The fallout from the French and English debates shows the previous pre-debate 10 point Conservative margin is now four percentage points. Tracking shows incremental movement in favour of the Liberals and Stephane Dion. Dion registered his highest score as the person Canadians think would make the best Prime Minsiter at 20% although he still trails Stephen Harper by 12 points.
Regionally, the Liberals were more likely to realize gains in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Battleground Ontario remains a statistical tie between the Liberals and Conservatives while the Conservatives enjoy a commanding lead in Western Canada.
Tune in to Goldhawk Live with Dale Goldhawk tonight at 7 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website.
Methodology and Results
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on October 3, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=1,029, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 34 (-1)
- Liberal Party 30 (+2)
- NDP 19 (NC)
- BQ 10% (NC)
- Green Party 7% (-1)
- Undecided 14% (-2)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,202,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper 32% (NC)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 20% (+3)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 19% (NC)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (NC)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (-1)
- None of them 6% (-2)
- Unsure 16% (-1)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
- The most trustworthy leader
- The most competent leader
- The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
- Stephen Harper 98 (+9)
- Jack Layton 60 (+1)
- Stephane Dion 59 (+7)
- Gilles Duceppe 16 (+4)
- Elizabeth May 15 (-3)
What do you think?
Cheers, NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard
RSS feed
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
This is so different than the narrative running in the media, which is more alon... more
gretag (Ontario) 05 Oct 14:17
I am staying with my earlier forecast that the result will, in the end, be a Con... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 05 Oct 14:24
Harper's personal numbers continue to slip and Dion's are slowly rising. That al... more
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post) (Ontario) 05 Oct 14:53
People are beginning to wonder about a Prime Minister who ignores the financial ... more
HoldenCaulfield (Ontario) 05 Oct 19:00
It seems that the only real work ever done in Ottawa, was while there was majori... more
robini (Ontario) 05 Oct 20:17
Holden people are starting to see that emperor harper has no clothes. ... more
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post) (Ontario) 05 Oct 22:45
Comments
This comment has been removed by the Moderator.
18 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
fortescue
Thanks giving supper table discussions may decide this election. I am suprised it tightened up again. I know some have said liberals poll well on weekends. But never this well. It looks like voter turnout will end up being very important. The inconsistencys with other polls remains a factor, Nik has proved however he has the best results in past. Hold on to your hats its going to be close!!!
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:09:24 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 14:09
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gretag
This is so different than the narrative running in the media, which is more along the lines of C:38-40, L21-23, N20-22.
I notice Angus Reid has a new Toronto Star poll which shows the same trend as Nik's numbers. Yet the Star is running with the Harris-Decima poll and saying the Liberals are plummeting and the NDP is rising. The rest of the media is pushing the same narrative. It's confusing that there are such different trends/numbers circulating.
Since the media insists on spinning narratives around the numbers, it is frustrating that they all portray the same subset of numbers and ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative.
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:17:45 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 14:17
13 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
I am staying with my earlier forecast that the result will, in the end, be a Conservative minority which will contnue the unproductive partisanship exhibited in Parlimentary Committees.
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:24:34 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 14:24
19 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Harper's personal numbers continue to slip and Dion's are slowly rising. That along with the Liberal surge suggests to me that the Libs are now possibly tied with the Cons,or at least even closer than Nik's numbers. We'll see that over time.
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:53:39 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 14:53
13 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Another look at the numbers suggests that the practical Green supporters are now drifting to the Libs as their numbers are down. The more center of NDP supporters will follow next now that Jack is frozen and will start to drift back to 17% or less. The bloc will now focus on the NDP as they don't want to see them with a beachhead there and strategic lib votes will start to move in the coming days. The libs are canvassing those NDP voters and asking for their supporters to help stop Harper and this will resonate as time goes by and Layton looks more and more like the loser he is.
[updated Sun Oct 05 15:05:45 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 15:05
13 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
watchingtosee
As the election nears the end and after the debates, the tightening of the polls is expected in light of the strong showing by Dion in the French debate and not a bad performance in the English: The fact that Harper is trying to "act" soft will not preclude the fact that proglonged visual exposure in the debate tends to show people whether they feel they can trust him or not. I think this is what is happening... no science to it and not quantifiable -but a gut feeling.
Layton is good, however again it does come back to credability and if the voters believe they want to trust a party who has never had power. especailly in the upcoming economic times.
There were a few things said during the debates which captured the attention of others I think, Do people believe that the our economy will not be damaged severly if the USA suffers a major economic downturn. After all, Canada trades approximently 90% (verify) of its products with them. I believe this is what Harper has alluded to and that our fundementals were strong.. It sounds errily familar to John McCains redition until he was forced change gears a few hours later.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:13:05 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 16:13
43 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
DI-380
Hi Nik,
Do you tabulate the results per riding anywhere, to see what the results would be in terms of seats in the House of Commons? I realize the sample size and accuracy would be reduced in terms of popular opinion, but we don't have proportional representation, so the result would be more meaningful to me.
[updated Sun Oct 05 17:22:20 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 17:22
25 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bud the spud
One thing I don't understand is how Harper rate so high in leadership. If your definition of a leader is the person in charge, then he's definitely in charge of the Conservative party.
A more important question is how a person exercises his or her authority. Here Harper has shown himself to be very weak. He does not seem to be capable of attacting capable people to work with him, for one, and when he does he often loses them. It'stelling how many cabinet ministers are not running again. The numerous adolescent gaffes during the campaign also demonstrate a weakness in recruiting skill. He also does not seem to trust his cabinet; they very seldom have permission to speak on the issues.
Then there's the lack of trust in his candidates. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Winnipeg they are not allowed to speak at all-candidates meetings, which is not only an insult to the electorate, but has to undermine their confidence.
Finally, he has a tendency to react petulantly to criticism. He managed to keep this tendency under wraps during the debates, but there is no shortage of examples on the public record: firewall around Alberta, opponents to the Afhanistan policy are traitors, and his "I hate all taxes" comment a few years ago.
The only conclusion I can come to is that those polled considered him to be the best of a very bad lot. Perhaps his falling numbers are a reflection of the realization that othe rparty leaders have some potential
[updated Sun Oct 05 18:42:51 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 18:42
27 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
We if you try to read the information Nik explain's in the video and his open ended questions in polling.
Other than that try reading the science of polling and look at other polls.
Don't forget to vote!
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:24:10 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 19:24
Foxer
Most people define a leader by two important criteria - the ability to make an effective plan, and the ability to execute it.
The fact is harper is very inclusive in the formation of policy at conventions or in caucus. Once it's set - he's the iron fist in the velvet glove so to speak. But that's not the same as being non-inclusive.
But more importantly - harper has a record of setting reasonable plans and achieving them. Often in the face of what should be very difficult opposition. He wants to lower the gst - nobody else does. The gst gets lowered. He wants to keep our troops in afghanistan till 2011, nobody else does - the troops stay. Etc etc.
He tends to set clearly articulated plans, and he tends to achieve them. That is the essence of leadership. He gets his people behind him - he gets his plans in order - he makes them happen. Whether you like the plans or not - that's the essence of leadership.
Contrast that with dion - can't control his people who often speak out against him, doesn't stick to a plan at all, and can't get things done that he wants - always winds up getting pushed around. That's not leadership. You cannot lead by 'committee'.
[updated Sun Oct 05 21:39:13 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 21:39
HoldenCaulfield
You see Foxer it is more difficult to control a group of well educated, experienced politicians (Liberals) than a bunch of sheep who seem happy to let the Big Boss make all the decisions.
Harper runs his caucus like a dictator, that is not a leader, it is tyranny.
[updated Mon Oct 06 02:55:56 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 02:55
Foxer
ROFL :) well that's just about the weakest effort i've seen on here in a bit :)
It's not hard to control either - chretien kept things well under control and so has harper. Both men were strong leaders. The problem is that when people do not respect the leader they tend to make 'unfortunate' comments. And dion really inspires a lack of respect. How can they fear what he'll do when they don't think for a moment he's going to be around in a few months?
