Friday, August 20, 2010

Projection: 129 CPC, 94 LPC, 52 BQ, 33 NDP

My last projection update was exactly a month ago, so it seems an opportune time to update the projection again. Particularly since starting Monday I plan to start focusing a bit more on the New Brunswick provincial election. It'll be the first real test of the basic workings of my projection model, and it will also give me the opportunity to test-drive a few ideas concerning how best to cover an on-going election. It helps that the New Brunswick election looks like it will be a close one. Either Shawn Graham or David Alward could end up as Premier at the end of September.

Anyway, to the projection.The Conservatives have dropped three seats in the projection and now stand at 129. That is still enough to outnumber the combined total of the Liberals (94, up two) and the New Democrats (33, up one). But just barely.

The Bloc Québécois is stable at 52 seats.

Nationally, the Conservatives have dropped 0.3 points and are now at 33.8%. The Liberals have dropped 0.1 points and are now at 28.3%. The NDP is also down 0.l1 and stands at 16.3%.

Those on the rise are the Bloc Québécois (up 0.1 to 9.7%) and the Greens (up 0.3 to 9.2%).

There have been no seat changes in Ontario but the popular vote has shifted downwards for the two major parties. The Conservatives still lead with 35.2% (down 0.4) but the Liberals are not far behind at 34.5% (down 0.6). The NDP is stable at 17.4% and the Greens are up 0.6 to 10.8%.

The Bloc has not moved from 39.3%, and still holds 52 seats. The Liberals are unchanged at 23.1% while the Conservatives are down 0.3 points to 16.6%. They are also down one seat and now stand to win six in the province. The NDP is down 0.3 points to 11.9% but has gained a seat and is now at two. The Greens have gained 0.4 points to reach 7.2%.

The Conservatives are up 0.2 points in British Columbia to 36.9% but are down one seat to 19. The NDP is down 0.4 points to 26.5% but the Liberals are up 0.5 to 22.6%. They have gained a seat and now stand at eight. The Greens are down 0.1 to 11.9%.

The Liberals have gained 0.6 points and one seat in Atlantic Canada. They are now at 38.3% and 20 seats. The Conservatives are down 0.5 points to 31.9% while the NDP is down 0.4 points to 22.0%. They have also dropped one seat and now have three. The Greens are up 0.4 to 6.2%.

The Conservatives are down 0.2 points in Alberta, where they lead with 59.8%. The Liberals are up 0.2 to 16.5% and the NDP is down 0.5 to 11.1%. The Greens have gained 0.6 points and now stand at 9.8%.

The Conservatives have lost a seat in the Prairies, as well as 0.2 points. They now stand to win 46.4% of the vote and 20 seats. The NDP makes the seat gain and now stands at four. They are also up 0.6 points to 23.3%. The Liberals are down 0.2 to 21.8% and the Greens are down 0.5 to 6.7%.

Finally, the Liberals lead in the North with 33.1%, unchanged. The Conservatives have dropped 0.1 points and now trail with 30.2%. The NDP is unchanged at 27.1% while the Greens are up 0.2 to 8.1%.

In terms of net gains/losses (i.e. the net change in the seven regions combined), the Greens come out on top with a net gain of 1.6 points. The highlight for them is the gain of 0.6 points in Ontario, where Guelph has the potential to go Green. However, their loss in British Columbia, even though it is only of 0.1 points, is not positive.

Next is the Liberals who have had a net gain of 0.5 points. Their biggest bump came in Atlantic Canada (0.6 and one seat) but they also gained 0.5 points and a seat in British Columbia. Their drop in Ontario is dangerous, however.

The Bloc was stable, so they stand at third in this projection update.

Then it is the NDP, who had a net loss of one point. While a gain of 0.6 in the Prairies and stability in Ontario are good things, their drop in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada do not bode well for the future.

And finally we have the Conservatives, who had a net loss of 1.5 points. Their only gain came in British Columbia, where they nevertheless lost a seat. They had big drops in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, both important regions for them, and are also down in Quebec.

