Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Harris-Decima poll: 3-pt CPC Lead (down one)

A few days ago, the media reported on a new Harris-Decima poll that showed a small gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Harris-Decima posted the details of that poll on their website yesterday, and it tells a story of Liberal gain.Compared to Harris-Decima's last poll taken at the end of July and in early August, the Conservatives have dropped one point, standing at 33%. The Liberals have gained two points, and have reached the 30% mark.

The New Democrats are up one to 16% while the Greens are down two to 10% and the Bloc Québécois is stable at 9%.

Though we're talking incremental gain at the national level, this is good news for the Liberals. It wouldn't seem right for them to lead a government, even a coalition, with less than 30% support.

In Ontario, the Liberals are up two to 36% while the Conservatives are unchanged at 35%. The NDP is up two to 18%.

The Bloc has dropped two points in Quebec and is now at 37%. This is a bit of a trend we've seen lately, with the Bloc moving away from the 40%+ they were enjoying throughout the summer. The Liberals are up three to 28% (very good for them) and the Conservatives are up one to 15% (not good). The NDP is down three to 9%, which is a bit of a problem.

The Conservatives have dropped five points in British Columbia and hold a narrow lead with 32%. The NDP is up 10 points and is at 30%, while the Liberals are down one to 21%. The Greens are down five to 15%.

The Liberals are riding high in Atlantic Canada with 45%, up seven. The Conservatives followed with 28%, down six.

The Conservatives lead in Alberta with 63%, followed by the Liberals at 18% (up five).

And in the Prairies, the Conservatives have dropped five points but still lead with 44%. The Liberals are at 27% and the NDP is at 21%, up seven.

The Conservatives would win 63 seats in the West and North, 43 in Ontario, six in Atlantic Canada, and five in Quebec for a total of 117. That would be their worst result since 2004.

The Liberals would win 48 seats in Ontario, 24 in Atlantic Canada, 19 in Quebec, and 16 in the West and North for a total of 107.

The Bloc would win 51 seats in Quebec.

The NDP would win 16 seats in the West, 15 in Ontario, and two in Atlantic Canada for a total of 33.

It would be difficult for the Conservatives to govern with only 117 seats and 33% of the vote. If the Liberals and NDP could come to an agreement, arguably a coalition of 140 seats and 46% of the vote, with one of the parties making huge gains, would have more legitimacy. If the Liberals and NDP were unable to come to an agreement, it is hard to imagine Stephen Harper remaining as Prime Minister for very long. We'd likely see the Opposition defeat the Conservatives and the Liberals installed in a minority government, as they are more likely to find support for their legislation than the Conservatives.

It will be interesting to see how things develop between now and the resumption of Parliament. The Liberals are getting good coverage lately, and Michael Ignatieff finally seems to "get" being a political leader. Good news is few and far between for the Tories and the NDP is going to take a beating with this long gun registry issue. I would not be surprised to see the NDP drop a tick or two to the Liberals. But, then again, I would not be surprised to see the Liberals drop back to 27% or so, which seems to be what always happens.

99 comments:

  1. Jack and Iggy could set up a coalition with this result, and it would probably be seen as legitimate.

    I wouldn't be crying any crockadile tears over it. What ever gets done can be undone. After a leadership review, and a majority winning campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harper is now on record as saying that either he gets a majority or the opposition will form a coalition and rule. So, if the Tories get anything less than 155 seats - they are out of power. No ifs ands or buts!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Always interesting to see. One wonders what the reality will be come election day (be it fall, spring, or 2011 fall or whatever). Right now I can't guess at the key themes. The economy tends to be a CPC stronghold but they are in power and a double dip recession should speak poorly of them (of course, it is the worlds fault, not theirs).

    One figures something will emerge whenever an election comes due. Still, seeing figures start to shift in the Liberals favour suggests something will occur soon - be it a major announcement from the CPC to try to shift their fortunes or a major trip by the Liberals knocking them back down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good news coming for Harper includes killing the gun registry, senate reform passing the senate, AND probable Liberal failures in upcoming by-elections.

    Especially if Fantino can take Vaughn.

    A CPC steal of a Liberal seat would kill Ignatieff's summer buzz, re-open questions on his leadership, demoralize the LPC, and give Harper back his mojo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Or the complete opposite could happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Following on this summers litany of CPC fubars I sort of expected the lines would shift.

    Now of course the big question will be the gun registry.

    If that should get defeated in the House then the CPC can expect to shed some of their core support.

    In that case I would hazard a late Fall election?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It'll be great news when the registry dies. It's been a long time coming.

    Another silver lining I see these days, is after it dies, (and it will)...
    the CPC will have lost their absolute BEST wedge issue.

    Play that divide and wedge game after that's off the table. See how that works out for you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't see killing the gun registry as being good for Harper. I would think that people who want it dead would tend to vote Tory anyway. Harper could take a beating in Urban areas and with women. Both areas he needs to get more seats. It will be interesting to see what kind of damage this would also do to the NDP in these areas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's a fun little diversion called "The political compass".

    My score is right about where I figure it should be.

    It's funny that they rate both Brown, and Sarkozy as more right-wing, and more authoritarian then Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime pens an article in the Socialist Post.

    Time to rethink the priorities?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Morakon its actually a win-win issue for Harper.

    If the registry goes then it'll give him a lot of momentum, donors will feel better about giving some $$$, and it'll end the reach of the concern trolling from the likes of Liberal owned Postmedia.

    (Or as AJR79 rightly calls it The Socialist Post.)


    If the registry vote fails it'll just drive home the need for a Harper majority with the base.

    Core supporters will redouble their efforts and give $$$ to fund a promised advertising campaign against MPs from ridings where the registry is NOT popular.

    There were 22 seats who's MPs either voted yes to kill the registry or stayed home.


    22 seats is well past majority territory for Harper.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Or the complete opposite could happen."

    Or aliens could land from outer space.

    I'm talking about what's likely to happen given the best information we have.

    1) According to Joe Comartin he's 3 votes short of saving the registry.

    2) Senate reform is likely to pass in the senate given Harper's vote count.

    3) When don't the Liberals flub by-elections these days?

    ReplyDelete
  13. --- 22 seats is well past majority territory for Harper.