And actually harper runs his caucus very open. Like i said - making policy he's very open to everyone's opinon and what they have to say. Once policy is made - that's the end of that. WHich is how it should be. Dion does the opposite, ignoring people and their input, then finding they're mouthing off behind his back afterwards. That's not leadership at all.
[updated Mon Oct 06 03:03:27 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 03:03
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Holden another good post that is right on.........no one from the cons has been heard in this election except Harper. They are running this on a personality cult approach. The emperor has no clothes and is being stripped naked for a good flogging a the polls next week
[updated Mon Oct 06 08:29:13 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 08:29
Bud the spud
Foxer, your definition of leadership "Most people define a leader by two important criteria - the ability to make an effective plan, and the ability to execute it. " is at the heart of my concern over Harper: it is a very superficial definition of leadership, and falls far short of how people who study effective leadership define the trait.
The essence of leadership is not just forming plans and executing them, it is in how one forms plans and to what end the plans aim. Besides, only one of your examples is pertinent to your point. The other cannot apply, because we will not know until 2011 whether the troops are out of Afghanistan. Besides, the example is factually incorrect-- the majority of Canadians disagree with the mission, and every other party in the House opposed extending the mission. Haprer stood alone in wanting to extend te mission, and changed his mind in the middle of an election campaign, a decision that looks suspiciously like it was designed with the ballot box in mind.
The other example you cite illuminates the limited understanding of leadership that Harper and his followers seem to have. It's not enough to form plans and execute them. The plans must be directed towards some useful end, and in the case of government, the plans should serve the public good. Almost all independent economists say that the GST cut made no economic sense, and most people outside the party saw it as a move predicated by electoral expediency
You speak with some authority about how Harper operates behind closed doors, so perhaps your judgement is clouded by proximity.
Leaders do not just "set reasonable plans" George Washington had the most unreasonable plan of defeating the British military and gaining American independence. His troops endured unbelievable hardship by today's standards, but the stuck with his vision and eventually triumphed. This is perhaps Harper's greatest weakenss as a leader-- he lacks an inspirational vision, and in fact seems to want to inspire Canadians towards self-interested mediocrity.
Then there's the judgement factor. As Harper admitted in the English language debate, he was wrong on one of the most critical decisions of our time, the decision of whether to join the coalition of the willing. For all his faults, Jean Chretien got that one right. Harper also was wrong on the Maher Arar incident. He's way off the mark on the environmental front, and has only reluctantly moved towards the global consensus on the seriousness of the issue.
Your criticisms of Dion are also off the mark. (Full disclosure here: I do not intend to vote Liberal but I admire Dion as a leader) While none of Harper's chief rivals for the Conservative leadership are still in caucus, and most have become voal critics, Dion's are campaigning vigourously for him. Looking at how Dion won the leadership is instructive. He stuck with his environmental emphasis despite opposition that bordered on ridicule, and although almost everyone outside his camp accused his bid of being unreasonable, he prevailed. Since then he has succeeded to a large degree in uniting the party behind him (even Washington had Benedict Arnold). People who dismiss Dion do so at their peril.
Finally, while you cannot lead by committee, it is also true that you can lead only by consensus. A leader has to have willing followers. I'm not sure that Harper could find consensus in a dictionary.
[updated Mon Oct 06 09:06:41 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 09:06
Foxer
Bud - seriously, every version of leadership falls into that generalization.
It's not 'superficial'. It's just simplistic - and i made it so for this discussion because there's a lot of nuances within those catagories. But everything boils down to those two factors.
I could write a small novel on leadership - but for the purposes of discussion here it seemed better to boil it to it's core :)
And no - leadership isn't about how one forms ones' plans and to what aim. The essence of leadership is simply the ability to lead.
As to afghanistan - if every other party opposed it - how did we get the law? Think about that - it was a minority gov't.
The fact is harper sent a liberal lead fact finding team over to make recommendations - and the opposition couldn't argue with him. He got it done.
That is leadership. Sorry - but that is a classic case of it. There is NO WAY harper could have simply pushed it thru the house, but he figured out a way the libs couldn't argue with.
You want to argue that somehow it's 'bad' leadership because you don't agree with some of his decisions. Well i'm afraid that more canadians agree with him than with anybody else (which is why he's prime minister and will be again) and frankly, given that we're avoiding the pounding the americans are getting i think it's pretty obvious he did ok.
George washinton's plan was perfectly reasonable. "Hey - we've been invaded. Lets kick their ass". Sounds reasonable to me. It was just very difficult to pull off.
And that's an example of great leadership. Boys - We've got to get something done. It's very hard, but here's how we're going to do it. Follow me. And he got it done.
And let me be perfectly straight with you - the idea that we get our vision as a country from our prime minister is a particularly disgusting eastern philosophy (and specifically usually ontario) that is looked upon with great contempt in many parts of the country. Westerners don't need ottawa to tell us how to be westerners. Quebec certainly doesn't seem to need ottawa to tell them how to be Quebec.
If you need some hack in power to tell you how to have greatness in your life - join a cult.
What most of us need is sound stewardship, good management and practical solutions that give us the opportunity to create our own visions of the future and make them happen. Don't be so goddam lazy boy - you make your life great or not, not the guy running the country.
And in that respect harper has done a far far far better job than the libs have. The liberals attempts to somehow 'socially engineer' canadians into one big homogenous shape has put more strain on confederation than anything. And it damn near left us broke - i notice that while the libs pat themselves on the back for using mulroney's plan to eliminate the deficit they fail to mention who put us into that horrible position in the first place - trudeau.
And sure - harper admitted he was wrong about iraq. He chose to believe bush when bush said there were WMD's. And frankly a lot of canadians and americans believed GWB as well.
Chretien admitted being wrong about things too - like the gst and free trade. So did paul martin - who admitted on tv he was wrong to oppose gay marriage and sue them to fight it.
People make mistakes. GOOD leaders admit it. Now - dion wants to impose a 40 billion dollar tax and 80 billion in new spending. But he can't admit it's a mistake. That's a somewhat bigger problem.
And don't be so bloody naive - Dion's 'opponents' are NOT campaigning for HIM - they're campaigning for the next leadership race. Surely to god you realized that. Dion is going to lose, they know it, they want to showcase how THEY would perform if THEY were the leader. And they both want to be able to turn to dion's supporters after the leadership convention and say "hey - i gave it my best shot under dion, it's not like i didnt' support him. Now he's gone, i need you to not hold a grudge and come support me.
If dion were a REAL leader he wouldn't NEED them out there. And dion's numbers drop whenever they give a speech with him, because it's painfully obvious dion is not the leader either of those two are. Leaders don't lead by comittee.
And he HASN'T prevailed! The green shift is wildly unpopular, and dion is going to lose the election. And he's going to lose it largely DUE to the green shift.
Which makes it his SECOND failure - he didn't get the job done with kyoto either when he was in power.
[updated Mon Oct 06 10:44:56 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 10:44
Foxer
And the party ISN"T behind him! You don't see the Quebec wing of the CPC stabbing harper in the back. You don't see layton's people coming out criticizing his carbon plan. You don't see either of those two with people openly musing about who the next leader will be.
Dion has FAILED to unite his party - and donations to the party are at all time record lows - the ndp raises about as much for heaven's sake. Dion still owes money from his leadership race - that was about 3 years ago!
Harper has a strong consensus. Layton does as well. So does duceppe. Dion - his own people have grave reservations about the green plan, and they're openly discussing who the next leader will be.
Dion is simply a crappy leader bud. He just is. Duceppe is a leader. Layton is a leader. Harper is a leader. Dion - is NOT a leader. Never was, never will be. He's going to be the first liberal leader who never was prime minister.
[updated Mon Oct 06 10:45:06 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 10:45
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Foxer you're getting so nervous you sound as shrill as Harper will be this coming week.
[updated Mon Oct 06 11:25:12 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 11:25
Foxer
LOL - yeah, i'm wetting my pants :) Sounds like you're getting so desperate you're near delusional :)
Hey - the worst harper could possibly do is still win the election. The best dion can do is not lose it by much. And with a week left - there's still a hell of a lot of time for harper to pick up more than enough support to win big.
