and turns on comment moderation the better.
    Your implication being my comments would not be allowed? You are wrong on that. I have never had a comment refused here.

    You would have us believe that you are being unfairly attacked on a personal level. However, I have always stuck to your words, and avoided going ad hominem. Perhaps you can cite an example of me attacking you instead of your views and I will apologize in advance if you can find an actual instance, but I think you would find in the most part my attacks are on your views and positions.

    Contrast that with each and every comment you direct to me, where you attempt to belittle me, question my intelligence, and speculate on my age, my financial situation, my life experience, and the state of my mental health.

    Liberal Supporter let me start by saying its bad form to try to re-open a closed debate from a previous thread in a new thread.
    The debate is not closed simply because you ran away, sir. You lost the debate and then decided to spread lies.

    No doubt you've already written me one of your classic point by point retorts, although I won't bother to check because I don't much care either way (it'll be like if Schrodinger had an annoying cat.)
    No doubt, eh? Should I be miffed at your claim you did not read my response, assuming I did respond there? How do you know if I responded or not?

    Whether you read my responses is unimportant. What is important is that your lies do not stand unchallenged.

    3 uses of the word lie and an apology demand - this burqua thing has clearly gotten under your skin.
    Your assertion does not make this so. And what would you call your assessment of my mental health "clearly gotten under your skin" if not an insult, the kind you claim is leveled at you by just about everyone here?

    Regardless, your claim is baseless.
    As are many of yours.

    I never used direct quotations, implied or in any way said you said any of those things.
    I'm sure you were very careful, yet you still lied.

    I said what your arguement boiled down to. Simplifying someone's muddled thinking and then swapping out the subject to illuminate just how untenable their position is happens to be a pretty common rhetorical device.
    Funny how you'd defend a supposed rhetorical device, yet you dismiss my comments using rhetorical devices. For example, sneering that referring to "moving the goalposts" is somehow so "insider baseball" and otherwise arcane as to be unintelligible. Why are my rhetorical devices bad, while your are good? Do you really think "swapping out", such as swapping "wearing a burqua" with "genital mutilation" as you did in misrepresenting my argument, is arguing in good faith? I do not.

    Your inability to understand my comments should probably recommend to you that you don't bother responding to them in the future.
    Let the guy with the big brain alone, eh? No dice chum. You are a pathological liar, and I will continue to call you on it when you do. Disagreeing with a comment does not always indicate an inability to understand it. I understand your comments perfectly. Just because many of them are offensive does not make them less understood.

    You failed to make the case that the simple act of wearing a burqua is in itself proof that the wearer is being abused. I provided a trivial counterexample which refuted your case, yet you decided that repeated assertion would somehow prove your position. Having failed at that, then you decided to misrepresent my position, as being one of approval or at least condoning of slavery. Doing so is, wait for it, lying.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Barcs speaking of airports did you see that outrageous burqua story ?
    Niqab, but they're all the same thing, right?

    Nevermind the fact that wearing them is abusive,
    A point you have already conceded and lost. Do you think repeated assertion will make it true?

    they're clearly a PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT!
    Baloney. Not carefully checking people getting on planes is the threat.

    For all we know it could have been a wanted criminal fleeing the country under one of those things.
    It doesn't even take a burqua. Just dress in women's clothing, put on makeup and make sure you are clean shaven and you could likely flee the country the same way. Remember Some Like it Hot?

    Those airport security guards either need to be fired or face some major punishment.
    Actually it seems their supervisors were overruling them when they would demand to see the face.

    The next time someone robs a 711 and the police put out a description of the guy who did it he'll probably just throw on a burqua.
    Or a hoodie. Or a wig. Or makeup.

    Apparently nobody checks underneath the things!

    Just one more reason why they clearly need to be banned
    .
    Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Peter - you might want to learn the URL of your own forum.

    PolitCan is a dead link.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Haha dear God. liberal supporter what are you doing ?

    So much wasted ink. I've made it clear that your posts don't merit substantial engagement.

    Are you now to be my point by point "fact checker" ?

    Has this burqua thing gotten so far under your skin that its now personal ?

    I see you dropped the "lie" accusation a couple more times and then stepped it up to the level of being "pathalogical".

    (By the by, you've confused some of my previous comments with those of blogger CanadianSense who no longer posts here. I do not speculate on people's age, mental health, income, or anything else - this isn't the census.

    Does your error make you a liar ? Am I a muslim ??