    The problem being that they are currently no where near their 2008 level of support.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The problem being that they are currently no where near their 2008 level of support."

    Well if we apply your pollster leanings adjustment this HD poll puts the CPC at 35.4%.

    That's about 2.3% back from their 2008 result. Not that hard to make up during an election.


    Also national polling isn't going to pick up these riding by riding shifts very well.

    The CPC could lose support in large city centers (wasted votes where they are in 3rd place) and pick up support in these 22 ridings where they are far more useful.

    Given the population differences it may even appear that the CPC has dropped in support after this issue but really their vote will have become much, much more efficient.

    Harper has already promised a BIG advertising campaign in the riding of any MP who switches their vote.

    Wayne Easter and Larry Bagnell need to be VERY worried.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see no reason for any of the three main parties to be confident at the moment. Your glasses are a tad rosy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Your glasses are a tad rosy.
    "

    A tad rosy ??? He lives in a rose tinted universe unconnected to here or reality.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Tory vote in "city centre" ridings in Toronto and Montreal is already so low that it can't go much lower - but they could and probably will lose ground in suburban parts of Ontario and BC where there are lots of seats they won by narrow margins.

    I predict that by the time the next election comes around - the gun registry will be a total non-issue and will barely be discussed during the campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Shadow,

    I keep telling you that the Harper, slide is on.

    It is only going to get worse from here on in for Harper.

    He has had so many screw ups, that they are starting to bite.

    Now face reality Shadow, Harper is going down.

    When you accept this you will be happier.

    You better start wrapping your mind around the fact the Harper, is finished, lest you will not accept it, and have to be put on a suicide watch after the next election.

    I would really hate for that to happen to you Shadow.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well i'm certainly not suggesting a campaign this fall unless the opposition causes one.

    I just think pundits need to be on alert that at least some of those 22 seats are going to be in play in a way they haven't been for a long time.

    Chantal Hebert already wrote a piece a few months ago saying they might be Harper's ticket to a majority.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "It'll be great news when the registry dies. It's been a long time coming. the CPC will have lost their absolute BEST wedge issue."

    "What ever gets done can be undone."

    You don't think that that can get played back up? "we can't let the liberals get back in power because not only will they reinstate the registry,.. they will make it worse" ??

    I think there is damage to the wedge issue.. but It is a decade from being gone.



    "The economy tends to be a CPC stronghold but they are in power and a double dip recession should speak poorly of them (of course, it is the worlds fault, not theirs). "

    Except that a double dip would be seen to be caused by the US. And that the Harper Tories have done a pretty good job through the "great recession" with the current deficit being 7 billion short of what it was forecast at.

    John Ivison writes about this this morning, and suggests that a double dip would put the economy back on the table as the most important issue. And one where Harper has far more trust than Iggy according to the polls.

    It could therefore be a repeat of the recent recession where the Tory support slid all the way downwards(or in this case, like others...up) to 37.5%.



    I think Eric is right, 35-31-16 is going to take alot of work during an election to get back to 37.6 - 26.2 - 18. However given the regional results it would seem that the target is BC and Ontario, and part of the Atlantic where the tories are drooping. Easier to target than trying to target the entire country.


    The one bright spot I see for the Tories is Quebec... 17 Tory, 28 lib, 11 NDP, 34 Bloc. That should mean they retain the same basic number of seats in Quebec. And of course, that the NDP will have to attack the liberals to get back the 2 points of support they are missing now since the election.

    For this poll the liberals should be feeling better, but not good yet. Tied in Ont, 28% in Que, and a large lead in the Atlantic should buoy some emotions. Tied in Ontario however... is still only slightly above the 08 election result. The happiness there is solely a result of the Tories being at 35 instead of 39

    The only happiness I can see for the NDP is BC... it is the only place they are polling above the last election result. And I can't see it getting better with the liberal attack on them over the gun registry.. unless they can convince those 3 votes... or decide to whip the vote on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "It'll be great news when the registry dies. It's been a long time coming. the CPC will have lost their absolute BEST wedge issue."


    "What ever gets done can be undone."

    I think you gave those 2 comments in the wrong order... Certainly there will be great damage to the gun registry wedge issue.

    But I surely see a campaign in "If we give power back to the liberals not only will they re-implement the registry,... they will make it worse"



    "the economy tends to be a CPC stronghold but they are in power and a double dip recession should speak poorly of them (of course, it is the worlds fault, not theirs)."

    I think you hit that on the Head John,... except for the part about the tories losing support over it.

    If it is seen to be caused in the US (Again). Then Harper benefits (like he did last time)

    Harper holds a double digit lead (not to mention double the actual support) in trust on the economy vis a vis the Iggster. That is probably being reinforced now with the budget deficit being 7 billion lower than the finance department, the banks, and even the budget officer forecast.

    If we experience another recession, we could also experience Harper and the tories falling upward again based on that trust. And parliament resuming in the fall will certainly make iggy visible again. A few feel good stories in the summer when people are not paying attention notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi 49 steps!

    I see we have a one point within the margin of error drop in CPC support according to this latest HD poll.

    1 point ?

    The Harper slide is on!!!

    (I think those glasses are beyond rose coloured to the point of being a neon pink.)

    See ya on thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm with Éric - this is a bad poll for everyone. The Liberals show both growth AND weakness, and everyone else is stagnant at best.

    DL - The opposition would have to want to govern for a coalition to form. At these poll numbers, that seems likely, but with 2008 poll numbers I doubt they'd try it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. There is an old saw that "Govt's defeat themselves".

    I think in a way that applies to all these recent polls.

    Tories slipping slowly, Liberals rising slowly.

    If we step back and look what we are seeing is the slow shedding of support for the Tories. The public is cognizant of all the things that have gone on since at least last Fall including the prorogue.

    The picture has been slowly changing. I don't think the Tories have realised or accepted that their fortunes are changing because of their own actions?

    The "ideological" thing has been hit by the national media on all sides hard and the Tories can't seem to escape it.

    Meanwhile that slowly slipping support is going mostly to the Liberals who have had a remarkably quiet summer, nothing that should have produced this rise. Yet it is there.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All,

    I will be both PREDICTABLE and brief: bring on the God-damned election!!!

    Thanks very much.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ron you really think Ignatieff should repeat his disasterous (it cost him 10 points) performance last year and come out and say:

    "Mr. Harper your time is up!"


