The Conservatives continue to hold onto a tenuous lead of four points over the Liberals according to the CPAC-Nanos poll completed last night. The downward trend in support for the Conservatives continues in the key battleground of Ontario where what was a neck-and-neck race last week has turned into a 12 point lead for the Liberals (LP 40, CP 28 in Ontario). Over the past seven days marginal declines for the Conservatives in Ontario have largely been offset by marginal gains in the West, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. However, a loss of support in the province of Ontario (now noticeably below their 2006 support of 35%), and BQ gains in Quebec represents a structural obstacle to Conservative seat gains.
Harper still maintains a comfortable comparative advantage on the best Prime Minister front (Harper 33, Layton 20, Dion 17).
As you know, Nanos is the only pollster to track second choice on a daily basis. We use those statistics to hedge our analysis and to help us anticipate the impact of campaign activities. We’ve posted that stat sheet on our website. The research shows, not surprisingly, that Liberals are most likely to pick up from the NDP and Greens, the NDP are the most likely to pick up from the BQ. Conservatives are the most likely to say they have no second choice and their only significant pool of voters to access are the Liberals. This analysis points to a level of fluidity between the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens.
Tune in to Prime Time Politics with Peter Van Dusen tonight at 8 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 6, 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=1,016, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 33 (-1)
- Liberal Party 29 (-2)
- NDP 20 (+2)
- BQ 11% (NC)
- Green Party 7% (+1)
- Undecided 15% (NC)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,200,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper 33% (-1)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 20% (NC)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 17% (-1)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 5% (NC)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 3% (-1)
- None of them 7% (NC)
- Unsure 14% (NC)
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 89 (-6)
- Jack Layton 56 (+9)
- Stephane Dion 50 (-1)
- Elizabeth May 21 (NC)
- Gilles Duceppe 16 (+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
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
Do my eyes decieve me or has anyone ever see a leader of the Liberal Party with ... more
psiclone (British Columbia) 08 Oct 14:10
The Maritimes numbers look suspect today s no one moves up or down 9% in one day... more
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post) (Ontario) 08 Oct 14:18
I think this poll means good things for the NDP, and therefore possibly good thi... more
tiredandjaded (Ontario) 08 Oct 14:15
It will be very interesting to see the final poll numbers going into Tuesday.... more
Darryl (Ontario) 08 Oct 17:21
Separatists in Quebec are labelled as traitors by ignorant Canadians like you wh... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 08 Oct 19:10
Furthermore, your belief that Alberta's wealth is based solely on oil is why you... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 08 Oct 19:11
Comments
psiclone
Do my eyes decieve me or has anyone ever see a leader of the Liberal Party with such abysmal leadership numbers and with the NDP in second place. I am looking forward to this election as I think Canadians are going to be very surpised the morning after. I was crunching as many numbers that I could get and the seat counts are all over the place we could end up with the NDP as the opposition party - who would have thought and maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing as it may be time to give the Lib's a good time out so they can get a leader who won't drag them down as much as Dion.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:10:14 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:10
58 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Peggy
That's the one thing I have against young Trudeau and Kennedy!!!!!
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:16:28 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:16
tiredandjaded
I think it is very, very unlikely that the NDP forms the opposition.
Even if the Liberals collapse and the NDP gets more of the popular vote than them, it would be the Bloc that forms the opposition, not the NDP.
Popular vote has very little to do with winning seats in some situations.
The NDP could have 25% approval nationwide and the Bloc have 10% nationwide, but the Bloc is the clear favourite in Quebec. There is a large number of seats in Quebec and the Bloc will win a good portion of them. The NDP will need to win 55-60 seats to form the opposition and I don't see them beating both the Bloc and the Liberals with the numbers we see today.
All the NDP will succeed in doing is taking some votes from the Liberals and maybe finishing close to them in the seat count.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:20:10 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:20
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
As far as the NDP is concerned I see their vote starting to drop as I feel today is a blip for them on several fronts. The undecideds and strategic voters will not vote NDP.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:39:53 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:39
No link, just spin.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:35:36 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:35
Lex Llewdor
Note that he doesn't even claim to have evidence. He just feels it.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:00:35 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:00
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Are you out of your mind.........The Tories have collapsed in Ontario and Quebec and the Libs are at around 30% overall with a huge lead in Ontario. The Libs could be at a minimum range of 108 to 125 seats right now.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:20:18 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:20
westerner (suspended)
Globe and Mail aggregate Poll of Polls shows the NDP making impressive gains over the last two weeks.
Current polling shows Conservatives at 34%,Lieberals at 26% and NDP at 19%.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:32:52 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:32
your source? spin away
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:36:00 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:36
I have looked at several forecasting site and they predict big spike in NDP seats at expense of Liberals. (Check previous comments for links.)
That will be interesting to see how the battleground ridings votes splits work out.
Jack wont have more seats than the Bloc, Liberals will still be 2nd place and official oppositon.
Be prepared for Liberal spin after all numbers are not important to them.
Goodluck with your vote and party.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:09:22 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:09
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
WHERE'S YOUR LINK?
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:12:24 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:12
HoldenCaulfield
NDP, what are you guys talking about? You are talking like the Liberals are in free fall when in fact their numbers climbed, it is the Tory numbers that are falling even after the platform release. The Liberals will place first in Atlantic Canada, Second in Quebec (Island of Montreal), and right now the Liberals are polling 12 points ahead in first place in Ontario.
