The latest Nanos tracking has the Conservatives dropping in the new year with a dead heat between the Tories and the Liberals. The Conservatives continue to lead in the Prairies and British Columbia but are statistically tied with the Liberals in Atlantic Canada, Ontario. The Bloc Quebecois leads in Quebec at 33% followed by the Liberals at 29% and the Conservatives at 22%, the NDP at 11% and the Greens at 5%.
Although the Harper Conservatives ended the year with a comfortable 10 point margin, their advantage in the ballot box has all but evaporated.
Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between January 29th and February 4th 2010. A survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 783 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.
Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between December 10th and December 13th, 2009.
National Committed Voters Only (n=783)
Conservative 35.6% (-3.9)
Liberal 33.9% (+3.7)
NDP 16.4% (-2.3)
BQ 8.5% (+0.8)
Green 5.6% (+1.6)
Note: Undecided 21.9% (-3.8) of total voters surveyed
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
While it is disappointing to see the numbers for the Conservatives drop the fact... more
hollinm (Saskatchewan) 08 Feb 08:57
There are many ways to look at the numbers Nik like Conservatives are only 4.4% ... more
4Logie (Ontario) 08 Feb 09:51
It is interesting to note that there are still 22% of undecideds. I wonder how t... more
neveratory (suspended) (Ontario) 08 Feb 08:31
Hello Ronald: Yes, that is some progress. As the Office of the Prime Minist... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 08 Feb 22:40
Ronald: Our only hope is that the worm will turn and, like you, I rather doubt t... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 08 Feb 23:00
Ronald: Did not both the Liberals and NDP support the budget???? They could ... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 08 Feb 23:31
Comments
neveratory (suspended)
It is interesting to note that there are still 22% of undecideds. I wonder how that compares to a normal pre election poll.
With the MOE being what it is in a poll this size it contineus to reflect the rise of the Liberals and one would presume the same MOE has the quebec results slightly skewered unless Nik is picking up some signals that the bloc is finally receding in popularity, something that is overdue to happen.
[updated Mon Feb 08 08:31:22 EST 2010]
08 Feb 08:31
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
While it is disappointing to see the numbers for the Conservatives drop the fact is it is a reaction to the prorogation issue that is causing the drop. The Libs have done nothing to cause their numbers to go up and particularly Iffy who is still seen as a weak leader.
The good thing is that Iffy is now beginning to talk and that will turn out well for the Conservatives. His gambit on abortion and national daycare will prove to be flash points for the electorate. Of course the Libs forget that they have many anti abortion caucus members and it could spell trouble for the Iffy within the caucus.
I suspect that with the Olympics coming and parliament working through till the summer break that the polls for the Conservatives will begin to turn around.
It's interesting to note that the prorogation issue was a media driven issue. The torqued headlines and outrageous columns accusing Mr. Harper of all manner of things caused Canadians who probably could care less about proragation to take notice.
Not an column or editorial was written when Chretien prorogued the House for four months trying to avoid the adscam scandal and giving Martin time to form his new government. Double standard within the lame street media? You bet.
[updated Mon Feb 08 08:57:05 EST 2010]
08 Feb 08:57
107 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
tobyornotoby
If Conservatives can't understand the difference in response between proroguing with a majority and proroguing once under threat of a non-confidence vote, followed by proroguing while under subpoena for documents a year later, then you've learned nothing from this loss of support for your party, and will soon be blaming the media for returning the Liberals to government.
[updated Mon Feb 08 09:08:11 EST 2010]
08 Feb 09:08
4Logie
If you for one second can think that the Toronto Star is not TOTALLY bias against the Conservatives you are dilusional.Find me one just one positve article about the tories in the star,just one.The thing that pi$$e$ the left off about prorogation is that it canels Question period which was turning out to be nothing more than taliban propoganda.Lets deal with issues in OUR country not some country in the middle east who likely do abuse but no proven facts yet.
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:01:11 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:01
Stop equalization
I wonder what Paul Martin and Jean Chretien knew about terrorist transfers from 2002 to 2006? Lets see the reports!!
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:19:42 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:19
Karen Westminster
Your logic makes Ignatieff and Layton the only leaders worthy of PM. They are the only ones with nothing to do with this fiasco. Even Tom Flanagan said Harper prorogued to avoid the Afghan inquiry. In fact he said on CBC news that "there is not an adult in Canada that does not know Harper prorogued to avoid the inquiry."
Everyone now knows Harper is covering up. Unless he comes forward with the truth he is finished. If it was Chretien and Martins fault, he would not be hiding the truth. Even a Con hack knows that.
[updated Mon Feb 08 13:30:01 EST 2010]
08 Feb 13:30
hollinm
There is lots of speculation in your comments. Proroguing is not making the issue go away and you know it. It simply delayed it. The opposition can go after the government again when parliament resumes.
However, the concern of the opposition is that they lost the upper hand and any momentum they might have had with prorogation. The media have moved on and Canadians aren't buying it so they are frustrated.
However, what you are indirectly saying is that our soldiers cooperated in turning over detainees to be tortured. I would remind you that Harper did not conduct the war from Ottawa, the commanders on the field and Hillier did. If they turned over detainees it was their decision.
If we can believe that Hillier was his own man and was a tough commander do you honestly believe he would have allowed Harper to dictate what should be done with Taliban detainees? You need to really think this thing through before making slanderous allegations.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:00:30 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:00
Stop equalization
Let's see who was aware of torture bewteen 2002 and 2009. Release the reports for this period; have Martin, Harper and Chretien testify as to what they knew. Should make great theater.
Every Lieberal hack knows Afghan. jails were rough places during this period. Why won't the Lieberals fess up?
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:00:48 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:00
Bernie
You are right, Karen. Even Con. supporters know this. tho only a few will admit it. Yes even Tom Flanagan, who was Harper's mentor and who brought Karl Rove's republican playbook to Canada to prosetylize neoconservatism.
I have nothing against prorogation if it was done properly, that is with a majority.
I think Canadians should demand of their representatives that they enact a new law that would have the GG only respond to the majority of elected members to decide when parliament should sit or not. Never on the advice of a PM or a minority. I have made that point before when the Liberals were in power and I'd do it if the NDP were. The majority of the members of parliament should be the supreme governing agency of our country. Anything else is not democratic.
My recommendation would be two months off in the summer, one month at Christmas and one week March Break and that's it. Anyone member who is so inept as to not be able to his constituency work and his parliamentary work at the same time should be in federal politics.
[updated Wed Feb 10 10:25:12 EST 2010]
10 Feb 10:25
hollinm
You see the opposition parties had to find some way to change the channel. Since the detainee issue was four years old they needed the help of the lame street media. They got it in spades.
They want to nail Harper with this and they are doing their damnest to do it. However, there will be no smoking gun and that's why Harper kept McKay in Defense during the cabinet shuffle.
The opposition can demand anything they want but the government has an obligation to protect national security and the privacy act. The documents will be released but redacted and I expect if the opposition persists we will see an appeal to the Supreme Court where the opposition will lose similar to the Kahdr decision.
The opposition have no real interest in detainee abuse that supposedly happened four years ago but it is all about getting Harper.
[updated Mon Feb 08 13:51:24 EST 2010]
08 Feb 13:51
rsharp 2
hollinm, you totally misrepresent the issue here. This isn't about the troops or "national security" or privacy.
It's about who in Ottawa ORDERED the troops to release the prisoners to Afghanistan. Knowing (or should have known) that they would be tortured.
Whether it was DFAIT, DND or the prime minister's office or some combination, that's a WAR CRIME.
And the Cons' refusal to release the unredacted docs. to the parliamentary committee is something called CONTEMPT of parliament.
[updated Tue Feb 09 15:58:54 EST 2010]
09 Feb 15:58
hollinm
resharp2......
Do you honestly believe that Colvin only wrote in his memos about detainees being tortured? I suspect he wrote many things about the Karzai government, corruption, spys, informants etc. etc So don't tell me there was nothing about national security or privacy.
It is about the troops Richard and you are playing games. Who else turned the detainees over to the Afghan government? Harper didn't fly over to Afghanistan and turn over the detainees personally. Harper was following the protocol/agreement established by the Liberal government.
Remember we are talking about 2006 just after the Conservatives won the election. It has been reported that it was well known there was a good chance detainees would be tortured but the Libs decided to change the process of turning them over to the Afghan government versus the Americans. Careful Richard. Push too far and your own party could be accused of war crimes i..e. knowingly transferring detainees over to be tortured.
This is not about detainees at all. It is about getting Harper. The opposition parties have been so weak and ineffective trying to invent faux scandals they think they have something here finally. Nobody cares about detainees being tortured in that barbarous country.
We shall see about contempt of Parliament. Lets see if the opposition has the guts to put their money where their mouths are. So far they have been pretty inept.
I suspect it is all about the role of the executive and its responsibilities. Harper could have dampened down the situation if he had moved McKay from Defence in the shuffle but I suspect there is nothing in the documents being demanded by the opposition which would cause the government problems. Its all about who is responsible for conducting a war. It sure ain't the opposition.
