Wednesday, August 11, 2010

New Harris-Decima Poll: 6-pt CPC Lead (up one)

And now for something completely different.

Harris-Decima has a new poll out, and it disagrees with both the most recent EKOS and Ipsos-Reid polls.Compared to Harris-Decima's last poll taken between July 15 and July 25, the Conservatives have actually gained three points, and now stand at 34%. The Liberals are also up two points to 28%. While the Conservative gain goes against what the other polls have found, the Liberal gain does not.

The New Democrats are the losers of this poll, dropping three points to 15%. The Bloc Québécois is down to 9% while the Greens are unchanged at 12%.

The Conservatives are up one point in Ontario and lead with 35%. The Liberals are steady at 34%. All of the pollsters seem to agree on the situation in this province. The NDP is down two to 16%.

The Bloc has dropped two points in Quebec and leads with 39%. The Liberals follow with 25% (up six) while both the Conservatives and NDP have gained one point and stand at 14% and 12%, respectively. That is a large Liberal gain between two recent polls of 2,000+ respondents.

And this is something I find odd about this poll. These were taken virtually continuously over the last four weeks and included a lot of people, yet we have a lot of movement. Isn't this supposed to be the dog days of summer?

For example, the Conservatives are up six points in British Columbia, leading with 37%. The Liberals are unchanged at 22% but the NDP is down ten to 20%! While that does correspond with the recent Ipsos-Reid poll, that is a big drop. The Greens are up seven points to 20%, putting them in a good position. Indeed, Elizabeth May seems to be safe for the time being as the Green Party has elected to keep her on as leader rather than put her through a leadership race at the end of the month.

But then in the Prairies we have the Conservatives up ten (to 49%), the Liberals up six (to 25%) and the NDP down 20 (!) to 14%. The Conservatives gain six in Alberta and lead with 61% while the Liberals are down eight to 13%. The Greens are actually second in Alberta with 14%.

Things are relatively stable in Atlantic Canada, however, with the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives 38% to 34%.

It is just slightly strange to have such large variations in two polls taken within a short time of each other and with relatively small margins of error. I don't think there is anything particularly untoward about this, it is likely that both this poll and the last one were on the outside edges of the accuracy spectrum, giving us exaggerated variations. Nevertheless, we rarely see this kind of movement in similar EKOS polling.

The Conservatives win 72 seats in the West and North, 46 in Ontario, 5 in Quebec, and 9 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 132.

The Liberals win 16 seats in the West and North, 45 in Ontario, 17 in Quebec, and 20 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 98.

The Bloc wins 51 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 6 seats in the West, 15 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 3 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 26. Those numbers out west were horrible.

The Greens win one seat in British Columbia.

So, a reduced minority for Stephen Harper and a smaller caucus for the NDP. But a gain of more than 20 MPs for Michael Ignatieff, three new MPs for the Bloc, and the first elected Green MP. The only party who really comes out of this poll badly is the NDP as, despite their reduction in MPs, a minority of this size would buy the Conservatives another 18-24 months.

59 comments:

  1. So... according to Ipsos-Reid, the Greens are at 8% in BC. Apply the Official Éric House Effect to get 9%. The party is hooped in the province.

    Now, in an overlapping period, Harris-Decima tells us that BC Greens are at 20%. That's 18% after house effect correction. Multiple seats are a distinct possibility. Watch out for flying champagne corks.

    According to my abacus, 18% is... wait for it... twice 9%. The weird is amplified if we neglect the house effect.

    And yet we discuss single polls as if they're meaningful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's three polls in a row showing an upward swing for the Liberals. Can I call it a trend yet?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eric I was wondering if you new what the national results would be if Alberta was excluded from the poll.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only one of three which show a Tory gain.

    Anomaly ? Hard to say, won't know till the next set. Ekos out this week?

    What I think it shows is real fracturing in the body politic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Red Tory Liberal,

    Without Alberta, it would be something like:

    Conservatives - 32%
    Liberals - 30%
    New Democrats - 16%
    Greens - 12%
    Bloc Quebecois - 10%

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting. Wonder if Harris is who the CPC uses as well.