    While I did take the time to read your latest screed (because I found your behaviour to be rather amusing) i'm sure that this will grow quite tiresome in the future.

    This is the last you'll hear from me on the matter. In this thread or any other.


    (Allow me, for the first time, to indeed speculate a little on your situation.

    I think you need to either grow up, get some help, or find a hobby.

    Its the internet buddy.

    And its just politics.)

    ReplyDelete
  50. liberal supporter:
    Contrast that with each and every comment you direct to me, where you attempt to belittle me, question my intelligence, and speculate on my age, my financial situation, my life experience, and the state of my mental health.

    Good, notice this Earl? Somebody else has spotted the so-called debating style of Shadow. The more that see it the better.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Typical in a way of the Tory approach.

    First use a really out of date survey to supposedly make a point.

    Unreported crime is up. OK

    Then we have to tighten up the crime laws to get the perps behind bars. OK

    Wait a minute though ?? If the crimes aren't reported the police won't investigate. So how do we convict anybody on an unreported crime??

    So why spend 6.5 $billion on new prisons for perps who don't exist because the crime wasn't reported.

    Why is there a disconnect here ??

    ReplyDelete
  52. Typical in a way of the (left wing) approach.

    Demand to keep the census because stats can does such good work... then deny that their other surveys are worth the paper they are written on... lmao


    "If the crimes aren't reported the police won't investigate. So how do we convict anybody on an unreported crime??"

    If there is no place to put them then the judges won't do anything.. then the police don't do much when it is reported (like we have with many property crimes and vandalism now).... so what is the point in reporting them when nothing is going to happen to either the perpetrator, or to help the victim. Further if we can't remove the perpetrator from the area, why would someone scared that they might come back if they report it?

    Now we might be able to correct that. Now we might see people report crime.... (if the liberal activist bench bothers to convict anyone and actually protect society)


    Crime isn't being reported because nothing is done about it,...

    Why is there a disconnect here ??

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

    ReplyDelete
  54. "For all we know it could have been a wanted criminal fleeing the country under one of those things.
    It doesn't even take a burqua. Just dress in women's clothing, put on makeup and make sure you are clean shaven and you could likely flee the country the same way. Remember Some Like it Hot?"


    I think the one difference here would be the photo ID. If you cannot see the face under a burqua, and the occupant refuses to allow you to check, then you have no way of knowing whether the ID matches. Put on a wig and makeup... and you need to change whatever photo ID you come up with to match the appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "liberal supporter:
    Contrast that with each and every comment you direct to me, where you attempt to belittle me, question my intelligence, and speculate on my age, my financial situation, my life experience, and the state of my mental health.

    Good, notice this Earl? Somebody else has spotted the so-called debating style of Shadow. The more that see it the better."


    mmmhmmm... other names come to mind... Canadian sense.. liberal supporter... peter... 49 steps...



    "You would have us believe that you are being unfairly attacked on a personal level. However, I have always stuck to your words, and avoided going ad hominem."

    I might suggest that accusing him of outright lying several times over just the last few posts (including in the post where you claim you don't do things like that) might be considered ad hominem.



    And peter, I would suggest that if you want shadow (and others) to clean it up,... then it might benefit the conversation if you do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hey Barcs isn't it hug-a-thug Liberals who are always complaining about prison overcrowding ?

    Weird. Seems like they should welcome new prisons being built.

    Ending the 2 for 1 credit is going to take the strain off provincial prisons and have more people in federal ones for longer so there is clearly a need for new facilities.

    Mandatory minimums are going to see a lot of perps kept behind bars where they belong. Liberal judges won't be able to let them go free with a slap on the wrist.


    If the government wants to build new prisons then clearly the need is there.

    This idea that they're building them for fun is just ridiculous.

    Yes, yes, its every polticians dreams to build a prison! Just for kicks!

    Get real Liberal MP Mark Holland.

    (I can't wait for Alexander to defeat him).

    ReplyDelete
  57. If the government wants to build new prisons then clearly the need is there.

    And there is where you make your classic !!

    Because there is NO proof that more prisons are needed. Plus you ignore that most of the cost is offloaded to the provinces. So my taxes go up to support your ideology.

    I don't think so !@!

    Plus you NEVER address the disconnect !!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Peter - you might want to learn the URL of your own forum.

    Agreed, try this, my error

    Politics Canada

    ReplyDelete
  59. Peter the fact that many of our prisons are overcrowded is reason enough for more facilities.