I expect this trend to continue for a little while. The next projection update will, unless things change, likely have a greater Liberal and NDP seat total than the Conservatives.

71 comments:

  1. Eric I question the Ontario projection as Ekos has the Liberals up considerably and I seem to remember AR said the same ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please scroll down and look at the new polls added for Ontario. Most of them have the Liberals at 34% or lower. A few recent polls have shown gains, yes, but overall they are on the low side. See that the same goes for the Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eric I wonder if we could could continue the Quebec discussion from another thread?

    My question to you and the others who said that English Canada had to do more to convince the voters of Quebec to support them, is what is it that you want?

    I'd also note that 60% of Quebec voters support federal parties and suggest that the LPOC and CPC should seriously consider running only one candidate in ridings to consolidate the federalist vote. Any idea how many more more riding that might net each party?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Earl,

    Speaking for myself, there is little Canada could give Quebec other than autonomy. People who strongly believe in sovereignty aren't going to be bought off, but it's the middle 40% (as I'd say about 30% of Quebecers are committed sovereigntists and another 30% are committed federalists) that are fought over. These are the Quebecers who consider themselves Quebecers first, and who have supported sovereignty at one point or another.

    They can be attracted by more openness to Quebec, as well as all the usual things any voter wants.

    As to federalist vote splitting, it would certainly make it more difficult for the Bloc to win if the Liberals and Conservatives only ran one candidate for both parties in each riding. But not everyone who votes Liberal or Conservatives is a federalist first and foremost.

    Many Quebecers who are nationalist but not federalist would not want to vote for Trudeau's old party, and so would go to the Bloc. Other Quebecers are are federalist but not small-c conservative would not want to vote for a party rooted in the old Reform movement, and would also go to the Bloc (or the NDP).

    While it would certainly make things more difficult for the Bloc, I don't think it would take away the Bloc's majority of seats in Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eric there are some numbers to back you up. On the latest EKOS table they have the percentage of CPC, Liberal, NDP, Green voters who have BQ as their second choice.

    Its a national percentage so translating it in Quebec numbers would be tricky.

    But it seems pretty clear that a number of votes would "leak".


    BTW I find the idea somewhat offensive. Seperatism vs Federalism is a big issue sure.

    However, what about left wing vs right wing ??

    Is that not important too ?

    Taking away choices from people is not the right way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Eric:

    "They can be attracted by more openness to Quebec, as well as all the usual things any voter wants."

    That's a pretty general statement and like Carl I'm confused. I'm genuinely interested in specifics. For example what do you mean by openness? If we are ever to understand each other we have know what it is that the other wants. I have no idea what Quebec wants. When you autonomy I'm again confused - Quebec has pretty much its own way in deciding what goes on in Quebec, at least in my mind. Help me out here.

    BTW I wasn't suggesting that by running one candidate that the LPOC and CPC would halve the BLOC seat seat count, but I wondered if it might be possible for those two parties to win 10-15 extra seats between them.

    Thanks, Earl

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I've said, Éric, a platform of decentralisation that allows the provinces to govern themselves as they see fit should appeal greatly to Quebeckers.

    And such a plan should also appeal greatly to the libertarian wing of the CPC.

    I don't see why there isn't greater call for it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow Leger sure dropped a bombshell:

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/20/15091861.html

    CPC at 37%. Liberal tour a failure.

    All I have to say to that is this:

    "The Harper slide is on!"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ira decentralization isn't automatically a good thing.

    Give the provinces power to create inter-provincial trade barriers and they will.

    The duplication and waste across multiple jurisdictions hurts everyone while the benefits to local economies are dubious.

    In many areas greater centralization is needed. Canada has similar constitutional devices as the commerce clause in the US but we never enforce them for fear of offending Quebec.

    Its time for somebody to step up and smash the monopolies and union domination of Quebec and create a fair and level playing field for industry across Canada.


    The treatment of Newfoundland over the Churchill Falls is the kind of thing that can't be allowed to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shadow it only shows you get what you pay for.