    The potential for a fall election is high. The CPC might think they can push the LPC down during an election, especially if they can push it so the economy is the top issue. Bizarre how a party can take power pre-recession yet still be viewed as solid on economics (yes, I know the world situation but still voters rarely are known for thinking about that).

    One does wonder. The tea leaves seem to be saying an October election, ideally to mix in with the US mid-term as the US is likely to shift right thus the CPC could hope for a bit of a swing for themselves as well (strong law & order/economic ads on US channels helping their cause). All they need is to gain around 5% during the election to get close to a majority and they'll have 2 more years in power, or to gain around 8% to get their majority. The right theme could do it, the wrong one shouldn't drop them below the Liberals unless a lot of NDP and Green votes shift over for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Harper slide is on !!

    Oh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is no scenario whereby we would have an October election. Harper has already explicitly unilaterally calling an election this fall - so the ball is in the court of the opposition. Parliament does not resume sitting until late September. It typically takes several weeks before there is a vote on anything contentious enough to theoretically cause an election and/or for there to be an "opposition day" where a non-confidence motion could be proposed. That means that the earliest scenario would involve the government falling in mid-October and having an election in late November.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And this is something I find odd about this poll. These were taken virtually continuously over the last four weeks and included a lot of people, yet we have a lot of movement. Isn't this supposed to be the dog days of summer? ...

    It is just slightly strange to have such large variations in two polls taken within a short time of each other and with relatively small margins of error. I don't think there is anything particularly untoward about this, it is likely that both this poll and the last one were on the outside edges of the accuracy spectrum, giving us exaggerated variations. Nevertheless, we rarely see this kind of movement in similar EKOS polling.


    Apart from differences in sampling methodology, contact method, and the wording of the question, the other major source of difference in political polling questions administered by different firms at the same time is the subject matter of the remainder of their polls' questions.

    For example, I participated in a Harris-Decima omnibus survey, which covered three major topics, and then included political questions towards the end. The content of the earlier questions can (a) reduce survey completion amongst some groups of people, (b) affect the likelihood of responding with one political party over another.

    Harris-Decima does not say what other subjects it was polling about, but we know from a previous Environics survey conducted for the group trying to reverse the government's decision on income trusts that it also reported a below average level of support for the NDP ... whose supporters would have had less interest in the general topic of income trusts, one supposes. The Harris-Decima survey I answered included a lot of questions about the government's position on the Copenhagen meetings, and indeed the results showed less support for the Conservatives and higher support for the Greens (which disappeared in their next survey).

    The general subject matter of a poll will affect self-selection into the sample, and that effect can't really be measured by outsiders. But it's something to be generally aware of when writing about differences between polls.

    The political questions are hardly the only ones being asked, in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent point. It is unfortunate we don't know exactly in what context this poll was taken. I remember often doing Angus-Reid polls about a large number of topics (ranging from political to non-political) and that they finished with a question on voting intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The last Angus Reid poll I took identified itself as an omnibus poll at the start, opened with political questions, and then moved on to questions about consumer goods.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can't help but wonder what the point is of looking at the voting patterns excluding Alberta.

    Excluding Quebec makes some sense because the Bloc (which only runs in Quebec) skews the national numbers quite a bit. But there is no similar event in Alberta.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ah yes, if Harper says 'no election' we all know that won't change. Just like he would never break his own election law...oh wait, he did.

    C'mon, a politician saying 'I won't do xyz' has about the same life expectancy of a fruit fly. Judge based on past record, not on promises.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Just like he would never break his own election law...oh wait, he did."


    If you keep saying it,... someday it might be true. Until that happens tho, that statement is patently false.

    1. The law specifically stated that it did not restrict the GG's powers at all.

    2. The opposition parties all publicly removed confidence in the government through various press conferences with the media. (even if they didn't vote in the HoC)... You should be careful what you wish for, eh?

    3. The lawsuit brought by democracy watch was thrown out of court: Judge Michel M.J. Shore threw the matter out saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers,"



    One would think that people with the capicty to read, and post on a blog would be capable of assimilating and understanding that which they are talking about.

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2475836&file=4

    56.1 .... the very first line.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Its not that I "trust" Harper - but the fact remains that if he was seriously considering dissolving parliament in the next month to have an October election - NOW would be the time to start building the case for an election as opposed to saying explicitly "I will not call an election this fall" and then having to figure out how to reverse himself two weeks later.