[updated Mon Oct 06 12:01:22 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 12:01
Bud the spud
While I agree that it's possible to construct a simplistic definition of leadership under which Harper could be seen as a good leader, it isn't a very useful exercise, and besides it requires a lot of tortuous thinking and a flexible attitude to the facts, as your argument proves.
Fact is, we will not know until 2011 if Harper can succeed in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and even his latest goal is a further drift from his original position of staying until the job is done. And it's not just me who doesn't agree that the Afghanistan mission is a bad idea: remember Harper and McKay going hat in hand all over NATO trying to get some country to take our place? Everyone else thought that the mission was a bad idea. It just took Harper longer than everyone else to realize it, which is hardly leadership.
As for your statement about Washington, "George Washinton's plan was perfectly reasonable. "Hey - we've been invaded. Lets kick their ass". Sounds reasonable to me. It was just very difficult to pull off. " It's laughable in its absurdity. Washington was not one of the first nations who were invaded by Europeans, he was a member of the British elite in America. The revolutionary war happened because the colonists objected to the mother country's taxation, not because of an invasion. Besides, no sane person would think it a reasonable proposition to take on what was then the world's greatest navy and Europe's second-most powerful army. The response you describe is not a reasonable one, it's an emotional one-- not that there's necessarily anything wrong with emoitional responses, but let's not confuse the two.
You also seem to have trouble with the vision thing. For one thing, I see nothing wrong with Eastern ideas per se, having spent some time in the East. But what I described was not an Eastern concept of leadership, but what Western scholars who have studied effective leadership believe is one of the key traits of a leader. That is why the Nanos poll tracks vision. Vision in this context is not the Joan of Arc thing (although she did have some battlefield success) but the ability to see into the future and create a consensus around an inspirational idea. Think Martin Luther King and his vision of non-violent protest against racism. (That might be a bad example given your attitude to Eastern ideas.)
I have spent over 30 years in industry, and I have seen many leaders. The one thing I have learned is that how a leader gets things done is more important than what the leader gets done, and the ability to choose the right things to do is more important than how you get things done. The best manager I worked with managed by consensus. She inspired great loyalty by demonstrating good judgement time and again, but also by realizing that the manager who is the smartest person in the room has done a poor job of recruiting. Our team accomplished great things under her leadership, because she demonstrated confidence in us and because she inspured us to stretch our limits.
Thank you for your posts, though. They have helped me to understand the thought patters that result in a postive assessment of Harper's leadership. Cheers.
Guest login/register (06 Oct 20:33)
[updated Mon Oct 06 23:15:35 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 23:15
Foxer
That's a pretty spurrious argument.
We don't know dion won't raise the gst. We don't know that dion will implement the carbon tax, or that it will be revenue neutral.
What we do know is that in the past harper has made his plans happen again and again. Dion has failed to.
So if we have to guess, we can say it is far less likely that dion will achieve what he says than harper.
Kind of silly to bring that angle up isn't it?
Harper said we'd stay till the job was done. Now he's saying that the job will be done by 2011 - and he didn't just pull that number out of the air. That's not really much of a policy reversal.
It is a very useful exercise to bring up the basic concept of leadership. While it's simplistc (lacking detail) it is nonetheless accurate. And simplicity often helps paint a more clear picture. The bottom line is dion cannot come up with clear plans effectively and what he does come up with he cannot execute. Thus - not a leader. Spin it any way you like and its still true.
Dion cannot formulate plans effectively, and he cannot deliver on them. Harper does and can. Pretty straight forward. That is why harper is seen by most to be a leader, and dion is not.
And everyone else did not think the mission was a bad idea. The french have sent more troops, both american presidential candidates have committed to more troops, etc etc. Someone will take over from us in 2011 if it's necessary.
As to the 'british' incident - sure it was a revolution, but the british landed troops and the americans decided they had to go. Simple.
It sounds to me like you know you lost the argument but you're trying to twist and nit pick a way out of it.
And of course it's reasonable. And it worked - they won. It's that simple. It took a lot of work it wasn't easy but they knew they could win - and they did.
In other words - they had a clear goal and they were able to execute on that goal and make it happen. That's leadership. Dion has few goals, they're often complex and poorly articulated with no clear result, and he is unable to make them happen.
That'd be bad leadership.
I haven't missed the 'vision' thing in the slightest. What western experts agree on is a clear goal is necessary. You're trying to twist that into some 'vision' for canada, well a simple plan is all it takes. It doesn't need to be 'inspirational' - you just need people to believe in it and understand it or see it as desirable.
But the best and most exciting vision in the world is useless if you can't make it happen. Dion can't make it happen. That is why people don't look at him as a leader.
If you have spent 30 years in business and have failed to realize that leadership boils down to being able to make plans and make them happen - you're not much of a businessman.
If your 'manager' was unable to make clear plans one way or another - then she would have been a failure. If she had been unable to make those plans happen, she would have been a failure.
Dion is a failure. He doesn't rule by consensus - many of his people speak out against his plans. And he has no clear plan - his own people don't understand the green shift and have said so publicly. And he has again and again proven that he cannot make things happen when he says he wants to.
You'd have to be blind not to see that. It's why dion scores so badly on leadership issues.
[updated Tue Oct 07 01:23:09 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 01:23
Bud the spud
Well, foxer I didn't post my original comment to win an argument. I was trying to understand the phenomenon of Harper scoring well on leadership, when by most objective criteria I believe he lacks some of the key leadership skills. I suspected that many of the respondents who rated him highly either lacked a sophisticated understanding of leadership, or had an emotional attachment that prevented them form seeing what I consider to be obvious flaws in his leadership style. I was willing to hear counter-arguments, but in effect you made my case for me, so from that perspective, I suppose you 'lost' your case, although I don't see the point of this discussion to be winning or losing.
I didn't respond to many of the points you put forward in your last post because I didn't think it would be kind, and because I thought that I had put forward enough evidence to show that your thinking was flawed. You don't seem to know what words like 'reasonable' and 'simplistic' mean, and your understanding of history is shaky at best. It's hard to have an intelligent conversation under those conditions.
The increasingly emotional tone of your responses does nothing to persuade, but it does show why you seem to feel an affinity for Harper. You have your ideas of leadership, and I have mine.
As I said in an earlier post, I will not be voting Liberal, but I do admire Dion's leadership style. He is gaining support across the country in this election. Whether he gains enough support to increase his seat total over last time is an open question, but if I had to vote just on the leaders, I would be more comfortable with Dion than Harper, and that goes for the boardroom, too.
On the other hand, I respect that emotional loyalty has a place in political decisions, and if Harper inspires that kind of loyalty in you, you'd be foolish not to vote for him-- just don't expect me to.
[updated Tue Oct 07 12:52:17 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 12:52
Foxer
I think you'd have to be somewhat blind to fail to understand how harper scores well on leadership.
It would appear more likely that you don't understand the basics of leadership. Harper has all the qualities necessary to be a good leader by any practical definition and more importantly he's got track record. Harper leads his team to get things done. He and his people achieve.
Dion has demonstrated that he is unable to actually get anything done. He has been unable to lead his team to achieve their goals in virtually every area. So he's seen as a poor leader.
There's really nothing complex about it. Why does an airplane stay in the air? Because wind moving over it's wings produces lift. Why does a rock not stay in the air? It doesn't produce lift. You can get as complicated as you like into aerodynamic theory but at the end of the day the truth is just that simple. Harper is seen as a leader because he states clear goals and he achieves them. Dion fails to and doesn't achieve what he does say. The rest is simply details.
[updated Tue Oct 07 13:11:32 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 13:11
Bud the spud
"The rest is simply details." But details are important: to use your flight metaphor, for a plane to stay in the air, lift plus thrust must overcome weight plus drag. That's OK as far as it goes, although you missed the thrust and drag part of the eqyuation. But then come the details: the wingspan must be large enough and with the correct geometry to produce enough lift to overcome the aircraft's weight. The engines must produce enough thrust to propel the place at a speed that will produce the lift that the engineers designed into the wings, tail and fuselage. The pilot must account for wind speed and direction, plus a host of other factors, including deciding whether to de-ice the wings before takeoff and whether the plane has enough fuel.