    Who owns the Toronto Sun, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Shadow it only shows you get what you pay for."


    Can you really follow that statement with a post of an article in the CBC that takes issue with the tories? With several quotes from a person who leads a group that wants more (I mean who wants less for whatever group they lead).

    In other words quotes form a man who is paid to want more from the government reported by persons with a bias against the government... you get what you pay for. yes?


    But back to the leger poll. I am not sure if there is a newer set of polling firm accuracy weights done by eric than this one.

    http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/2008/10/weighting-system.html

    But it would seem that leger, according to its results in the last few elections is rather highly regarded as one of the better ones. ie. When they are paid to do a job they get good results.

    37-28-16

    (and 60% of people had opinions of iggy that improved out of 8% that said they know more about him after the tour.... That is [almost] 5% of Canadians whose opinion of iggy improved after the summer tour....but then, you get what you pay for, right?)

    Results from leger, one of the more accurate pollsters. But then you get what you pay for.


    We might get a fall election yet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter I guess the same can be said for any polls run by the Toronto Star.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter I believe Natynczyk said that 2/3 of soldiers are satisfied with the current system of lump sum payouts.

    1/3 of soldiers are not.

    So getting rid of the lump sums like they're asking for would be WRONG because it goes against the 2/3 that are satisfied.


    But maybe some kind of dual system could be set up where people choose what works best for them.

    I'm sure after the government completes a review of this LIBERAL policy they'll make some improvements.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Earl to my know;ledge Torstar does not poll itself. It does quote polls from other sources.

    Now let's be clear here. Toronto Sun is part of the Sun media chain, s such it's part of the group which wants to bring Fox North, a despicable idea.

    It's managing director is none other than that rabid conservative Kory Tenyecke, who is known to lie at the drop of a hat.

    Further we have had I think three or four polls in the last week which basically agree with each other. Then the Sun chain puts out this Leger poll which is way out in right field.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter I believe Natynczyk said that 2/3 of soldiers are satisfied with the current system of lump sum payouts.

    Unfortunately that's far from the whole set of issues. There is a lot of treatment refused, lack of support and all the other issues Stogran brought up.

    The General says Stogran is RIGHT!!

    Now a great part of the problems are not the Govt's fault directly but stem from major problems within Vets Affairs itself. Also this lousy support for veterans has been going on for literally decades under both Liberal and Conservative Govts.

    Personally I think the lump sum idea sucks. But apparently it's been around since WW One !!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Natynczyk weighed into the debate Friday.

    "I know Veterans Affairs has done their survey and 69 per cent have some satisfaction. [We] gotta worry about that 31 per cent and we gotta make sure they get the support that they need because their circumstances may be different," Natynczyk said.

    Some satisfaction does not equal Satisfaction !!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Earl,
    Éric,

    "While it would certainly make things more difficult for the Bloc, I don't think it would take away the Bloc's majority of seats in Quebec."

    I agree. In fact, what Earl suggests only works wonders under a progressive single candidate government party. That means a two-party government with a face that does not reflect what the new CPC stands for at present. Even if you reverse the coin, it won't work for Liberals under a Liberal government that happened to be a two-party government with the CPC, precisely because of the political nature of the CPC.

    Earl,

    Think in terms of accents! There is no ONE Canadian, American, English, French, Québécois or other accent. That's the answer, in a nutshell.

    Most Quebecers want renewed federalism but that is itself undefinable -- for some that means autonomy, for others special status, for others increased powers for Quebec with or without these same powers going to the other provinces and territories.

    The second largest group: sovereignists -- and they themselves are divided. Most favour pure sovereignty but some favour sovereignty-association with Canada (political independence with a mandatory economic association between the two governments)

    Ain't building, maintaining or destroying one or two countries -- USUALLY REFERRED TO AS NATIONS fun???!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. All,

    Peter said...
    Vets
    ombudsman 'absolutely correct': Natynczyk

    Thanks Peter. And much obliged, Walt.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shadow,

    "So getting rid of the lump sums like they're asking for would be WRONG because it goes against the 2/3 that are satisfied.