The Conservatives will sweep the West, with the exception of an NDP seat here or there in Manitoba perhaps, Ralph will win his Liberal seat and the NDP will be competing in BC.
The Liberals are within striking range of a Minority Government, and you guys are talking like they are on the ropes.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:18:25 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:18
I am looking at the forecaster websites, I already linked them.
Interesting comments they call for big NDP gain at Lib expense. Check my earlier comments regarding their website.
I expect liberals who say the data is wrong is and refuse to link their counter makes it funny.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:39:45 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:39
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
SPAM ATTACK WITH NO SUPPORT. UNIFORMED IS GETTING TO BE JOKE ONE HERE
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:13:22 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:13
Lex Llewdor
"The Conservatives will sweep the West"
Is any stronger evidence needed that perhaps we shouldn't all be in the same country? Given how fundamentally we seem to disagree about how we should be governed, doesn't it make sense for each half to decide for itself?
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:02:04 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:02
Mike Stokes
I agree we should have split this place up a long time ago, that's why as a Conservative I wouldn't mind a liberal win. It would just further reinforce the idea of separation in the west. The country has two different economies that cannot be run with a dump the west for the sake of an Ontario attitude.
However Dion talks the talk to buy votes in Ontario, if he was PM he would admit to the amount the oil economy adds to Canada and there is no way he could kill the golden goose.
He should wink when he stands at the podium and feeds his lies to Ontario.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:10:24 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:10
HoldenCaulfield
Here we go, I predicted it several days ago, when the Reformers (Conservatives) saw their fortunes fail they would turn angry and ugly and start stamping their feet.
Why in gods name would 50 or 60% of the people in Alberta (3 million total pop for the province) think that they should get to tell a country of about 40 million people how things will be. Of Course Ontario and Quebec have more influence we have more people!
If your definition of being Canadian requires that you have a Parliament full of right wing evangelicals representing you, then you weren't much of a patriot in the first place.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:15:02 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:15
Lex Llewdor
We shouldn't get to tell you how to govern yourself, just as you shouldn't get to tell us how to govern ourselves.
Canada's a federation. We're not supposed to have a strong central government or even a national identity. Patriotism doesn't enter into it.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:18:04 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:18
Lex Llewdor
And the Canadian population is nowhere near 40 million.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:19:36 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:19
HoldenCaulfield
Canada's Population is 33,395,830 according to stats can, you are correct not 40 million but still 10 times that of Alberta, so explain to me again why Alberta should decide all policies for the whole nation. Alberta's population is less than the Greater Toronto area.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:52:15 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:52
westerner (suspended)
Alberta's population is 3.4 million, growing by 100,000 per year. Canada's population is approx. 34 million.
The west, population approx 10 million, is solidly Conservative and should be governed accordingly--support western separation!!!
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:31:20 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:31
HoldenCaulfield
It is not Progressive Conservatives who want to seperate Mike, you see you folks were never Conservatives, you are Reform Party members, the folks on here who spit fire and brimstone would not be comfortable in the company of a gentleman like Joe Clark or William Davis. Even Tories like Danny Williams of Newfoundland remind us that you folks aren't Tories at all.
The Conservatives of John MacDonald loved Canada, they were loyalists and they would not have uttered words of separation. The fact that the reformers on here talk openly about it speaks volumes about what you really are. You are adherents to the party of Manning, not MacDonald, and that is why you have no appeal in Central Canada.
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:32:40 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:32
Lex Llewdor
But given how popular we are out here, isn't that, in itself, a good argument for separation?
You won't address that, will you? Why not? Do you really think we need to share a government just because someone 100 years ago drew the lines on the map that way?
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:14:05 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:14
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
REGARDELESS of your political strip splitting up Canada is simply nonsense. The other parties combined get more votes than the cons in the west also.
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:14:50 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:14
Lex Llewdor
I wasn't claiming that only Conservatives would support separation. Surely some socialists would, too. Imagine the social programs we could afford out here if we weren't propping up dying sectors of the economy like manufacturing.
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:22:57 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:22
larryl
Lex.Why are seperatists in Quebec labelled traitors but you and others on this site can spew your garbage about western seperation . At least Quebecers want to protect their culture, heritage and language where you want to do it strictly for financial reasons.Black gold has fed the greed monster just like the real gold. You will have to play by the same rules set out by the clarity act so I doubt your hatred of easterners will be enough to cause any break up of my country. We will be able to identify the rednecks and shame them out of existence for being the traitors they are. How many "westerners" are really transplanted easterners who still bear allegiance to their country rather than the land of greed and money know as Oilberta? How long before the oil bubble bursts and you need us to support you again as we did for 65 tears after you joined confederation.
[updated Wed Oct 08 18:04:27 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 18:04
westerner (suspended)
Just more uninformed and bigoted statements from larryl.
[updated Wed Oct 08 18:54:18 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 18:54
larryl
Westerner. Do you even know what the word bigot means?If you think I am intolerant of idiots who talk about breaking up this country, you are absolutely right. You should be deported but I doubt we could find a country that would take you. You belong in the U.S. with the redneck racists in the southern states. The Ozark mountains would probably be a good spot so you could feud with more of your kind.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:11:23 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:11
westerner (suspended)
Just one more arrogant, bigoted and intolerant rant from larryl.
