Thursday, August 19, 2010

New EKOS Poll: 4.6-pt CPC Lead (unchanged)

It's that time of the week again, and so we have a new EKOS poll. Nothing too exciting, but once again we see growth for both of the two main parties. Is this an indication that Canadians are starting to get serious about the next election?Compared to EKOS's last two-week poll (though this poll encompasses only the last week), both the Liberals and the Conservatives have gained 1.1 points. The Conservatives now stand at 32.5% while the Liberals are at 27.9%.

The New Democrats are up 0.1 to 17.4%. The Greens drop 0.7 to 10.3% and the Bloc Québécois drops 1.2 points to 9.2%. The poll found that 15% of Canadians were undecided.

If we compare this last week of polling to polling done between August 4 and 10, we don't see much change. What we do see, however, is that the NDP jumped about two points between Week 1 and Week 2, in part due to better performances in Atlantic Canada. The Conservatives jumped in British Columbia while the Liberals and Conservatives headed in different directions in Ontario to the benefit of the Grits.

Compared to EKOS's release two weeks ago, however, the Liberals are up four points in Ontario to 35.7%. The Conservatives are down one to 32.4%. A lead in this province is BIG for the Liberals. The NDP is also down one to 17.6%. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 43.8% (followed by the Conservatives at 30.7%) and Ottawa with 49.3% (with the Conservatives at 30.4%). That Ottawa number is unlikely, though it would also not be surprising if the past few weeks have had an effect on the public service population in the capital.

The Bloc is down five points in Quebec to 36.2%, while the Liberals and Conservatives have gained two points apiece. They stand at 25.1% and 17.3%, respectively. The NDP is steady at 10.2%. The Bloc leads in Montreal with 40.3%, followed by the Liberals at 29.9%.

The Conservatives are up five points in British Columbia and lead with 41.1%, a good number for them. The NDP is down four to 23.5% while the Liberals are stable at 21.9%. The Greens are up one to 11.8%. The Conservatives lead in Vancouver with 32.5%, followed closely by the Liberals at 26.4%.

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada with 35.1%, followed by the Conservatives at 31.1%. The NDP have jumped six points here to 26.3%.

The Conservatives lead in Alberta with 55.2%. The Liberals are well behind with 17.6%.

The Tories also lead in the Prairies with 41.4%, which is a drop of seven points. The NDP is up 11 to 33.5% and the Liberals are down six to 14.2%.

The Conservatives win 72 seats in the West and North, 36 in Ontario, 8 in Atlantic Canada, and 7 in Quebec for a total of 123. Their performance in Ontario is a killer.

The Liberals win 52 seats in Ontario, 19 in Atlantic Canada, 17 in Quebec, and 12 in the West and North for a total of 100. A nice round number.

The Bloc wins 49 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 18 seats in Ontario, 11 in the West, 5 in Atlantic Canada and 2 in Quebec for a total of 36.

Relatively speaking, this is a good poll for the Liberals and the NDP. While the Conservatives still have the lead, their caucus would be reduced significantly. The Liberals would make a big gain while the NDP would maintain itself. Together the two parties would outnumber the Conservatives, making life difficult in the House of Commons if Stephen Harper remained as Prime Minister.

The Conservatives are still hobbled and with the recent news about the RCMP and veterans' affairs, they aren't going to be making any gains. The Liberals are still weak but are showing signs of life: most polls have had Michael Ignatieff's party on the upswing. With all that has been going on this summer (and it has been pretty tumultuous!) it sets up an interesting fall session of Parliament.

41 comments:

  1. It would be interesting to see if Veterans and Police are starting to turn away from the Cons with the events of the last few days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After reviewing the Ekos poll, I'm still left scratching my head. The last Ekos poll had:

    1. Week 1;
    2. Week 2;
    3. A combined Week 1 and Week 2;

    This Ekos poll has Week 1 with a larger 2,048 sample size and Week 2 with also a larger sample of 2,543. However, in this Ekos poll Week 1 and Week 2 are not combined.

    Ekos seems to change their methodology from one poll to the next.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, it is a little annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With all the sturm und drang that's been going on in the last couple of weeks I'm wondering about this poll?