    In any case, Harper won't call an election for the simple reason that no election in the fall means six more months of being PM. Calling an elections means about a 90% of losing power to some sort of Liberal minority/Liberal-NDP coalition arrangement.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sigh. Just because something is legal (Harper calling an election) doesn't mean it didn't break the spirit (and his own words) of it.

    As to calling an election - it is extremely easy for him to get out of his own words. Lets see... just put out a statement about what he is going to do to control the deficit and put in a few poison pills for the opposition (maybe cutting the per vote subsidy and putting in an increase in the donation subsidy) and there you go. Now the opposition has to vote you out or they will be in a situation that will cripple the other 3 while helping the CPC. If they force an election he just goes 'see how greedy they are' and does 1,000's of ads (pre writ and post) to pound them into the dirt on it with some help from good ol' CTV.

    ReplyDelete
  17. NOW would be the time to start building the case for an election as opposed to saying explicitly "I will not call an election this fall" and then having to figure out how to reverse himself two weeks later.

    Not necessarily. If he thinks (and I don't think this is true, but it's a credible scenario) he could call a snap election and blame it on Ignatieff, then his earlier assertions that he wasn't planning an election would aid the verisimilitude of his claims. His earlier denials would set up his kayfabe (that's right, I just referred to kayfabe in the political arena).

    I don't really see why Harper would want an election this fall, but the activities of his candidates suggests that they expect one.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Harper would do well to wait until the spring and let the opposition defeat him.

    For some reason people think bringing in a budget that cuts spending is politically bad.

    Maybe in normal times. But debts/deficits are very unpopular at the moment.

    And "conservative" media voices are having a field day complaining about how this government is not conservative enough anymore.

    (Yes, Yes. They're obviously naive and have no understanding of political reality but that's beside the point.)

    Having parts of the media back on side, a fired up base, and a classic big spender vs responsible spender arguement all plays to Harper's advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "As to calling an election - it is extremely easy for him to get out of his own words. Lets see... just put out a statement about what he is going to do to control the deficit and put in a few poison pills for the opposition (maybe cutting the per vote subsidy and putting in an increase in the donation subsidy) and there you go."

    True, but again, none of this could happen until about mid-October setting up a late Nov/early Dec. election.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shadow says,

    "Classic big spender vs responsible spender arguement all plays to Harper's advantage"

    Now I have heard it all from Shadow.

    Shadow, I truly hope you will be the head strategist, running the CPC, election campaign.

    Based on this posting, and all your other illuminating postings, that should be a laugh and a half.

    And for your future reference, "arguement" is spelled argument.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 49 steps please add on to your last comment.

    I'm really at a loss what your comment was all about, other than taking personal shots at me.

    (Really? Spelling ? Everyone makes an error or two when they dash off a response. So far i'd have to say you're the only person on here who's ever tried to correct someone else.

    Usually its seen as an arrogant/passive-aggressive sort of move and is generally avoided.)


    If you have something to add, like the reason why you disagree with my posts and points to support your opinion i'd be glad to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shadow: Having parts of the media back on side, a fired up base, and a classic big spender vs responsible spender arguement all plays to Harper's advantage.

    49 Steps was first off the mark, but...

    If the other parties have any sense, "responsible spending" will indeed be an election trail issue. There are the minor (but catchy) wastes like Fake Lake and the $30 million additional census cost. And then there are the biggies like $9 billion for prisons for hypothetical unreported criminals and $16 billion for fighters whose main purpose seems to be to retain fighter jocks. At, if I have the math right, $64 million per jock. (Hey, I'll sign up long-term for half that.)

    The "fiscally responsible Conservatives" meme certainly has legs, but there's precious little evidence to back it up. Which, as recently observed, doesn't bother the party faithful; they don't do evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok Shadow here goes,

    Stephen Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%, and thus eliminated $12 billion annually from the Canadian treasury. This bit of genius was done against the advice of most economists who warned it was bad policy, and that income tax cuts were a much better way to go.

    Ian Brodie Harper's former chief of staff even admitted that Harper, knew it was bad policy, but it was "good politics"

    Stephen Harper, and Jim Flaherty, removed the $3 billion contingency fund that Paul Martin, had built into his annual budgets, to cushion Canada, against economic shock.