If you don't know what a bigot is look it up in the dictionary and then look in the mirror.You will understand the word very well.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:29:11 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:29
Lex Llewdor
Separatists in Quebec are labelled as traitors by ignorant Canadians like you who don't understand basic prinicples like fairness and freedom.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:10:15 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:10
larryl
Lex. You are a bigger dummy than the other a..Hole from the west.My family lived in Quebec for two hundred years before coming to Ontario so I would hardly label them traitors.The basic principals of fairness should tell you that tax dollars from Ontario citizens were transfered to the west for decades and now it is time for Alberta to reciprocate but greed and revenge for perceived past injustices make you want to seperate rather than share some of the burden of confederation. It is even worse since we don't want your tax dollars but some of the royalties from the industry we help start. The CCF and co-op movements started in the western part of this country because of a desire to be fair and help our neighbors and the needy. What happened to that spirit of togetherness. We need another Tommy Douglas a lot more than another Peter "the Great" Lougheed.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:26:20 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:26
Lex Llewdor
Peter the Pink? I certainly wouldn't want him back - he spent money like a drunkard (which, given the austerity of Ralph Klein, is pretty funny).
We all play by the same rules. Just because they now benefit us doesn't mean you get to change them.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:45:20 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:45
larryl
Lex. The rules benefitted you when transfer payments and tax concessions kept the west going for uears. You are the one trying to change them so as to get away from shouldering your share of the load now that you have the money to do that with.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:56:29 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:56
Lex Llewdor
But the rules allow us to separate.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:02:11 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:02
larryl
LEX. What rule book have you been reading? I am no constitutional expert since I have never read it but I doubt the founding father's put anything in it that would allow the break up of the country. I guess you could ask our resident expert on everything if you are so inclined. Since Alberta joined confederation and the rest of the country didn't join Alberta there probably are some rules about staying in.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:50:02 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:50
Lex Llewdor
You need to read the relevant court decisions. You know, those one's that Paul Martin says made the Clarity Act redundant.
[updated Thu Oct 09 12:46:17 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 12:46
wyly
there are rules but in reality there nothing short of warfare to stop it from happening, and our military doesn't have the capability of doing that.....simple withholding income tax/civil disobedience would bring about the break up....not that I support the break up....
[updated Mon Oct 13 13:34:42 EDT 2008]
13 Oct 13:34
larryl
Wyly. There are way too many new Albertans to think that seperation would lead to civil disobedience or any other form of public displays to bring about the break up. A referendum would likely have less than 50 % support to cause the break up of this nation. If one province chose to leave others would follow and we would end up with a bunch of independent states that would be gobbled up by the U.S in very short order.
[updated Mon Oct 13 17:02:43 EDT 2008]
13 Oct 17:02
wyly
5% of the population refusing to submit their Federal income tax will bring any government down...if 5% of Alberta tax payers about 60,000 people refuse to pay what are you going to do? throw them all in jail?...the Federal government would have no choice but give up the fight...
the reality is the support would be around 2-3 % but they would lack the organization and the balls to do it, Canadians aren't the disobedient type we don't even litter well...
[updated Tue Oct 14 01:51:11 EDT 2008]
14 Oct 01:51
Lex Llewdor
I'll make you a deal. If you'll shrink the federal government to the size and scope it was when Ontario was propping up Alberta, Alberta will agree to stay in Canada and contribute.
The modern federal government is a bloated behemoth. None of us can afford it; it's just that westerners were the first to figure that out. Since you won't let us help you fix the problem, we want out.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:47:31 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:47
larryl
Lex. The west is right to want less government but should realize the Conservative party is responsible for most of it's growth.The last two CPC budgets have been the largest in our history but you fail to see that rather than shrink government costs they grew. Uncontrolled and unregulated corporations seen in the U.S. have brought us to the verge of global economic collapse. If you had elected members of the government over the last 30 years they could have been heard in the house of commons and worked for your benefit. Look back at our history and you will see most of what you pay in taxes was implemented by Conservative governments. You can deny facts all you want but Income Tax, GST and provincial sales taxes were all invented by Conservatives. Your claim we can't afford the tax burden might be seem ridiculous to those in other countries when they look at the waste and frivolous ways we spend our money. Most peoples cable bill is more than some people spend on food. Cell phones and other gadgets we have to have are another example . Stupidity can best be seen in the interest we pay on credit cards buying things we don't need and can't afford. I guess you're right we are really hard done by aren't we?
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:21:33 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:21
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Alberta needs the approval of over 505 of the canadian population and in 7 out of ten provinces. forget your wet dream and ge ton with being a good Canadian. Just because your stupid ineffective tories, with an economist at the helm, could only play dirty tricks politics instead of governing and managing the economy properly is no reason to play separation politics. Useless discussion it is. This about electing a new PM for all Canadians are you are about to get one who is dynamic bold and economically smart.
[updated Thu Oct 09 05:37:30 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 05:37
wyly
it doesn't matter what the official rules for seperation are if any one province wants out it's not going to worry about rules and other provinces opinion...there is nothing the rest of the country can do to stop it. If Quebec, Ontario, BC or Alberta decide to go it alone they will.