    Apparently now he's saying:

    "I'm not afraid of an election. I'll fight an election."

    Whatever that means.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The opposition would have to want to govern for a coalition to form."

    When does the opposition ever NOT want to govern???

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Liberals should introduce a motion to repeal the entire firearms registry, the short gun as well as long gun. If the long gun registry is useless, the short gun one must be as well. Repealing only one does not realize even half the savings that repealing both would.

    If the CPC votes for this, the motion will be defeated by the combined opposition, and the CPC's true position will be revealed. If they are against it, they need to explain why short registry good, long registry bad. But their base really wants the entire registry scrapped. I think this was Harper's position at one time as well.

    Then the campaign slogan:
    The CPC is against people taking personal responsibility for their firearms. The CPC is Tough on cops, not tough on crime.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shadow: 2) Senate reform is likely to pass in the senate given Harper's vote count.

    Seeing Harper's appointed senators don't want senate reform I doubt it will pass. Harper likes appointing Senators and Senators like being appointed and we will just have to live with that till we get a real leader.

    Peter: A tad rosy ??? He lives in a rose tinted universe unconnected to here or reality.

    I think it's probably a blue tint though.

    ReplyDelete
  30. i assume you saw this tidbit:

    "Mr. Marzolini is advocating that Liberals not provoke an election, according to an inside source, but rather wait for the Conservatives to make the first move.

    The pollster’s numbers show the Liberals with the support of 29 per cent of Canadians compared to 35 per cent for the Tories; the NDP are polling at 18 per cent, the Bloc has 9 per cent and the Green Party has the support of 7 per cent of Canadians.

    The Tories have dropped three points from the 2008 election while the Liberals have gained three points. The NDP remains where it was in the federal campaign. "

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think the key dynamic right now is that both the Tories and the Liberals are pretty much at historic lows (technically the Tories only have 6 years of history, but if you compare their current support to that of the old Tories from Confederation through 1988, and of the PCs+Reform/Alliance from 93-200, current Tory support is pretty near a historic low).
    A lot of this has to do with having five parties collecting a significant number of votes, and particularly with the relatively new parties of the BQ and the Greens collectively getting the support of 1/5 of the country. (and the NDP getting another fifth). With 40% of the vote off the table, there aren't really enough swing voters between the CPC and the LPC to give either a majority.
    So as a polity we can do one of two things: either wait for something dramatic to boost or demolish the support for one of the two big parties, or accept that we're actually a multi-party system now, that minorities and coalitions may well be the long-term future, and that we need to figure out how to make minority/coalition government work well, rather than sitting around and waiting for a majority to appear out of nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  32. When does the opposition ever NOT want to govern???

    Every time they don't defeat a confidence motion. I'd say they haven't wanted to govern for years.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tories slipping slowly, Liberals rising slowly.

    Except that's not what's happening. Look at a scatterplot of the poll results. Yes, the Liberals are slowly rising, but the CPC has been stable for the last couple of months. They haven't moved at all.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/michael-ignatieff-within-striking-distance-pollster-tells-liberals/article1691767/

    "Liberal internal polling", I think Michael Marzolini is pollara

    35-29-18-9-7

    a 6 point gap (from 11.4 in 2008 election) and they are priming to go?

    We might see a few seats change hands at that..... but I am not sure a few seats would allow iggy to keep his job long enough to apply to be PM again in a couple months.


    (apologies for the double post earlier eric, google told me it was too big to go though so I wrote 1/2 of it again)

    ReplyDelete
  35. "(technically the Tories only have 6 years of history, but if you compare their current support to that of the old Tories from Confederation through 1988, and of the PCs+Reform/Alliance from 93-200, current Tory support is pretty near a historic low)."

    Huh?

    Count votes from elections... we were basically a 2 party system for the first 55 years or so.

    But if you want to go from 1935 when 3rd party support finally became solid at a number that affected elections up to your 1988 year.: The tories won 6 of those 17 elections. The liberal the other 11.

    The tories won 2 of the largest majorities ever in 2 of those 6 elections. The liberals still averaged 38%. The tories only 35.7%. Widen that spread by 2% each way if you discount the 2 super-majorities.

    in other words... 34-36 is where the tories are now.... and where they nearly always have averaged. When the right split happened the 2 parties added together were 35,38,37.5%... the first year back together support slipped to below 30%,.. then popped right back up to mid 30's.

    Mid 30s.... where the tory average has always been. Where they are today.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The liberals on the other hand....

    In the last 23 elections since 3rd party support in 1935... HAve scored below 40% in an election only 10 times. 6 of those in the last 8 elections (the last 26 years).

    Further, the liberals scored below 30% only 2 times in there entire history. 1984 (mulroney's super-majority) and 2008... the last election.

    Where are they polling today?

    Party Aug 31: - 29% (pollara)
    Ekos Aug 17: - 28%
    Ekos Aug 10: - 28%
    HD Aug 9 - 28%
    Ipsos Aug 9 - 31%
    Leger Aug 4 - 28%

    That looks like a firm 28-28.5% to me...

    That would be the 3rd worst election result for the liberals in History.


    So ajbeecroft, your posit appears to be false. It is infact the liberals who are polling near historic lows,... while the Tories are where they have been for 80 years.

    It would seem that on a long term plot, the NDP, the Bloc, and the green party have all eaten into the once big liberal tent while the tories go up or down year to year, but always come home to same.

    I don't currently agree with you that majority governments are ended for the time being. I do think that the tories can scrape enough support together for a thin majority. The liberals on the other hand would have to be able to eat back some of their support from the tier 2 and 3 parties, and have a earthquake event like 93 to get enough tory support... I don't think give that that the liberals will form a majority soon.

    I do reserve judgment on that balance though,.. if the liberal party continues to fracture.

    ReplyDelete
  37. DL LOL I love that!

    The advice of the official Liberal pollster is to wait for the CPC to make the first move.

    The opinion of the former pollster for the CPC is that we won't have an election for 18 months.


    Anyone really think the newfound sense of momentum and unity that the Liberals are experiencing can last for 18 months ?

    I don't. First bad poll this fall and they'll be tearing each other apart.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "When does the opposition ever NOT want to govern???