    But maybe some kind of dual system could be set up where people choose what works best for them.

    I'm sure after the government completes a review of this LIBERAL policy they'll make some improvements."

    Call me a hopeless, principled idealist but I come at it with the curious notion that men and women who risk their lives -- not to mention their limbs, are going beyond the call of duty. In my book it's like Clinton said -- "Putting People First" and we should be providing a lifetime pension for their brave service regardless of the cost.

    I prefer a human focus rather than a "competing" and far more costly emphasis on hardware.

    To my mind, the pending purchase of the JSF is an obscenity given the crying human needs not adequately addressed in the Canadian Forces. That has to be "Job-One", not provoking semi-realistic mind induced orgasms with the purchase of a bunch of new, shiny, gold-plated, phallic toys...just so a precious few politicos can feel like "real" men.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Peter the Toronto Sun doesn't do its own polling either. They use Leger. You don't have to like the politics of the newspaper to believe its polling. I loath the TS which puts a Liberal slant everything. It has to. The TS is owned by the Atkinson Family Foundation and under terms set by its founder it must support the LPOC. Only in 1979 did the Star support a PC candidate for PM - Joe Clark.

    BTW I am no more enamoured than you are by the idea of Fox News North or by much of what passes for editorial content in the Sun Chain of Newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter i'm not sure why you think this situation is some big political scandal laid at the feet of the government. Some kind of epic war between the general and the government.

    The government has listened to his concerns and are doing a review.

    The New Veterans Charter came in place under the last Liberal government with ALL PARTY SUPPORT.

    This isn't a Harper problem, this is a problem for ALL CANADIANS.


    "The General says Stogran is RIGHT!!"

    He said he voiced the issues that matter to some veterans very clearly.

    He also said everyone's situation is different and that the people who aren't satisfied with the current system should speak up and make themselves heard. So should the people who ARE SATISFIED.

    "Personally I think the lump sum idea sucks. But apparently it's been around since WW One !!"

    2/3 of people like the current system. Using the money to buy a house is a great investment.

    If its a lump sum you can do that.

    If its a monthly payment then it goes to a mortgage and it eats everything up with interest !!

    You need lump sums to start a family and pay for a house!

    "Some satisfaction does not equal Satisfaction !!"

    I would need to see the actual survey.

    I'm guessing they asked are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat disatisfied, very disatisfied.

    Although perhaps they just asked yes or no are you satisfied with the system.

    Either way 69% is actaully a pretty good number.

    There's definetly room for improvment though which is why the government is reviewing the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ronald O'Dowd there is enough money for JSF AND taking care of our veterans.

    By the way, I bet if you did a poll of veterans they would be the MOST SUPPORTIVE of the JSF so there ya go.


    The thing I don't like about a life time pension instead of a lump sum payment is that it doesn't work for everybody.

    Like I said to Peter if you want to buy a house then a lump sump is way, way better otherwise you're spending your life paying a rent or interest on a mortgage without paying down the principle.


    So obviously it should be up to the soldiers to decide what works best for them.

    I don't know how you can be against lump sum payments and support a lifetime pension instead when 2/3 of soldiers like the pay outs.


    Why not a dual system ? Let people choose.

    Maybe even do a bit of both. A smaller payout up front and then the rest over a few years.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Earl--

    The Star's Atkinson principles don't include which party to endorse, just progressive principles. They endorsed Stanfield in '72 and '74, Broadbent in '79, and the PC party of Ontario many times during the 20th century.

    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/515896

    ReplyDelete

  24. Peter the Toronto Sun doesn't do its own polling either.


    The difference Earl is that Sun media commissions the survey.

    Torstar does NOT commission any polls.


    Can you see the difference ??

    ReplyDelete
  25. The New Veterans Charter came in place under the last Liberal government with ALL PARTY SUPPORT.