[updated Thu Oct 09 11:11:20 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 11:11
wyly
who are these "we" as in "we want out"? who gave you permission to speak for us westerners?
[updated Thu Oct 09 11:03:41 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 11:03
Lex Llewdor
Furthermore, your belief that Alberta's wealth is based solely on oil is why you will never vote for a free market. You just don't understand how wealth gets created.
Can I recommend some books for you? "The Road to Serfdom" perhaps?
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:11:43 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:11
larryl
Lex. Wealth is usually created by somebody taking advantage of the under priveledged. Look at the Royal family for the best example. Crown ownership and control of everything is a capitalist form of communism. How did this land that was occupied by millions of aboriginal people become the property of the Crown? You might be interested in a book titled "the Blue Eyed Sheiks" by Peter Foster that will tell you all about the oil industry in Canada .If Alberta's economy is not solely based on black gold should you not be able to survive if the market collapses again? Good luck with that since King Ralph stopped putting money into the Trust Fund. The global financial collapse will cause the oil prices to plummet and the banks will foreclose on the overpriced homes that the boom saw built at an astonishing rate. Ghost towns will soon dot Alberta and the exodus of easterners will be blamed on us again.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:42:51 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:42
Lex Llewdor
That's not wealth creation. That's wealth redistribution.
I was right. You don't understand.
There's a certain amount of wealth in Canada. When that total amount of wealth increases, do you know how that happens?
It certainly appears as if you do not.
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:51:18 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:51
larryl
LEX. Let's see which one of us doesn't understand. The stock market is a tool used to get money for investing and create jobs . The fees charged by those transactions wether buying or selling stock creates wealth for the people who run the stock market yet they produce absolutely nothing . When they could not make enough providing that service they decided to sell futures. Again nothing produced but more wealth created. Do you know what a future is?I don't. The bank of Canada at one timed loaned money to private banks who then loaned it to us for a fee. When the bank act was changed and the banks no longer needed to have funds on deposit to cover what they loaned out they started making huge profits of billions of dollars every year. More wealth created . I could go on with mutual funds , RRSP's and other things that make millions for investment bankers without actually creating anything but I think you might get the idea. You will argue like most capitalists that jobs are created by wealthy people who make investments but in reality consumers spending money is what creates those jobs. The coming recession will prove that to you. When there are no jobs and people have no money to spend the economy comes to a screeching halt. What kind of fool will continue to produce goods that noone will buy.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:40:48 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:40
larryl
LEX. Waiting patiently for your reply. Do I need a lesson on how wealth is created or was my post at all accurate. Where in your opinion does wealth come from ? I would really like to understand what happens when wealth is created your way.
[updated Thu Oct 09 12:00:55 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 12:00
Lex Llewdor
The banks aren't creating the wealth. Production and trade creates wealth.
If I have a bunch of lumber, and I build a really nice dining table out of it, I just created wealth (because the table is worth more than the lumber).
If I then build another table, I've created less wealth than I did before before I don't really need another table. That's diminishing marginal utility. But then, if you need a table, and I need money to buy more lumber, we can trade, and thus we created wealth again.
Here's a useful illustration that works well at an office party. Everyone brings a gift, and those gifts get desitributed randomly. Then, each person ranks the gift they received with a value (in secret), and those values are totalled. On a 5 point scale, the value there would probably come in something around 2 or 3. Now, let the people trade with each other. If you got a gift I like and I got a gift you like, we can trade. When we're all done, we can rank our gifts again, and I guarantee that average score will rise.
So, the average value of the gifts went from 2.5 to 4, all through trade, even though they're the same gifts. That's wealth creation.
You don't need banks or a monetary policy to create wealth. You need production and voluntary exchange.
[updated Thu Oct 09 12:53:14 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 12:53
larryl
lex. Are you denying that the examples I put forward create wealth without actually having produced anything solid ? If you build the table you have created a product and if the buyer uses credit to pay for it that creates wealth for the credit card company who in reality has produced nothing. In order for you to make the maximum amount of wealth you should provide the credit to your customer rather than let the bank take that away from you. There are many ways of creating wealth but they all need one thing . Consumers. Ford figured out a long time ago if you want people to buy your product you have to put enough money in their hands to be able to afford it. Your way of thinking is that if you manufacture a product it will sell. There has to be a demand for your product . The financial mess in the U.S. saw banks create a demand for housing by providing money to people who should never have been given credit in the first place. When prices reached levels people could no longer afford the false wealth created disappeared and the market crashed. Wealth was created from nothing by speculators which is just a nice word for gamblers. Day traders , investment bankers and others took risks but now they want the government to step in to save their butts. Our banks are in no better shape since the wealth they created is based solely on the promise of the people to pay back what they borrowed . With no job or income how will we make our mortgage payments. Housing prices will start to decline and we will see our mortgages be much higher than the value of the property so people will bail out on their obligation . More foreclosures will lead to lower prices and so on and so on.The worst part of all this is they used our money we put in RRSP's to manufacture this false wealth and our money will disappear into thin air as we have seen with Mutual funds and the stock market falling.
[updated Thu Oct 09 14:00:09 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 14:00
Lex Llewdor
"Are you denying that the examples I put forward create wealth without actually having produced anything solid ?"