    Stephen Harper, blew the $13 billion surplus he inherited from Paul Martin.

    Stephen Harper, had spent Canada into a deficit before a recession had even hit.

    Stephen Harper, decided to hold part of the G8/20 summit in downtown Toronto, against the wishes of the city of Toronto, who wanted him to host it outside of Downtown Toronto.

    Because he would not listen the tab for this three day waste of time was $1.2 billion, which accomplished absolutely nothing.

    Harper, and clement shovelled pork into Clement's riding like there was no tomorrow.

    Harper, spent upwards to $100 million advertising Canada's economic Action Plan, which was so dangerously close to the line it may as well have been CPC, advertising.

    Stephen Harper, is making the long form census voluntary, and thus will be making the data and information collected by Statistics Canada, less representative, and accurate, and in the process is spending $30 million more to do it.

    Stephen Harper, is spending $16 billion on 35 new F-35 fighter jets, which have a single engine, and are not what Canada, needs. The contract is also untendered.

    Stephen Harper, wants to spend $10 billion on new super prisons, to lock up non existent criminals who are committing all this unreported crime.

    Stephen Harper, is raising the EI, premiums, which is a job killer.

    Don't tell me that it is the Liberals, fault, because that excuse doesn't wash anymore.

    Harper, and crew ran around the country with fake cheques plastered with the CPC, logo and tried to pretend that it was the CPC, doling out the stimulus funds, and not the Government of Canada.

    Stephen Harper, is spending $1.7 million more on his office budget, to spew more useless propaganda about himself, and what a great job he is doing.

    Stephen Harper, had to put his makeup artist/personal stylist/clairvoyant onto the CPC, payroll. Before that taxpayers were paying for his guy liner, lipstick, and mascara, which he does wear.

    I hope Stephen Harper, proudly trots out that record everyday in an election campaign.

    I also know that you will also say that this is all exaggerated, and there is nothing wrong with any of that.

    You will also use your CPC, talking points and blame it all on the Liberals.

    Hell, Jack Layton, in his wildest dreams wouldn't contemplate an orgy of spending like that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Shadow,

    Rereading your last post, I felt I had to add something.

    Regarding your comment that I, am the only person on here who has ever corrected anyone.

    Oh, the delicious irony of that statement.

    I am surprised you had the nerve to post such an audacious statement.

    You do nothing but belittle, and talk down to others.

    Your breathtaking arrogance is on constant display.

    That big brain of yours is certainly no match for anyone.

    There endeth the lesson for you Shadow.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John nice gotcha with meaningless soundbites which don't form the policy justification for any of the government's moves. Oooh and an editorial!

    So much for honest debate. But heck, anybody who opposes the threat of jail and fines for people who don't tell the government personal information is an idiot right ?

    Anyways, if someone wants to run a weak on crime, weak on defence campaign they can have at it.

    They'll have to explain why they believe the long term economic and social costs of rampant crime are less than the costs of sound investments in law enforcement.

    They'll also have to explain why they want to pull a Chretien visa a vis Sea Kings and have soldiers falling out of the sky and dying.


    Regardless, your line of attack might work for the NDP and the BQ.

    But have your cake and eat it too parties like the Greens and the Liberals won't get much mileage out of those lines given how they ostensibly support fighting crime and the military.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pointing out that Harper's approval rating is among the best,... and the Iggy's is among the worst... seems at odds with the Headline there Peter.


    Hear is another one from a week and a half ago that I am sure you will enjoy :)

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/28/14858556.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's a "Who would you vote for" poll.

    Not an individual personality contest.

    Harper's slime ball image is hurting the Tories as it should !

    I'm sure you'll have some quaint quote from Dimitri to rebut.

    Eric will you have the Angus-Reid poll?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very sad news:

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100812/ignatieff-staffer-death-100812/

    My thoughts and prayers go out to Lague's family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieffs-communications-director-killed-in-motorcycle-crash/article1670499/

    A moment of silence for Mario Laguë

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi 49 steps.

    For future reference "untendered" isn't a word and "shovelled" should just have one L.

    (See how silly your actions were? Are people going to waste time doing this for now on?)