    Overcrowding puts corrections staff in danger, increases the risk of violence, and hinders the rehabilitation of offenders.

    How about the fact that most of the prisons are ANCIENT ? Its about time they were replaced. Plus building them will create jobs so its the perfect time to do it.


    And what costs do the provinces bear ? A federal facility is FEDERAL, as opposed to provincial jails who'll benefit from not having prisons in remand so much because of the 2 for 1 fix.

    New sentencing guidelines, more police officers on the streets, and more tough on crime legislation is going to mean that more offenders are put behind bars where they belong.

    That means more prisoners. Which means more prisons.


    The whole thing is a no brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ekos

    Seems the Tories are progressing in the correct direction.

    ReplyDelete
  61. That Ekos poll is quite interesting what with Tory support crashing below the 30% mark for the first time in almost 4 years! I guess the census story and Stockwell Day's "theatre of the absurd" performance are stories that have legs after all! Its interesting when you read the Ekos entrails that the news is even worse for the Tories than it appears. They are the second choice of virtually no one - so they better not hold out any hope that there is some huge number of "Green/Other" voters who are really soft Tories. Also, I notice in the full tables that people who are undecided or who say they would vote Green or other tend to overwhelmingly think the government is moving in the wrong direction!

    Maybe a fall election is not such a bad idea after all!

    ReplyDelete
  62. It is interesting that both the Liberals & Conservatives are sub-30% now (barely). That means the other 3 (NDP/Green/Bloc) have far more support (almost 40%) than either of the big 2. I doubt that will hold in an election, but it does suggest a lot of frustration/anger at the big 2 over an assortment of issues, the largest I suspect is a lack of faith that either will do what they promise to do.

    As to the prison system, I'd prefer to see a study done to determine how many jails we need and why. Basically an account of how many people are in the jails over time - is it growing or shrinking - and how often judges feel the need to shrink sentences or release early due to prison conditions. Easy to do - just do an internal survey (these can be done in as little as a few days in my experience) of the judges, plus have a person dig into the raw stats (give it to me and a week and I'll have stats up the wazoo). Within a week or two you could easily have a good feel for what the situation is. Once you have that then it is easy to say 'we need x prisons to replace old ones that are falling apart and y new prisons to deal with overcrowding and here is where we need them'. Instead we get a promise to spend billions to house criminals who commit unreported crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The US has longer and stiffer sentences and higher incarceration rates than any other country and they also have by far the worst crime rates of any western country - so go figure.

    Even Conrad Black has emerged from prison now championing how absurd it is to jail so many people for such long periods and often for such petty crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  64. DL,

    I am not sure the numbers are based on the census-flap.

    Week 1 of the polling shows the 2 parties at the same levels they were 3 weeks ago. Week 2 shows the tories drop 3 points to the liberals.

    The census has been out there for weeks... Can you think of anything else that would cause an almost uniform drop for the tories of 10% across the entire west?? That the liberals would suddenly jump 10% in Quebec?


    Now it could be that someone hit the exact group on the census that would piss people off. But it women care more (like I have been told for weeks...) why is the tory drop nearly all in the male??


    I just don't see a reason for the shift. I am gonna be very interested to see in the next set of polls whether this shift is really there.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The US has longer and stiffer sentences and higher incarceration rates than any other country and they also have by far the worst crime rates of any western country - so go figure."


    Because they don't do much really on the causes?? You can't focus solely on one factor and expect the others to disappear. You need prisons as much as you need social spending.

    I don't care whether you think they are just for punishment,.... just for rehabilitation,... just for protecting society by removing the bad apples. They are needed.

    And while we spend (quite alot really) on social programs; I wish our justice system would do one of those 3 properly. It doesn't seem to do any of them well... Which is why we need more space.

    ReplyDelete
  66. No one is saying that we should not have prisons at all - that's a straw dog. But given our massive deficit - its a questions of priorities. Its clear that the Tories favour driving up the deficit in order to spend money on more jails, more high-end helicopters, more for CSIS and the RCMP and more money into the black hole of Afghanistan.

    Other parties would think that things like health care, pensions, EI and environmental protection etc...are bigger priorities than jails, gold-plated military equipment and G20 security.

    There is a pattern here with regard to the polls. Its not just Ekos that shows Tory erosion - look at the HD poll that had them crashing from 35% to 31%. Governments die a death of 1000 cuts and this has been a bad summer for the Tories - endless stories about vast waste of $$ on the G8, the census fiasco, "Doris" Day's humiliatingly bad press conference, billions wasted on dumb helicopters, housing prices tarting to plummet in some markets, almost non-existent economic growth in the second quarter - and in the midst of all this Harper has been missing in action.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Barcs i'd have to say the last week's numbers look like something of a fluke.