Yes, I am denying that. That isn't wealth creation, since no wealth was created.
I can transfer wealth to a credit card company or a bank through paying interest, but the total amount of wealth in the world didn't increase. They created a small amount of wealth by enabling me to buy stuff, but if I can't pay off that loan that wealth creation is illusory.
You are right about one thing: "The financial mess in the U.S. saw banks create a demand for housing by providing money to people who should never have been given credit in the first place."
But they didn't do that themselves - no bank would have done that voluntarily. The US banks lent ot all that money because the US government paid them to do it (though their intermediaries, Fannie and Freddie). This is government intervention in the market plain and simple. They wanted more people to own homes, and as such they had to get homes into the hands of people who couldn't afford them.
[updated Thu Oct 09 14:11:21 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 14:11
Lex Llewdor
And why do you get to decide what's worth protecting? Don't you support democracy? Shouldn't the people get to decide?
If Albertans want to separate for reasons of greed (and selfish greed is what makes the economy work), why should you be allowed to stop them?
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:14:08 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:14
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Good luck with that premise and do you really think all cons and reformers are separatist leaning. I spend many weeks a year in AB and I know they are all good Canadians. its only the idiot right wing nut bars who consider any other choice and they are less than 5% of the total population. See the clarity act for more details on your wish and good luck beating that
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:42:37 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:42
HoldenCaulfield
Lex you really should read the book, "Stupid to the Last Drop". If you want to know what happens to economies that are based entirely on resources, visit an old logging town or an abandoned mining town. It'll give you that warm fuzzy feeling.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:54:36 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:54
westerner (suspended)
More MBAGS BS
[updated Wed Oct 08 18:52:12 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 18:52
wyly
simplistic logic-conservatives are a minority in the west, a perverse electoral system skews the results, combine the greens, libs and ndp and the results are quite different. there is no way in hell the majority of westerners will allow a nutty right wing minority dictate....
[updated Thu Oct 09 11:27:44 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 11:27
wyly
nutty idea....please run for the conservatives next election and state publicly that you want to seperate from the east and we'll have one less conservative seat in Ottawa...run for and win the conservative leadership and make that your policy and watch your party disappear into history...
[updated Mon Oct 13 13:27:53 EDT 2008]
13 Oct 13:27
islandcynic
The NDP is a great voice in opposition. It seems that the ruling class constantly needs a reminder from the majority of Canadians and their concerns. Vote NDP to keep the voice loud and clear! Don't wait for policies out of the goodness of the conservatives' little hearts(they don't have one) to help the average Canadian. The Liberal ship still leans to the right.
[updated Fri Oct 10 08:35:31 EDT 2008]
10 Oct 08:35
tiredandjaded
I think this poll means good things for the NDP, and therefore possibly good things for the Conservatives if the NDP (and the Greens) end up splitting the vote.
I think the second choice data ("This analysis points to a level of fluidity between the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens") points to this as well.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:15:42 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:15
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
tbonepearson
GO DION! DOWN WITH THE CONSERVATIVES!
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:16:40 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:16
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
The Maritimes numbers look suspect today s no one moves up or down 9% in one day.
However, the news in Ontario continues to be fantastic for the Libs..who now lead the cons 40 to 28%.
Quebec is in total collapse for the cons as well and the Libs need to beat down the NDP a little more there and in Ontario.
This shows the Liberal surge is for real and I can't wait for election day!!!!
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:18:13 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:18
17 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Mike Stokes
there they go the Liberals are beginning their spiral, the spin doctors call it a success but they are down 6 % since August 29th. PC hasn't changed.
LP 35, CP 33, NDP 17, BQ 8, GP 7 -(2008-08-29) Nanos
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:37:08 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:37
20 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
islandcynic
I always felt that it is difficult for Harper to keep up his 'made for campaigning' persona. The sweater vest, casual attire, calm and smiling and in control. I see him cracking now that the election is on the home stretch. It is difficult to be someone you are not. At least the other leaders are themselves, and not trying to trick us all into voting for him/her. I still do not trust him (as with so many women from the last election), and find that he makes a terrible prime minister, especially on the world stage.
[updated Wed Oct 08 14:40:25 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 14:40
13 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
oj.lavoie
Libs have been trending upward too fast since the debates; unsurprising to see momentum dip, nor could the bleed go anywhere but to the NDP. Expect Libs' numbers to keep growing & Cons' numbers to keep dropping over the next week & brace for a Liberal minority on Oct. 14.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:31:13 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:31
10 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Polls diverge on fortunes of Conservatives
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_politics_poll_5
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:32:27 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:32
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
jcamero
Would love to hear all your thoughts, I have compiled today's polls...
One time:
Angus Reid- Tories 35%, Libs 27% (Oct. 6th, 7th) 1,000 ppl.
Daily Rolling:
Ekos- Tories 34 (+1), Libs 25 (-1) (Oct.5th, 6th, 7th) 3,100 ppl. total
Nanos- Tories 33 (-1), Libs 29 (-2) (Oct. 5th, 6th, 7th ) 1,200 ppl. total
Harris Decima: Tories 31 (NC), Libs 27 (+1) (Oct. 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th) 1,200 ppl. total
Summary:
The poll with the most recent dates, not a rolling average with the weekend, has the tories at their highest- 35% (although AR has always been high with tory support throughout the campaign). This includes polling the night the platform was released. Tomorrow should show begin to fully show us how that platform was received- or if it had any impact.