If you ignore these details, the plane crashes, which, come to think of it, is what the Conservatives have been doing lately.
[updated Tue Oct 07 13:35:15 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 13:35
Foxer
The details are not important if you simply are looking at whether or not the plane can fly. You see it flying - therefore sufficient lift is being produced. It can fly. The rock does not, so it can't.
Harper can clearly articulate his goals, and we can see him acheive them Dion cannot and we see he can't achieve what he does articulate.
So - the details become less important. You might argue that a detailed analysis could suggest ways that harper could be an even BETTER leader. Or explain why dion has failed to lead in more accurate terms.
But that's of very little interest to people.
And this is why i say you're missing the basics. People look at a plane in the sky and without needing to know any other details, they know that the plane produces sufficient lift to fly. They throw a rock, and very quickly determine it cannot.
And that point they know, without any further details, that the plane can fly and the rock won't. If asked their opinon on it (do you believe this plane can fly - do you believe this rock can fly) then they'll have a clear AND CORRECT answer.
There's an old chinese saying - the hardest thing in the world is to make something simple. I've just made it simple for you. Everyone knows instinctively or by training that a leader is someone who says "here's what we're going to get done" and then leads his people to get it done. Harper does. Dion does not. So .. really, it's just that simple. No matter what level of complexity or detail you like, at the end of the day a rock doesn't fly and dion is not a leader.
[updated Tue Oct 07 13:43:17 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 13:43
DGoodchild
Foxer: I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Mr. Harper's "record of setting reasonable goals and achieving them". I agree that he can achieve his goals, but I disagree that those goals are reasonable. I believe Mr. Harper sets his goals much too low. At the risk of sounding cliche, aim for the stars; even if you don't reach them you'll land pretty high anyway. Would you likewise tell school kids "shoot for a C+. That's a pass and it's easy to achieve." ?
As for Mr. Dion, I have a few points to make:
1. "can't control his people who often speak out against him" - People are not meant to be controlled. I for one am thankful that I live in a country where people can speak out against their leaders.
2. "doesn't stick to a plan at all and can't get things done that he wants" - Just because Mr. Dion makes new announcements doesn't mean that his older announcements become void. If we were to subscribe to that mentality then Mr. Harper's 'a new promise every day' "platform" would be void save for the latest promise.
3. "That's not leadership. You cannot lead by 'committee'." - Listening to and taking advise from experts is not leading by committee - it's just smart. When I take my car to the mechanic, I don't tell him what to fix, I tell him what's wrong and let him tell me what needs to be fixed. Also, Mr. Dion is a good leader. He's the only one of the leaders I see leading by example. As evidence of this I point to the fact that the Liberals are campaigning in large part on the environment and are buying carbon offsets for every tonne of GHG created by Mr. Dion's tour. Can you honestly tell me that the LPC wouldn't much rather have that money for campaign advertising? It's a tough choice, but they made the choice that is in keeping with their principles even though it might not be the best thing for their campaign.
Peace,
DGoodchild
[updated Mon Oct 06 11:22:38 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 11:22
Foxer
Well 'reasonable' generally means acheivable, and while one might argue he could have done better the whole 'shoot for the starts and hit the moon' thing is bad business in gov't and commerce. Goals should always challenge you, but they should be achievable. Not insane.
I would tell a kid to shoot for c+ if thats what i thought he could do and he was currently getting an f for example. Once he hits c+, we can start working on that b+ or a.
where did you feel harper was too 'cautious'? Where did you feel he should be more agressive in his planning?
1 - this is a gov't. Not a talk show. If you can't get your people on message, then you can't run your gov't. That's just the truth. Again - you don't see layton's people or duceppe's people stabbing him in the back.
2 - dude. Last year he hated carbon taxes. Last year he hated the gst cuts and said he'd like to raise them back. And last year in december he said we'd see a 'new' liberal party that wouldn't avoid votes.
This year - carbon taxes, 'won't' raise the gst, and abstained something like 30 times this year alone.
That's not 'adding something new while keeping the old' - that's flip flopping hard core on an almost weekly basis on key issues.
3 - Listening to people when you're MAKING policy is smart - but that's not what dion is doing. Mr dion is a crappy leader. I'm sorry - you may like the libs and you may think the CPC has bad policies, and that's a matter of opinion - but dion is a crappy leader and that is NOT a matter of opinion that's fact. By any sane reasonable standard he's a horrible leader.
He's buying the carbon offsets because he FAILED to plan ahead and had to rent a crappy gas guzzling plane. Therefore he's forced to buy credits if he wants to maintain his credibility on his primary platform.
That's not a 'hard choice' - that's a failure to plan. That's bad leadership. Layton got a decent plane - but dion couldn't?
Seriously - we can argue a lot of things but you need to suck it up on dion - he's a crappy leader. I know how it feels - Kimmy was a crappy leader and we had to accept that. Joe clark was a crappy leader. Sometimes it happens.
Dion is a crappy leader and that's just a fact. The good news is you got lucky and harper made a mistake that cost him strong gains in quebec, so he's going to have to settle for a stronger minority and not a majority. And the libs will get a chance to replace their leader as a result, which is a good thing for them.
I'm sorry bud. Maybe he's a nice guy - maybe you like his policies, but whatever he is - he's not a leader.
[updated Mon Oct 06 11:59:46 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 11:59
DGoodchild
Once again, I feel I must respectfully disagree. Reasonable doesn't mean achievable, achievable means achievable. By that your logic, I could set a goal of being unemployed tomorrow and that would reasonable merely because I can achieve it.
This is likely an ideological difference between you and I but I would NOT tell an F student to try for a C+, I tell him to shoot for an A. That's not to say that I wouldn't praise him if he achieved the C+ but I wouldn't make that his goal.
Also, "shoot for the stars and hit the moon" is not bad business anywhere. You say that goals should challenge you, but it's not a challenge if you already know that you can achieve it. A challenge is something you can't reach without stretching beyond what you think you're capable of. You asked for an example of where I think Mr. Harper has been too cautious so here is one such example: His environmental plan. His targets for 2020 and 2050 are much too low and much too far off. To me it's as if he's saying to Canadians "This is the best I think we can do, so this all we're going to try for."
On to your numbered points:
1. Again, I go back to the fact the ability question one's leaders whether it be your political leader, your party leader or any other leader is at the very heart of our democracy. Consider this perspective if you will: Mr. Harper keeps very tight control over what his candidates can and cannot say publicly, while Mr. Dion lets his candidates say what they want, where and when they want to say it. Which of those two sounds like a more confident leader to you and why?
2. On this point you're telling us what Mr. Dion said. Before I address these statements you've presented I'll challenge you to cite sources for indpendant verificaion. I think I know which statements to which you're referring and if I'm right you're either leaving out critical details, or you're intrepreting the statements too broadly.
3. I'm not really sure how to respond here. You start off by saying that listening to experts when making policy is smart but that's not what Mr. Dion is doing. So far so good, but you don't go on to explain what he IS doing... you just state your opinion that he is a "crappy leader" and demand that we accept that as fact without providing any evidence or reasoning for it. Indeed, you make the same unsupported claim in four out of six paragraphs in your point #3. Please explain in concrete terms what is about Mr. Dion's leadership you find "crappy". For the record, I don't think Mr. Clarke was a bad leader either. Also, I don't know very much about aircraft so I'm going to ask you to cite a source regarding what makes Mr. Dion's jet a gas-guzzler and what makes Mr. Layton's jet better.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Mr. Dion is perfect - he isn't. I admit that he has his problems not the least of which is his tendacy to talk above the heads of average Canadians when he's trying to explain his policies. But just because he's not a typical alpha male doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good leader. I for one would like to see Canadians choose an intellectual for PM for a change. I believe it would do our country a world of good.
Peace,
DGoodchild
[updated Mon Oct 06 14:35:09 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 14:35
Foxer
If you'd prefer the use of the word 'acheivable' - feel free to substitute it. I used to the word to mean 'within reason'.
It is reasonable to expect that if you wish to be unemployed tomorrow you can achieve that. :)
Tell a kid to shoot for something he doesn't believe he can do - and watch him fail. I've seen it many many many many times.