    Then WHY are you blasting the Liberals for something the Cons supported. Just another example of your twisted ideology !!

    You can't have it both ways !! It the CPC supported it you are stuck with the consequences !!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter i'm not blasting the Liberals.

    This isn't a political issue.

    The CPC isn't stuck with the consequences.

    OUR SOLDIERS ARE.


    That's my point. This isn't a political issue for the media and opposition to hammer the Harper government over.

    This has nothing to do with Harper.

    This has to do with a VA that has a policy which doesn't work for some soldiers.


    OK. Then lets review the situation (which Harper is doing) and come up with solutions to make the system work for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter does the Star pay for the polling it reports?

    Are you suggesting that the Sun Media puts the poll together and then has Leger do the polling? Perhaps you can explain the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Shadow,

    Let's cut to the chase. I take your point about buying a home but the real issue here is money paid per veteran.

    We both know that with a life-time pension (including a disability component, where applicable) that veterans will earn far more money in the long run than by agreeing to lump sum payments over a few years.

    Surely, you can see my point. Agreed, most of the blame goes to VA but no one in government seems to object to saving money on the veterans' backs. Did I miss a statement from the PMO or DND in support of increased monies for veterans? In my book, budgetary considerations have no place here. Honour demands a fair shake for all veterans and IMHO, that means paying them as much money as possible over a lifetime.

    As for the JSF, sure veterans are likely to support it PROVIDED all monies they are entitled to over their lifetimes are assured -- before doling out other funds to pay for that fighter aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1 seat margin for the Coalition

    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Govt. monitoring on line comments

    http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article/58287--harper-government-monitoring-online-chats-about-politics

    You working for them Shadow ??

    ReplyDelete
  31. Peter does the Star pay for the polling it reports?


    Probably not Earl. Sun media like CBC and others commissions a polling firm to do a poll and pays for the service.

    Star may have to pay a fee for using the poll results but since it didn't order the poll you can't claim it is theirs !!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Govt. monitoring on line comments

    That sounds so much like 1984

    Ministry Of Truth etc

    ReplyDelete
  33. This could be a turning point... in MSM becoming balanced.

    We have a clear cut example of the dreaded `Fox News North` setting the national agenda.

    The QMI agency has scooped the NP and Globe and Mail and CBC by getting out in front of the Tamil refugee exploitation of the Canadian (Liberal) refugee and immigration system.

    National News watch http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/

    ... which has had a anti-Harper in the news gathering slant on all the `scandals` .... has basically all the QMI articles linked on the immigration scandal that the CPC have been doing an uphill battle to fix. The Canadian public will demand this be fixed and the immigration review board be held accountable for the fiasco that is an affront to all Canadians, less so for Liberal supporters.


    Is this the sort of reporting the Left is raging against?

    Should the Liberals decide to keep up the fight for an open refugee policy and an election be triggered by Liberal delays and shenanigans in addressing the obvious problem the Liberals will have the luxury of a 4 year rebuild under a CPC majority.

    PS Persichilli of the Star is following the QMI lead. There will be a scramble by the rest of the media to get in front of the parade of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I see little difference Peter, but then you do like to split hairs.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "1 seat margin for the Coalition"

    Peter... can I assume that is the same coalition that was talked about all campaign? And not backroom maneuvering even as the leaders were saying "no coalition" like they were here??



    "Govt. monitoring on line comments"

    Terrible that the government might want to know what people think and create policy accordingly. I wouldn't agree with spreading propaganda anonymously... but then that accusation came in the comments... rather than the story, didn't it?

    Then again, it is a well used tactic by other parties too. In the past 6 months atleast 8 persons have done it in opposition to the Brad wall government. NDP candidates, former MP's, Union bosses.... All of them concerned Citizens who didn't reveal their political background.

    So why is it only bad when the right does it?


    And isn't it better when real information gets out there? And not stuff like "The TS is owned by the Atkinson Family Foundation and under terms set by its founder it must support the LPOC." or "Shadow it only shows you get what you pay for. Who owns the Toronto Sun, eh?"