    I guess the upshot is that 2 weeks from now we can gloat eh ?


    Summer polling, by the way, is horribly unreliable. In America the polling firm Gallup, who has been doing a weekly test of the generic congressional ballot since EVER, saw the Dems jump up to a +10 lead for 2 weeks in a row.

    Every week before that this year had a Republican lead and sure enough on the third week the Republicans were back up to +5.


    Summer = Weird samples.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I guess it was also a fluke when Tory support crashed through the floor after the prorogation fiasco in January. Those "winter samples" so unreliable....

    ReplyDelete
  69. "No one is saying that we should not have prisons at all - that's a straw dog."

    .....The same one you use when talking about right wingers and social programs.....


    Gold plated military equipment? no... military equipment... tanks planes that you can't put your hand through the holes made by the rust.. yes. We do have to spend to upkeep some equipment. To have some sort of standing military with the ability to defend, to do humanitarian missions... etc. Was it not embarrassing to have to charter passenger boats out of the last crisis to protect Canadian citizens?



    Shadow, I dunno. Several other pollsters saw the same increase. I don't know if it actually happened... or if republicans go outside and quit answering the phone. It could be the same in Canada, after all that second week poll did run over into a long weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I guess it was also a fluke when Tory support crashed through the (ceiling) after the (Iggy announced that the tories time was up and it was time for a liberal government) in September. Those "fall samples" so unreliable....

    ReplyDelete
  71. All I'm saying is that its been a very bad summer for the Tories so it makes sense that they would drop in the polls:

    *The G20/G8 was a fiasco with billion dollar cost overruns, artificial lakes and nothing of any consequence accomplished.
    *The census fiasco which like a gift that keeps on giving to the opposition.
    *a slowing/stalling economy and crashing real estate values
    *catastrophically bad performances by cabinet ministers like Day and Clement that have made both of them objects of ridicule
    *Guergis is back in the news
    *"Where's Waldo? (I mean Harper) what is he hiding from?

    The only surprise is that the Tories aren't even lower.

    ReplyDelete
  72. DL your analysis is full of holes.

    First off Tory support didn't "crash" after prorogation. It had actually been ticking down before that due to the detainee investigation.

    There was a 3 point CPC drop that went to the other parties (not the Liberals) and lasted for about a month and a half.

    A non-holiday Jan. sample would be reliable, yes. And the 3 point drop was likely due to prorogation, yes.


    *G8/G20 caused Harper's numbers to go UP. Both directly afterwards and for several weeks on.

    Canadians LOVED the G8/G20. The only way it is factoring into the polls is because the good memories have started to fade.

    *The census issue peaked the week before last. It can NOT explain this week's drop.

    *The economy is still adding jobs. Jobs and the stockmarket are the only indicators the broader public looks at enough to influence politics.

    A real estate slowdown caused by the HST (crash? that's just silly) isn't going to cause movement.

    *Clement has indeed been getting bad press.

    Day not so much. The media nearly had a "gotcha" but then realized he was right about unreported crime being an issue.

    And the whole exchange just made Mark Holland and the Liberals look soft on crime.

    *Geurgis is irrelevent

    *Harper being around helps the party. Its possible not having him front and center has hurt things.


    Nothing in this list explains the sudden drop in the last week of the sample.

    As Barcs said there was a holiday weekend in there so reduced sample = higher MOE.

    I'm afraid its more likely than not just a fluke DL.

    ReplyDelete
  73. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/snap-election-would-leave-harper-with-razor-thin-minority-pollster-says/article1662785/

    CPC 115 LPOC 99

    ReplyDelete
  74. The Tories number (sub-30) is wholly credible - they've been trending downward (very slowly) for months.

    But that Liberal number completely bucks their trend. It looks entirely out of place.

    And, of course, these numbers are just the second week of Ekos's two-week poll. In the aggregate there's still a 4.8 point gap.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Re: Criminal Sentencing

    Keeping people in jail for longer misses the whole point of incerceration. Punishments are supposed to punish people - simply detaining them isn't much of a punishment, especially for those whose lives outside of prison are already awful.

    And the point of punishment is to deter crime. We've sanitised our prisons both so that they're not nearly as bad a place to be as they used to, and so that Canadians don't see any of the unsavoury things going on inside.