Set a goal they believe in - they hit it. Then it becomes even easier to convince them to go for the next level.
If you know you're going to fail going in - you'll fail.
Saying something is 'acheivable' doesn't mean it's easy. It means it's possible. Jack layton wanted to be opposition. But instead he 'shot for the stars' and kept saying he wanted to be prime minister. Well - that wasn't achievable this time out and he aught to have known that. What WAS possible was for him to become opposition leader - but he passed up several good opportunities to do that by instead pretending to focus on the unachievable goal.
And i would rather take harper's environmental goals and achieve them rather than to take dion's pie in the sky stuff which he did NOT achieve.
The liberals set a very high goal of kyoto - and emissions went UP 30 plus percent! That is what happens when you set unrealistic goals and decide it's 'ok' to fail before you start.
1 - there is no doubt that a leader who can present a united front and one message after policy is decided is the more confident leader and more capable.
It's fine to debate stuff before policy is set, it's fine to allow your caucus to debate stuff openly and agressively and to listen carefully to what they say. It's fine to allow free votes on non confidence issues and let people vote appropriately (Which the cpc did many times). But - once policy is set really debating it in public is inappropriate.
Conversely - dion doesn't 'let' his people talk, they talk because they know dion is too weak to do anything about it. They don't have a lot of input before policy is set - dion just goes ahead and does what he wants. So they talk after the fact. How could the green tax be SUCH a big part of his plan, and NOT have had 100 percent buy in from his people?? Many didn't even understand it - many spoke against it.
That's a weak leader. And one who's running scared - he knows he'll face revolt if he steps on people.
2 - I'm going to post up the sources you asked for - but really in the future just do a quick google. If anything is obscure or hard to find i'll have posted the link already.
With reagards to the carbon tax issue - here's a clip from http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=ab60768b-7f13-4995-9d46-d1ca3b2f5d24
"What really undercuts Dion's new-found faith in carbon taxes, though, is his majestic refutation of them during his party leadership run, less than two years ago.
Then, he said in his paper, Building a Sustainable Future for Canada: Stephane Dion's Energy and Climate Change Plan, that,
"1. A carbon tax is almost always implemented as a direct tax on fossil fuels. Given the current price of these fuels, however, it is difficult to argue that a further price signal will dampen consumption or shift demand.
2. A carbon tax is a flat tax -- it costs each polluter a fixed amount per tonne of emissions. Such a tax will not inflate with a bull market or recede in times of difficulty. In the energy market, in particular, soaring prices make anything but a prohibitively high tax a mere nuisance for large producers.
3. Finally, and most significantly, valuing reductions in emissions equally across all sectors and industries eliminates the potential benefits to be had by maximizing reductions where the cost is lowest.""
Those are dion's words - and he's said them several times since. Suddenly, this year, it's all about carbon taxes.
Now - gst.
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you he's spoken against the gst cuts again and again. Last year he said:
"Last October, when asked by reporters about the GST, Dion said the Liberals would consider rescinding GST cuts if they came into power and that he might open a debate on the idea during an election campaign.
When asked by reporters whether he would reverse the tax cuts, Dion responded: "We will consider that." "
Now he says he won't. But - he spent two years saying it's the worst kind of tax cut, it's horrible, and that he'd consider raising it.
So... was he full of it then? Or is he full of it now? If he hates it so much - why leave it in place? If he thinks it's great- why not say so? He's playing a game. We don't know what game till after an election.
[updated Mon Oct 06 15:21:53 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 15:21
Foxer
Two parter due to the proofs you requested.
Now - the 'we won't abstain' thing:
Lets take a step back. This all started with the throne speech. Here's what dion had to say leading up to that:
Stephen Harper's Conservatives must make major changes to the upcoming throne speech or the opposition Liberals will vote against it, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion warned Wednesday, adding fuel to speculation there could be a fall federal election.
"This hidden agenda will be stopped," Dion said after a meeting with Quebec caucus members in Montreal.
snip
The Liberals want the Tory government to make a firm commitment to withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan in early 2009 and to reintroduce clean air legislation, Bill C-30, that failed to make it into law during the last session.
Hmm. THe changes weren't made - and yet the liberals didn't stop the tories.
Now that leaves us at the end of the year - several abstinations later.
here we are in december:
However, Dion vowed to The Canadian Press that the coming year will be a different story.
"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."
In Montreal, he was even talking about a possible spring election.
He said Liberal MPs have been forced to abstain from key confidence votes, allowing the Conservatives to push through key legislation, because Canadians were opposed to the idea of a third election in three years.
Now, he said, Canadians have had enough of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and are ready for a change. "
And after that - he abstained and abstained and abstained some more.
So there you go - as promised, your proofs.
3- I was clear what dion does. Instead of listening to all parties, then clamping down when policy is made after getting buy in from everyone he does the opposite.
He makes up his own decisions on policy without much consultation, and then releases it. Consequently his people get frustrated and speak out. And he's not strong enough to control them after the fact.
That is a crappy leader - coming up with policy without adequate consultation, changing his mind regularly, and failing to get buy in from his people and failing to control them after the fact. His party was in near revolt several times during the term. He cannot lead his people at all.
As to the dion plane thing - for gods sake that just happened, surely if you can't remember 4 weeks ago (and i did post a link then) you can look it up yourself? Don't be so lazy.
I'll do it again for you this once, but come on. That's THIS election for heaven's sake.
The plane is a 737. It consumes about 50 percent more fuel that the airbuses that both opposition parties are using.
One reporter had this to say:
The plane that the Dion Liberals are getting is a 30-year-old gas-guzzler and much less “environmentally-friendly” than the aircraft that were acquired by the other parties (that incidentally already have them). The fact that Stéphane Dion is making the environment a central plank in his party’s platform while not caring how much his party adds to the environmental degradation is, for lack of a better description, scary. It shows that Dion will take steps to improve the environment only as long as there are no adverse consequences to the Liberals
Now - the liberals tried to claim that how dirty it was depended on factors like how far it flew etc. But carbon is carbon - how much other pollution it produces might depend on those factors but if you burn a lb of fuel you release x amount of carbon regardless.
Whether you think an intellectual leader or a business leader or a community leader or a spiritual leader would be the best choice for canada - the thing that's in common there is "leader".
If an intellectual cannot efficiently and effectively lead his party - create new ideas and make them happen by getting buy in within his party and getting everyone on board and actually achieving his goals - then anything he brings to the table is useless.
This isn't church. It's not a pta meeting. It's the real world full of real challenges and it affects tens of millions of real people. If dion can't even organize his own party - he's got no chance with the country. Which means it doesn't matter how good his ideas are - theyr'e never going to work because he can't make them happen.
[updated Mon Oct 06 15:22:17 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 15:22
DGoodchild
I'll try to be brief.
* There are ways to make a kid believe he can do something besides giving him something easier to start with - although I concede that is also an effective method.
* What makes you think Mr. Dion makes up policy on his own without consultation? Mr. Dion is the one who put forth the 5-point program to develop an economic plan immediately by consulting with industry leaders; Mr. Harper is the one who says 'I'm an economist with a Master's from U of Calgry and I say the economy is alright regardless of what all the other economists are saying'. Yes - I know you're talking about consulting with party members I'm pointing to these examples because they're high-profile and show that Mr. Dion does consult with others while Mr. Harper seems to do exactly that of which you accuse Mr. Dion.
* You wrote the following: "dion doesn't 'let' his people talk, they talk because they know dion is too weak to do anything about it. They don't have a lot of input before policy is set - dion just goes ahead and does what he wants."
Well, which is it? Is Mr. Dion weak or does he go ahead and do what he wants? Those statements seem to be in conflict.
* I asked for citations, not full cut-and-pastes.