[updated Tue Feb 09 17:09:35 EST 2010]
09 Feb 17:09
rsharp 2
holinm, the Libs signed the agreement and then immediately went into election mode. The Cons then took over and, for a year and a half, did nothing despite knowing full well that prisoners being handed over faced almost certain torture.
This isn't about the troops who did that. They didn't want to. It's about who in Ottawa ordered them to do so.
Ottawa is defined as officials in DFAIT, DND and the PM's office.
[updated Wed Feb 10 12:58:21 EST 2010]
10 Feb 12:58
hollinm
rsharp2.... so you are telling me that Hillier would have allowed Harper or anyone else in the government to dictate how he executed the war. Where were the troops going to put the detainees once captured?
Harper would have acted on the recommendations of the military. He is accused of being arrogant but I don't think he would ever believe he had more experience conducting a war than Hillier et al. He would have supported the recommendations of his military commanders to the extent the commanders asked for his approval.
You don't know they did nothing. You don't know that they knew detainees were actually being tortured. Iam talking about the government. Rumours are not fact.
What you are suggesting is that the military commanders were lying when they appeared before the Commons committee.
Richard what is going to be gained by all of this. Ok we found out that Harper knew. What then? Do you and others want Canada charged with war crimes. Is that the intent? I don't think so.
Once again it is all about getting Harper.
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:35:59 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:35
rsharp 2
No. It's about war and peace. Right and wrong.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12748
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:59:09 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:59
hollinm
rsharp2......sure its all about right and wrong. Right!
You did not answer my question. What is to be gained other than attacking the PM for political advantage. If torture happened nothing can be done to correct it. The agreement was changed and is supposedly working better than the previous agreement.
We all know what's going on here.
[updated Wed Feb 10 19:51:48 EST 2010]
10 Feb 19:51
rsharp 2
No one is attacking the PM on the Afghan torture. Yet.
It's about who in Ottawa ORDERED the soldiers in the field to hand over prisoners to Afghanistan, DESPITE KNOWING almost certain torture would take place.
I don't mean to scream.
[updated Wed Feb 10 21:49:06 EST 2010]
10 Feb 21:49
hollinm
rsharp2... why do you think that anyone in Ottawa ordered the turn over of detainees knowing they would be tortured?
Perhaps the military including Hillier knew the agreement was in place (he signed it) simply followed the agreement because there was no other option. Its easy to sit in our comfy chairs and criticize but when you are in the heat of battle tough decisions have to be made.
Lets remember the conditions in Afghanistan in 2006 were very difficult. The military was moving from Kabul and they were under significant attack by the Taliban so there was lots of fighting. It was a matter of survival.
I am speculating here but what if the commanders on the field made an error in judgement by turning over the detainees and Harper is actually protecting them and their record of accomplishment over the years. Just saying. Of course I have no idea.
[updated Wed Feb 10 22:18:24 EST 2010]
10 Feb 22:18
Blackacadian
That's why it's important to have an open public enquiry in order to get the stories straight and to determine the facts around the Afghan detainee transfers at the time. We should also know if similar problems still occur after the new transfer system was put in place. The problem is that the conservatives are doing everything in their power to avoid proper governmental accountability and transparency. Prorogation only made matters worse.
[updated Wed Feb 10 23:59:34 EST 2010]
10 Feb 23:59
hollinm
Blackacadian......why is it important to air this kind of stuff in public? It is war and shit happens. Do you not think this kind of stuff happens in war. I know there were many atrocities committed in the second world war and probably not just by the Germans.
How will we know if our detainees were actually tortured? Where are you going to find the evidence. Are we going to import detainees to testify they were tortured? This is a road that leads to nowhere and once again I say it is about partisan politics.
Do you honestly believe the Liberal party cares about Afghan detainees. Careful your nose will grow.
The fact is an inquiry would go where perhaps we don't want to go as a country. The problem is the anti war supporters want to use this issue as a way to undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and the uselessness of war. I happen to agree but we are in this thing until 2011.
We have enough serious problems in the country and in the world. This rates right at the bottom of the issue scale.
[updated Thu Feb 11 10:00:01 EST 2010]
11 Feb 10:00
rsharp 2
Before we get to the enquiry matter, the Cons have to deal with a contempt of Parliament issue. Their behaviour in the House to boycott, block, prorogue, dissolve and otherwise obstruct the work of our elected representatives forms quite a pattern, don't you think?
And yes, someone or some officials in Ottawa very definitely did instruct our troops to hand over the prisoners. The troops weere raising questions. Mr. Colvin was raising questions. They were overruled.
[updated Thu Feb 11 11:24:55 EST 2010]
11 Feb 11:24
hollinm
rsharp2......There is no contempt of Parliament issue at this point. Only speculation it could happen. However, the government will deal with it as they do with most things that the opposition try. However, don't be surprised if you see the Supreme Court asked to rule.
As well, don't be surprised if the Supremes rule in the same manner as they did on Khadr. Do you honestly believe that the government has not consulted lawyers etc to determine the impact of releasing sensitive diplomatic reports?
Unless you have first hand knowledge I will have to read your statement with scepticism about the issue of handing over detainees. It is one thing to speculate, ruminate etc. etc as Colvin did and not have first hand knowledge. Its quite another to have actual evidence.
Once again you are calling the Military Commanders who spoke at the Committee liars. They said they heard rumours but had no first hand knowledge.
[updated Thu Feb 11 14:17:35 EST 2010]
11 Feb 14:17
hollinm
Of course you spin the reasons for prorogation as the issue.
However, regardless, the fact remains that it is the PM who decides the parliamentary calendar, not the opposition. Harper had his own reasons and while it was not explained well in my opinion the fact remains it is the right of the PM. If you don't like it then change the constitution. Good luck with that. However, you obviously approved of Chretien proroguing for 4 mos so he could cover up the adscam scandal.
By the way if as you outline were the reasons Harper prorogued then he should have shut down parliament completely. All these issues will come back if the opposition wants them to.
As I said in my comments. This is a temporary setback for the Conservatives and with Iffy putting his foot in his mouth it won't be long before the Conservatives are once again ahead in the polls.
[updated Mon Feb 08 13:45:41 EST 2010]
08 Feb 13:45
rsharp 2
ha. ha. hollinm. You've been out in the sun too long.
It's the Cons who are in power. The gaffes will come ffom them, not the Libs.
If you refuse to admit that Mr. Harper, the so-called brilliant strategist, the tactician, has made a monumental blunder, then I have some Fla. swampland for sale. I have a real deal, just for you.
[updated Tue Feb 09 15:51:16 EST 2010]
09 Feb 15:51
hollinm
rsharp2......
You need some of that sun. The winter weather is affecting how you think.
Remember Harper is the Prime Minister. Iffy wants to be PM and it is he who has to convince Canadians he is up to the job. Harper has his record of leading the country through a recession of monumental porportions. Iffy has not given any sense he understands economics. Like Dion he probably has his wife balance his own cheque book.
Everything is a blunder to a Liberal sycophant but ordinary Canadians vote on bread and butter issues that affect their lives.
[updated Tue Feb 09 17:15:11 EST 2010]
09 Feb 17:15
rsharp 2
Do you really have to bring personal matters about spouses into this? Is that the best you can do?
[updated Tue Feb 09 23:37:25 EST 2010]
09 Feb 23:37
hollinm
rsharp2......senstive Richard sensitive. Just a point because it was said about Dion when he was leader of the party. These professors have trouble handle the day to day issues that most of us take for granted.
[updated Wed Feb 10 07:38:20 EST 2010]
10 Feb 07:38
Blackacadian
Personal attacks about a politician's personal life? What does that have to do with a party's proposed policies? If there is some part of an economic plan you disagree with, you can try to point out it's flaws and start a debate, but you're starting to cross a line.
What political party succeded in balancing the federal budget after the last growth period of our national debt? Which political party was the last to grow our national debt? What is the current federal strategy to pay down our national debt without raising taxes?
To claim that Harper's plan is something to brag about is something that the opposition parties would surely be glad to hear. Until now, the conservative party's economic plan clearly ignored the pending new structural deficit that it created by carelessly cutting the GST after receiving a budget surplus from the liberal party.
If the conservatives had a majority, they would have eventually pushed for more deregulations in our banking sector in order to "grow" the canadian economy, just like the Bush plan. Fortunately for us, that didn't happen and Harper now gets to travel around the globe praising the virtues of our stable banking system and relatively low deficit. Progressives can see that his sudden conversion is as hollow as his new vigorous defence of women and children's rights in the third world. Free-market capitalism isn't free when the market crashes and the banks demand tax payers money.
[updated Wed Feb 10 08:49:31 EST 2010]
10 Feb 08:49
hollinm
Blackacadian.....crossing the line? If you don't like what I have to say there is no need to engage me.
How did the Liberal party balance the books. Lets see. Did not cancel the GST as promised. Did not repeal FTA which they promised. Significantly reduced the transfers to the provinces which virtually crippled the healthcare system in Canada. Decimated the military of the country thus forcing us to rely on the U.S. for protection. Stole the EI surplus of $50 billion dollars. How is that for starters.
Unprecedented economic growth because of Mulroney, GST and NAFTA.Thats what helped the Liberals cover the deficit.