    Ok ignoring the "gotchas" which are meaningless in budgetary terms we have three items.

    GST, Military, Prisons.

    The cost of the GST was offset by certain provinces raising their PST rates, so they'll need less transfers in the future.

    Income trusts were taxed and a .5% reduction in the lowest income tax rate was canceled.

    So the cost was nowhere near $12 billion a year when that's factored in. Plus the Liberals were also promising tax cuts so that takes this issue off the table.


    The military ?

    It was the Liberals who invested millions in the joint strike fighters. And a great deal of former Liberal MPs and current Liberal Senators support the government's decision.

    So that takes this issue off the table.


    Prisons are the only real difference here.

    As I said, I find them to be a valuable investment.

    They're certainly necessary according to Kevin Page.


    So we'll compare that record to the far more costly previous platforms of the Liberals:

    Job killing carbon taxes, Kelowna accord, national daycare, more stimulus.

    This will all be in the context of a spring election where the Liberals oppose CPC spending cuts to balance the budget.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Shadow: John nice gotcha with meaningless soundbites which don't form the policy justification for any of the government's moves...

    Um... what does any of the subsequent comment have to do with the observation it responds to: the current government has not been fiscally responsible and will be taken to task on this point by the other parties?

    Changing the channel is a common political trick, but it's a signal that the debate has been lost.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shadow: It was the Liberals who invested millions in the joint strike fighters.

    Could you clarify the relevance of that observation?

    Canadian industry has and will benefit greatly from JSF procurement contracts; estimates are in the billions. Changing the supplier of an assembly is not at all straightforward, so our industry and our country have profitted whatever happens.

    You believe that the Liberals made a wise investment and that's a defensible claim. I can also respect the honesty and consistency of others who argue against giving money to the arms industry.

    Either way, connecting past Grit support for JSF investments with purchasing fighters today betrays a lack of understanding of the issue. Support for the industrial base is completely separate from equipping our air force for the 21st century. We signed up for $160 million worth of funding and got it back many times over. We never committed to spending a hundred times that much. No matter how cool the hardware.

    Even though you believe that the original Liberal decision was a good one, that's no reason to do something dumb today. And buying an unnecessary manned combat platform as they're about to recede into history is bag-of-hammers dumb. It's like buying battleships in 1947.

    ReplyDelete
  34. John fiscal responsibility is relative.

    All other parties must compare their platform and the promises they've made over the years with what the government has done. One has to evaluate each issue in its political context and ask if the other parties would have done differently.

    In terms of who is the most fiscally responsible party I believe the answer is the CPC.

    You questioned their investments in safe streets and our fighting men and women.

    I defended those investments as worthwhile. Hence not irresponsible. That's not "changing the channel" or an admission that the debate is lost.

    ***

    Liberal involvement in the development of the JSF was a signal that we would buy them down the road. Countries don't just randomly fund weapons projects they have no intention of buying.

    The issue is hardly separate.

    Canada usually demands that 2 dollars for every 1 spent be returned in contracts to our industries.

    These fighters are years away from delivery. Suppliers can easily be moved to other countries.

    Not going through with the purchase is indeed going to result in the loss of the full return on that investment.


    Now you have a point about throwing good money after bad.

    If you honestly believe that a strong military is not important then fine, its a valid position.

    But pretending money would be saved by putting this thing out to tender is laughable.

    Everyone who supports a strong military knows this is the aircraft for us.

    Liberal senators who aren't trying to score cheap political points have all said as much.

    So have past Liberal ministers.

    Now I know you have this weird positions that military experts don't share, which is that everything is going to shift to unmanned drones pretty quickly.

    That's a bizarre but also valid positions.

    However, i'm going to trust the experts on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010.08.12_Politics_CAN.pdf


    Angus reid finally has its data up. Liberals at 65% in Atlantic Canada... I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing...

    not sure I believe they gained 9 in BC and Sask/MB either.

    ReplyDelete
  36. However, i'm going to trust the experts on this one.
    Why would you trust the experts on JSF, but not on the long form census?