* Regarding the carbon tax: You've quoted the Calgary Herald, not Mr. Dion. All you've done with that quote is go from you-telling-us-what-Mr. Dion-said' to 'you-telling-us-what-the-Calgary-Herald-says-Mr. Dion-said". If you have a link to a video or a transcription of Mr. Dion saying these things that would be an authoritative source. The article you cite is clearly biased. I don't say that because I disagree with it, I say it because of the type of language it uses. Examples:
Title: "Dion's Carbon Tax Flip-Flop"
"believing a tide of voters for whom global warming is the key issue will float him ashore at 24 Sussex Drive, in the next election.',
"... promising to return with the left hand taxes seized with the right ...".
" It has the smell of death about it."
That cannot be defended as a neutral use of language.
* GST: I don't see a source cited for this topic but I'll address it anyway. According to what you wrote Mr. Dion said that he would consider raising the GST. Has it occured to you that he did consider it and decided not to? Probably in consultation with the rest of the party.
* Abstaining from votes: again, no source citations but I'll address it anway. I think you're right. They should not have abstained and they should have brought down the government sooner. There was never any intention on the part of the Liberals to bring down the government until they thought they could win the ensuing election. The rest was all posturing and bluster.
* The party jet: First, you should know that I haven't been on these boards for four weeks so I'm not sure what was discussed then. Secondly this is something that I can (at last) verify independantly. A Boeing 737 is something I can look up.
On the topic of the jet however you wrote the following: "It shows that Dion will take steps to improve the environment only as long as there are no adverse consequences to the Liberals". I dare say that the purchase of the carbon offsets proves exactly the opposite - even moreso when you take into account the less energy efficient jet that you've pointed out.
Peace,
Dan
[updated Mon Oct 06 16:47:10 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 16:47
Foxer
A reminder - i didn't say 'easy' - i said achievable. It's got to be something he can actually achieve - then don't accept anything less
There are several things that show dion makes up his own policies without adequate consultation.
I could point to the fact many of his people who should have been in on the creation don't understand them adequately, i could point to the lack of clear message or description of them when presenting them to the public, i could point out that there isn't buy in and many members speak out against it after the fact - all things which point to inadequate consultation.
But for me - the real giveaway is many of his people have come out and said so. It's even been said he's personally vetting all the ads in this campaign - very rare.
Yes - he said he'll consult with industry leaders. And the first words out of his mouth when Layton said "will you listen to them?" was "they don't elect me.".
Rather telling.
There is no conflict in the statements that dion moves without consultation and that he's too weak to prevent his people from commenting after the fact. They cannot stop him as leader from presenting whatever idea gets into his head. He cannot stop them commenting afterwards. They are too weak to stop him, he is too weak to stop them. A fine mess.
Yes you asked for citations - but i wasn't just going to put 'edmonton sun' and let you find it :) Citations are kind of usless without the quotes.
I quoted a direct quote from dion inside the paper. THat is what he said. It was quoted elsewhere of course as well.
Don't try to weasel on technicalities bud. Those are dion's words as recorded by a recognized instrument of record - the paper. Do you contend he did NOT say that? Give me a break.
THe gst - yes it occurs to me he may have decided not to raise it. It also occurs to me that's very strange given his feirce opposition to it and his insistance it was a mistake. Was it a mistake? Or was it not? And it also occurs to me that Chretien (his professed mentor) said he'd kill the gst for political reasons and did not. Therefore there is also a very real possibility that he will say he won't raise it for political reasons - then will.
But the real issue is - how can he argue against it for 3 years, then say 'we're keeing it'? That is a flip flop no matter what else we say.
Whether or not he should have abstained is not relevant per se to this discussion - he did, then he said he wouldn't - then he did. That is my concern.
The jet - yes, that is easy enough to look up.
Just to clarify - the quote you mention wasn't said by 'me' - it was from the article.
And the purchase of carbon offsets does not prove the opposite. The idea of carbon trading is to force change. We can all agree that the goal here is NOT to continue polluting but to change our habits to make sure that we don't pollute. Big polluters who do pollute pay - hopefully thereby discouraging further pollution.
We don't want canadians to continue to pollute to their heart's content and just give money to someone else. We want people to move to green tech. But apperently that does not apply to the libs - they don't care. They'll just fail to make the effort to change, continue to pollute, and then pay someone off.
Contrast that to layton - who both picked an energy efficient jet AND bought offsets. They reduced their pollution using technology - AND funded for what they couldn't do anything about.
Now - seeing as dion is supposed to be the more environmentally sensitive, how does he justify a failure to plan that causes him to pollute at a much higher rate and then try to offset it? Apperently it's more convenient to just pay more money than it is to make the effort to do the right thing in the first place.
A bad show for the supposedly 'green' candidate.
[updated Mon Oct 06 17:29:56 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 17:29
DGoodchild
Sorry, I was running around like a madman yesterday and didn't have time to read, much less post.
You're right, you didn't say 'easy'. I appologize for the misinterpretation.
This was supposed to be a metaphor, not a topic unto itself so I'm going to stop addressing it now. LOL!
You wrote: "Yes - he said he'll consult with industry leaders. And the first words out of his mouth when Layton said "will you listen to them?" was "they don't elect me.".
Rather telling."
What's telling is that you either didn't actually watch the debate, or you don't remember the conversation you think you're quoting. The comment in question occured at approximately the 1:40 mark in the english language debate. CPAC has the whole debate in their video-on-demand library and I suspect you can find it elsewhere as well. To summarize, Mr. Layton wasn't talking about industry leaders or experts, he asked specifically about the provincial Premiers. His question was phrased to the effect of "will you listen to the premiers when they tell you [a carbon tax] is bad". So, first, Jack is putting words in the Premiers' mouths. The 'first words out of [Mr. Dion's] mouth' as you put it was not to say 'they don't elect me', it was to tell Mr. Layton that he's wrong about what the Premiers are saying. Then, he said that federal government is not elected by provincial goverments but by all of the people and if he is elected, he has a mandate from the people to implement his platform. Guess what? He's right.
"But the real issue is - how can he argue against it [cutting the GST] for 3 years, then say 'we're keeing it'? That is a flip flop no matter what else we say."
He can argue against it because it was a bad move, or rather the timing was bad. He can say they're keeping it because no goverment just goes back and undoes everything that was changed in the past x years before they took over. He can accept that having been elected, Mr. Harper will get to make some of the changes he wanted and those changes will be here to stay. Now we move on and look to the future.
Now, jet pollution. You're right, the Liberal's jet is less engery-efficient than the NDP's. Here's the part you weren't expecting: In SPITE of that less energy-efficient jet, the Liberal's tour has generated the THIRD highest amount of carbon pollution. It's the NDP with their supposedly cleaner jet that's generating the MOST pollution with their tour. They're putting more carbon into the air than even the Conservatives. (That said, at least the NDP are buying offsets so ultimately the worst polluters will be Harper's gang). So your statement that Mr. Dion is polluting at a much higher rate than Layton is just dead wrong. Only the Bloc (who don't have very far to go) and the Greens who don't use a jet at all are polluting less than the Liberals. Now, I don't expect you take my word for it. Here is a link to an article from the Winnipeg Sun that gives specific numbers as of last week: http://www.winnipegsun.com/canadavotes/news/2008/10/02/6949221-sun.html
You can see from the numbers in the article that the NDP have already put 100 tonnes MORE carbon into the atmosphere than the Liberals. So even with the handicap of the older jet, the Liberals are beating the pants off of Mr. Layton on this front. A good show for the Liberal candidate.
[updated Wed Oct 08 09:36:43 -0400 2008]
08 Oct 09:36
Foxer
No sweat bud, we all have days like that :)
Your first point - We blogged it here on nanos of course during the debate. The first words out of his mouth when Layton asked his question was "they don't elect me'. Yes, he was refering to the premiers, but he'd just said he was going to consult the premiers, that's part of his 'plan'.
And if you think about it, industry leaders don't elect him either.
So if they say they need something that Mr dion doesn't want to hear, he's not listening. They don't elect him. If they point out the green tax will harm ontario business by imposing billions in new taxes that the manufacturing sector cannot bear, well they don't elect him. Etc.
It is a very telling remark. He'll have meetings - but in the back of his mind he's not listening if they don't say something he likes. They don't elect him.
GST - dude, that was a very weak answer and I think you know it. Dion is ALREADY opening up the 'Tax issue" with his green shift.