Who is responsible for the national debt in this country. Why good old PET along with his then finance minister Jean Chretien. It was really karma when Chretien was left to clean up the mess he started.
Don't tell me Mulroney created the fiscal mess because that would be an outright lie. Mulroney governed during a recession with interest rates at 20%. Hardly ideal economic conditions like Chretien had.
There will be a plan to reduce the deficit but Liberals won't much like it. Becasue before taxes are raised some cherished Liberal programs which have proven ineffective will see the scrap bin.
You can blame the Conservatives for cutting the GST but the fact is it helped many working families including the working poor. The Libs hid surpluses so they could spend it on their pet projects. Canadians were overtaxed and were the highest taxed in the G7. Harper returned the money to Canadians.
Unless you are in the caucus/party you have no idea what Conservatives would have or have not done about the Banking sector.
Progressives? There's that word again. Only those that are progressive are enlightened and the rest of us are a much of plebs. Arrogant? You bet.
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:24:05 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:24
Blackacadian
The fact is that the liberals managed to balance the federal books while the conservatives are known to cut taxes and slash programs without being able to do the same. I agree that the liberals had to do hard and unpleasant cuts to public programs, but they took the hard decisions and managed to pay down of federal deficit. On the other hand, Harper was denying that we would even go into deficit spending during last election. How does slashing public services or cutting the GST instead of focusing on the income tax help the working poor? Why would you lower taxes if we're still in debt? How will we pay it back before our debt to GDP ratio blows out of any reasonable proportion? Now, with a confirmed added structural deficit, the conservative party has yet to produce a credible plan to balance the budget or pay down the debt. That's not being responsable with tax payers' money.
I never said that only progressives are enlighted, that's your quote. Even a third of conservatives realize that prorogation was a bad idea and many of those voters gladly participate in events with the CAPP facebook page.
[updated Thu Feb 11 10:42:01 EST 2010]
11 Feb 10:42
rsharp 2
I'm not much of thinker. I'd be down in Fla. like you if I was.
[updated Tue Feb 09 23:38:53 EST 2010]
09 Feb 23:38
4Logie
I agree with your comments and we will always have to deal with the left wing media.
[updated Mon Feb 08 09:48:58 EST 2010]
08 Feb 09:48
morpher (Suspended)
Why is it that when ever it goes bad for the Tories, its a left wing media. Harper is lying all over the place and the media reports the lies and that makes them left wing. Pathetic joke of a statement and desperate. I suppose to be balanced they should repeat his lies.
The corrupt CON's are getting caught in multiple cover ups and that is balanced journalism. Helping with a cover up would be dishonest. Like the PM
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:19:17 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:19
arbie
I question why you would think that the media is left wing. If they were truly left wing they would be lending support to the NDP. There is not one paper or broadcaster in this country expounds a left wing perspective. We need one. Oh, bring on the Guardian.
Arbie
[updated Mon Feb 08 12:39:48 EST 2010]
08 Feb 12:39
Stop equalization
bryd4111
Read the Red Star sometime!! It readily admits to a left wing bias.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:02:24 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:02
rsharp 2
Stop, I will honour you with a reply. Only because your attack on the "Red Star" is so outlandish and, quite frankly, borderline delusional.
The Toronto Star (and the Globe) are perhaps the only really independent newspapers left in this country. The Canwest and Sun newspaper chains gobbled up the rest.
These chains were were so avidly pro-Bush/war/Israel since 9/11 ANY impartial observer would agree that they were not serving the public interest.
So whose interests were they serving?
[updated Tue Feb 09 23:29:55 EST 2010]
09 Feb 23:29
JasonC
Its not proroguation that is causing Harper to sink, its the fact he has done it to avoid the inquiries into the truth. His avoidance of the truth is what is killing him and the only way he can recover is to allow the inquiries to continue unobstructed. If he doesn't he will continue to slide.
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:43:04 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:43
Stop equalization
I agree. Let's investigate what Paul Martin and Jean Chretien knew about terrorist torture between 2002 and 2006.
[updated Mon Feb 08 11:17:35 EST 2010]
08 Feb 11:17
hollinm
The Libs are playing with fire here but none of the media have focused on what happened form 2002-06. However, I suspect there is not much there since our troops were turning detainees over to the Americans. That's until Abu Graib prison scandal rocked the American military. However, the same conditions were in place when the Libs signed the new agreement with the Karzi government. I suspect it will be proven that the Libs knew that conditions were such that detainees would be tortured. So they will get caught up in this mess as well.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:05:53 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:05
rsharp 2
JasonC, I think a good chunk of Canadians no longer trust Mr. Harper and the Cons, and his prorogation gambit simply moved the number from many to most.
Maybe, instead of asking which leader would msake the best PM (which is like comparing apples and oranges, as Mr. Ignatieff has never been one of them), Nik should ask, which leader do you trust more?
[updated Mon Feb 08 11:47:51 EST 2010]
08 Feb 11:47
JasonC
Good point. I read this:
Nanos is an interesting pollster as they don't prompt the people they survey with party names. This tends to give lower results for the Greens. Whether this is more accurate or not is debatable, the likely truth being somewhere in between the pollsters that prompt and those that don't.
This contributes to very high totals for both the Conservatives and Liberals. Rather than being tired in the low-30s, Nanos has them tied in the mid-30s. At 35.6%, the Conservatives are not in crisis mode, as this was what got them into government in 2006. But at 33.9%, the Liberals are flying high, higher than they have since the heady days of August and September 2009.
What is probably most significant is that compared to Nanos's poll of mid-December, this marks a 3.9 point loss and 3.7 point gain for the Conservatives and Liberals, respectively.
Nanos confirms Tory troubles in British Columbia, as they are down 6.1 points to 37.1%. The Liberals are up 3.6 points to 31.9%, very good for them, and the NDP is at 24.7%.
As Nanos lumps Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba together for their polling, I can't use those numbers. Suffice to say, the Conservatives drop 10 points in the super-region, but are still well ahead.
[updated Mon Feb 08 12:53:56 EST 2010]
08 Feb 12:53
hollinm
You can analyize the polls until the cows come home. However, at 33% the Libs are not going to win even a minority let alone a majority. Go through the ridings and see which are swing ridings. I would suggest less than 20% of the ridings are swing ridings. With poor turnout, vote splitting and a more experienced Conservative campaign where is Iffy going to pick up 40+ seats to win a minority government.
This is what the internal polls are telling the Libs. Canadians don't much like Iffy and that's why the Throne Speech and the budget will pass. However, the fall is another matter all together.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:15:28 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:15
rsharp 2
hollinm, the Cons' sometimes vicious attacks on Mr. Ignatieff have indeed had their intended effect. But EKOS pollsters predict a Lib minority if an election was held to day. It's there for all to see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26385771/Full-EKOS-poll-report-Feb-4-2010
Then, there is the possibility of the opposition parties getting their act together electorally to prevent the Cons from sneaking up the outside (certainly not the middle). And the debates.
Mr. Ignatieff will cream Mr. Harper in the debates. You can count on that.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:41:32 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:41
Stop equalization
When debating Harper will eat Iggy alive. Iggy can't relate to ordinary Canadians and his academic bent will come out; an arrogance that will turn Joe the Plumber right off.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:56:12 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:56
rsharp 2
Hey Stop, my opinion vs. yours. I happen to think Mr. Ignatieff is smarter, less ideological (especially regarding failed neo-con ways), more civil, better spoken (e.g., on his feet) and more likely to gang up with other opposition leaders on the top gun.
The Libs aren't dumb. They know they have to appeal to plumbers beyond facts to emotions. Look at this required reading from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
[updated Mon Feb 08 15:29:22 EST 2010]
08 Feb 15:29
Stop equalization
Iggy comes across as condescending. He will need to work on that problem before any debates begin. As for ganging up, that was in play big time during the last election and evidently the viewers saw it as completely unfair and it helped Harper. Handlers will need to watch that.
[updated Mon Feb 08 16:46:07 EST 2010]
08 Feb 16:46
Mike
And like a professor Iggy will point to Harpers record, and allow the state of the country debate for him
[updated Mon Feb 08 18:58:48 EST 2010]
08 Feb 18:58
rsharp 2
I have it on good information that Mr. Ignatieff was maginificent at the Liberal conference in Windsor this w/e. Gave a great opening address, media invited, but only one showed up. No reports anywhere that I saw. Gosh, the media are biased in his favour, aren't they.
Plus he displayed humility and all-around intelligence. Questions? Bring them on. From all takers, just .like during his university tour. He can think on his feet and answer with reason and compassion.
Unlike Mr. Harper, who needs handlers by the dozen.
[updated Mon Feb 08 19:29:34 EST 2010]
08 Feb 19:29
Stop equalization
Academics make terrible politicians. Dion and Iggy and Rae.
[updated Mon Feb 08 20:36:01 EST 2010]
08 Feb 20:36
hollinm
Funny I have never seen Harper having people around him to tell him what to say. Once again you are inventing stuff.
Speaking in front of a friendly crowd is quite different than having to manage a campaign and all the issues that come quickly and often. Those pesky reporters tend to ask tough questions and if he hasn't been prepped properly he will develop foot and mouth disease pretty quickly.