    ... fire melts steel, right peter?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ron I disagree.

    If a lump sum is invested wisely it'll probably have a greater return than monthly payments.

    Usually a lump sum is equal to the exact same amount as a monthly pension assuming its saved, drawn down by a fixed rate, and gains compounding interest.

    That's how "Set for Life" lotto tickets work for instance, where you can choose lump sum vs monthly pay out.


    If you make the lump sum equal to the monthly payouts that's REALLY UNFAIR for people getting the monthly payouts because the lump sum people get interest on top of their money while the monthly pay out people do not !

    ReplyDelete
  37. Peter any reason why you're linking a 3 month old article that you've linked here before ??

    I'm guessing it was to bolster your unfortunate question:

    "You working for them Shadow ??"


    As i've said repeatedly I do not work for any political party.

    Just like you are a Liberal partisan who doesn't directly work for the Liberal party (as far as we know, lol.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. As i've said repeatedly I do not work for any political party.

    Then how about dropping the direct from Dimitri talking points !!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "1 seat margin for the Coalition"

    Australia

    Don't you guys ever look out ???

    ReplyDelete
  40. As i've said repeatedly I do not work for any political party.
    That's right. Kory resigned and is now working for Sun Media. He is now waiting for yet another Harper "regime change" at the CRTC, so that Fox North can be approved by January, and designated as a "must carry" for basic cable.

    I think he resigned just around the time we started seeing you around here.

    Just like you are a Liberal partisan who doesn't directly work for the Liberal party (as far as we know, lol.)
    I included this quote so no knickers will become overly bunched up aver the innuendo about the timing of Kory's resignation and your debut here.

    ReplyDelete
  41. BC VOR:

    Context is important.

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/08/in-praise-of-context-a-little-background-on-that-secret-government-survey-of-successful-tamil-refuge.html

    "As this review was done based on statements applicants made during their immigration interview and not based on any formal entry control system, this information must be considered anecdotal in nature. "

    ReplyDelete
  42. ""1 seat margin for the Coalition"
    Australia
    Don't you guys ever look out ???"


    ...... yes peter. And I saw coalition talk about the coalition in Australia the entire campaign. Funny difference, none of them denied it, they ran on the description.

    But I am sure you saw the headline at the end of the campaign and decided to post it without learning any of the context like you usually do.

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://www.canada.com/news/Poll+underlines+Liberal+problems+Quebec/3430054/story.html

    Leger released some more of their poll....

    The Harper Tories have slid farther in Quebec and have fallen another -3 to -5 points (can't tell in the story if leaners were included) to 19%.

    Leger hasn't poll the tories that (low?) in nearly 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Barcs that's a NEW poll for Quebec only taken from the 16-19 of August.

    That Leger bombshell that showed a healthy Tory lead Canada wide was taken August 2-4.

    It would be kind of interesting to compare the two but I can't see any regional numbers for the first Leger poll on the internet.


    Eric do you have that info ?

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, Leger hasn't updated their website with polling data. I don't use media reports, as they are unreliable and almost always incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
  46. . And I saw coalition talk about the coalition in Australia the entire campaign. Funny difference, none of them denied it, they ran on the description.

    Well done but you missed the key point. That there was a coalition party BEFORE the election was called.
    Nice try for snark but you missed.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Well done but you missed the key point. That there was a coalition party BEFORE the election was called.
    Nice try for snark but you missed."

    Try to pay attention Peter... That was my entire point. In Australia the coalition ran as a coalition the entire election.... Rather than shouting "no coalition" each time they were asked while at the same time being in backroom talks about a coalition.

    If the NDP/lib want to run on a coalition they are free to. Just announce that they will. Lying to the people isn't solely a right wing trait as much as you want people to believe it is.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In Australia the coalition ran as a coalition the entire election..

    Try to pay attention, the coalition sat as a coalition in the House. They had for a significant time. Try to get it right please.