    The BC HST thing, yes it is supposedly provincial, and the NDP surging provincially there why wouldn't that carry over federally as well? So I think that BC number is suspect.

    Then with all the "firings" that have happened the Tory number is suspect I think. I mean this list is pretty damning.

    Linda Keen - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission,

    Pat Stogran - Veterans' Ombudsman

    Steve Sullivan - Victims of Crime Ombudsmen

    Sheridan Scott - Competition Bureau head

    Paul Kennedy - RCMP Public Complaints Commission,

    Peter Tinsley - Chair of the Military Complaints Commission,

    Adrian Measner - President of the Canadian Wheat Board

    Bernard Shapiro - Ethics Commissioner

    Munir Sheikh, the chief statistician of Statistics Canada,

    Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak - Long-Gun Registry

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter you are surprised that the average voting Canadian would not be shocked and wanting to punish the CPC for replacing political appointed bureaucrats after 4 years of CPC rule???

    Really?

    ReplyDelete
  6. you are surprised that the average voting Canadian would not be shocked and wanting to punish the CPC for replacing political appointed bureaucrats after 4 years of CPC rule???


    There are "spins" in that post of yours aren't there? Because you well know that for instance Cheliak had only served about a year and was a "CPC" appointment1

    That Keen was fired only to be proven right less than a month later when the reactor failed. Back on line now after 15 months of work. Exactly what she said when she ordered it shut down.

    You're trying to make a pissing contest out of the actions which you deem justified by the CPC.

    None of the people on that list where incompetent, many of those agencies are supposed to be arms length but with the CPC if it doesn't fit their ideology then the person has to go. This isn't democratic governance it's dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And lets all not forget the outright scandal involved in the Rights And Democracies situation !!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The Harper slide is on!"

    Oh.

    Things I like:

    Increasing CPC number

    Right Direct of Government (leading indicator) up 3 points even while Right Direct of Country is down (scary economics! but lower spread = good).

    Things I don't like:

    Ontario spread, obviously. But they could be suspect, expect a correction by next cycle of numbers!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter huge new scandal to add to your list:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/is-stephen-harper-set-to-move-against-the-crtc/article1677632/

    Now Harper is not reappointing the deputy of the CRTC ! FIRING!

    Oh and get this ?

    He wants to get rid of the chair, who doesn't share his free market beliefs about increasing competition!

    There NEEDS to be an election this fall to nip this dictatorship in the bud.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It will be interesting to see if the two heads of the CRTC are the next to go. Harper wants to speed up Fox North and will need to put his cronies in place to make it happen faster.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I actually read that this morning. Now I'm no great fan of the CRTC by any means. Way to much in bed with the industry.

    von Finckstein isn't the real problem though, the whole board is.

    If you are interested I'll post a link to a piece which lays out the real problems particularly with the internet here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The CRTC itself is the problem. We don't need the CRTC.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Slow and steady will win the race.

    Harper, isn't going anywhere, and he isn't gaining any traction.

    You don't want to be ahead of him, because then he pulls off a cowardly act and asks for prorogation to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

    We are seeing the beginnings of the Harper, slide, it will only get worse for him.

    I find the BC, number strange.

    Ekos, must have only polled Shadow there, 100 times.

    Ontario, is also starting to turn on Harper, so its all good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are those who would suggest that Frank Graves might be reporting his polls differently based on what they say so he can produce a better story.

    The last poll have that terrible week 2 result for the CPC, and that's a story, so he highlighted it. Now, two weeks later, he releases what appear to be only the second week of a two week poll. What happened to the data between Aug 3 and Aug 11?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's there, just at the end of the report. I do mention it in my post. I suppose that means you don't read them. I'm hurt!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "We are seeing the beginnings of the Harper, slide, it will only get worse for him."

    2 weeks in a row of improving poll numbers is a slide?

    I thought the start of the Harper slide was exactly 2 weeks ago when you made the following prediction:

    "The Harper slide is on!"