Humility....good for him because he certainly needs to come down from his arrogant, officious personality that he displays to Canadians on a regular basis.
No coverage by the media eh? Probably because he had nothing to say of interest. Same old boilerplater Liberal bullshit.
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:40:21 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:40
rsharp 2
hollinm. Bullshit? I detect a slight bit of irritation.
Mr. Ignatieff is a natural in a crowd. He's a university prof for Pete's sake. He's can take it and give it. There is nothing "arrogant" or "officicious" about him.
Except in the eyes of his detractors. Who, maybe, just maybe, can't see that those same accusations might more appropriately be aimed at their own leader?
Who, among all PMs in recent history, is more arrogant and dismissive than Mr. Harper?
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:49:29 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:49
Stop equalization
"He's a university professor for Pete's sake" That is exactly the problem. He is patrician and condescending. Academics make terrible politicians. He will be Harper's best friend. Like Dion
[updated Mon Feb 08 23:19:43 EST 2010]
08 Feb 23:19
hollinm
rsharp2.......There is no irritation my friend.
I just know the reality of the situation while you are hoping beyond hope that the Libs are on the comeback front and so are grasping at anything you can.
The accusation of pompous, arrogant and officious are not just coming from Conservatives but also the Liberal friendly media and of course ordinary Canadians.
You are now spinning. Where in the public domain have you seen Harper arrogant? You are reading too many Liberal press releases and reading your friends in the Toronto Star is not good for one's outlook.
Trouble is the Libs cannot stand the fact that they have a formidable opponent in Stephen Harper and he has shown the Libs to be lacking in substance. Your guy demands changes to EI and yaks and yaks about how tough he is and walks out with a committee meeting. Some negotiator.
Oh and talking about arrogant. Last Sept. disastrous press conference when he said "Mr. Harper you're time is up".
[updated Tue Feb 09 11:29:49 EST 2010]
09 Feb 11:29
rsharp 2
Good day hollinm. I envy your (geographical) position. But, please, spare me the comparisons between Messrs. Harper and Ignatieff as to who is the most arrogant. That's a no-brainer.
To many, Mr. Harper is:
1. deceitful (promising no election, no recession in Canada, no deficit, no Senate appointments and on and on)
2. disdainful (of any opposition to his failed neo-con ways, you know, government is bad, except for the military, police and prisons, business is good, no matter their follies)
3. disproportionate, despicable, distorting, dastardly, dehumanizing, disrespectful...
k. I've run out of "d's". I'm having a bad day.
[updated Tue Feb 09 12:15:22 EST 2010]
09 Feb 12:15
hollinm
rsharp2 ......
You certainly are having a bad day and had to pull all of the Liberal press releases to make your point.
I could go through each of your points and counter them but frankly I need to have my afternoon nap.
Big government is bad. People have to take responsibility and not expect others to look after them. Your buddies put us in the war and Harper had no choice but to continue to support our military. Canadians want tougher crime laws. Only the bleeding hearts want to blame everybody else for their shortcomings.
[updated Tue Feb 09 14:31:09 EST 2010]
09 Feb 14:31
rsharp 2
Big government is bad, says hollinm. That's so old school.
We elect governments to look after us, especially the most disadvantaged.
Yet you support the military and the police. Don't you notice that you have written and bitten into everything I said?
[updated Tue Feb 09 23:09:33 EST 2010]
09 Feb 23:09
hollinm
rsharp2....unlike a Liberal I have some core beliefs and they are not malleable in order to simply get back into power.
I do not believe in big government and the nanny state. I want to keep as much of the money that I earn so that I can provide for myself and my family and spend it as I see fit versus a bureaucrat.
There is a role for government but it is not sticking its nose in every aspect of a persons life. Yes there are people who need help and the government has a role to play but when we are subsidizing losing businesses, providing funds for tulip festivals etc. that is way too much government.
I support the military because your Liberal government committed us to war without the proper equipment and uniforms. I don't like war. It doesn't solve much. Having said that once committed we have no choice but to support the men and women who are sacrificing their lives.
I know Liberals don't like the military but without a properly funded and equipped military we cannot do our part in world events and must rely on the Americans to protect us. We lose our sovereignty Richard and you should be embarassed talking against the military of the country.
I do support the police because they have a dangerous job and it is their job to protect us. Having said that the laws have to be such that the punishment fits the crime. Canadians are unhappy with the judicial system that they see worries more about the rights of criminals than victims. Repeat offenders have no business on the streets and need to be locked up until they can be rehabilitated if possible.
People are responsible for their own actions. You can't blame mom and dad and the environment they were raised in forever. It is a conscious decision to break the law and deserves punishment.
The bleeding hearts always want to blame somebody or something else but you can only build so many baskeball courts and outreach programs before individuals have to be held accountable.
No Richard I have not fallen or bitten into anything you have said. I am quite prepared to defend my positions.
However, continue to live with those rose coloured glasses and think that government has the answers to everything that ails the world.
[updated Wed Feb 10 07:58:43 EST 2010]
10 Feb 07:58
Blackacadian
I appreciate the fact that you tried to explain your personal political position, but you need to stop with the personal attacks. You need to understand that at both extremes of the political spectrum there are going to be some "crazies". In the left-wing you might call them bleeding hearts with rose coloured glasses and think that government has the answers to everything that ails the world and in the right-wing you might call them uncarring war hawks who think the government is evil and that all you need is to do is to pull yourself by your bootstraps in order to achieve success. Both only represent a minority from each end.
No reasonable canadians are against the troops and to say otherwise is simply insulting. The problem is the overall mission engaged by our military. Most progressives would rather see our troops return to our previous role as peacekeepers, instead our this new conservative party led offencive mission in Afghanistan. There has to be a limit to our disproportional commitment to that region, but that conversation isn't even happening.
When it comes to being tough on crime, the problem is that most conservatives don't want to take the time to understand the grave problems within their own proposed policy. Instead, most just want to blame progressives of loving criminals, which is again completely insulting.
You only need to see the result of mandatory minimum sentencing on the american prison population to realize the folly of that plan. Overcrowding within the California encarceral system is soo bad, that the state's budget can't even afford the bills from the added privitized prison industry. Is there any consideration of the recidivism rate following incarceration in order to see if the rehabilitation programs work properly before overfilling our canadian prisons? How will the federal government pay for the proposed massive increase in the prison population, especially during a recession?
Finally we all respect the police, but the increasing cases of mishandled reports of police brutality is starting to become alarming. The overall response to the uncontrolled use of the tazers is just one example.
The simple fact that you would rather pay less taxes doesn't mean that we have to blindly cut corners in order to save money. Continue to push your arguments, but not your insults.
[updated Wed Feb 10 10:32:28 EST 2010]
10 Feb 10:32
hollinm
Blackacadian......I agree with you that there are extremes on both ends of the political spectrum.
However, when I see the Libs promoting abortion for partisan gain and trying to once again promote a costly national daycare program I say they are acting more on the extreme of the left side of the political spectrum.
You can blame Harper for the war but you are barking up the wrong tree. Chretien committed us and Martin made it worse by moving the troops to the "killing fields of Kandahar" as Chretien put it in his autobiography. That move changed the nature of the mission. However, the anti war crowd want to perpetuate the myth that Harper changed the mission. Martin did and it is his responsibility.
Having committed our troops to Afghanistan in 2002 Harper had no choice but to continue the mission in 2006, Can you imagine what would have happened to our reputation as a country on the international scene if we just decided to pull out. Harper extended the mission with the support of parliament including Iffy.
I don't think you understand the nature of the world today. There is no peace to keep in Afghanistan. Its kill or be killed. So your idea of peace keeping is rooted in the 50s aand 60s. We are not fighting countries we are fighting terrorists.
Hypothetical question..if the opposition parties are successful ( I don't believe they will) in finding out someone in the government ordered detainees to be turned over and it is proven they knew they would have been tortured what then? Does it change the fact that detainees were tortured. It is not Harper who will be charged with war crimes. It is Canada. All this so the opposition can gain partisan advantage.
You can argue with me and many of our fellow citizens whether our criminal justice system is too lenient on criminals. Ask a victim of crime if he thinks our laws are tough enough. You will lose the argument.
On the subject of police misconduct. As long as we have humans acting as policemen we will have misconduct. The systems should be in place to route them out and get rid of them. That has nothing to do with tough laws and appropriate penalties. It is a proven fact that most criminals repeat their crimes once released. If they are in jail at least they cannot commit crimes.
You can get high and mighty and all insulted but I epressed my opinion and the fact you disagree does not change my view one iota.
[updated Wed Feb 10 12:59:27 EST 2010]
10 Feb 12:59
Blackacadian
hollinm said "Chretien committed us and Martin made it worse by moving the troops to the "killing fields of Kandahar" as Chretien put it in his autobiography". However, Harper decided to "double down" and increase and extend our commitment in Afghanistan at the expence of our needed presence in other parts of the world. No one is talking about a peacekeeping mission in Khandahar, but you have to realize that you can't shoot your way into a military victory. What happened to training the Afghan troops in order to defend their own country after all this time? On top of that, we all know that our commitment in that country ends next year and there is still no exit strategy. Are the conservatives considering to extend our presence in that region? Is there a limit to the amount of tax payer money that the conservatives are willing to spend for that military engagement? Those are simple questions that progressives feel are not being answered adequately.