    ReplyDelete
  37. The
    Real Story On The F-35


    Let's talk real facts for a change. This is at best a poor airplane as the above comparison shows. Doesn't even match the current Sukhoi which is about to be phased out for a more advanced plane. Bad decision, bad buy, typical Tory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Liberal Suppoert I DO trust the experts on the census.

    They are right, Tony Clement's position is wrong, moving to a voluntary census will degrade the quality of data somewhat.

    But experts can't answer moral questions. I oppose the census on moral grounds - the government should not force people to give out this personal information under threat of jail.

    We have a woman on trial for refusing to fill out the 2006 census as we speak who may be sentenced to jail time.

    Although Warren Kinsella talked to her and there is a belief that the Charter might protect against a mandatory census.


    Anyways, with regards to experts vs moral thought on the JSF it is possible for them to tell us which aircraft is optimal but we need to decide if we want a strong military or not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. We have a woman on trial for refusing to fill out the 2006 census as we speak who may be sentenced to jail time.
    Could you cite where you have seen this? The usual line is "nobody has been jailed for not filling out the census in 300 years". I'd like to read about this. It's often a case of all is not as it seems. For example, should anyone be jailed simply for not paying taxes? I think not, yet it was the only way to jail Al Capone which was worth doing. Perhaps she is some scofflaw in other areas.

    Anyways, with regards to experts vs moral thought on the JSF it is possible for them to tell us which aircraft is optimal but we need to decide if we want a strong military or not.
    But it sounded like "if we want a strong military, then therefore we must buy JSF". In reality, there are degrees of strength. Am I against having a strong military if I think 30 planes would be enough instead of 65? Am I against having a strong military if I don't think we should have 1000 ICBMs?

    I'm not particularly against JSF, it appears there was a long process over years, and the interoperability with allies is important. The point about tendering is that we have a process, and we should follow it. We would likely choose the F35 because of the interoperability and because it should have what we want since we participated in the early work

    But we can still follow our standard procedures. With delivery dates so far out, it's hardly an emergency.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Barcs: Angus reid finally has its data up. Liberals at 65% in Atlantic Canada... I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing...

    Meanwhile, I'll rend my clothes and gnash my teeth over the Green showing in BC of 8% (10% after house effect adjustment).

    Or maybe not; this manic-depressive thing is a bit too vertigo-inducing. I think I'll just wait for another poll or two and squint at the general trends. This one certainly has its share of regional comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Interesting that alot of the latest polls until this which is close,have the libs/ndp tied with the cons @128 seats each

    ReplyDelete
  42. The west is obviously skewed towards the cons at the expense of the NDP, and in Atlantic (65%!!!) also at the expense of the NDP I think it should be more like 32 28 17

    ReplyDelete
  43. Liberal Supporter the standard line about "nobody has ever been to jail" is technically true but it is intellectually dishonest in the extreme because it leaves out the part about all the prosecutions/convictions.

    (A criminal conviction looks great on a resume!)

    And the threat of jail alone causes most people to fold under pressure of a criminal prosecution so having it on the books DOES matter.

    Also kind of funny that axing the census used to be a LEFT WING issue before Harper took up the cause.

    Here's the link to Kinsella who shares links to CBC and others:

    http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/07/senseless-census/

    She was one of 64 people charged in 2006 after refusing to complete the census. Her reason was because of its connection to Lockheed Martin.

    ***

    The thing about tendering is that its not like we don't know what's out there.

    There's only like 4 or 5 other choices and they're all older generations of planes.

    JSF is the only new generation fighter available.

    I take your point that there are degrees of strength, you're certainly right.

    But in terms of a "strong" military defined as having up to date equipment then the JSF is the only option.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There's only like 4 or 5 other choices and they're all older generations of planes.

    JSF is the only new generation fighter available.


    If you had bothered to read the link I put up you would know both those statements are wrong!!

    First the JSF does not compare with the current Sukhoi in several key areas, in fact it fails badly against the Sukhoi.

    Second Russia has stopped production of Sukhoi as there is another more advanced plane coming.

    So when we do get the F-35 it will be TWO generations back from the best.

    Stop using Dimitri quotes, your ignorance is showing !!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chris Vander Doelen wrote some more about the census this morning in the windsor star.


    ............
    "It's patently obvious why government and its legions of apologists want us to cough up telling details about our lives. It's to tax us more efficiently and to enable their social engineering.