Rolling polls show that those with more recent days have the Tories scoring better, though the Nanos drop by 1 means last night might have not been good polling for the tories. Also, the larger the sample size also shows better Tory performance.
Overall, I believe larger samples sizes, and more recent dates show better Tory performance.
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:34:31 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:34
20 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
suedo
Hey Nik and all - why would a man who claims he predicted the global financial meltdown throw Canada into an election? He brought down his own government all the while knowing there was a looming financial disaster?
[updated Wed Oct 08 15:50:05 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 15:50
66 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Well I have read the Conservative Platform in PDF format at the G&M, is colorful, easy to understand and the points I like are: BC Alberta and Ontario to receive their rightful number of seats in the House of Commons, 2. Abolishing the Senate or Elected, Jim Munson will have to find a real job now 3. Unscruplous Immigration Consultants, the problem they do not live in Canada, they live in China, the worst has a office near Burrard and Georgia Street in Vancouver. Ontario you can thank Jean Chretien for sending your jobs to China, now we have to spend 400 million to get your industry back and running, next time think before you Vote for the Liberal Brand, it does not work anymore
[updated Wed Oct 08 16:42:50 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 16:42
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
watchingtosee
The convservatives are in trouble is an understatement -, The Why is Simple- During times of real issues like what is going on in the world markets the last thing people want to hear that "is it's a good to time to buy cheap stocks."
For a Prime Minister to suggest that people with very little money start betting on the stock market, is not wise... That also is an understatment.
In some places the NDP may pick-up but if the Liberal messaging is consistent and people begin to believe that they should put their vote with a party who done quite well managing the economy, you may see a movement to the Liberals,
In my case, this time I have decided to vote Liberal simply because I do not believe the conversvatives are the Party to trust during the upcoming bad economic times.
I think we are looking at an upset in terms of expectations of what the conservatives thought they would accomplish, I now believe that with the apprehension out there,,,,, people will be prudent and move their vote to the Liberals from the NDP and from soft Conservatives,
No prediction as of yet on who may win ,.... But if the conservatives do not do well as they expected to - watch for the upcoming bloodbath and it will not be pretty...
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:16:03 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:16
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
suedo
Harper lied - Read his letter - look at his signature.
Establish the simple facts - Harper Lied
For the purpose of establishing facts. Read the letter from Harper and signed by Harper.
It remains unbelievable in this day of technology that a fact cannot be established.
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01harper.pdf
[updated Wed Oct 08 17:47:14 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 17:47
50 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20081008.wvdion_speech1008
The best speech of any party leader in this election. This could take Dion over the top.
Its being played on every news channel continuously
[updated Wed Oct 08 19:31:22 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 19:31
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Darryl
There ya go.... Elizabeth May finally comes out to tell people to vote for liberals instead of for her own party.....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081008.welxngreens1009/BNStory/politics/home
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:11:25 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:11
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
monthebomb
This is on behalf of rsharp, arbitrarily suspended by Nik because he called evalngelical Christians freaks. Richard tried to deal with Nik on the matter, but received no reply.
I invite you to read Richard's last 30-50 posts. He has been respectful of others in all cases (not including public figures such as Mr. Harper). At worst, Nik should have simply deleted his offensive comment.
To suspend him (indefinitely) in light of the apparently acceptable but much more hateful comments of others is, well, not like Nik.
[updated Wed Oct 08 20:39:47 EDT 2008]
08 Oct 20:39
33 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Battleground Ridings- 45 ridings that can change the country
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/election2008/battleground-ridings.html
I would like to hear from users on the results of those battleground ridings. With supporting data and links. BTW telling me you have an inside poll and you have walked door to door in 10 ridings won't cut it. Also using multiple accounts to spin please leave this thread untouched with spin. Thanks and good luck in your vote this Tuesday.
[updated Thu Oct 09 08:34:09 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 08:34
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Any political leader telling the truth? Or is it a "No Fly Zone" to admit if things go south a government will have to run a deficit?
KONRAD YAKABUSKI
Globe and Mail Update
E-mail Konrad Yakabuski | Read Bio | Latest Columns
October 9, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT
These days, even acknowledging the possibly of a budget deficit is enough to earn a mainstream Canadian politician shaming looks and opprobrium. Pierre Trudeau's legacy of debt and deficits so traumatized the political class that now even the NDP sounds like the Fraser Institute.
NDP Leader Jack Layton's insistence that he'll run no deficit if he moves into 24 Sussex demonstrates how far to the right he, along with the entire Canadian political elite, has shifted. Or how scared they are to admit otherwise.
Mr. Trudeau was our last great (or not so great) Keynesian leader. This is what he said in 1979, as Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives vowed to rein in spending: “In Liberal views, a deficit is an instrument. It is not something you necessarily want or necessarily steer away from. It is something you use to direct the economy when you want jobs.”