To answer your hypothetical question. The sponsorship scandal was bad for the liberals, but it was good for canadian democracy. The fact that the conservative government denied any problems in detainee transfers despite receiving credible warnings signs does not change the fact that people were tortured, but it shows that Harper's government clearly dismissed the importance of that particular serious offence. Should canadians just stay silent without the need of a public enquiry to know the details? Should future PMs have the power to shut down public enquiries if it embarasses the government at the time?
Why would anyone ask a victim of crime if the criminal justice system if tough enough on criminals? They will obviously not give you an objective answer based on credible studies. If you really want to get tough on crime, you need to identify the problem areas first, then try to formulate appropriate policy in order to adress them from the prevention stage to rehabilitation while incarcerated to the re-integration into society. If you simply spend tax payers' money to stuff the prisons, you eventually make matters worse, just like in the US.
I agree that as long as we have humans acting as policemen we will have misconduct. The problem is that the system that should be in place to route them out and get rid of them is not working properly. Are we to consider the conservative party's patronage appointment in the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP?
From the G&M:
"As Mr. McPhail acknowledged, he's been active in Conservative politics since the 1970s. His support was recognized by the Ontario Conservative government of Mike Harris in the 1990s, which asked Mr. McPhail to head up a few different boards and commissions. Otherwise, most of his career has been spent as a lawyer specializing in wills and estates.
Mr. McPhail is replacing Paul Kennedy, who assumed the chairman's job in 2006 after a long and distinguished career as a civil servant in various justice and law-enforcement-related portfolios. But Mr. Kennedy did two things the federal Conservatives didn't much care for - deliver very public speeches that called on Ottawa to give his toothless agency the powers it needed to be a truly effective oversight agency, and, secondly, issue reports into RCMP conduct that did not cast our national police force in a positive light."
I really apreciate that you try to express your political opinions even if I don't agree with them, but insults are preferably not needed in the conversations.
[updated Wed Feb 10 23:41:41 EST 2010]
10 Feb 23:41
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
"Funny I have never seen Harper having people around him to tell him what to say."
That's because they're spread out too thin, telling everyone else, including cabinet ministers, what this Prime Minister expects them to say!
[updated Mon Feb 08 23:41:42 EST 2010]
08 Feb 23:41
hollinm
Ronald....he is the boss after all and it is expected his government represents what he wants.
Have you never worked in the private sector. People are told what to do and say by their bosses all the time. So what's your point again?
[updated Tue Feb 09 21:36:50 EST 2010]
09 Feb 21:36
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
My point is that this Prime Minister does not have enough confidence in his OWN ministers to let them think for themselves...the more competent among them must consider that an insult.
The only thing not coming out of the PMO is protocol for going to the can.
[updated Wed Feb 10 09:40:52 EST 2010]
10 Feb 09:40
hollinm
Ronald... I understood you point very well.
However, you were merely repeating what the media and the opposition parties have been saying since he was elected.
Unless you are on the inside of the party/government you have no idea what the PM expects of his ministers or anyone else working for him. Once again he is the boss and accountable. He knows the strengths and weaknesses of each cabinet minister etc.
I know he is a formidable opponent but give me a break. He personally oversees every word and every decision made by the government. Even he isn't that good.
I think you have been reading too many media reports who have perpetuated this angle since Harper was elected. He does not like the media for good reason and so the less he exposes his people and himself he the fewer misleading quotes and torqued headlines.
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:07:34 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:07
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
A good strategist always cultivates his sources in both his former and present party! Let's leave it at that.
And yes, I did indeed go overboard with the can comment but it was for dramatic effect.
[updated Wed Feb 10 14:12:16 EST 2010]
10 Feb 14:12
hollinm
Ronald.....are you on the inside of the Conservative party or a bureaucrat working in Ottawa. Just asking.
[updated Wed Feb 10 19:42:43 EST 2010]
10 Feb 19:42
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
Neither. I'm just an ordinary Joe who happens to know where to go and whom to speak with when I want to find out something I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-I-N-G!!!!!!!
[updated Thu Feb 11 14:58:13 EST 2010]
11 Feb 14:58
hollinm
Ronald...then it must be your friend in the Senate
[updated Thu Feb 11 16:36:21 EST 2010]
11 Feb 16:36
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
Not in a million years! My CPC senators are both so loyal he could quite literally put his life in their hands. Those two guys wouldn't leak even if their wives/partners begged them.
[updated Thu Feb 11 16:47:08 EST 2010]
11 Feb 16:47
hollinm
Ronald....good to hear.
[updated Thu Feb 11 21:40:36 EST 2010]
11 Feb 21:40
hollinm
Ronald.....are you on the inside of the Conservative party or a bureaucrat working in Ottawa. Just asking.
[updated Wed Feb 10 19:42:44 EST 2010]
10 Feb 19:42
rsharp 2
hollinm, of whom in the media is Mr. Harper afraid? Certainly not the Canwest and Sun chains of newspapers, which are rabidly right-wing. Not CTV. Not Macleans.
[updated Wed Feb 10 14:22:11 EST 2010]
10 Feb 14:22
hollinm
rsharp2.....if the media is supporting Harper they have a funny way of showing it. Did you see the torqued headlines and the outrageous columns by the media over prorogation. The only media outlet that is favourable to the Conservative Party is the National Post.
Have you read Andrew Coyne or watched him on CBC. I rest my case. Have you watched Tom Clark on Power Play?
Funny thing McGuinty announces he is going to prorogue and the media is virtually silent. Double standard? You bet.
[updated Wed Feb 10 19:46:19 EST 2010]
10 Feb 19:46
rsharp 2
Mr. Odowd, I think the big guy is going down for the (well-deserved) fall.
And there's nobody there to replace him. Unless you like pit bulls. Or poodles.
The Cons are on the ropes!
(k. I wish.)
[updated Wed Feb 10 00:14:37 EST 2010]
10 Feb 00:14
Stop equalization
Agreed. The state of the country is very solid and when it speaks for The Cons it will speak in a most complimentary fashion.
[updated Mon Feb 08 20:34:05 EST 2010]
08 Feb 20:34
Blackacadian
First, Joe the plummer is an American. Second, you have to realize that it's only based on your own personal opinion. Some canadians might agree with your dislike of Iggy's academic tone in front of the camera, but to others that shows that he understands a specific subject fully. On top of that, we haven't seen Iggy in a leader's debate yet. Finally, with regards to arrogance, I think that Harper's dismissal of canadians overall reaction to his second prorogation says it all.
[updated Tue Feb 09 03:23:34 EST 2010]
09 Feb 03:23
hollinm
rsharp2.....what vicious attacks would you be referring to. Repeating his own words can hardly be considered vicious. Other than he does flip flop from one issue to the next.
Ekos can do seat projections all it wants. Campaigns matter, voter turnout matters and of course vote splitting matters. Unless Ekos is clairvoyant which I highly doubt he is simply speculating. However, continue to feel free to believe in the tooth fairy.
Suggesting a coalition formal or otherwise will not be accepted by the Canadian people and any attempt to subvert the democratic process will be seen for what it is. The opposition parties found out what Canadians outside of Quebec thought of a coalition the last time. The coalition is going to come back to bite the Libs in the next election in spades. Do you think the Conservatives are not going to warn Canadians that another Conservative minority government will see the threat of a coalition being formed big time.
I am afraid I don't agree with your assessment of the debates. Iffy has foot in the mouth disease, has the political skills of a gnat and certainly has no idea about the country, other than what he has been told.
Harper is well experienced with a well experienced campaign team around him. He knows his files and he will embarass Iffy on the campaign trail by showing his lack of knowledge of the issues.
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:34:52 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:34
rsharp 2
hollinm, you lucky snowbird, at this point, please feel free to call me Richard.
I think it is generally recognized that the Cons' attack adds against Messrs. Dion and Iignatieff have been effective. In the case of the latter, the "Just Visiting," 'elitism' and "on vacation" are among the most offensive.
Mr. Harper is way more American than Mr. Ignatieff. And that is disticnctly bad.
[updated Mon Feb 08 22:24:55 EST 2010]
08 Feb 22:24
hollinm
rsharp2......The truth ads work only when the one being exposed continues to reinforce the fact through his actions.
Dropping into Canada after being 34 years absent from the country and maligning the country while he was away i.e. flag looks like a beer can, running for the leadership while putting his foot in his mouth everyday and then losing it to a fourth place candidate and then undermining the duly elected leader and having himself "appointed" leader are some reasons why the truth ads worked. It has nothing to do with being vicious. It has to do with exposing a carpetbagger who thinks he can come back to become PM thereby enhancing his resume. He has no interest in Canada. It is all about Michael Ignatieff and you know it in your heart of hearts.
Mark my words Richard. If Ignatieff loses the next election he will resign and run back to Harvard. Canadians are watching what happened in the United States when a person with no political experience is elected. Iffy is reinforcing that by suggesting daycare come hell or high water etc.