    Every time they don't defeat a confidence motion. I'd say they haven't wanted to govern for years."

    Yes, but AFTER an election, all the opposition has to do is vote down the Throne speech and then wait for the call from the GG to form a government.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Look at a scatterplot of the poll results. "

    Irrelevant isn't it except you can't admit that !!

    The whole point is that the CPC is SLIPPING !!

    Get used to the fact that they are NOT prescient!!

    You and Shadow are probably the worst CPC trolls on here. And lately you have both been WRONG.

    Get used to that too! CPC is on the way OUT!! And not a moment too soon either !!

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Barcs: I don't dispute what you're saying about current Tory performance (at 33 in this poll, obviously) being fairly close to their historical average. But that doesn't invalidate my point that they're also pretty close to a historic low -- the 29.6% they got in 2004 was, after all, the worst score they'd received since 1945. 33 and 30 are awfully close, all things considered.
    My larger point would be that, while the Liberals have been week for the last couple of years, you can't really say that the Tories have been strong, and I think our current era is best understood as an era of weakness for both major parties.
    Like I said, maybe something will come along and either major party will win a majority sometime soon. But I wouldn't bet huge amounts of money on it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Barcs: We might see a few seats change hands at that..... but I am not sure a few seats would allow iggy to keep his job long enough to apply to be PM again in a couple months.

    "A few seats" will give Ignatieff the keys to 24 Sussex as the head of a coalition, either immediately or after a non-confidence vote. (The latter is more likely, given the small likelihood of Harper resigning when faced with the inevitable.) Once he's in power, it will be years until the next election.

    The most interesting statement from the Globe article was at the very end: "Meanwhile, he believes the Liberals should be talking about their policies. They get more traction the more they put out their ideas and approaches, he said. But with only 16 per cent of Canadians paying attention to politics during the summer months, it’s better to wait until after Labour Day to start laying out policy."

    We should know within two weeks whether the Liberals are planning a fall election, most likely in November. If they start telling us what they stand for, order the signs. If they see their shadow and stay mum, we're in for another two years of government winter.

    ReplyDelete
  42. John let me throw a wrench into your predictions.

    Bob Rae.

    Do you think he wants to be a minister under a coalition led Ignatieff government ??

    Or do you think he'd rather take Ignatieff out, become leader of the opposition, and re-fight an election for his own mandate ?


    I think the answer is pretty clear. If Ignatieff doesn't form a government in his own right I don't think he can nessecarily depend on his party to stick with him while he negotiates a coalition.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Let's see now?

    CPC at 33%

    Why that means 67% won't vote for Harpo !!

    2/3rds reject the CPC. Doesn't seem like much of a mandate for Harpo then !!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shadow

    Bob Rae is a spent force. Even he knows that.

    Give it up !!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'll remind everyone that derogatory nicknames for party leaders or parties will get your comment rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Shadow,

    "Mr. Harper, your time is up!"

    It was a great idea then and an even better one now...

    Remember, it's called moving the electorate -- it started with coalition I in the United Kingdom and the pending coalition II in Australia.

    All parties are surely polling furiously to see if Canadians' attitudes have changed. I'll bet the farm they sure have.

    In short, one resistance levels previously seen during Prorogation I have dissipated, it's easy street all the way to the polls!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shadow: Bob Rae...

    If Ignatieff doesn't form a government in his own right I don't think he can nessecarily depend on his party to stick with him while he negotiates a coalition.


    This certainly displays impressively original thinking, but it would be difficult to find a Grit in caucus who'd agree. And they are the ones who count.

    I differ with Peter's description of Bob Rae as a "spent force". If Ignatieff falls because he lacks the courage to move forward, Rae may reach for the brass ring once again.

    While Ignatieff is leader, though, Rae will be his stalwart lieutenant. He demonstrated his commitment to his party over his own ambitions the last time around. Of all the Liberal caucus, Rae's loyalty is especially hard to challenge in the universe I inhabit. Others may live in different space-time continuums.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Peter,

    With respect, I wouldn't call Bob Rae a spent force...au contraire, his contribution to a future Liberal government will be invaluable to bridge the road between us and the New Democrats.

    We can get a lot of mileage out of that particular arrangement. Bob is one of our best minds. In fact, I think he should serve as Deputy Prime Minister in an Ignatieff government. To my mind, his contribution will be essential to our future government's success -- if Canadians give us the honour of forming government.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mr. Ignatieff came off the Liberal express.

    The Press basically applauded.

    Liberal hopes rose.

    Mr. Ignatieff meet 11,000 Canadians in a intimate setting on their turf.

    He had 140 events.

    This all sounds great ...... until an actual analysis is done.

    11,000 people at 140 events. That comes to just under 80 people at each event.

    That is why when the crowds were 200 they were considered large and the fawning press reported great crowds of 200 or more.


    The Liberal Express dismal turnout along with the continued inability to get any $ contributions is more of an indicator of the Liberals problems than any poll.

    If there is anyone in the Liberal HQ that has any common sense they have to be planning a leadership race rather than a general election where the Liberal $1.95 life support subsidy would be at risk of being cut significantly (even before the CPC majority eliminates it completely)

    ReplyDelete
  50. John:
    "Of all the Liberal caucus, Rae's loyalty is especially hard to challenge in the universe I inhabit. Others may live in different space-time continuum's.
    "

    Yeas indeed as time on here shows some are existing somewhere else in Einsteins universe !!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ron:
    "With respect, I wouldn't call Bob Rae a spent force"

    I was only referring to his potential as Leader. The rest of what you say I totally agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  52. John, Peter, Ron do you guys not read the news ?

    Ever since Ignatieff became leader reporters have been laughing about how their secret sources have been trashing him.

    Then they point out that their sources are all Bob Rae people.


    The coalition/merger talk a few months ago was generally believed as a wedge to get Ignatieff out.

    The idea was that during any coalition negotiations the NDP would demand Ignatieff step down as leader.


    NDP won't serve under Ignatieff. They will under Bob Rae.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nice quote from Dimitri, Shadow.

    Now try writing your own stuff and actually do some research before you spew!!

    NDP would NEVER serve under Bob Rae!! He is viewed as a traitor by party stalwarts.

    ReplyDelete
  54. But Shadow, who needs the bother of a coalition...we're planning on winning the election outright.

