Nanos National Poll - Canadians embrace Olympic peace

This is a non-issue to me. Of course, all nations should declare peace, for all time, Not just during the Olympics, but even that short period of time is better than nothing. If it were for one hour I'd say yes to that question.
And to the second question I say yes again. I can't conceive of any negative impact that would outweigh the benefits of any period of peace.

What I don't understand is why there wasn't 100% yes for both questions.

[updated Thu Feb 11 07:42:04 -0500 2010]

New Ekos poll shows slight gain for Tories (31% to 29% with 1.8% margin of error), but all CPC gains are in Alberta, Sask and Manitoba.

Given all that, however, Mr. Graves still says the new political landscape is one that sees the two major parties running almost neck-in-neck.

And he has found some underlying troubles for the Conservatives – only 9.3 per cent of respondents picked the Tories as their second choice compared to 16.6 per cent for the Liberals.

“This means that from their newly humble 31 point position that even in the unlikely case that they could collect 100 per cent of their current second choice vote, they would still fall short of a majority,” Mr. Graves says.

However, he says the Liberals could “theoretically produce a large majority” if their first and second choice votes were combined. And he notes that theory could be put into practice if half of the respondents get their way on election timing.

[updated Thu Feb 11 09:27:47 -0500 2010]

I don't know how anybody could disagree with peace breaking out during the Olympics. Here's a better idea. Let peace break out permanently around the world.

Not very realistic but it sure would make the world a better place to live in.

[updated Thu Feb 11 09:39:17 -0500 2010]

I would take this one step further and have us settle political disputes on the athletic field.
The athletes would get alot more funding that way and fewer people would get hurt!
But then I suppose that's abit unrealistic.

[updated Thu Feb 11 14:21:32 -0500 2010]

Who Is The New Bridesmaid?

We are living in "the moment" which will be crucial to determining who the next bridesmaid will be in federal politics. Until recently, that "honour" was securely vested in the Liberals which the Conservative blustering bride never failed to point out at every possible opportunity...

We are in the transition period -- the polling permafrost stage which as we have seen is good for no one on the federal scene. There is no breakout on the horizon, only a virtually endless seesaw of neck and neck polling. One party takes the lead and then quickly relinquishes it to the other. And so the pattern goes.

What does that suggest about Canadians' mindset regarding the parties? How is that indicative of a lack of confidence in any of the political alternatives? Makes one think, doesn't it.

In short, we won't see a meaningful breakout until the public sees something in one of the parties that it can clearly identify with. Our efforts, across party lines, do not seem to be resonating with the public, much less hitting a home run.

Find the magic elixir, the political formula to win, and watch someone make history. Until then, please don't take any measure of comfort in being everyone's second choice. God knows, in the good old days, we Progressive Conservatives practically wrote the book on that. And look where we ended up, in the ash heap of history...

[updated Thu Feb 11 21:47:59 -0500 2010]

What are the wedge issues that the Conservatives will be able to use in the coming election, whenever it occurs?

1) Crime, law and order - with the Conservatives controlling the Senate the Liberals will no longer be able to say we support it, pass it in the house and then have their unelected Senators change and block the legislation.

The Liberals will be forced to take a public stand and Canadians will soon see where their true public policy is.

PS all those unelected Senators, that Harper placed in the red chamber were replacing mostly all unelected Liberals who were appointed by liberals, so what was going to be your point.

2) Senate reform, again with control of the red Chamber, the Conservatives will be able to address the many issues that the Liberals have blocked for decades now and introduce meaningful change and if you have not been reading the polls.

I would direct you to Harris Decima who recently reported the following headline that. "Canadians Prefer Senate Reform or Even Abolishment to Status Quo"

A) A majority of Canadians would like to Senators elected by the voters from
the province they represent. 59% of respondents were of this view,

As an fyi this is the Conservative Public Policy.

B) " Support for the status quo, where Senators are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, is highest in Atlantic Canada and among Liberals."

As an fyi, this is a Liberal Public Policy

Once again, this puts the Liberals, the Toronto Star, CBC, CTV and Globe and mail on the wrong side of the issue once again with Canadians and this is surprising only because of the Liberal push currently under way and - they collectively cannot sell the Liberal position to Canadians.

3) Raising taxes and new spending programs, well for this one all you have to is go to the recent Ekos poll to see that the Liberals, the Toronto Star, CBC, CTV and Globe and mail are all on the wrong side of the issue once again with Canadians.

A) EKOS Research asked Canadians to tell them how they would do it. What is their preferred approach to deficit reduction? Forty-six per cent of respondents said they would cut services and spending.

B) And 56 per cent of those who identified themselves as Conservatives supported cuts, compared to 38 per cent who say they are Liberals, 36 per cent NDP, 42 per cent Green and a huge 56 per cent of the Bloc Quebecois.

C) Only 14 per cent said they would raise taxes; 10 per cent of respondents said continue to run deficits and 30 per cent said they didn’t know.

Game on Ladies and gentlemen.

[updated Fri Feb 12 13:39:27 -0500 2010]

Here is yet another piece from the Globe and Mail penned by Norman Spector on a book written by NDP Brian Topp, for those who do not know it is an insider's look at how the Coalition came about from one of the main architects Topp and it really should be a must read for any Liberal, NDP and Bloc supporter out there planning the next coup in particular points number 3, 4 and 5.