On a side point I can't tell you how many Americans have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama. He is heading to being a one term president if he doesn't change the disastrous course he is on.
Once again reading the Liberal press releases eh! Harper was born in Canada has lived in Canada and has worked for Canada all his life. On the other hand your guy had no interest in the country even during its most trying times and only came back when the backroom boys in the Liberal party convinced him they could make him PM. Just visiting! You bet.
[updated Tue Feb 09 11:43:52 EST 2010]
09 Feb 11:43
hollinm
rsharp2......one other point with the American reference. Do you really want to compare who is more Republican Harper or Iffy. Wait till some of his quotes supporting George Bush and his war in Iraq, comments on torture and war crimes and his other supportive Bush/Republican quotes start hitting the airwaves during an election.
We will see who is more American in the eyes of the Canadian people.
[updated Tue Feb 09 11:48:03 EST 2010]
09 Feb 11:48
rsharp 2
The difference is Mr. Igantieff has recanted his earlier support for Mr. Bush's wars, torture, etc.
Mr. Harper hasn't.
[updated Tue Feb 09 12:18:01 EST 2010]
09 Feb 12:18
hollinm
rsharp2......
He fits right into the Liberal party. A hypocit and when he gets caught he apologizes. Nobody believes him and you know it.
Wait till he stands in front of a television audience during a debate and Harper forces him to talk about it and why he believed it at one point and then disavowed it later.
Mr. Harper has never discussed torture and yes he thought we should join Bush in the Iraq war but he was not PM. Knowing what he knows now I suspect he would have declined. However, your guy is in a munch tougher spot trying to justify his heinous comments which are clearly outside the Canadian mainstream.
[updated Tue Feb 09 14:25:31 EST 2010]
09 Feb 14:25
rsharp 2
hollinm, I relish the thought of the debates. I think Mr. Ignatieff will eat Mr. Harper alive. The latter presents such a huge target, whether you're talking the economy (unemployment!!!), the environment, governance (democracy, obstruction, access to information, help for the most needy (poor kids, Aboriginals), his "war on crime" (and terror) nonsense and on and on.
Mr. Ignatieff is comfortable in a Q&A situation. He was a university prof.
Mr. Harper insists on knowing the questions in advance or he won't play. But he won't get them this time.
[updated Wed Feb 10 12:51:34 EST 2010]
10 Feb 12:51
hollinm
rsharp 2....We shall see. We shall see.
So you think lecturing a class room full of kids is the same as debating in a political setting with an experienced politician eh?
For every issue you raise there are points to be made. However, given the professorial Iffy it will take him 20 minutes to make a point while Harper will do it in 2 minutes.
You may be right but I doubt it.
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:45:38 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:45
rsharp 2
Ha. Ha. You might be right about Mr. Harper getting to the (talking) point quicker than the prof.
But Mr. Harper is so very, very known and predictable. He never changes his (neo-con/liberal) ideology, no matter the facts.
Still think he's a huge target. And I expect the Libs (and Dips, Seps and Hugs) are gearing up, right now.
[updated Wed Feb 10 13:52:58 EST 2010]
10 Feb 13:52
hollinm
rsharp2. Good for them. They better gear up because he will take them all apart during the debate.
Talk about ideology. What is it with daycare? Ideology? Tax and Spend? Ideology. Every politician has things they believe in and promote. Harper is one thing if nothing else.,...pragmatic. Thats why he has survived for 4 years in a minority. Not to mention that his opposition are weak and listless.
Of course he is a huge target. He is the PM and they all want his job. That's always the case.
[updated Wed Feb 10 19:56:06 EST 2010]
10 Feb 19:56
Stop equalization
Harper has the highest trust factor.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:03:13 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:03
hollinm
I would remind you that in previous leadership polls Iffy polled behind Layton with Harper's leadership numbers twice Iffy's.
The key issue in the next election will be the economy and jobs. Harper has done a decent job on both fronts. Iffy has not shown he has any acumen for the economy and in fact is supporting increased taxes for daycare and the environment.
Campaigns are a funny thing and what we may think is the issue today will not even be mentioned in a campaign.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:10:07 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:10
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
"Campaigns are a funny thing and what we may think is the issue today will not even be mentioned in a campaign."
When we get into an election, Liberal content will be further along than at present. That will be a factor in establishing the bona fides of the alternative government. Another important factor will be the public service who no doubt will do cartwheels (post-Colvin) to sink this government. Remember, you read it here first!
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:39:33 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:39
hollinm
Ronald.....Of course you put the truth to the Conservative complaints that the civil service is loaded with Liberals and will do anything they can to help their favourite party.
You better hope the conflab at the end of the month gives your guys some new ideas. Thus far abortion and daycare are not going to win the day.
Tell me how do you say that a national daycare program is your top priority and have no numbers to back it up and say to hell with the deficit. We will implement it. Canadians will look at Iffy as if he is from Mars.
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:47:39 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:47
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
Now that's quite an admission: that this government apparently will actually let us get to Montreal. No funny business on either the Throne Speech, the Budget or budget implementation. Interesting.
As for daycare, we are in the preliminary stages. Sure it will have to be costed and thoroughly justified. All in good time.
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:53:30 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:53
hollinm
Ronald.....I have no idea whether you guys will get to Montreal. I am just a bystander and observer.
However, I suspect given the focus on the economy it will be a straightforward throne speech and budget. Nothing too dramatic. That is where the criticism will come from. No real plan to attack the deficit.
The one thing about daycare and you know it if it is to be a universally accessible daycare system the costs will be horrific. In the order of $10-15 billion annually. The real fly in the ointment will be the provinces who will not agree and put themselves in a position where the feds could cut the fed portion of funding unilaterly like they did with healthcare.
Knowing the Liberal party it will be all smoke and mirrors trying to convince Canadians that they are getting something for nothing when really it is a shell. Like Martin did when he argued he had agreements with all the provinces. He did not and there was not a requirement in the signed agreements where the province in question agreed to create one new daycare space. I can send you the agreement if you like.
I am happy to say that the Conservatives will be there exposing the myths, lies and distortions that the Libs will use to try to convince Canadians what they have when in truth it will be a sham.
[updated Tue Feb 09 12:00:12 EST 2010]
09 Feb 12:00
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
Let me say up front that I have absolutely no expertise in these matters. One thing does strike me -- were I on the receiving end for a shared cost program (excluding Quebec which has it own $7 a day daycare program), I would make damned sure that the X-Y% split was carved in stone for a designated period before signing on the dotted line. Why that wasn't done in the past escapes me but again, this isn't my area.
[updated Tue Feb 09 14:33:19 EST 2010]
09 Feb 14:33
hollinm
Ronald....
The reason it wasn't carved in stone is because it was smoke and mirrors by the Libs and the provinces were not willing to commit. They simply wanted the money and would spend it as they see fit.
I am not an expert either but I get mighty tired of the Libs proposing the same thing for 15 years and expecting Canadians to buy into it.
Have the Libs not a fresh idea in their collective noggins. The problem is Harper is spread across the middle ground and so to get any traction they have to move to the left.
Canadians don't want the nanny state. They want the government to look after those who are truly in need but trying to establish a daycare system which will cover every under 6 child is a receipe for big government and wasted money.
[updated Tue Feb 09 17:22:36 EST 2010]
09 Feb 17:22
RonaldODowd
Hollinm,
I agree there is no groundswell for national daycare. But there comes a time when you have to bite the bullet. Now, if taxpayers revolt over the idea rather than remaining basically indifferent, Liberals will have to rethink it. Quite frankly, I have no real idea where most of the public is on this.
[updated Tue Feb 09 17:28:27 EST 2010]
09 Feb 17:28
hollinm
Ronald.....I don't have a real idea where the public stands on the issue at the present time. However, I suspect carrying a $56 billion deficit will temper any support.
I know there are many older people who vote and who had no help with daycare when their kids were growing up who will object to using their tax money to support parents today. You can say its selfish but thats the problem it is always the majority paying for the minority these days.
Daycare is provincial responsibility and if the citizens of a particular province like Quebec believe daycare is important then they should pay for it from their own tax base. We will then see how important providing daycare is within each province.
[updated Tue Feb 09 21:24:16 EST 2010]
09 Feb 21:24
Blackacadian
Progressives will just have to point out the number of new daycare spots opened in each province since the conservatives proposed a Choice in Child Care Allowance of $1,200 a year for each child under six. Canadians will just have to compare the two plans during next elections. Obviously, the conservative party would rather divert the attention on the opposition's proposed policies instead of focusing on theirs. That tactic worked too well when they used it with Dion's green shift plan, instead of focusing on their own "made in Canada plan". However, they seem to forget that there is no election in the near future and that it's their policies that should be put under the microscope since they're the ones in power. The problem for Harper is that more canadians are wising up to those types of american-style distractive political tricks.
[updated Tue Feb 09 04:05:00 EST 2010]
09 Feb 04:05
hollinm
Blackacadian....
You seem to forget that there were no childcare spaces created under the so called Liberal plan. The intent of the Conservatives was to have private companies create daycare spaces. The $100.00 per month was to assist ALL parents in raising their under school age children.