Don't insult my intelligence by saying "oh, it's just a case of Mr Dion respecting that Mr Harper made changes." PLEASE! That is pure nonsense. He has ALREADY said more than once he'd consider raising it. And we're not talking about a long time ago either.
If he was so against the tax, if it was as bad as he said and as 'wrong for the economy' as he said - why wouldn't he change it while he's already making one of the most significant tax changes that's happened in decades?
Either he didn't think it was so bad after all, or he intends to but for political reasons he's keeping quiet about it.
We've all seen it from liberals before - mcguinty "I won't raise your taxes" - followed by several tax increases.
Don't give me this 'it's been done now we're looking to the future' nonsense. You and I both know that's simply nonsense.
Now the jet issue.
I admire your attempt at spin, but lets get down to brass tacks here. Layton visited more places and saw more people. So he created more polluton. BUT - he did try to do what he could to minimize that by choosing transportation that is as efficient as he could. Good on Layton for trying to see more people and for choosing an efficient means of transport to do it.
Your argument seems to be that it's ok for you to drive a big gas guzzler of a car if you have less distance to drive to work each day than I do. That is simply NOT in keeping with the idea of environmental protection!
Dion wants people to choose to use LESS energy in their day to day lives - yet he chose a VERY inefficient transportation means for HIS campaign. Why? Because it was easier than finding a more environmentally friendly alternative.
Had dion actually done what he wanted canadians to do he would have chosen differently and used even less pollution. That's a fact. But the liberals are famous for asking others to live one way and then doing something different themselves.
It's no different than if he chose a hummer to drive to work while layton chose a hybrid, and dismissed it because 'layton has farther to drive than me so i'm still better than him'. No - that's not how it works.
It's a VERY bad show for dion. It's just like his recent 'plagerism' comments saying how harper is so evil for doing that, and we now find out dion himself did exactly the same thing. Say one thing - do another.
[updated Wed Oct 08 11:40:09 -0400 2008]
08 Oct 11:40
DGoodchild
Good morning.
First point. I don't know what you did or didn't blog here during the debate. The fact is I watched the debate video before I posted which is why I was able to cite the time index. The first thing Mr. Dion said after Mr. Layton put to him the question about the premiers was that Mr. Layton was wrong about what the premiers would say. If you don't believe me, download the video and jump to 1:39:00h and let it play.
I'm not denying what Mr. Dion said, I'm simply saying that you're reading too much into it. When Mr. Dion meets with the premiers and the industry leaders and the economists they won't all tell him the same thing. Some will be for the Green Shift and some will be against it. No matter if he implements or not he'll be listening to some of them and not listening to the others. So either way you'll be saying "look! he didn't listen to the experts!" and I'll be saying "oh, yes he did!" The only difference is you and I will be referring to different groups of experts.
GST: It's not a weak answer at all; and we're not talking about 'the tax issue' we're talking specifically about the GST. Mr. Dion said he'd consider raising it. He did consider it and after consideration he rejected it. I'm not privy to his reasons for doing so but I'll bet that the reason is two-fold: It's partly political, raising the GST would be unpopular. Also, like it or not Mr. Harper was given a mandate from the people to lower it and so Mr. Dion will respect it. One party taking over from another has to respect at least some of the changes made by the outgoing administration. If not, nothing would ever change. That's how the system works. The party in power makes changes, the next party keeps what's good and throws out what they believe is not so good, then they make changes of their own. Repeat ad infinitum.
Environment: Ok... let's get down to brass tacks. The bottom line is Mr. Layton put more pollution into the air than either Mr. Dion or Mr. Harper.
But thank you for explaining it the way you did... it actually makes a lot of sense to me that a Conservative supporter would take the view you did. What you've inadvertantly done is prove to everyone who reads your post that Mr. Harper's environmental plan won't work. When you state that it's ok for Mr. Layton to put out more pollution because his jet is more fuel-efficient you're describing intensity targets. The very same concept that is at the heart of Mr. Harper's environmental plan. But as the numbers show and as I've pointed out, at the end of the day Mr. Layton put more pollution into our atomosphere. That's why intensity targets don't work. To sum things up using your Hummer vs. Hybrid analogy: driving a hybrid is not a license to pollute as much as you want.
Time to get back to work now.
Peace,
DGoodchild
[updated Thu Oct 09 09:30:34 -0400 2008]
09 Oct 09:30
Foxer
Well if your argument is that he isn't going to listen to ALL the experts based on his political preferences, then really - what's the point of the meetings in the first place? I can see discounting information because you feel it's not relevant or because there's conflicting opinion as to how to best proceed from the experts and you have to choose - but knowing that he'll discount information because he wants to proceed with something harmful anyway isn't exactly inspiring.
And yes the gst answer was weak. He's making major tax reforms and yet you claim he's just "too respectful" of harper to change the GST!?!?
Give me a break. You can't possibly expect ANYONE to swallow that. Hell he was saying it was on the table just a short time ago.
Your first guess is it's too politically unpopular. Well that's probably true - but historically liberals who exclude things that are too politically unpopular bring them up immediately AFTER an election. Trudeau ran on 'absolutely no wage caps' - 6 months later we got wage caps. Chretien ran on 'killing the gst and re-working free trade' - never happened. He also downloaded costs to the provinces. Heck, even mcguinty promised "i won't raise your taxes", and guess what.
So the political aspect doesn't particularly make me feel comfortable that he won't do it later. And i doubt you'll be kind enough to pay me back for any increases if he does :) heh! What we DO know is he thinks it should be raised. Will he or won't he? I dont know and i don't care to find out. THe fact is he'll have to raise SOME tax or not deliver on all his promises - his costing was done using numbers from when oil was 140 bucks a barrel, he won't be able to afford his promises when oil is lower.
The second comment - PLEASE!!!!!!!! - he doesn't respect harper's mandate in the slightest.You argue that parties have to 'keep what is good... etc'. Are you saying Dion now thinks the GST is good? I doubt it.
As to the environment - on the contrary, what i showed is that dion's plan won't work.
What dion himself has proven is that people will not reduce their carbon footprint just because costs are higher. He pays more for gas than layton - yet because it was inconvenient he didn't have a problem with that. He'll just pass the cost to the consumer - in this case the liberal party members that donate to the party. The fact is that the increased cost didn't stop him from choosing technology that is more polluting than others.
Higher costs and his own self imposed carbon tax didn't result in a change in his behavior. He'd have flown the same amount even if he had a more fuel efficient plane. So - big polluters will still continue to pollute - they'll just suck up the costs and pass it along.
This is absolute proof why the carbon tax will simply take money out of people's pockets and cost consumers more money without reducing carbon output. Dion would have flown the same amount with a better plane - but he CHOSE to use worse technology and simply pay the difference anyway because that was easier.
With dion - companies will still do the same amount of work and pollute just as much - they will just pay the difference and pass that on to the customer.
That will hurt our economy, and do nothing for our environment.
[updated Thu Oct 09 10:00:08 -0400 2008]
09 Oct 10:00
If you want a good laugh on the "Bush" reference in the debate. It's really funny.
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/10/the-shadowboxing-opposition/
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:19:19 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 19:19
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
shk
All that negative ad by con back firing ? - National debate showed Dion is not spineless leader as the ad. People were lead to believe by the con negative ad, and now they saw he was not. Leaving people wondering, what else should I not believe words, phrases and speech from the cons. Adding to this the plagirism of Iraq,
I think people may have resented feeling towards con for taking them for a ride. Next few polls will tell if what I say here have merit.
( low expectation, and negative ad is back firing !!! ) - lets wait and see
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:49:19 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 19:49
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MichaelFox
The Liberals spiked on the 3rd, moving from 26% to 30% after a period of stability. They haven't gone up since then. In order to go up by as much as they did on the 3rd, they would have had to poll significantly higher than 30%.
I wonder if it was one high day on Oct 3rd that cause the lift? If so, they will drop tomorrow.
[updated Sun Oct 05 20:52:33 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 20:52
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Harper will continue to lose momentum, I expect Dion to improve. I don't see Layton as a credible replacement. Either this will be a stalemate or perhaps the Liberals will pull off a minority.