    BC numbers are not weird. Harper was all over the province recently making announcments in Vancouver for the aquarium and touring around the Kootenays.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW: Harper was quoted yesterday as saying "The next election will be a choice between a coalition
    government of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois, or a stable Conservative majority government for this country,"

    He is now ACKNOWLEDGING that if the Conservatives don't
    win a majority - Canadians will have voted to install an opposition coalition!
    I'm glad he cleared that up. Now we know that even if the Tories get 153 seats out of 308 - to Harper they will have lost the election to an "opposition coalition" of his own invention which would have 155 seats.

    I hope the media really plays up this new tack from Harper that he will deem anything less than a CPC majority as a defeat leading to his resignation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DL that's not at all what the Prime Minister said.

    He is saying that if the Conservatives don't win a majority in the next election he believes the opposition will seize power as per their signed agreement and stated intention to do so.

    That doesn't mean he's acknowledging that Canadians will have voted for a coalition. He doesn't believe in coalitions. He believes that first place parties form government. Nothing has changed here.


    Nor will he resign if he is not given a majority. He will meet the house with his agenda and its up to the coalition if they go ahead with their plan.

    ReplyDelete
  19. An interesting side note... the US deficit is now projected at $1.3 trillion US.

    For comparison, Canada's total federal debt (not annual, total) is around $538 billion Canadian. Mix in provinces and you'd probably add $450 billion more (didn't find a clean source quickly for it, but Ontario over $200, QC over $100, BC around $50 the rest are probably no higher than $10-15 for any one of them). Thus all debt for provincial/federal governments in Canada is LESS than one year's debt for the US federal government. Even factoring in how they have 10 times the population that is just plain old scary.

    Glad to be up here in 'socialist Canada' where we spend ourselves into a hole vs the US where they just don't bother to collect enough taxes to cover what services they do have.

    ReplyDelete
  20. DL - the opposition would still have to make their intentions clear by defeating the throne speech.

    I'd suggest Harper, should he win a larger minority, should have a very conciliatory throne speech and let the opposition defeat it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He doesn't believe in coalitions. He believes that first place parties form government. Nothing has changed here.
    Yet he seems happy enough with the Israeli government "coalition of losers".


    Nor will he resign if he is not given a majority. He will meet the house with his agenda and its up to the coalition if they go ahead with their plan.
    Since the legal coalition is usually referred to as a "coup", Steve will stage a counter coup, except a real one in this case.

    I'm only being half facetious.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wouldn't look to much in to the Cons gains Shadow seeing it is the middle of summer and people just aren't paying attention to politics.


    I'd like to look at the results demographically and see how the numbers may change. Seeing the youth vote in the country is so low the under 25 category is sadly almost pointless. I don't no if there is information on it but it'd be interesting to see if university educated people are more likely to vote then those who have just high school or are college grads.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shadow,

    That is news to me that Harper, does not believe in coalitions.

    To refresh your memory, in 2004 Harper, co wrote a letter in conjunction with Layton, and Duceppe, and asking her to keep open all her options if Paul Martin, should request the dissolution of parliament and ask for an election.

    Harper, was hoping that the GG, would invite him to form a government, because he could command the confidence of the house, with the support of Layton, and Duceppe, and Paul Martin, could not.

    That is exactly what that letter implies, or else Duceppe, and Layton would not have signed it.

    Harper, would have become Prime Minister, under that scenario and it would have been without benefit of a messy election, and all perfectly legal under our inherited form of Westminster government.

    In 2004, Stephen Harper, was very knowledgeable about how Westminster functioned.

    Fast forward to 2008, Stephen Harper went on National television and completely misrepresented how Westminster functions.

    He called it a "coup" an "overthrowing of a democratically elected government" "trying to seize power"

    He also misled Canadians, into thinking that we elect our Prime Minister, which is also patently false, when we do not.

    Stephen Harper, called it a coalition of "socialists" and "separatists"

    I will also refresh your memory on that as well.

    The 2008 Liberal/NDP coalition did not involve the BQ.

    The BQ, agreed to support the coalition on confidence motions for a set period of time, and they had no seats in cabinet, nor were they part of forming any legislation.

    Now what exactly was Harper, up to in 2004?