What poetry. What delusion. When Mr. Trudeau left office in 1984, the federal budget deficit had grown to almost 9 per cent of gross domestic product. Any more stimulus than that and you normally go into cardiac arrest. Brian Mulroney's Tory government brought down the so-called structural deficit on program spending. But rising interest rates and a recession sent the overall deficit soaring again in the early 1990s.
"....."
So, why let Mr. Trudeau haunt us, still? Would it be so bad for Ottawa to spend some of its fiscal dividend if the economy tanks? By sticking to their no-deficit guns, our political leaders are either woefully inept at making policy or willfully dishonest with voters.
Mr. Harper came the closest of any of the leaders to conceding the obvious this week when he told Business News Network that nothing “indicates to me that we should immediately go into deficit.” What that means all depends on your definition of immediately.
In February, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty forecast a $2.3-billion budget surplus for the current fiscal year and $1.3-billion next year, based on projected GDP growth of 1.7 per cent in 2008 and 2.4 per cent in 2009, respectively. Optimistic does not begin to describe those numbers now.
Federal budget documents estimate that a 1 per cent drop in GDP growth below the February forecast would reduce the “budgetary balance” by $3.3-billion this year and $2.8-billion in 2009-10. That does not include any extra stimulus – such as speeding up infrastructure spending – that the next government might undertake to prime the pump.
A longer, deeper economic downturn would render a deficit unavoidable. No one is suggesting we should spend our way out of a recession. But any move to cut expenditures or raise taxes just to avoid going into the red would exacerbate the pain we're all about to feel.
Besides, why should the left embrace the idea of balanced budgets just when the right in most of the world has abandoned it? Next to George W. Bush, Mr. Layton looks like a fiscal conservative. The U.S. President started the year by passing a $150-billion (U.S.) stimulus package that sent $600 cheques to most individuals. Now his $700-billion bank bailout law, laden with tax breaks, will add at least $100-billion to the federal budget deficit next year on top of the $438-billion shortfall originally projected. That will push the U.S. deficit-to-GDP ratio to almost 4 per cent and send the public debt-to-GDP ratio above 40 per cent. Yes, it's scary. But can anyone imagine what misery would await the Canadian economy if the Americans actually believed in balanced budgets?
"........"
Unlike our leaders, theirs weren't traumatized by Mr. Trudeau.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081008.wyakabuski1009/BNStory/robColumnsBlogs/?cid=al_gam_nletter_maropen
2 Paragraph removed for text limit.
[updated Thu Oct 09 08:58:12 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 08:58
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
pulsar123
Can anyone from Nanos Research please give some details on how they compute their party standings numbers, and how it is different from other major election pollsters? The reason I am asking is that your numbers almost always are systematically (and substantially) different from those of the rest of the pollsters, by much more than a standard error. In particular, your numbers for Greens are usually much smaller, and for NDP are noticeably smaller, whereas Liberals usually get much higher marks. I know your predictions were the most accurate for the last two elections, so whatever you do apparently better mimics what voters do on the voting day (which includes some degree of strategic voting).
Here is my theory on how you do it. I know you are the only one who collects not just first, but also second party choices. I can imagine you also ask everyone how likely that they are going to switch from their first to their second choice on the election day. Then you can process all this information on a statistical basis, by adding a fraction of voter support to the second choice parties (mimicking strategic voting). Of course, the reality may be more complicated than that. E.g., NDP/Greens are less likely to vote strategically if the chances for Conservative majority are slim. But that would be a second order correction I guess.
Am I right (in principle)? If not, what is you trick?
Thank you,
Sergey M. (PhD)
[updated Thu Oct 09 10:35:31 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 10:35
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MichaelFox
Canada rated world's soundest bank system: survey
Thu Oct 9, 4:40 AM
By Rob Taylor
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.
But Britain, which once ranked in the top five, has slipped to 44th place behind El Salvador and Peru, after a 50 billion pound ($86.5 billion) pledge this week by the government to bolster bank balance sheets.
The United States, where some of Wall Street's biggest financial names have collapsed in recent weeks, rated only 40, just behind Germany at 39, and smaller states such as Barbados, Estonia and even Namibia, in southern Africa.
The United States was on Thursday considering buying a slice of debt-laden banks to inject trust back into lending between financial institutions now too wary of one another to lend.
The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report based its findings on opinions of executives, and handed banks a score between 1.0 (insolvent and possibly requiring a government bailout) and 7.0 (healthy, with sound balance sheets).
Canadian banks received 6.8, just ahead of Sweden (6.7), Luxembourg (6.7), Australia (6.7) and Denmark (6.7).
UK banks collectively scored 6.0, narrowly behind the United States, Germany and Botswana, all with 6.1. France, in 19th place, scored 6.5 for soundness, while Switzerland's banking system scored the same in 16th place, as did Singapore (13th).
The ranking index was released as central banks in Europe, the United States, China, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland slashed interest rates in a bid to end to panic selling on markets and restore trust in the shaken banking system.
The Netherlands (6.7), Belgium (6.6), New Zealand (6.6), Malta (6.6) rounded out the WEF's banking top 10 with Ireland, whose government unilaterally pledged last week to guarantee personal and corporate deposits at its six major banks.
Also scoring well were Chile (6.5, 18th) and Spain, South Africa, Norway, Hong Kong and Finland all ending up in the top 20.