Steve's problem is that you can't build a ship with one plank - I don't care what he releases Tuesday, it could be free everything - won't matter.
The fact is there is a huge credibility gap, he has lied too often - who will believe him. Certainly no one who lost their savings with the Income Trust betrayal. No-one who held trusts, and there are a lot of them with a propensity to vote Conservative - none of them will forget the betrayal nor the betrayers.
Writing $35Billion out of the capital markets with the Trust fiasco in one fiat is a tough act to follow.
Add this to his don't, worry be happy economic platform.
And Jim Flaherty
Why are we not comforted.
.
[updated Sun Oct 05 22:17:59 -0400 2008]
05 Oct 22:17
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
suedo
Hi Nik,
I'm ready to weigh in now. Conservatives will squeak a minority! The Bloc will recover. The Liberals will do better than expected. The NDP will gain official opposition next election with the Liberals having a minority or small majority next time. Here's what will happen. The great conservative economist Harper has Canada (partners in the WILLING) (all over Free Trade) but somehow has Canada in a vacuum relative to our economy. The Conservatives get a minority - Canada's economy will tumble within 6 months of his new mandate. The Conservatives and Harper will go the way of Mulroney and the PC's and will be wiped out after their new minority is removed by a non-confidence vote(Round two).
[updated Mon Oct 06 09:16:17 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 09:16
125 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Liberals who believe in strategic Voting: Go ahead state in this forum you agree with this concept.
Bill Siksay, New Democratic Party
This is an NDP riding where incumbent Bill Siksay won over Liberal Bill Cunningham by 1,244 votes. Incumbents normally have a slight advantage over other candidates. There is however a serious danger that the Conservatives will come up the middle to win in Burnaby - Douglas, so we are recommending you vote for the NDP.
[updated Mon Oct 06 10:12:31 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 10:12
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Cate
Hello Nik; Do you think that the Conservative platform, when released tomorrow, will have an influence on the polls? In addition, do you have a theory as to why it is taking the Conservatives so long to release it? Cate Ridley
[updated Mon Oct 06 12:19:59 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 12:19
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Hot Air
Douglas Bell, 05/10/08 at 2:29 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/Wdouglasbell0909
In the future, as my fellow blogger Norman Spector pointed out, there are no facts. But, that particular “fact” notwithstanding over the next ten days there's going to be a ton of heated discussion in the press, in boardrooms and around those much prized kitchen tables about the future of the Liberal Party of Canada. And by that I mean Stephane Dion.
He's micromanaged the worst campaign by a major political party since '93 when the PCs tossed themselves into the dust bin of history. (Thank you Kim Campbell with a special shout out to Perrin Beatty). Now having said that bit about the future and facts; the Liberals for the second election in a row are going to finish at best a long way second. And this is a party that doesn't much like taking their hands off the wheel for five minutes let alone five years. So let's say Dion with a little encouragement from caucus decides on election night or shortly thereafter to fall on his sword.
That leaves the way open for what will be essentially a two way race between Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, the party's two stars each representing one side of a Janus face. Rae will claim he's the only one who can unite the left (even though the left he's talking about mostly despises him) thereby bringing the party back to the centre. Ignatieff, on the other hand, will claim he's the only one capable of steering the party from the centre right into a post ideological world where the divisions have more to do with geography (rural/urban) than political inclination. In short, if the stars align it will be a final apolcalyptic battle between two guys who've been heading towards this final showdown/rematch since College - and who have grown to be bitter rivals. Where is Don King when you really need him?
That said, maybe Dion brokers a deal to run the country with the NDP and this is all just a bunch of hot air on a Sunday afternoon.
Do you agree?
[updated Mon Oct 06 12:49:58 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 12:49
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
ABC Wisdom will give you this!
BLOC:
Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc favour economic plans that benefit Quebec including:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080906/economy_elxn_080906/20080906?&s_name=election2008
raising federal transfer payments for education and social programs
enforce the Kyoto Protocol "without having Quebec pay for Alberta's oil industry or Ontario's automobile industry"
surtax the profits of major oil companies
supporting R & D for Quebec's industries such as aeronautics, textile and furniture
Remeber when you vote against vs for something.
Quebec could become the Official Opposition if the liberal meltdown occurs.
[updated Mon Oct 06 13:38:10 -0400 2008]
06 Oct 13:38
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
suedo
Who should believe Harper? Not one Canadian Nik: Here's why...
On Equalization
The equation contains several components of oil and gas components wherein those resources are considered in provinces where those resources are owned. "revenue source" means any of the following sources from which provincial revenues are or may be derived:
(a) revenues relating to personal income;
(b) revenues relating to business income;
(c) revenues relating to consumption;
(d) revenues derived from property taxes and miscellaneous revenues; and
(e) revenues derived from natural resources.
Now remember the promise - "We will remove non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula to encourage the development of economic growth in the non-renewable resource sectors across Canada."
This has absolutely nothing to do with the accord and as you can see from the formula - they have not been excluded.
Now on the Fishery
"A conservative Government would support extending custodial management of the continental shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
Guess what? Never did that either.
On Military Installations
"A Conservative Government would establish in Newfoundland and Labrador the following new operational requirements for the protection of Canadian Sovereignty and Security:
Station a new Rapid Reaction Army Battalion (approximately 650 regular force personal) for enhanced Atlantic army response at CFB Goose Bay."
Guess What? Never did that either...
And now what we should believe him on Arctic Sovereignty?
This is only a couple of lies to one Province....
Should we continue????
[updated Tue Oct 07 18:09:01 -0400 2008]
07 Oct 18:09
15 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
sprint20092010 (Suspended)
It is named <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/">Christian Louboutin</a> for the reason that man who create <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/">Christian Louboutin shoes</a>. At the same time, it's helpful to reduce the risk of injury for the player. If you think your feet should be protected well during the strenuous exercise, the <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/">Christian Louboutin Pumps</a> are the right choice for you.
There are many Cheap <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/">Christian Louboutin Heels</a> from our shop. If you want to learn more informations of those <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/christian-louboutin-tall-boots-c-77.html">Christian Louboutin Boots</a>, please visite our website http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/. Are you looking for a comfortable shoes? We are ready for you to give you great discount <a href="http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/christian-louboutin-sandals-c-75.html">Christian Louboutin Sandals</a> and best service.
[updated Sun Sep 26 22:52:41 -0400 2010]
26 Sep 22:52
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
sprint20092010 (Suspended)
With the high-tech Supra Shoes technology and unique colorways design, it can make you more special in the crowd. Now you can choose whatever you like on our Supra Footwear shop. Supra Skytop, the colorway of shoes is just right, which can stimulate your passion for sport availably. Those great quality but Supra TK Society are waiting for you right now. There will always be one pair of shoes appropriated for you on our Supra Sneakers store.
[updated Sun Sep 26 22:53:15 -0400 2010]
26 Sep 22:53
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
sprint20092010 (Suspended)
If you are looking for a pair of pretty UGG Boots, you shouldn't miss this chance for purchasing UGG Classic Cardy Boots this season in our shop. Ugg Bailey Button would give people such a deep impression. UGG Classic Short Boots appreciate it not only by the high quality with steady innovations but also by its stylish designs. There is no doubt that it could go well with you casual outfits. There are many kinds of UGG Classic Tall Boots for different ages and tastes online. So pick up your own UGG Sandals now.
[updated Sun Sep 26 22:57:33 -0400 2010]
26 Sep 22:57
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
sprint20092010 (Suspended)
It is named Christian Louboutin for the reason that man who create Christian Louboutin shoes. At the same time, it's helpful to reduce the risk of injury for the player. If you think your feet should be protected well during the strenuous exercise, the Christian Louboutin Pumps are the right choice for you.
There are many Cheap Christian Louboutin Heels from our shop. If you want to learn more informations of those Christian Louboutin Boots, please visite our website http://www.louboutinshopsale.com/. Are you looking for a comfortable shoes? We are ready for you to give you great discount Christian Louboutin Sandals and best service.
[updated Sun Sep 26 22:59:29 -0400 2010]
26 Sep 22:59
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.