    He was attempting to form a government with those same socialists, and separatists, he derided in 2008.

    His signature is on that letter, and so is the signature of Layton, and Duceppe.

    Stephen Harper, has also accepted the support of the "Socialists" and "separatists" to keep his government in office.

    Stephen Harper, is all fine and dandy with the support of the evil "socialists" and "separatists" just as long as they are supporting him and his pathetic government.

    When Stephen Harper, attempts to bring up the spectre of a coalition, he will have it thrown right back in his face.

    He will be reminded of his own coalition attempt, and there is a letter to prove it.

    What Stephen Harper, was attempting in 2004, is no different than the coalition of 2008.

    If that attempt had succeeded, Stephen Harper, needed the support of Layton, and Duceppe, to maintain the confidence of the house.

    That is the bottom line.

    Stephen Harper, never tells the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Byelection Speculation:
    As summarized in Pundits guide http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/08/mark-your-calendar-manitoba/, there are two upcoming byelections in Winnipeg North and in Dauphin – Swan River – Marquette. But what is more interesting could be a possible byelection in Vaughan, where Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua is likely to resign and run for the Mayor.

    What is interesting is that former OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino, a Vaughan resident is being speculated to run there, and likely for the CPC. He would be a very very Red Tory, but would likely win for the CPC as he would be seen as an strong MP in the government. (Meaning he could get a lot of stuff for Vaughan).

    The point being is that in many battleground ridings like Vaughan, the next election may be less an election between the Conservatives and the Coalition, but more of whether ridings expecting there will be a CPC government of some kind will want a seat at the table to have access to the "decisions" of government.

    Vaughan could be an interesting test, and could be a blow to the Liberals and the safety of there ring of seats around Toronto.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ira said:
    The CRTC itself is the problem. We don't need the CRTC.

    Shadow said:
    who doesn't share his free market beliefs about increasing competition!

    I'm going to address both of these remarks in one post. Please pay attention.

    To Shadow "freemarkets" don't work and can't work when you have a monopoly. I don't know what the situation is out West or in the Atlantic provinces but in central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, we have a monopoly situation in the telecom world.

    Bell Canada has a complete monopoly on both telephone and internet service. The only thing that in any way restrains them in screwing the public is the CRTC. Admittedly the CRTC could have done a lot more but at least they have done some things that are worthwhile.

    No matter whether you are an independent ISP or a cable company or a satellite net service provider you will eventually have to use part of the Bell network at which point Bell will grab you by the balls.

    Bell has an almost total monopoly on phone service, internet service and satellite TV.

    Without the CRTC at least imposing some controls the situation for us would be dire.

    Eric you're back here somewhere, do you agree?

    http://www.canadianisp.ca/net_neutrality.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. If the trends continue as you now show them the Libs are moving over the 100 seat mark.

    This is the real interesting part of your analysis in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ira if Canadians don't give Harper a majority this time around perhaps letting the coalition take power wouldn't be such a bad idea.

    That would free up Harper to go around whipping the country into an anti-coalition frenzy. And if the timing was right those new seats would be ready too.

    A stint in opposition might be just what he needs to roar back with a majority, like Trudeau did.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "He (Julian Fantino) would be a very very Red Tory, but would likely win for the CPC as he would be seen as an strong MP in the government. (Meaning he could get a lot of stuff for Vaughan). "

    Huh??? Fantinto is an ultra rightwing law and order social conservative. No one would ever call him a "red Tory"!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shadow,

    Apologies, I kinda bungled my first paragraph.

    Stephen Harper, was hoping in 2004 that the GG, would refuse Paul Martin's request for an election, and then turn to him and invite him to form a government, because he could command the confidence of the house with the support of Layton, and Duceppe.

    Stephen Harper, also famously went into the UK, the home of Westminster, and declared "Loser's don't get to form coalitions'

    David Cameron, the PM of Great Britain, is in a formal coalition with the third place Liberal democrats.

    This was another one of his lies.

    It is whomever can command the confidence of the house, who is the one who forms the government.

    As noted Benjamin Netanyahu finished second in the popular vote in Israel, and is in a formal coalition with the Labour party, and some other smaller parties, in the Knesset.