    If we don't see how unpleasant prison is, how is the unpleasantness of prison supposed to deter us from acting badly?

    Regarding the US comparison, they have some cultural issues that make direct comparisons between the two countries meaningless. What we'd need is a country (any western country would do) that changes its prison terms to see what effect that had on crime rates. Only then could we draw a reasonable conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Before we go on a an expensive prison building program it would behoove the Harper government to justify the need for same. Non existent crime statistics are not in my mind suitable justification. Unreported crime is just that, unreported. Police do not put people in prison for unreported crimes.

    The entire idea of getting tough on drugs is an antiquated idea that has proven completely unsuccessful in the US. There is no reason to suppose it will work any better here.

    I do support tougher sentences for rapists and those commit crimes that cause physical harm. Property crimes should only result in jail time if they are major in nature and seizure of assets will not be a sufficient penalty or for serial offenders.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I just wish intelligent individuals discussing the matter of prisons in good faith would drop this cannard about unreported crime.

    Stockwell Day runs the treasury, he's not the attorney general or the public safety minister.

    Taking some off the cuff remarks he made to a reporter asking an off the topic question to the non-relevent minister and pretending as though its the government's official position and only justification for its public safety initiatives is just plain silly.


    Earl, very dissapointing that you've been snookered in that manner.

    ReplyDelete
  78. For anyone interested here is Kevin Page's report on the fiscal impact of the 2 for 1 fix:

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/pbo-dpb/documents/TISA_C-25.pdf

    Key take aways:

    * Prison population will increase due to tough on crime measures

    * Increased spending on prisons will be required

    * A certain level of spending on prisons will be required anyways because most facilities are old


    The issue isn't really "is new spending on prisons necessary".

    The issue really boils down to whether or not you support the government's new tough on crime measures.

    If you do then you need to spend the money.

    If you don't then you need to spend the money elsewhere repairing the social and economic damage that criminals roaming the streets causes.

    Its the simple.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "The entire idea of getting tough on drugs is an antiquated idea that has proven completely unsuccessful in the US."

    What is your suggestion for reducing the harmful effects on society of people using drugs? Do we give them subsidys? If we make it legal and tax it... Is that going to make people who operate outside the law come inside it? Or are they going to keep smuggling to avoid the taxes... they are after all doing far more illegal stuff now, then just tax evasion.

    ReplyDelete
  80. During that violent struggle, the woman said she slashed Pickton's jugular vein and was able to escape, flagging down a passing car for help.

    She had lost three litres of blood and had no pulse when she arrived at Royal Columbian Hospital with stab wounds to the upper chest, the abdomen, hands and arms. The woman, who was then 30, remained unconscious in hospital for four days.

    Pickton, who also lost three litres of blood that evening, drove himself to Eagle Ridge Hospital, and was then transferred to Royal Columbian. The two stabbing victims were in separate operating rooms when a handcuff key was found in the pocket of Pickton's pants. It was taken to the woman's room and used to unlock the cuffs dangling from her wrist.

    Pickton was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon and forcible confinement following the incident, but the charges were eventually stayed because the Crown considered the woman too unstable to testify in court at the time."


    http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Damning+evidence+comes+light/3361156/story.html




    Apparently we don't put people in Jail for reported crime either... How do you think this nice lady will do in reporting the next one? How many of Pickton's victims lives would be saved if our justice system actually worked??

    ReplyDelete
  81. "If we don't see how unpleasant prison is, how is the unpleasantness of prison supposed to deter us from acting badly?"


    It doesn't,



    Our Justice system doesn't keep people who commit crimes locked up until they are rehabilitated to the point where they won't re-offend.

    Our justice system doesn't punish people. Short sentences, slaps on the wrist, double time off for "hard time"

    And in the cases of Pickton, Black, others there is complete staying of charges for small technicalitys.

    And most importantly, our Justice system doesn't keep people out of society who commit crimes...



    It's not about punishment, its not about rehab, its not about removal for protection... It fails.

    It wholly fails on its primary responsibility which is to protect society from people who would do it harm.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ira a criminal by their very nature is not someone who thinks about the long term consequences of their actions.

    No matter how bad you make the prisons the idea of achieving some kind of deterence is silly.

    Criminals either don't care or think they'll never get caught


    My view is that sentences should be tough but fair.

    Prisons should be clean and safe.

    They should involve counselling, drug treatment programs, and education/job training.