    It's one thing to have a coalition party in existence well before an election and holding seats and something entirely different to form one after an election.

    Another point that must be understood is that a coalition is NOT NEEDED under our system. Just the confidence of the House as Pearson did when he had a minority. A formal coalition is not necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ron O.: Thanks for trying to define what Quebecers want. I don't think there's anything new there just a confirmation for me as an English Canadian that it is for now an insurmountable barrier. Danielle responded in an earlier thread that English Canada is not different than Quebec. I don't see it that way if you exclude Newfoundland. I don't have any answers as to how the question of Quebec and Canada will ever be resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  50. And isn't it better when real information gets out there?

    But what is the REAL information?? Who's information.

    That's the problem. Who or what controls the information and releases it or not to suit possibly a political agenda. That's the danger.

    Incidentally it's not just this country, in fact we're a little late on the scene. Causing problems elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Another example of people trying to impose their morality on others while ignoring reality:

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/23/the-harper-government-and-the-insite-flim-flam/

    Don't know what these Right Wing, so called Conservatives find so objectionable about cleaning up a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "It is an attempt by the state to put falsehood in the place of reliable data. George Orwell wrote books about this sort of thing."


    Ah yes ! The Ministry Of Truth again. Never far away is it Earl?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Another example of people trying to impose their morality on others while ignoring reality:"

    Excuse me ?

    Imposing their morality ?

    I happen to think that almost ALL Canadians are opposed to intravenous drug use.

    Its not like this is marijuana and we're debating whether adults should be free to do it.
    So no, its not a "moral issue".

    Its a pragmatic difference of opinion between those who believe in devoting our limited resources to harm reduction and those who believe in devoting our limited resources to treatment instead.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Don't know what these Right Wing, so called Conservatives find so objectionable about cleaning up a problem.


    Ummm does it improve the problem? or just concentrate the problem in a different area?

    Does it help people get clean and off the junk? Or just provide a way for them to do it without as much risk to their stupidity?

    Does it make the streets safer? Or like Saskatoon do they hand out 1.2 million needles (which is 1 a day for 3300 addicts) They claim 90% return rate which means there is a potential for 120,000 needles.. some of them dirty.. in our public areas around the distribution. That only includes the official ones. How much does it cost to get the fire department to come pick each of them up?? (that is who we are supposed to phone)



    And I do have a question about the overall story... Why is it the RCMP that is involved and alleged to have cooked the data... Isn't the insite site wholly inside the jurisdiction of the Vancouver police department? Shouldn't we be talking to them about the positive/negative effects rather then the RCMP??

    ReplyDelete
  55. Earl,

    What is absurd is that the government declares an activity to be a crime and then uses taxpayer money to sponsor the commission of crimes.

    I don't have a problem with people who choose to use recreational drugs. What I object to are the squandrons of socialists who declare their free use of MY money to subsidize drug use.

    Those big-government types are the ones trying to impose THEIR morality upon ME.

    ReplyDelete
  56. We all pay taxes that pay for things we don't support.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Eric wrote:

    "We all pay taxes that pay for things we don't support."

    Yes, of course.

    But the point is that whenever that happens, it is the morality and views of those wielding power that is FORCED upon everyone else.

    In other words it is ridiculous for Earl to opine about one narrow area where something is being imposed, when in virtually every area of our lives we have coercive force imposed upon us for no morally or philosophically justifiable reason.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "We all pay taxes that pay for things we don't support."

    Eric you've used this line before and i'm not quite sure what the point of it is.

    Henry is objecting to the fact that he is paying taxes for something he doesn't support.

    Are you saying he should not voice his opinion on how his tax dollars are used ??


    I've heard plenty of people on the left object to their tax dollars being spent on new prisons and on new fighters jets lately, to say nothing of the "fake lake".

    That's how a democracy works.

    When we don't like how our money is being spent we speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Shadow: I happen to think that almost ALL Canadians are opposed to intravenous drug use.