    Tzipi Levni, received the most votes, and is not in Netanyahu's coalition.

    So coalition's are not for "losers"

    After the next election, if we still have a minority government, and Harper, has lost seats and has less than a combined Liberal/NDP total he will get first crack at forming a government.

    After the way he has conducted himself the last few years I don't hold out much hope for his chances.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 49 steps it was nice of you to trot out the old lie. Actually go and read the letter Harper wrote and compare it to the one Dion wrote.

    Harper wrote the letter to tell the GG not to grant Paul Martin's request if he asked for a snap election.

    If the HOC has confidence in Martin then he cannot have an election for no reason whenever he wants.


    That's it. That's all the letter was for. Harper wanted a fixed election date or for Paul Martin to actually fall on a confidence motion.

    NO more governments calling snap elections without reason.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Peter - I agree the monopolies are bad, but those monopolies were created and are today sustained by government action. Those used to be government-run phone companies. That's why they had a monopoly.

    British Telecom is perhaps the best example of a crown corporation being privatised and screwing over its consumers. Why? Because its monopoly was protected.

    What should have happened was the public company should have been broken into competing parts and then privatised.

    Eliminating the CRTC is the first step toward eliminating these monopolies.

    Shadow - I think the best path for Harper, politically, would have been to damn the torpedoes and let Dion's coalition take power in 2008. But I also think that would been horrific for the country, so I'm very glad Harper chose the path that saved us from Dion's carbon tax. Indeed, having Harper as PM may have saved the world from a Copenhagen Accord.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eliminating the CRTC is the first step toward eliminating these monopolies.

    No that isn't. First break up the monopoly, set in place rules and laws to protect the public interest.

    Then you can safely remove the CRTC.

    The CRTC is the only control mechanism that exists currently to even begin to control the monopoly. Once the monopoly is broken up then the CRTC probably becomes redundant.

    But breaking the monopoly is a Govt job. The odds of it happening are about the same as Jesus return !!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shadow,

    The letter that Harper, Duceppe, and Layton co wrote to the GG, in 2004 was not about forcing Paul Martin, to hold a fixed election.

    That statement is absurd.

    You say in your statement the following:

    "Harper, wrote the letter to the GG, not to grant Paul Martin's request if he asked for a snap election"

    OK, if the GG, had refused Paul Martin's request, what would have happened?

    It was pretty clear from that letter, that all three opposition parties had lost confidence in the Martin, government.

    If Martin, had not been granted an election, and the dissolution of parliament had also not been granted, he would have had his government fall, on a confidence motion.

    Then, we would have had an election anyway, or Harper, could have advised the GG, no election was needed because he could command the confidence of the house with the support of Layton, and Duceppe.

    Are you seriously saying that after Harper, Layton, and Duceppe, had written that letter, that they then would have turned around and supported the Martin, government on a confidence motion?

    No, they would not have done so. At that point they were emphatic that they had lost confidence in the Martin, government.

    So only two scenario's could have played out.

    The election that we did have, or the GG, inviting Harper, to form a government, because he could command the confidence of the house.

    If Harper, had become Prime Minister, in that manner he required the support of Layton, and Duceppe, to maintain the confidence of the house.

    That is exactly what that letter implies, or else Layton, and Duceppe, would not have signed it.

    Layton, and Duceppe, would not have signed such a letter, if they had any confidence in the Martin government.

    At that time Harper, had also lost confidence in the Martin, government, and he would also have voted non confidence, he was desperate to become Prime Minister.

    You then go on to say that you do not want governments to call snap elections with no reason.

    I will refresh your memory again.

    Stephen Harper, broke his own fixed election law, to do exactly that in 2008.

    He stated at the time that parliament was dysfunctional, and he needed an election to clear that air.

    That was another lie of his. He thought he could garner a majority, and that was just a pretense he used to justify an election.

    He also said Parliament was not working, when it was Stephen Harper, himself who authored a dirty tricks manual, to advise his caucus members on how they could disrupt the work of parliamentary committees.

    Your argument does not hold water.