    The hope is that the person coming out of a prison is a better man than the one who went in.

    Making prisons a hell hole is going to ensure that will never happen. In fact it'll probably just ensure the person coming out is WORSE than the one who went in.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Water in the basement meant cutting my vacation short a day, so I am back.

    Comment moderation is back on. I'll ask everyone to respect my request just above the text box.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Eric welcome back.

    Can we expect a projection on that weird EKOS poll

    (seriously, why even conduct a poll on a holiday long weekend!)

    or are you in damage control mode with the basement ?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Basement's fine, just drying now. Professionals took care of it.

    I'll do something for the EKOS poll tomorrow. The full two-week result will be given the limelight, but I'll try to do a projection for each of the weekly polls.

    ReplyDelete
  86. And, of course, these numbers are just the second week of Ekos's two-week poll. In the aggregate there's still a 4.8 point gap.

    What's interesting about that is the change from first to second week. The big question is "Why"??

    ReplyDelete
  87. Overcrowding puts corrections staff in danger, increases the risk of violence, and hinders the rehabilitation of offenders.

    Well done Shadow I don't think you missed one PMO "Talking Point".

    Of course you did miss the "issue"

    ReplyDelete
  88. "(seriously, why even conduct a poll on a holiday long weekend!)"

    Actually it was only a holiday in some provinces. Its not a holiday in Quebec since they get June 24 off for St. Jean Baptiste - and some of the Atlantic provinces have no holiday either.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The issue peter, is building prisons,.... and the reasons why it is needed.

    Please stop with your "that's just a talking point" talking point and instead talk about the issue (like shadow is doing).

    ReplyDelete
  90. Barc's my suggestion is to legalize soft drugs and tax them, at the same time make the penalties for producing them or importing them outside the system extremely painful and enforce them. So much crime is committed by people trying to get money to buy drugs and so much police time is spent trying to enforce those laws.

    I personally don't care what another person does to their own body. Crystal Meth is one of the few drugs I wouldn't legalize because it promotes violence. I don't believe that we as a society should be trying to regulate what adults do as long as it doesn't interfere with others.

    ReplyDelete

  91. Please stop with your "that's just a talking point" talking point and instead talk about the issue (like shadow is doing).


    Barcs that's precisely what Shadow isn't doing. Addressing the issue.

    He keeps up with stuff that flies in the face of all the stats available. Thus he is only using "talking points"!

    Firstly I would agree that we have a couple of really old prisons which need to be replaced, that's a non-issue.

    But to try and use unreported crime as a reason to embark on a major new prison building program is to really grasp at straws !!

    Plus that Govt poll released by CTV says the public is completely uninterested in crime says a lot !!

    Using a straw man to support an ideology smacks of insincerity if not downright subterfuge.

    CTV Report can be found here
    Politics Canada

    ReplyDelete
  92. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/stockwell-day-stands-his-ground-on-crime-stats/article1662976/

    Who is getting snookered, Shadow????

    ReplyDelete
  93. Peter, Eric and others have asked you before not to reference your own blog on this website. Please don't try and promote yourself here!

    ReplyDelete
  94. I see that part of the get tough on crime agenda has to with bookmaking. Legalize it. Tax it as they do in the UK. Revenue for government, more time for the police to concentrate on real crime.

    Time for the government to get out of our lives!

    ReplyDelete
  95. Barc's my suggestion is to legalize soft drugs and tax them, at the same time make the penalties for producing them or importing them outside the system extremely painful and enforce them.
    It seems to have worked with the alcohol business in the US, after Prohibition was repealed. Although it gave organized crime a base to build on which they continue to benefit from in other areas after repeal, there is no significant mobster business in bathtub gin anymore.

    So much crime is committed by people trying to get money to buy drugs and so much police time is spent trying to enforce those laws.
    One could call it a "talking point" but the adage goes: "nearly all the crime and social problems associated with illegal drugs is caused by the fact that they are illegal".
    It seems even heroin addicts are pretty normal people if their addiction is being managed without having to consort with criminals.

    I personally don't care what another person does to their own body. Crystal Meth is one of the few drugs I wouldn't legalize because it promotes violence. I don't believe that we as a society should be trying to regulate what adults do as long as it doesn't interfere with others.
    I tend to agree on Crystal Meth, since I have never tried it. But I believed most of what they said about pot until all my friends were trying it and I saw they seemed like drunks but less likely to get belligerent.
    Consider Ecstasy, which I also believe is harmful. Yet now the DND is considering it for treating PTSD in soldiers! Link.
    I was shocked to read this. They want research done on its safety and effectiveness, but seemed unconcerned as to its legal status if it will help (anecdotal evidences is it may).