Canadians have had three opportunities to vote on a "national" daycare plan presented by Libs in their platform. They did not agree to support Libs. and their so called social engineering policy. So good luck again. When the price tag of $10 billion annually of a truly national daycare program is revealed we will see the reaction of Canadians. Of course like all things done by Libs it will be smoke and mirrors and only apply to a very small segment of the population.
There will be no election in the near future because the Libs are scared to death to force a vote. Their internal polling is telling them that Canadians do not like Iffy and his policies thus far are simply the old boilerplate policies of the past.
Progressive eh? Simply a euphemism for big government with big social policies that don't work. Canadians are not going to buy that crap whenever the next election comes.
[updated Tue Feb 09 10:51:40 EST 2010]
09 Feb 10:51
Blackacadian
I agree with you that the liberal party's childcare plan wasn't appealing enough to even win them a minority government, but should they stop trying to improve their policy? That's probably one of the reasons why the conservative party won with the electoral promise of being able to create more federally subsidized childcare spots through a partnership with private interprises.
What did Harper effectively propose to young single mothers who wants to go back to school in order to get a better job to feed their baby? Here's an additional 100$ a month and good luck.
Well, the results speak for themselves. Four years later, more canadians are starting to think that it would be nice to have a "so called social engineering policy service" who's able to accomodate mothers (or single fathers) who are willing to go back into the work force. The growing problem for the conservative party is that the opposition parties will have another chance to present their new childcare plan, while Harper will be stuck to defend the results of his position.
[updated Tue Feb 09 12:28:25 EST 2010]
09 Feb 12:28
hollinm
Blackacadian....
Do you honestly believe that the daycare plan will apply to single mothers? It is not going to be free. However, that wouldn't surprise me because Libs love to tax and spend.
Will the daycare plan provide for flex hours or will they be union 9-5 jobs? What happens to single mothers working part time at odd hours? Will daycare be available for rural equally as to urban regions? What happens when the unions demand higher wages and they decide to go on strike? What happens to those babies? How many babies will be accomodated in a daycare 20,50,60. Warehousing kids! Will the daycare advocates buy/build fancy buildings thus eating up the funding and creating fewer daycare spaces etc. etc. etc.
With a forecasted $56 billion deficit are taxpayers prepared to invest $10 billion a year for babysitting services or could those funds be used to help the wider population?
Unless the Lib plan can adequately address all of these issues it will be seen to be a sham.
In the last election daycare was hardly raised. It was all about the carbon tax and the redistribution of wealth from Alberta/Sask to Ontario and Quebec.
The daycare issue is an old issue and Harper will not have to explain anything. Of course Libs want to live in the past because they have no fresh ideas.
[updated Tue Feb 09 14:20:00 EST 2010]
09 Feb 14:20
Blackacadian
No policy is perfect, but after four years of the conservative childcare plan, we can clearly see that theirs is ineffective. Now, all of a sudden, the conservative party want to advocate for women and children's rights abroad without dealing with those same issues within Canada? The daycare issue might be relatively old, but Harper brought it back to the forefront and he will eventually have to be held accountable for his discrepancies.
With a forecasted $56 billion deficit are taxpayers prepared to keep subsidizing international oil companies who make record profits every year? More tax breaks for the rich? Are you also a beleiver in trickle down economics or deregulated free-market capitalism? You only need to look to the US to see the results of that particular political philosophy.
[updated Tue Feb 09 16:26:49 EST 2010]
09 Feb 16:26
hollinm
Blackacadian......
Do you honestly believe that maternal health and child poverty has everything to do with daycare or abortion? Would it be so that women in lesser developed countries had only to worry about daycare. You have a twisted sense of priorities and what the initiative is all about.
Harper is all about families and that is what he has tried to do since becoming PM. The $100.00 per month was not meant to pay for daycare but ask a family with 3 kids under the age of 6 if an extra $300.00 a month helps. You know the answer.
Advocate for women and children's rights here? Both the Liberals and Conservatives have worked to improve the lot of woman and children but I don't see the Libs advocating anythng other than free access to abortion these days or possible some form of daycare. When the Libs come out with a policy on women and children we can talk again about it. In the meantime there is not much more to be said.
No policy is perfect? Everything Liberal is perfect in your world. Harper is held to perfection by Liberal sycophants. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
However, you appear to agree that there are some serious issues that need to be addressed before there is a truly national daycare strategy in Canada.
However, I can tell you this. If Iffy and his gang of misfits starts talking about a new $10 billion childcare program or a wasteful environmental policy he will lose the next election and he will be back at Harvard.
[updated Tue Feb 09 16:51:56 EST 2010]
09 Feb 16:51
neveratory (suspended)
Mervin, your guys denied there was a recession a little over a year ago and then under extreme pressure to save their asses pushed through a structural deficit we will live with for a generation or more.
so lets not paint the town red just yet.
[updated Tue Feb 09 19:17:41 EST 2010]
09 Feb 19:17
hollinm
neveratory.....typically you misrepresent the facts and try to rewrite history.
Canada was not in recession nor was it anticipated to go into recession at the time Harper made the statement. However, he nor the rest of world knew what was in store for the world economy. The collapse of the housing market, the financial sector in the United States and subsequently the world economy caused the largest recession the world has seen. So you can put the Liberal spin lines away.
The G7 and 20 agreed that the world leaders would put forward spending in the order of 2% of GDP and Harper agreed to do it despite he reluctance. He knew and the world knew dramatic action would be required. Harper did his part.
There is no country operating in a surplus today and ours is said to be the smallest deficit per capita. However, don't let the facts get in the way of spewing Liberal dogma.
The opposition parties were prepared to spend at least $30 billion via the coalition but this number would have been a lot higher given all the parties were are on the left side of political spectrum and love spending.
Nobody that I have heard of has suggested what spending the government was doing that should not have been done. Its easy to sit in the cheap seats and grouse.
Do you think the recession and deficits would not have happened under a Liberal government? If so you are one naive individual.
[updated Tue Feb 09 21:17:13 EST 2010]
09 Feb 21:17
neveratory (suspended)
Mervin, that's an absolute crock even from your imaginative mind. The whole world knew we were headed for a serious meltdown. It was already underway in the US and Harpo was denying it would hit Canada until he got caught in his own lies.
[updated Tue Feb 09 21:34:55 EST 2010]
09 Feb 21:34
hollinm
neveratory.....I stand by my comments. That's what makes Canada great. We can agree to disagree. However, I am right and you are wrong:-)
[updated Tue Feb 09 21:53:53 EST 2010]
09 Feb 21:53
rsharp 2
Mr. Harper and the Cons lied all summer that there wouldn't be an election, and then steam-rollered the GG about a "dysfunctional" Parliament (committees investigating his many gaffes), and called one anyway. Despite his own election law.
He also lied that Canada was not going into a recession. He knew and, with (the ~liberal) Mr. Obama about to win the US election, he also knew this would be his last chance to win a majority for the foreseeable future.
[updated Wed Feb 10 12:43:22 EST 2010]
10 Feb 12:43
hollinm
Well then come March 3rd all things will be right with the world as you know it. Harper will be exposed for avoiding the truth etc. etc. etc. Right!!!!!!!
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:02:43 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:02
robinc
I suspect that back in the days when Chretien prorogued there wasn't the backlash we see over Harper's current escapade because the means just weren't available and it was the first time, oops, second (the first was Sir John A MacDonald who was forced to resign when parliament reconvened), that it had been abused.
Chretien used it as an escape hatch. It wasn't fair to Paul Martin, who suffered the consequences. Were Ignatieff to become PM and do it, there would be an uproar from all sides, I am sure.
I hope that Herpes' use of it, twice, so far a record, (I wouldn't use Herpes if you didn't use Iffy, both are tasteless) means that the abuse or prorogation is behind us forever.
I have a friend who shares his emails/begging letters from Mr Finley and I don't doubt that the latest is to spread the word that proroguation is a usual parliamentary procedure, it is, but it's abuse isn't!
Guest login/register (08 Feb 21:23)
[updated Mon Feb 08 21:35:52 EST 2010]
08 Feb 21:35
Bernie
I haven't seen anything definitive in the polls for quite a while. There's a small volatility that swings with every "event" that takes place. It responds to the spin that a particular party gives to political news item. One time it's one party, a few days later it's the other. usually it's not something that's very significant but the party makes it seem so to the unsophisticated voter. A few days later and it all dissipates until something comes up. There are no solid trends. The two leading parties each have a dedicated one third of the electorate. It's that small group that changes the poll results from time to time.
My own view is; when are Canadians going to wake up and realize that this government is going nowhere? I didn't think we would accept being stuck in neutral for so long. I guess most Canadians are so conservative as to accept mediocrity and are unwilling to try something new that would set us on a more progressive path.
[updated Mon Feb 08 09:37:41 EST 2010]
08 Feb 09:37
15 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
The undecided numbers of 21.9% is very noticeable, perhaps if this trend continues, where the Conservatives do not regain their previous position ahead of the Liberals and if the Liberals cannot take over the lead, this would be an indication that there is room for another federal political party such as the Central Party of Canada. Their web site is http://www.centralparty.ca. They indent to register federally and run candidates in the next federal election.