    Many boaters were infuriated to learn last month that Ottawa's technocrats will force all six million of Canada's boat owners to register their pleasure craft and take a "captain's" course next year. Currently, only 2.65 million of them register their deadly little punts and sailboats.

    How do you think the technocrats learned that there were 2.35 million boats left yet to tax at $250 each? (Cha-ching! $587.5 million more in the coffers to prop up federal wages!)"
    .............


    .... A good example of the "services" that the government can provide for us.


    So back to my point in a past thread.... What should I be hiding from "my wonderful benefactor the government"... that I am not aware that I need to hide??

    ReplyDelete
  46. Social engineering? Oh, Windsor Star.... (shakes head)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter I glanced over your link but seeing it came from a left wing, unheard of Australian defence think tank I dismissed it.

    Its possible to find a link to any site that says virtually anything as expert fact.

    Russia currently has a 4.5 fighter. JSF F-35 is a 5th generation.

    The new fighter you're talking about is the Sukhoi PAK FA.

    It will be a 5th generation fighter, just like our new fighters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

    ReplyDelete
  48. Social engineering? Oh, Windsor Star.... (shakes head)


    Yes the connotations are a bit rich,... But on the other hand that is what results from any government program to a lesser extent, isn't it?

    Which groups the government chooses to help, what products to apply sin tax on? How to tailor social programs to get the result they want?


    Social engineering is probably a bit too much spin... but its an assertion that's not really wrong either.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Peter I glanced over your link but seeing it came from a left wing, unheard of Australian defence think tank I dismissed it.

    Ahh the fine pen of Dimitri I see.

    Look firstly it is from Australian air people. So to call it "Left Wing" stretches things more than a little.

    Secondly while you may quibble about some of the details the comparison chart shows how far behind the F-35 is. The Sukhoi outperforms it on almost every possible level. Left or Right facts don't lie.

    The F-35 is a poor aircraft and at the same time very expensive. I'm sure the Russians would be delighted to sell us the Sukhoi at significantly lower cost and since it outperforms the F-35 right now that would be a much better deal.

    ReplyDelete
  50. F-35,
    International Participation


    More info which you won't read.This is a bad deal

    ReplyDelete
  51. seeing it came from a left wing, unheard of Australian defence think tank I dismissed it.

    Which actually tells us a lot more about you than it does about your views.

    Apparently you feel that anything that comes from the "left" must instantly be downgraded or ignored. Says a lot about the openness of your mind. I suppose that site wasn't on one of the PMO's approved list ?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Barcs in terms of social engineering the most obvious application of the census is race based policy making.

    Match up race with income, note the disparities, and then target specific races for benefits.

    Supposedly the census is a profound loss for all Canadians and the end of good government.

    But for many of us its only the end of big government.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Peter, do you even read the articles you post. Here's the last sentence, "Perceived inequitable sharing in JSF production is most often cited as the reason for considering withdrawal, rather than cost or performance concerns.".

    I am in total agreement with Shadows statement, "Everyone who supports a strong military knows this is the aircraft for us.".

    He's right. Find me one hawk, anywhere, who doesn't love this plane.

    I'm sure the Russians would like us to think they have a better plane, but I don't buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. As for social engineering, it is not exclusively a leftie project.

    And sorry Shadow, but this is too funny, "But for many of us its only the end of big government".

    I don't even know what to say about that. It is a pretty cool delusion thou.

    ReplyDelete
  55. AJR79 it is a view put forward by Stephen Taylor and seconded by Paul Wells.

    Census generally provides information about child poverty, racial disparities, and the income gap for women.

    Advoacy groups use the information to promote redistribution of wealth via the government as well as other policies like race based quotas.


    If it is true that the poorer and the less white you are then the less likely you are to fill out a long form census then we're going to see the statistical evidence for big government get undermined tremendously.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shadow:
    I glanced over your link but seeing it came from a left wing, unheard of Australian defence think tank I dismissed it.

    OK I've been doing some research aided by a friend in Australia. In actual fact your statement is incorrect. I've put together a collection of links for that group and I'm having trouble deciding exactly where they fit on the political spectrum? Too many to post here so go to below and see what you think?

    Air
    Power Australia

    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.