    ReplyDelete
  96. What is your suggestion for reducing the harmful effects on society of people using drugs? Do we give them subsidys? If we make it legal and tax it... Is that going to make people who operate outside the law come inside it. Or are they going to keep smuggling to avoid the taxes... they are after all doing far more illegal stuff now, then just tax evasion.
    Call me a liberal, but considering the point of view of those involved can be instructive. I'm sure that from the point of view of the US government during Prohibition, Joseph Seagram was a northern Pablo Escobar, a booze kingpin, when of course he was just a businessman in Canada operating a legal business.

    Likewise for the users, they'd rather buy legal and avoid the hassle. Most dope users don't consider themselves as the criminal element, they do one thing that is against current laws. It doesn't mean that since they break one law, they will desire to break all the others too. But there is certainly a slippery slope, where other people will try to manipulate you into other crime. While you won't see any slippery slope for tobacco or alcohol, since they are legal.

    I think you'd find the dope business would evolve exactly like the alcohol business. As soon as reasonable sized legit suppliers exist, with quality control and regulation, nobody is going to buy your "moonshine".

    Note that in the main recent tax evasion situation, smuggled cigarettes, the cigarettes were still being made by the majors, exported untaxed, then smuggled in. The tobacco companies certainly knew what was going on, but they toed the line when the game was up.

    The thing I don't like is how the tobacco companies fight tooth and nail for any way to advertise. They lost TV and radio, then print, and then when they lost sponsoring events we had car race fans coming out for the tobacco companies that could no longer sponsor events.

    Conrad Black, after seeing the US prison system on the inside, has been quite clear that the US war on drugs has failed. I think he may become a voice for changing this. In the US it is much harder, because of course they have a huge prison industry, whose interests are best served by having lots of things illegal with long sentences attached.

    About 22% of the prison population is in for drug offenses. Along with the war on drugs, the "get tough on crime" stuff, three strikes, mandatory minimum sentences, and less early release has ballooned the population. Such get tough measures were sold on the basis of protecting the public from violent criminals, yet three strikes and the other measures apply to non violent as well, the result being 49% of the incarcerated are there for violent offenses.

    Repeal most of the drug possession laws, and you will not need to build new risons. But that would be bad for the economy, and especially the private prison business.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Earl:
    Please don't try and promote yourself here!

    Earl when you control this board then you may make the rules.

    As far as I know Eric has not banned links.

    Until he does I will post the odd link to my own forums.

    I suggest that you couldn't handle things there and thus you think it is wrong to promote another venue.

    A thing that is very common in the forum/blog world.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Please don't link to your own forums or websites unless you are linking to something in particular that is part of an on-going discussion that will continue here.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Earl I still maintain you are getting snookered.

    Of course Stockwell Day defended what he said because its obviously correct.

    Unreported crime has gone up and is a serious issue. Assuming the government takes matters to address it then yes, the prison population would increase.


    But he isn't the public safety minister or minister of justice/attorney general.

    On previous occasionions Rob Nicholson has laid out the official government position on the matter.

    Things like the 2 for 1 fix is going to shift occupancy from provincial jails to federal prisons. Ending parole for dangerous offenders and putting in mandatory minimums for serious crimes is going to increase occupancy. When the head count increases more space is needed.

    The PBO's report says the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Barc's my suggestion is to legalize soft drugs and tax them" "So much crime is committed by people trying to get money to buy drugs"

    Not to quibble Earl,... but the first part might solve some of the other problems, but it wouldn't seem to solve this part of the crime problem.





    "I was shocked to read this. They want research done on its safety and effectiveness, but seemed unconcerned as to its legal status if it will help (anecdotal evidences is it may)."

    Have you never been to the hospital liberal supporter? or even a pharmacy,.. they are full of opiates, narcotics and the like. many of them illicit but used in small quantitys and controlled situations for medical reasons.


    "It seems even heroin addicts are pretty normal people if their addiction is being managed without having to consort with criminals."

    Except for the costs associated with it in our medical system, in social programs, in lost productivity and taxes... (and it appears you believe there is no cost in law enforcement except for the dealers wanting money).... doesn't seem to matter which drug, cigarette, bad food alcohol...etc.