    Works for me!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ever since Ignatieff became leader reporters have been laughing about how their secret sources have been trashing him.

    Then they point out that their sources are all Bob Rae people
    .

    Good heavens! But out of the other side of your mouth, we hear all members of the MSM (except Korymedia reporters in the Sun) hate conservatives, always trash the CPC, and always support the left.

    So are these reporters all Sun people, or could they be "unreported" reporters toiling undercover in the evil MSM?

    I think Iggy finally nailed one, and demonstrates why someone like him is leader. It was just a small part of the report on the caucus meeting, but he has come up with a word to describe the CPC that they can't really nay say. The word is "ruthless". He notes we are up against "the toughest and most ruthless machine in Canadian politics". Totally accurate, and really sums up the entire pattern of the CPC and its tactics.

    None of this calling them evil, scary, or bullies, all of which sounds like whining. Simply calling them ruthless implies so much, yet cannot be construed as whining (though that is the likely card the CPC will attempt). Such a comment simply shows our gritty determination. Very apt. It resonates, in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The word is "ruthless". He notes we are up against "the toughest and most ruthless machine in Canadian politics". Totally accurate, and really sums up the entire pattern of the CPC and its tactics."


    The Harper Tories really did learn alot from Chretien.

    When they forget those lessons they have done poorly through history. When they take those lessons to heart and become just as ruthless. They do well.

    Looking forward to the next election.... Where the Tories will still do well... I wonder who the next liberal leader wil be? :)

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The Harper Tories really did learn a lot from Chretien."

    Wrong actually. Their source of inspiration ad knowledge was the Rove Republican machine. Every dirty trick they have used came from the Repig playbook adjusted to suit here.

    After all Reform/Flanagan/others are great friends with Rove and his coterie !

    ReplyDelete
  58. Barcs,

    "Looking forward to the next election.... Where the Tories will still do well... I wonder who the next liberal leader wil be? :)"

    You'll find out RIGHT AFTER our next two Liberal government mandates under Michael Ignatieff!!!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ron, Peter:


    Thursday, September 3, 2009
    New EKOS Poll: Conservative-Liberal Tie

    http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-ekos-poll-conservative-liberal-tie.html

    -----------------------------

    Mr. Harper! YOUR TIME IS UP!!!

    -----------------------------

    Thursday, September 24, 2009
    New Ekos Poll: 7.1-pt Conservative Lead (Updated)

    http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-ekos-poll-71-pt-conservative-lead.html



    "...we're planning on winning the election outright."

    .... Iggy has as much chance of winning a majority this year with Harper in the way as you do Ronald.

    Best of luck as parliament returns and the liberal party with a 6 point poll deficit (according to their own party polling) goes back to quietly voting for government measures or absenting enough people to ensure they don't accidentally defeat the government had have to fight an election on their (principles).

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ron what has gotten you so fired up?

    A Liberal minority in the next election! Two Ignatieff terms!

    Since none of the polling backs up any of these scenarios I must ask, do you know something we don't ?


    Since we're both likely to be here in a few months i'll make my own prediction (they have a habit of being spot on):


    Ignatieff Liberals are 10 points behind Harper Conservatives at some point in this fall.

    All hell breaks loose in the party. Ignatieff contemplates leaving, Bob Rae seeks to undermine him, but he sticks around badly limping towards whenever the next election is held.

    His threats - "don't try that dirty stuff on me. You mess with me i'll mess with you until i'm done" and "Mr. Harper your time is up!" - will seem so hollow that nobody will pay attention anymore.


    Harper does whatever he wants and continues to govern as if he had a majority, ramming through large omnibus budget bills.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Barcs,

    I'm talking Liberal mandates but we both know the voters will get to decide their exact nature, if they are so inclined. I believe they will be looking for a change on election night. But I'm not God. (You may have noticed!)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Shadow,

    "Since none of the polling backs up any of these scenarios I must ask, do you know something we don't ?"

    I'm a firm believer in the power of positive thinking. That's why I want an election yesterday (as you well know). Sure, Liberal support is on the right track (no longer 10-15 points behind the CPC) with only single digits between our parties. I believe we can substantially improve on that in the campaign. Maybe we will -- maybe we won't but it's worth the old college try.

    P.S. To be more specific, readers will note that my shingle in not up in Ottawa. That's rather indicative of a personal trend across parties, wouldn't you say???!!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Shadow,

    "Harper does whatever he wants and continues to govern as if he had a majority, ramming through large omnibus budget bills."

    IMHO, that's spot on. It's EXACTLY what this Prime Minister will do (and should from a Conservative strategist's perspective) and that's why we have to defeat the government sooner, rather than later.

    The Harper government has had a champ libre since 2006 with single-party opposition support. Time to quickly put an end to that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Since none of the polling backs up any of these scenarios I must ask, do you know something we don't?
    Funny, we ask the CPC the same question about "unreported crime" being completely unsupported by polling too, and they basically claim to know something we don't. Plus they are hard at work to turn statistics into "unreported demographics" so that they can just make up whatever they want to support whatever they fancy.

    Holiday weekend coming up. Recall how Dion basically lost the last election because Future Senator Duffy ran a blooper reel during the holiday weekend when families and friends gather and talk, and there was no chance for the Liberals to counter it.

    I suspect the polls next week will show a continued improvement because of the same holiday weekend effect. People will be talking about the bus tour where you could actually see policy being firmed up, and you could actually see the Liberals getting their act together. You could see thinking, reflection and consideration. They'll be comparing that with showboating on ATVs, expensive photo ops and an inability to listen to concerns about anything as demonstrated repeatedly by the Ruthless Party.

    The Liberals are about making life better for everyone in Canada. The Ruthless Party is about making life better for the ruthless.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Peter your attempts to link the Harper CPC and Rove and the US Republicans are both tiresome and pathetic. The CPC did look to the Liberal Party of John Howard in Australia for ideas. That's documented. Jean Chretien could certainly be looked on as a mentor for dirty tricks, as could a certain Liberal operative who wrote a book on the subject.

    If you hate Harper so much leave the country.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Big RED tent is right. Lots of RED ink! How will the Liberals not only defeat the deficit but pay for all this new spending?