[updated Mon Feb 08 09:47:17 EST 2010]
08 Feb 09:47
15 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
4Logie
There are many ways to look at the numbers Nik like Conservatives are only 4.4% from majority.The prorogation dip was 100% due to the media.
[updated Mon Feb 08 09:51:47 EST 2010]
08 Feb 09:51
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
morpher (Suspended)
Harper the cover up king.
Dean Beeby
Ottawa — The Canadian Press
Published on Sunday, Feb. 07, 2010 8:20PM EST
Last updated on Sunday, Feb. 07, 2010 8:59PM EST
A federal cabinet minister's aide killed the release of a sensitive report requested under freedom-of-information in a case eerily similar to a notorious incident in the sponsorship scandal.
A bureaucrat had to make a mad dash to the department's mailroom last July to retrieve the report at the last minute under orders from a senior aide to then-Public Works minister Christian Paradis.
The order was issued by Sebastien Togneri, parliamentary affairs director to Mr. Paradis, in a terse email after he had been told the file was already on its way to The Canadian Press, which had requested it.
"Well unrelease it," Mr. Togneri said in a July 27 email to a senior official in the department's Access to Information section. "What's the point of asking for my opinion if you're just going to release it!"
The document was an annual report on Public Works' massive
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:29:33 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:29
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
morpher (Suspended)
Harper the cover up king now lets down the world with his dishonesty.
How Canada let the world down
AECL says isotope-producing reactor will be out of service until spring; medical officials call delay ‘a disaster,' fear even longer wait
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Monday, Feb. 08, 2010 7:44AM EST
Canada, relied upon as a leader in isotope production, is seen as having reneged on its responsibility to the medical world.
The isotope-producing NRU reactor at Chalk River, Ont. will stay shut down until the spring of 2010, at least – marking the third time Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has pushed back its estimated restart date since the aging reactor was taken offline in late May when a heavy water leak was discovered.
The news was met with frustration yesterday, and a growing sense among the international medical community that Canada has bungled its nuclear file.
[updated Mon Feb 08 10:31:04 EST 2010]
08 Feb 10:31
10 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
General Overreach
The real question is, with the Conservatives dropping and the Liberals rising, can the public accept Ignatieff as a Prime Minister?
I think the Liberals would have to do better in the leadership catagory, and that would mean a different leader.
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:11:23 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:11
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
BCVoiceofReason
The 22% undecided seems low when asking for a political party without a prompt list.
Out of the 22% how many are really undecided and how many have no clue what parties there are?
A 78% voter turn out would be outstanding.
Where do the people who answer Obama or Democrats go? If someone answers Obama does the interviewer offer Liberal or NDP as a clarifier? If the respondent answers Sarah Pallin or Bush does the talk go to CPC? or all these counted as undecided.... or thrown away from the sample?
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:28:03 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:28
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
brynhendricks
What is really interesting are all the comments on here that avoid the real issue and try to spin it away from the responsibility that lies with Harpers Conservatives and their proroguation mistake. I see comments on here deflecting to past Liberal proroguations (which for some reason failed to bring protests in the streets like Harper's did), I see comments insisting on pointing out the undecided numbers simply to show the Liberals are not gaining, I see comments which even spin the Conservative numbers into a positive, which are all clearly coming from Conservatives or Conservative-voters who want to avoid taking responsibility for what was clearly a huge mistake. Let's call a spade a spade here. Harper prorogued, Canadians are mad, Conservatives are paying the price for it, Harper shouldn't have done it. That's all there is to it. To the Conservatives on here cluttering up the comments sections with their partisan rhetoric I say: stop trying to justify that which you clearly know was wrong, take some responsibility for your party's actions by accepting the declining poll numbers, and lets move on already. The numbers don't lie - it was a wrong to prorogue!
[updated Mon Feb 08 14:35:01 EST 2010]
08 Feb 14:35
20 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Although the Conservative's overall programme of governance has met acceptance with the electorate generally, their legal tactics for staying in power have begun to rust. They have managed to bend the procedures and twist expected but unwritten traditions to a new level in the Westminster type of democracy that we supposedly enjoy. I do not know that the Liberals have come up with anything new and exciting but believe the great unwashed and uncommitted centre vote is shifting a bit. If Dion made sure Harper was elected, then, possibly, Harper is returning the favour and trying to elevate Ignatieff in the polls.
Unfortunately, the root of all these problems in governance style IS the too numerous (525++ bodies now)UNELECTED "intelligentsia" in the Office of the Prime Minister who devise "what is needed"---like castor oil----by the Canadian citizenry and use the ELECTED House of Commons as their "echo chamber" for their programmes / tactics. Unfortunate, also, is that the Liberals show no intention to limit the budget for the growing cancer of the Prime Minister's Office as they hope to be government some day, which they will be, and they do not wish to have their "hands tied" in this new governance style that Trudeau started and Harper has perfected.
What sheep we have elected to the House of Commons ! ! !
[updated Mon Feb 08 15:59:07 EST 2010]
08 Feb 15:59
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp 2
Some of the the unknowns:
1. Which opposition party will vote for the budget. It depends on deal-making going on right now.
2. Whether the Libs have peaked in their comeback since Mr. Harper's disastrous prorogation.
3. How the opposition parties will handle the Afghan detainee issue. The Cons are right now in a contempt of Parliament situation
4. hollinm is right, the economy is foremost. Unemployment is the biggest issue and the Cons are very vulnerable on point. They can't even tell us how many jobs were saved/created as a result of the stimulus package.
5. What Canadians think, right now, about whether there should be an election.
6. What gaffes the Cons commit between now and whenever the polls become clear.
7. The scheming taking place right now among the opposition parties.
In other words, who the hell knows?
[updated Mon Feb 08 16:03:57 EST 2010]
08 Feb 16:03
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Only Jack Knows For Sure.
Jack said at a press conference that he's feeling pretty good. Glad to hear it. Hopefully, his treatment will go fine, without any hitches.
That brings us to the big imponderable: will the NDP caucus aggressively challenge this government or will they prefer to stand down in the spring because of Jack's health?
This is one I can't call.
[updated Tue Feb 09 10:12:13 EST 2010]
09 Feb 10:12
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp 2
On moderation. I know Nik is sensitive to discrimination against religious types. I posted this a few minutes ago on CBC,ca/Politics:
buddhawest (rightly) complains about CBC.ca's inability to apply its own submission policies (11:35). Like refusing to post or remove comments that advocate hate and violence, personal attacks.... that sort if stuff.
Heck. Go to any CBC story on terrorist attacks. The anti-Muslim vitriol is sad, sad, sad. Countless posters say bomb them. Nuke them.
That's advocating murder against innocent civilians but CBC.ca lets them up/stay.
[updated Tue Feb 09 12:53:13 EST 2010]
09 Feb 12:53
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
JasonC
This video is doing the rounds for its utter disgrace. Harper is tanking for this very reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4D2qUbXuw&feature=player_embedded
It'll turn your stomach when you watch the bold faced lies.
[updated Tue Feb 09 20:59:31 EST 2010]
09 Feb 20:59
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Just Think Of The Game Show!
Next time bureaucrats get into a little spot of trouble regarding Access to Information requests thanks to pesky ministerial exempt staff, just take a pill and think of Reach For The Top.
Quite obviously that habit is rather prevelant in some circles. Personally, I like the way Chris Selley summed it up in the "Big Blue Bible":
"The government has made vaguely reassuring noises. "Due diligence [on Access to Information requests] is and should be done by public servants and not political staff," Dimitri Soudas, Mr. Harper's spokesman, told The Canadian Press. "The process ... should be followed and respected by all ... It applies to everybody across government (including) political offices." Sadly, there's little reason to believe he means it. Asked whether ministers had been explicitly told not to meddle, or if the staff involved would face sanctions, he replied: "I don't comment on internal matters."
------------------------
Perhaps in a month of Sundays...
[updated Wed Feb 10 14:29:30 EST 2010]
10 Feb 14:29
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Zachary Smith
It would appear that the numbers are not very good from Ekos and Nanos, judging from the absense of comments by the left on the actual poll numbers and the direction that they are indicating.
The most recent poll (Ekos) shows that the Liberals have dropped in just one week from 31.9% to 29.0% that is a drop of almost 3.0% in this weeks poll and it is interesting that the Liberals ended the week at just 27.3% on Feb 9th and the Nanos poll has the Conservatives with a 2.0% lead.
It does now have the appearance that as Canadians become better informed on the issue, they are now dismissing the Liberal and media talking points and are concentrating on the truth and that is starting to be reflected as shown in the two most recent polls, Ekos and Nanos were the Conservatives are now leading the Liberals again.
And it would seem that the more that Ignatieff is out there talking, the lower the Liberal numbers go and that Canadians are requesting that the Liberals provide alternatives and public policy and they have nothing to talk about.
[updated Thu Feb 11 09:43:24 EST 2010]
11 Feb 09:43
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp 2
Environomics today gives the Libs a 4 point lead. A 15 point swing in less than 2 months. Wow!
[updated Fri Feb 12 19:45:54 EST 2010]
12 Feb 19:45
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.