At the bottom of the list was Algeria in 134th place, with its banks scoring 3.9 to be just below Libya (4.0), Lesotho (4.1), the Kyrgyz Republic (4.1) and both Argentina and East Timor (4.2).
RANKINGS
1. Canada
2. Sweden
3. Luxembourg
4. Australia
5. Denmark
6. Netherlands
7. Belgium
8. New Zealand
9. Ireland
10. Malta 11. Hong Kong
12. Finland
13. Singapore
14. Norway
15. South Africa
16. Switzerland
17. Namibia
18. Chile
19. France
20. Spain
--------------------------------------------
124. Kazakhstan
125. Cambodia
126. Burundi
127. Chad
128. Ethiopia
129. Argentina
130. East Timor
131. Kyrgyz Republic
132. Lesotho
133. Libya
134. Algeria
SOURCE: World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009.
(For the full World Economic Forum report click on: http://www.weforum.org/GCR0809_Browser )
(Editing by Kim Coghill)
[updated Thu Oct 09 11:29:46 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 11:29
14 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Advance Polls Voter turnout is down. Do you think that favours the Government?
( I do.Supports the Ekos Polling results I listed earlier)
Press Releases and Media Advisories
Elections Canada: Media: Press Releases and Media Advisories
First Estimate of Turnout at Advance Polls Now Available
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2008 — The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Marc Mayrand, announced today the preliminary estimate of the number of electors who voted in advance on Friday, October 3, Saturday, October 4, and Monday, October 6.
According to the preliminary figures, 1,459,253 electors voted at the advance polls in this election. This is a decrease from the 1,561,039 electors who voted in advance in the 39th general election in 2006.
Following is a breakdown of the estimated number of electors who voted at the advance polls, by province or territory and electoral district, for all 308 electoral districts.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=oct0708b&dir=pre&lang=e&textonly=false
[updated Thu Oct 09 13:52:54 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 13:52
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bud the spud
We have seen a narrowing gap between the Liberals and the Conservatives over the past few days. As the election cliche goes, the next few days will be very important. If the Conservatives can reverse their decline, they might increase their seat count over last time, and with a favouring wind, even a majority is possible-- not likely, but possible, expecially if the four opposition parties split their votes almost evenly.
On the other hand, it would not take much of a shift in the other direction for the Liberals to overtake the Conservatives in the seat count. They have a big lead in Ontario, and have been gaining ground in Quebec. They seem to have cemented gains elsewhere except for the west, and besides, they don't have many seats to lose out there. A gain of about 10 to 12 seats in Ontario and Quebec, combined with a similar loss for the Conservatives in these provinces and elsewhere (the NDP seem poised to make some gains in Conservative ridings) and you could have a narrow liberal minority. This could happen if they manage to narrow the gap by another point or two.
As I posted elsewhere, a lot depends on how motivated voters for each party are. If the Liberal momentum continues, this should help them on Election Day. Dion has had some very successful TV appearances, and the increased respect he has earned might help traditional Liberals who parked elsewhere to return to the fold.
The Conservatives on the other hand still have lots of loyal supporters and lots of resources to make sure their vote comes out. As we've seen over the past few days, though, their core vote is only abut 30 percent of the electorate-- not enough to ensure a victory.
The spoiler might just be the enthusiasm of the NDP and Green supporters. Layton has run a much better campaign this time, and is almost certain to increase his share of the popular vote. Some of these gains are in Quebec, though, and might not translate into seats there. Then there's the traditional Election Day bleeding to the Liberals to worry about. I suspect that because of their momentum that this will not be as much of a factor this time. The Greens might lose more votes to this phenomenon, and they seem to favour the Liberals over other parties. IF both parties hold on to their votes, on the other hand, they might just split the vote enough for some Conservatives to squeak in with 30 percent of the vote or less in some ridings.
Barring any major disasters, then, the advantage seems to be with the Liberals. A further wild card are the anyone-but-conservative strategic voting sites. These favour the Liberals, and in close ridings that might make a big difference.
Here's what I think is the most interesting scenario: A repeat of the 1972 election in which the governing party wins just a handful more seats than the main opposition. If both the Liberals and the Conservatives win about 110 to 120 seats, either could likely form a government, since they could turn to either the NDP or the Bloc for the necessary votes to pass a bill. Given the way the election has gone, though, if I were the Governor-General I'd have a difficult time handing the reins over to the Conservatives, since the other parties are much closer politically. (That would create an absolute firestorm in Conservative circles, but it would make for interesting times.)
And if Harper does win fewer seat this time than he did last, I wouldn't be surprised of caucus members who'd smarted under his whip would start actively trying to replace him, regardless of whether he manages to form a government.
[updated Thu Oct 09 14:12:19 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 14:12
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Who is this Kevin Page so called Independent Parliamentary Budget Secretary, we have far to many Parliamentary Staff, What was his motive for bringing out this Report to day, few days before the Vote, this nonsense he should be fired, and he says he has a great team, how do we know, to me they come from Universities that are Liberal strong holds I do not trust them and do they have most importantly any experience in Life or just Theory!
Give me your comments on this, on a side Note I consider Nik Nanos the most trustworthy Pollester of them all, I watch Peter and Nik nightly, Do you agree or disagree?
[updated Thu Oct 09 15:16:03 EDT 2008]
09 Oct 15:16
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.