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Reinventing+Ignatieff+Grits+still+work+progress/3467485/story.html

    Iggy has cemented his move to the left and left the centre open for Harper and the CPC.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Earl:

    To put it bluntly "Put A Sock In It".

    I posted a link to a US story which got major cover here at the time. If you can't accept it that's too bad.

    But knock off the vilification !!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Unreported crime ?

    Did someone mention that? Well its certainly a huge issue.

    We know from victimization surveys that a whopping 90% of sex crimes go UNREPORTED.

    We also know from the last two reporting periods (the third is next year) that unreported crime is INCREASING.

    That's on top of crime having gone up an outrageous 300% from when statistics first started being taken in the 60's.

    (They've gone down very, very little lately. Its like a small town going from no murders, to ten, and then down to 8! ONLY 8 murders?? We're saved! Crime isn't a worry!! Crime is decreasing!

    8 murders? We can all live with that. Why go back to no murders? Why worry about crime at all?)

    LOL. Every serious person must laugh when they hear soft on crime types trot out that old line about how "crime is decreasing!"


    Regardless. I'm glad that the government is discussing the serious issue of unreported crime.

    Hopefully they'll commission some studies on the issue and come up with some strategies to tackle the serious issue of unreported crime.


    Serious people also chuckle when not so serious people laugh about Stockwell Day talking about unreported crime as if it was some massive gotcha error.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "I'm glad that the government is discussing the serious issue of unreported crime."

    Yes I'm sure you are as it is the only justification for building more prisons at public expense.

    But it is a non-problem when you really look at it. How can unreported crimes be a problem when by definition they don't exist?? Because they weren't reported !!

    So another Tory use of fearmongering and smoke and mirrors to gain political advantage.

    But if the latest Ekos poll out is to be believed it seems the public is catching on to the Tory mismanagement and outright lies doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Well, if unreported crime is the big issue then why don't they build more women's shelters, thus making it safer for them to report it. Other basics are trying to make it so the police forces are trusted more - people won't report crime if they don't feel safe doing so. What other causes are making it so people don't report crime? Do a major study (a few thousand respondents) to find out exactly why people feel it isn't worthwhile to report it.

    I'd be willing to bet that building more prisons isn't going to make people want to report crime. Making it so they feel their concerns are taken seriously will. Making it so sexual assault is treated seriously will. Providing ways to prevent crime before it happens will help too. Just increasing sentences and saying you are tough on crime won't.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Peter:

    "I posted a link to a US story which got major cover here at the time. If you can't accept it that's too bad."

    Yes that was my point. It was an old story, never confirmed and here you are bringing it up two years later. Seriously. Who cares? If you weren't so blind to your new Liberal home and anxious to vilify Harper by trying to link him to Rove you might actually have something of value to contribute.

    Might I suggest that you count to a hundred before you post your nasty comments.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Earl:

    "Might I suggest that you count to a hundred before you post your nasty comments. "

    I suggest if you find what I post objectionable you simply stop reading them.

    I don't care if you read them or not, it's irrelevant to me but I'm getting damned tired of your snark !

    ReplyDelete
  73. John:

    "Just increasing sentences and saying you are tough on crime won't.
    "

    But that's all they've got. Because to admit otherwise is to both offend their base and admit that they pay no attention to stats and research.

    All your comments are valid and indicate an open mind. Something the Tories simply can't accept!

    ReplyDelete
  74. John Northey the perception that Canada has a revolving door prison system where perps get a slap on the wrist is definitely driving down reporting of crime.

    If you honestly believed that the police had the resources necessary to catch the guy and that he wouldn't be back out on the streets in a year to get revenge on you then you might be more prone to report crime.


    Fear of retribution is a major issue in why 90% of sex crimes aren't reported.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Fear of retribution is a major issue in why 90% of sex crimes aren't reported.
    "

    You have of course data and studies for that or is that "Dimitri speak" ??

    ReplyDelete
  76. For sexual assault I think it is a safe bet the #1 reason it isn't reported is fear of being judged. If you say you were raped it is a safe bet many will say 'you asked for it'. No length of sentence will change that. Finding stronger supports for women (who generally are the victims of this type of crime) would do far more than anything else. Sadly, that is the last thing we can expect to hear from the current government.

    ReplyDelete
  77. No Shadow you are factually wrong.

    From the last victimization report:

    "Of the 66% of violent incidents that were not reported, six in
    ten violent incidents were not reported to the police because
    the victim dealt with the violent incident in another way.26 Other
    common reasons cited for not reporting a violent incident to
    the police was because the victim felt that the incident was not
    important enough (53%), they didn’t want the police involved
    (42%), they felt that it was a personal matter (39%), or they
    didn’t think the police could do anything about it (29%). In
    just over one in ten violent incidents, the victim felt that the
    police wouldn’t help (13%), and in almost an equal proportion
    of incidents, the victim did not report because they feared
    retaliation by the offender (11%).
    When victims were asked to cite what was the main reason
    for not reporting to the police, findings were similar. Overall,
    28% of violent incidents were not reported to police because
    they were dealt with in another way and a further 28% were not
    reported because the victim felt that they were not important
    enough to bring to the attention of the police."

    I can't find the sex assualt numbers in there, but I know they are similar.

    We've had this discussion before. Either you have a bad memory, or you are being deliberately decictful.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I can't find the sex assualt numbers in there, but I know they are similar."

    Kind of defeats the point of declaring i'm wrong when you don't bother to bring the facts to back it up doesn't it ??

    "We've had this discussion before. Either you have a bad memory, or you are being deliberately decictful."

    We've had a discussion before where you have proven that "fear of retribution" isn't a factor in why sex crimes go unreported ?

    AJR79 you're shooting blanks and don't have any facts to back you up.

    Why did you bother to comment ?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Shadow,

    Do you recall when I made fun of Shelly Glover, and later did a mea culpa about it?

    It was in that thread that we parsed the sex assault numbers, and yes they were very similar.

    It's not my fault that I don't have the patience to track down every little BS claim you make. It would be a full time job.

    Go pay the $9 bucks for the raw numbers yourself.

    Or you could look back in Erics blog to find the long conversation we had on this exact topic, not even a year ago. I posted it there.

    Even when confronted with facts you still refuse to budge an inch.

    I'll tell you an exercise that should be instructive to yor credibility.