    That's a safe statement. So almost ALL Canadians should support Insite. Peer-reviewed research showed that users of the facility were more likely to go into detox than other addicts.

    ReplyDelete
  60. --- Eric you've used this line before and i'm not quite sure what the point of it is.

    The point is that it is not, alone, an argument for or against something. We all in the same boat, be it about this particular issue or something else.

    ReplyDelete
  61. John there's other ways to get people into detox than Insite.

    And considering we have long waiting lists for detox in this province (as we do for any medical service) the point is meaningless.

    In fact, why not shut down Insite and convert it into 6 detox beds ?

    There's not a shortage of people wanting to go into detox. But there IS a shortage of detox beds.

    ***

    Eric saying "I don't support this" isn't an arguement to persuade others to join your position because it lacks reasoning.

    But it is a statement that when made by enough people, for whatever or no reason, should be peruasive to our elected officials.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Without having seen the study John,

    I would wonder if it was easier to find drug users at the site than at other places.

    If the people at the site generally had more ambition in general that those who didn't care to go there.

    And why the study didn't ask based on that about the subject himself.


    See everything you do separates people into stratified layers.... same as one of those sand/water pictures that you can shake up.

    What I would be interested in the study answering is whether the single subject was more likely to go to rehab than they were before going to the site.

    Comparing an ambitious person to a lazy one, and then stating that one is more likely to do something?? Seems kind of obvious doesn't it?


    "peer reviewed study"... also doesn't seem to mean what it used to. The medical journals finally removed the study that showed that autism is a small side effect result of vaccinations. It was peer reviewed, but for decades after it was accepted to the journal.... noone could seem to replicate the data.

    I also know that my thesis was peer reviewed as well as that of my classmates.... I still don't know how all of us passed.

    Peer review would seem to be a sticking point in the AGW theories too. You might remember the Hockey stick curve?? Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org frequently finds problems in the peer review, and data sets used.


    Peer review should require unassociated people to replicate results and compare with the study.... rather than just reading and approving of the premise. It often doesn't seem so anymore, especially when we are talking about things like insite or AGW, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Eric wrote,

    " We all in the same boat, be it about this particular issue or something else."

    But that's not really true.

    Firstly, some people have lots of money confiscated from them to be distributed the way other people like. Some other people pay very little in taxes and yet gleefully decide how other people's money ought to be used. That's hardly "the same boat".

    Secondly, some people are in favour of 90% of government spending; others only think 10% is justifiable. These groups are also not "in the same boat".

    The fact of the matter is that people with power are continually imposing their will on others by force without justifiable reason.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And it's theft, every time.

    I happen to think that almost ALL Canadians are opposed to intravenous drug use.

    I'm not. I'm indifferent to intravenous drug use. I'd never do it (I've never even smoked a cigarette), but to each his own.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Barcs: Without having seen the study...

    "peer reviewed study"... also doesn't seem to mean what it used to.


    In this case there were multiple peer-reviewed studies. All of which supported the likes of Insite, and none of which showed that Insite was likely to result in negative outcomes.

    Peer-reviewed research is the best route to understanding that we have today. The alternative is to base our actions on no evidence at all. Yes, that's exactly what we're seeing currently in Ottawa. However, it's not an intellectually or morally defensible approach.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ira I imagine you'd be opposed if friends or family mentioned the idea of taking up intravenous drug use.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Barcs notes:

    "If the people at the site generally had more ambition in general that those who didn't care to go there."

    Barcs makes a valid point. People too often make the leap from correlation to causation.

    Just because B has a statistical correlation with C does not mean that B _caused_ C. For example, there could be a third factor, A, that influenced both B and C.

    In the drug-injection case, it would not be surprising that the self-selected sample of drug users who opt for such a location are already demonstrating a greater awareness of harm and of greater sense of responsibility about their behaviour.

    It may be that this underlying attitude is what results in better outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sure I would - I like those people. But people I don't know die constantly, and that doesn't seem to bother me. So if people I don't know want to take drugs, who am I to stop them?

    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.