    Stephen Harper, can raise the spectre of a coalition, but this time he will not get away with his lies.

    I am proof positive he will get hit with the fact that he himself was attempting the exact same thing.

    Canadians, are much more informed now and after the events in Great Britain, the coalition boogeyman has lost steam for Harper.

    If that is all he intends to run on, then he won't have much success.

    I guess he could always try ad scam again as well.

    Why not?

    He has nothing else, to run on. He certainly has no achievements to run on.

    Shadow, face facts.

    Harper, himself has also accepted, support form the NDP, and the BQ, to stay in office.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "NO more governments calling snap elections without reason."

    But then Harper did exactly thaqt in 2008, breaking his own "fixed election date" law.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Shadow,

    I would be remiss if I did not refresh your memory on another point.

    Stephen Harper, is the first Canadian Prime Minister, to have ever been granted a prorogation to avoid being defeated on a non confidence motion.

    That is right, Stephen Harper, requested a prorogation in 2008, because he did not want to be defeated on a bon confidence motion.

    The GG, granted that request, and we now have a precedent set in Canada, that any future Prime Minister, can request a prorogation to stave off defeat on a non confidence motion.

    You say in your statement, that you wanted Paul Martin, to face the house and be defeated on a non confidence motion in 2004.

    But then you turn around and say that Harper, should not have faced the house in 2008, to be defeated on a non confidence motion.

    Paul Martin, displayed a lot more courage than Stephen Harper, when he ultimately did fall on a non confidence motion.

    He did not have the nerve to go across the street to Rideau Hall, and request prorogation to avoid defeat.

    Prorogation, is a legitimate tool in a parliamentary democracy, but Stephen Harper, used that tool in an illegitimate manner.

    He also requested a second prorogation, to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on the Afghan detainees, and in order to stack the senate.

    The second time, he phoned it in, and did not even grant Michaelle Jean, the courtesy of meeting with her in person.

    You applauded both prorogation's.

    I hope you will also be applauding when a future Liberal, Prime Minister attempts to pull off the same stunt.

    The precedent has now been set.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The CRTC is the only control mechanism that exists currently to even begin to control the monopoly."

    Think you need to do some research into government control over regulations and the regulatory bodies it has in its control....



    ""NO more governments calling snap elections without reason."

    But then Harper did exactly thaqt in 2008, breaking his own "fixed election date" law."

    Yup... it is too bad that he couldn't succeed in passing a proper law, or in roping Martin into doing it. That way he would actually have had to break the law like you said... but he didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "and we now have a precedent set in Canada, that any future Prime Minister, can request a prorogation to stave off defeat on a non confidence motion."

    No, we have the same precedent as we had before.... the GG follows the advice of her chief adviser... the PM.


    "He also requested a second prorogation, to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on the Afghan detainees, and in order to stack the senate."

    He did learn alot from the Chretien liberals, didn't he?



    "Paul Martin, displayed a lot more courage than Stephen Harper, when he ultimately did fall on a non confidence motion."

    I do remember him going to the electorate after he lost a confidence motion... I also remember him losing a motion, but not offering a confidence motion to prove he had the confidence of the house.... and that a MP crossed the floor to stave off non confidence... and that MP was granted a cabinet position on the same day in an completely unrelated matter.... Courage indeed....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Barcs,

    Bravo to you.

    Propagation, was NEVER granted by a GG, in Canada, before to stave off defeat on a non confidence motion.

    That was what Harper, did when he requested and was granted that prorogation.

    Your attempt to obfuscate, and blur facts, and blame the Liberals, is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.

    You are a real good Conservative Barcs, you use all the same talking points.

    Nothing is ever Stephen Harper's fault, no it is always someone else's fault, specifically the Liberals.

    Why don't you use the other talking point "Losers don't get to form coalitions"

    After all you wouldn't even have to think about that, Stephen Harper provided the phrase for you.

    Belinda Stronach, did cross the floor and joined the Liberal, caucus, and her vote did save the Martin government.

    However you neglected to mention one very salient point.

    In the subsequent election her constituents did reelect her as a Liberal.

    Do you remember that?