    Don't think they care so long as they get the quick hit as cheaply and efficiently as possible. If that is from the dealer on the corner selling for the same price as the shop down town?? And if the price is lower, no taxes on top? Sure the cigarette companies "towed the line" like you said, but there is still many smuggled in. Drugs, especially ones like meth or weed which are easy to manufacture without smuggling across the border would still see alot of illict sales even if there was legal shops downtown.



    "Conrad Black, after seeing the US prison system on the inside, has been quite clear that the US war on drugs has failed."

    .... I try not to take advice from a convicted fraudster. I would suggest the same for you.



    "three strikes"
    --- how many violent offences does it take with jail time to rehabilitate you inbetween should it take before society declares you unrehabilitatable? At what point should we decide to protect people from repeat violent offenders by simply removing them from the population??


    "Repeal most of the drug possession laws, and you will not need to build new risons. But that would be bad for the economy, and especially the private prison business."

    Bad for the economy, bad for the medical system, bad for the social programs and their budgets... etc etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Barcs that's precisely what Shadow isn't doing. Addressing the issue."

    "Using a straw man to support an ideology smacks of insincerity if not downright subterfuge."


    Can you clarify peter?? Are you talking about shadows arguments or your own?



    "Barc's my suggestion is to legalize soft drugs and tax them
    .... So much crime is committed by people trying to get money to buy drugs"

    I am sorry Earl, I can understand how the legal/tax argument works for some of the problems... but I don't see how it works for this one.

    Further to that, Using alcohol as an example. There is recreational users... once in awhile. Then there is chronic users... all the time.

    The rec users don't bother me. The chronic ones? More $$ spent on social programs for them, Reduced tax revenue from them, and an increase in $$ spent on our medical system. The chronic users are a big cost to society even if they aren't committing crime. And that does bother me when I am asked to deal with it and to help pay for them.

    And what about safety? Not just on the road, but not everyone works at a desk either. A year ago an employee that was fired from the oil patch for (in that case recreational) drug use because of the addiction argument. This is a guy in a position who if he makes a mistake because he focus is drug lacking could drop heavy tools and pieces on peoples heads. Why should they have to put up with a threat to their lives because of a chronic drug user?

    It doesn't just affect only the user when the addiction makes a chronic user out of them.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I'm in the process of building a still to make moonshine - I don't expect anyone would wan to buy it from me.

    I'm not planning on breaking any laws. Operating a still is perfectly legal in BC.

    As for drugs, I met a construction worker once (he was the flag man - I was waiting for some blasting in the Kicking Horse Pass) and he blamed his heroin addiction (which he insisted he had beaten) on the prohibition on marijuana. He said that he'd been taught that pot was bad stuff, and then when he tried it he discovered it wasn't bad at all. And based on that, he didn't believe all the other warnings he'd had about other drugs, so he tried some of those too. And thus he became a heroin addict.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Incidentally, I was surveyed by Angus Reid on Thursday, so we can probably expect a new poll result from them any time now.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Please don't link to your own forums or websites unless you are linking to something in particular that is part of an on-going discussion that will continue here.

    Fair enough

    ReplyDelete
  105. OT: Equalization and Quebec:

    http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/08/05/14936591.html

    ReplyDelete
  106. Canada lost over 150,000 full time jobs in the last month. i guess all the credit should go to Harper's economic policies. Unemployment is soaring through the roof and all Harper wants to talk about is the census. Where are his priorities?

    ReplyDelete
  107. DL there are so many things wrong with your comment i'll go through point by point.

    "Canada lost over 150,000 full time jobs in the last month."

    That's highly misleading. We lost a net 9,300 jobs. About half the shift from full time to part time were in education and was because of summer vacation. In september they'll bounce back.

    A further quarter of the shift are because of the real estate slow down. However, that should bounce back soon too as demand is temporarily slumped from the HST.

    Focusing on the shift from full time to part time is laughable. Its a "gotcha" headline that promotes economic illiteracy.

    "i guess all the credit should go to Harper's economic policies."

    Or the fact that its summer ? Is that Harper's fault ? Or consumer behaviour in the face of the HST and increasing interest rates ?

    "Unemployment is soaring through the roof"

    No its not. -9,300 is not "soaring", its a fraction of the jobs gained in the past three months.

    "all Harper wants to talk about is the census. Where are his priorities?"

    Harper hasn't addressed the census issue once.

    He talked about the economy. So did Stockwell Day earlier in the week.

    Its the media and opposition who are focused on the census and NOT the economy.

    Where are their priorities ?

    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.