    Find me one example of you holding this government to acount for anything.

    Out of hundereds of posts, and tens of thousands of words it shouldn't be too hard to find one measly example, would it?

    I have credibility because I care about policy; not weasel talking points, and cheerleader pom-poms.

    ReplyDelete
  80. And Shadow,

    Getting under your skin is more then enough reason to post here.

    If you recall when you first started posting here, I was one of the more adament defenders in your right to do so in the manner you do. Nice of you to return the courtesy.

    I still stand by that decision, thou, because it's good for people like you to expose the disease within the CPC.

    Win at all costs. Facts be damned. Wedge and divide.

    You win, It's your Party. I'll stand outside the tent pissing in from now on. It's more comfortable out here anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Actually since I remembered that it was around the same time Shelly Glover laid a spanking on young Trudeau, it wasn't that hard to find the relevant thread.

    Look at my comment to you about Glover using this very same BS, weasel talking point not even 6 months ago:

    "Another thing is the way Glover gave these reasons for people not reporting, "Because they don’t have faith in the justice system, they’re fearing retribution, they really do have a number of reasons for not reporting."

    You are trying to say that is the same as this:

    "they felt that it was a personal matter (47%); or they did not want to get involved with the police (41%)",

    when it is NOT the same at all.

    And those were far less likely, to be the reasons for not reporting.

    I guess,

    "because they felt it was not important enough (58%). Victims also stated that they did not report to police because the incident was dealt with in another way (54%)",

    are not scary, or emotionally charged enough for Mrs. Glovers purposes.

    This is why I have a problem with this tactic. It's dishonest, misleading, and pandering to base emotion.

    It also doesn't have anything at all to say, about StatsCan crime rate trends. Especially newer ones, as that study is from 2004.

    And what it really, really doesn't say is, why the governments direction is the right one."


    I await your apology.
    Not really, as I think that would be a waste of time..

    ReplyDelete
  82. AJR79 you wasted my time with three posts of bile and not one of them contained anything to justify your verdict that I had my facts wrong.

    We're talking specifically about SEX CRIMES.

    You keep on dragging out statistics for ALL CRIMES.

    You seem to have added nothing to what was a serious discussion.

    And you admit your involvement here was for no other reason than to attempt to get under my skin.

    How unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  83. No Shadow you are just being extremely thick, and obstinate; and did not even read the thread.

    It WAS sex crimes data.

    Another post from there:

    "What Shelly Glover said were the reasons for the non-repoting of sex-crimes "Because they don’t have faith in the justice system, they’re fearing retribution".

    The reasons giving in the report she was citing, "The most commonly stated reason why victims of sexual assault did not report the incident to the police was because they felt it was not important enough (58%). Victims also stated that they did not report to police because the incident was dealt with in another way (54%); they felt that it was a personal matter (47%); or they did not want to get involved with the police (41%)."

    I don't see how you can feel good about this Shadow. I really don't."

    That one was earlier in the conversation. Admit it Shadow you were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

    Inconvienient facts don't register with you. Only about 10% of unreported violent crime is due to fear of retribution. Explain to me how building more prisons is going to reduce that number.

    You would do well to go back and read that 6 month old conversation, when I was a bit more partisan. My veiws haven't changed at all.

    Yours views blow in any direction to conform with the govenment narrative. I noticed you didn't attempt my "accountability challenge". It's because you would follow them anywhere, and are never critical.


    You're a good enough soldier Shadow, but you'd make a poor General IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I guess Shadow expects me to look up the proper data, and shove it in his face every 6 months, because he can't be bothered to remember "facts".

    I tell you, it would be easier if you would just admit when you are wrong. I try to.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Eric,

    You should look at that thread too. The debates were of a much higher calibre, when moderation was not as strict.

    We keep it on the edge of civil as it is, but if you instituted a 2 warnings and then you are banned policy, I think it would be just as effective at curbing incivility as the current cumbersome system. The debates would be better too.

    Just some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  86. AJR79 you still haven't provided any facts.

    "Only about 10% of unreported violent crime is due to fear of retribution."

    OK but we're talking about SEX CRIMES, which should have a higher fear of retaliation rate, not all violent crime.

    But i'll bite.

    In 2008 there were 22862 sexual assault + sexual violations against children incidents.

    Those are the 10% that were reported.

    So we have 205758 unreported cases.

    Using the 10% figure that means 20,576 of those were because of fear of retaliation.


    I am sickened and disgusted that you think twenty thousand scared women and children who have been assaulted and require justice are NOT a major issue we should worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "Explain to me how building more prisons is going to reduce that number."

    I never said it would. I suggested removing the perception of a weak, revolving door justice system may help.

    New prisons are required because of the 2 for 1 sentencing fix.

    "Yours views blow in any direction to conform with the govenment narrative. I noticed you didn't attempt my "accountability challenge". It's because you would follow them anywhere, and are never critical."

    No. Its generally because I have ZERO respect for people who are non-partisan. And less than zero respect for people who think its somehow a good thing.

    But OK this article disturbed me greatly and i'd like Bev Oda fired:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/sees+light+family+planning/3471501/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  88. But OK this article disturbed me greatly and i'd like Bev Oda fired:

    Ottawa Citizen
    "But it is refreshing to see a minister from a government that began with an ideologically simplistic view of the issue concede something that those working in the field have long understood: "It's very complicated."

    So you just proved that you are completely intolerant of any dissent from the Harper mandated line. The fact Bev Oda, as a result of her travels, has come face to face with reality and adapted really pisses you off. I could call you a bigot but I prefer brainwashed. Only somebody completely indoctrinated with the "mantra" could react as you have.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Shadow,

    It's good to see that you can de-couple the new prisons, and unreported crimes. Why did you defend Stockwell Day linking them then, in this very thread?

    "Serious people also chuckle when not so serious people laugh about Stockwell Day talking about unreported crime as if it was some massive gotcha error"

    He was using it to justify the new prison build, wasn't he?

    I'd rather be without a team-sweater then to have to lie, and talk out of both sides of my mouth, to defend Stocks idiotic statement.

    I'm not suprised that you don't respect someone standing against his Party based on principle. I wouldn't expect you to understand such a thing.

    I'll be a Blue team partisan again soon enough, after Harper is gone.