    Now how about we go through the Stephen Harper, follies which you so conveniently never mention.

    David Emerson, crossed the floor to join the CPC, caucus after he had just been elected as a Liberal, for the riding of Vancouver Kings way.

    Hell, he didn't even cross the floor, as parliament had not even reconvened, he did it immediately after being elected as a Liberal.

    Nice play for Steve, who hypocritically derided floor crossings while in opposition.

    That one took the cake.

    Think about it.

    David Emerson, also never had the courage to run for reelection in Vancouver Kings way, as a Conservative, because he knew he would have had his ass handed to him on a plate.

    And while are at it there is also the Chuck Cadman affair.

    Stephen Harper, was caught on tape, admitting that "Financial Considerations" were offered in order to sway his vote.

    When the Liberals accused Harper, of trying to bribe Cadman, he launched a lawsuit against them.

    He said at the time that he would make sure that he would "Bury" the LPC, and he would make sure it was the sorriest thing they had ever done.

    Stephane Dion, and Michael Ignatieff, were even served at their respective residences.

    As the lawsuit proceeded along, Harper, to be kind "Contradicted" himself under oath, and had his own lawyer quit on him.

    After that Stephen Harper, quietly dropped his lawsuit, and was awarded nothing not even costs.

    The expert the CPC, hired for voice authentication even contradicted Harper's position. That was Harper's voice on the tape.

    He even smeared Tom Zytaruk, who first mentioned what Harper, did in his book on Chuck Cadman.

    I could also give you more Harper, follies, but that is enough for you to absorb for one day.

    You are a typical Conservative.

    Talking Points, obfuscation, deny, and fabricate.

    And of course point number one everything is all the fault of the Liberals.

    Harper, truly has no peer.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Your attempt to obfuscate, and blur facts, and blame the (Conservatives), is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.

    You are a real good (left winger, 49), you use all the same talking points.




    "Nice play for Steve, who hypocritically derided floor crossings while in opposition."

    Which was promptly derided by all the people like you who thought floor crossing to the liberals was ok while Harper was in opposition...



    "And while are at it there is also the Chuck Cadman affair."

    Which is just one more make believe scandal proved by you by using rumor and innuendo rather than real facts.



    You are a typical (left winger).

    Talking Points, obfuscation, deny, and fabricate.

    And of course point number one everything is all the fault of the (conservatives).



    I really can never tell 49.. when you are talking about others positions... or your own, You seem to use all the same tactics, all the same words that you accuse others of. Sometimes it is even true,.... but most of the time it is just you trying to spin and spin trying to show others for the hypocrite that you yourself are....

    ReplyDelete
  40. Barcs,

    Of course everything is "spin"

    Nothing is ever true, pertaining to Stephen Harper.

    And you don't know what I think about floor crossings or anything else for that matter, because I never stated a position on that now did I?

    I just stated what David Emerson did.

    Chuck Cadman, of course was all fabricated.

    You know Barcs, it is all fabricated, the whole damn sorry record of Stephen Harper, is all a fabrication.

    Actually when I see your postings I just pass them by, because I know you are just yourself a Conservative cheer leader.

    I chose to answer one of them today, which was a waste of my time, because I knew exactly what you would come back with.

    Barcs, right back at ya pal, you yourself are a hypocrite of the first order, and do even have any sense to recognize it.

    I don't care what you say about me, because I will wear your scorn as my badge of honour.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Shadow,

    "Ira if Canadians don't give Harper a majority this time around perhaps letting the coalition take power wouldn't be such a bad idea.

    That would free up Harper to go around whipping the country into an anti-coalition frenzy. And if the timing was right those new seats would be ready too.

    A stint in opposition might be just what he needs to roar back with a majority, like Trudeau did."

    Come on Shadow, this really is too much, (even for you) it almost made me shit in my pants with laughter!

    Get real. Trudeau starting from a majority and was humbly reduced to a minority. He then learned valuable lessons (unlike Charest, it seems...) and was returned with another majority. After the defeat of the Clark government, he got his final majority.

    This Prime Minister has absolutely no major growing potential in terms of seats. This isn't 2012. Poor Conservatives!

    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.