    P.S I wouldn't kid yourself about that serious people thing.

    I doubt very many here take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  90. AJR79 you're going to get altitude sickness if you don't do something about that high and mighty attitude.

    I mentioned Stockwell Day because he introduced the topic of unreported crime into our political discourse.

    You appear to the be the one who jumped to the conclusion I was under the impression that was the reason for more prisons. But everyone knows he's not the justice minister.

    "I'm not suprised that you don't respect someone standing against his Party based on principle. I wouldn't expect you to understand such a thing."

    So you admit you have a party? Well that's a start.

    I don't respect people who withdraw support from their party completely based on principle if the end result would be the election of a government who's even less in line with those principles.

    "I doubt very many here take you seriously."

    I doubt anyone takes anything they see on the internet seriously, no ?

    To think otherwise must be the altitude sickness confusing your thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Shadow,

    Shelly Glover introduced unreported crime into our discourse 6 months ago. My dissatisfaction with this is not new.

    Let's parse that Stockwell statement of yours a little more closely. You claim that "non- serious people" were laughing at Stockwell for bringing up unreported crime.

    Do you expect me to believe that you did not know this was in the context of justifying the expense of new prisons?

    Did you read any of the articles by these "non-serious people", to determine why they were mocking Mr.Day?

    Of course you did. But you just pretend like that's not what happened at all, and poor Mr.Day should be put up on the cross.

    I especially like the added touch of the to smug by half "serious people" stuff, to go along with the brazen dishonesty of your portrayal of Mr. Days statement.

    That one belongs in the "Shite Talking points Hall of Fame".

    I haven't burned my membership yet, but folks like you don't make me even want to consider standing with you next election. You would do better to try and convince me the economy is to weak, to hand to even a short-lived coalition.

    I'll continue to rip apart any talking point that I view as dishonest or inaccuarate. That's my right, and I will exercise it until Eric cries stop.

    ReplyDelete
  92. AJR79 crime remains a serious concern

    (Up 300+% from when stats first started being taken, leveling off in the 90's and coming down only marginally in recent years.)

    And unreported crime remains a very serious issue too.

    (Twenty thousand rape victims a year too scared to come forward is a moral outrage that must be addressed.)

    "Do you expect me to believe that you did not know this was in the context of justifying the expense of new prisons?"

    I did indeed know! That was the entire point of my criticism about people not being serious about this issue.

    The media did far more than (rightly) ridicule the linkage of unreported crime + new prisons. Who cares about that gaffe? Its not the government's official position anyways.

    They ridiculed the very notion of being concerned about unreported crime itself, as you have done recently and Liberal Supporter did above (which prompted me interjecting and saying Stockwell Day raised a serious issue we need to address.)


    Again, you seem to have invented out of whole cloth this notion that I was using talking points to justify new prison spending or some other such nonsense you've gotten into your head.

    Whatever fits your high minded narrative of you being the courageous and principle political outsider who takes on partisans within your own party!

    Oh save us brave knight from craven and cynical political partisans! Use your sword of truth to cut through their Dmitri Soudas issued talking points!

    (Meanwhile some of us were having a discussion on strategies to deal with the very serious issue of unreported crime.)

    ReplyDelete
  93. BTW AJR79 new prisons are needed because of recent changes to criminal justice laws.

    Go read Kevin Page's report on the 2 for 1 sentencing fix.

    Mandatory minimums, dangerous offender designations, and ending early parole for violent offenders will also add to the number of inmates.


    If you disagree with these laws that's a valid position.

    But please don't just the laughable opposition/media suggesting that new prisons are not needed.

    The need for new prisons directly follow from these changes.

    Are we honestly to believe that this government is building empty prisons just for kicks ?

    Are you honestly putting forward that theory ?

    Stephen Harper came to Ottawa to build empty prisons that aren't really needed ?

    Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  94. No Shadow,

    The prisons will especially be needed to contain all of the extra criminals. Some of this I agree with. A majority of it is shite policy.

    That is a major reason why I'm disaffected.

    You implyed in your post that "serious people" wouldn't laugh at Stockwells gaffe about linking prison funding to unreported crime. (like an idiot)

    I guess the "serious people" who "chuckle" you were talking about aren't online. I assume that they go to Shadow coacktail parties.

    Only in your world Shadow, does Andrew Coyne, or the the whole corps of the NP journalists have to be naive, or Liberal provocateurs.

    Face it Shadow, you're fringe. We disagree on policy, and political stategy.

    You thought it was great to divide and wedge, and suppress the vote. Well done. Using me as an example, the stategy is working.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "
    Stephen Harper came to Ottawa to build empty prisons that aren't really needed ?"

    Absolutely !!

    Fits in with his ridiculous "Law And Order" idea

    ReplyDelete
  96. AJR79 you're still wrongly asserting that I defended Stockwell Day linking prisons + unreported crime. However, I was very clearly defending the notion of unreported crime itself.

    Here's the comment from Liberal Supporter I was responding to:

    "Funny, we ask the CPC the same question about "unreported crime" being completely unsupported by polling too, and they basically claim to know something we don't."

    That's pretty much what David Akin said at the press conference. Paraphrasing:

    "Unreported crime! But if its unreported then doesn't that mean by definition we don't know about it! GOTCHA!"

    Which is pretty much what commentator Peter says too:

    "How can unreported crimes be a problem when by definition they don't exist?? Because they weren't reported !!"

    And my response continues to be how victimization surveys proves the existence of unreported crime and how, yes, it is a serious issue.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Since you bring up Postmedia,

    isn't the consortium that now owns it headed up by a partisan Liberal? Haven't people on these boards remarked how the reporting has shift leftward lately?

    Andrew Coyne?

    He's alwasy prided himself on being a principled misanthrope. A better than us hacks contrarian.

    You seem to hold him as some kind of role model judging by your admission that you came on here to "get under my skin" and the stream of insults that followed.

    Although one must admit that Andrew Coyne, like the American George Will, is more of a gentleman no matter how prickly his opinion.


    I generally don't think anyone from Postmedia or Coyne are naive in the sense of being stupid or Liberal provocateurs in the sense that they want big government.

    I just think they end up being both when they don't factor the political realities of a minority government into their analysis.

    I like to call them "usefull idiots".

    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.