I however must say that it does come at a bad time for the Liberals, NDP and Bloc as they try to manoeuvre a new coalition on Canadians as the book dispels a number of convient media, Liberal, Bloc and NDP truths and puts them to rest and I believe that as more Canadians become aware of the truth regarding that period of time and please try and remember Topp was the one putting together the deal and these are his views of that time.

Now I did pick this one out, as it does tend to prove a point that I have held for some time and that others on this board have dismissed when it was posted by others.

What numbers 1 and 2 mean, is that Layton and Duceppe lied about that letter and that the media and others have been using this lie as a means to justify the coalition.

I just wonder how much play this will get in the media and how Canadians will feel when they find out that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were lying.

1) "We learn, for example, that Stephen Harper had not discussed formation of a coalition government with the opposition parties in 2004, as many claim;"

2) "their letter to the Governor-General was about “sending the minority Liberal government [of Paul Martin] a message that it was going to have to govern in consultation with the Opposition parties.”

3) Still, various coalition spokespersons, together with their allies in the media and academe, argued that the Governor-General would have little or no choice but to transfer power to them without an election;

4) the record shows, however, that Mr. Topp and his negotiating counterparts knew that not to be true. Frankly, I don’t know how much of what we were hearing back then — and still are — was spin, and how much flowed from an inadequate understanding of how our constitutional democracy works

5) For, in reality, it was virtually inconceivable that Michaëlle Jean would hand power to a coalition headed by Stéphane Dion — a man who had just been soundly thrashed by voters — even if the secessionist Bloc Québécois had not been in the picture.

[updated Fri Feb 12 14:11:33 -0500 2010]

No wonder harper is starting the fearmonger campaign.

New Environics Poll: 4-pt Liberal Lead

This result is quite different from the other polls we've seen.
At 37%, this is the highest result we've seen for the Liberals for a very long time. The 33% Conservative result, however, is not out of the ordinary. The 13% for the NDP is a little low.

Regionally, the Liberals have a big 44% result in Ontario, though the Conservatives aren't doing horribly at 35%.

In Quebec, the Liberals are at 35% - huge - while the Bloc is at 36%. The Conservatives are struggling, as is the NDP.

The BC numbers align with what we've been seeing, with 33% for the Tories and 28% for the Liberals. At 18%, the Greens are riding high.

This poll would give the following seat totals:

Liberals - 130
Conservatives - 112
Bloc Quebecois - 48
New Democrats - 17
Greens - 1

[updated Fri Feb 12 14:49:54 -0500 2010]

Here's a comment from the ReformaTory muppet Stephen Taylor who is about as democratic as his bosses in the PMO:

Where do the Conservatives get off labeling the CEO of TD bank an “Ignatieff economic czar”?

A review of Elections Canada financial contributions indicate that Edmund Clark gave $2000 to Ignatieff and $2000 to Rae during their runs for Liberal leadership in 2006. Clark has also given $10,857.56 to the Liberal Party (and no others) since 2005.

This is the first time Clark seems to have popped up in a political skirmish as reported by the mainstream press, so we’re still putting together the pieces of his partisan background. It is understandable why this may not have been originally reported.

However, Michael Ignatieff knows better, doesn’t he?

Further, for names such as Amir Attaran and Errol Mendes which have been heavily bandied about as non-partisan experts for too long, let’s start providing some broader context shall we?
...................................................

Maybe he should detail all the legislation that we have to put up with because Harper always concedes some part of most new laws to his church basement supporters and red necks in the west. he wouldn't do that as his mentor Presto would be appalled

[updated Fri Feb 12 15:10:52 -0500 2010]

More tory sleaze:

"Fundamentally the National Council has decided that the current board should have no access or input to our membership despite this board being duly elected by these same members," the board wrote.

"While indicating in the letter that National Council would work cooperatively with this board, since the letter was received, you have not responded to any subsequent communication from our President."

The directors signed off with guns blazing. Given that "an elected Board with a democratically supported mandate is not possible under the limitations imposed, the undersigned members respectfully resign from the Board effective immediately."

Ouch. The party grassroots has spoken in Calgary West. Long-time local Conservatives are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore from Rob Anders' national guardians.

How strange. Only in this Conservative party could getting rid of so many diehard members save the party's low-calibre candidate from a potential pink slip.

dmartin@nationalpost.com

Close

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2552819#ixzz0fNI8Cf9P

[updated Fri Feb 12 23:13:47 -0500 2010]

This topic is rather like asking "Who IS in favour of motherhood?" or "Who IS NOT in favour of motherhood?"

On the topic of the Olympics, was it not in 1980 that Canada boycotted the Moscow Olympics on the reason that it was inappropriate to participate as Russia was fighting and occupying Afghanistan. Who is there now shedding blood, throwing in billions of dollars and co-operating with a corrupt regime and more corrupt, drug dealing warlords ?????? Is there something here about double standards and selective memory ? ? ?

Montreal had a fantastic 1976 summer Olympic event that everybody supposedly got all whipped up into a froth about----it was truely an honour to host such an event and the legacy would be something to tell your grandchildren about. Of course, the greatest legacy was the debt that took 25 years to pay off-----and the Olympic Stadium---who can tell us what happened there? I believe the Feds, understandably, had to throw in a little bail-out money and allow a Canada Lottery for Montreal. British Columbia will have a similar legacy but at the moment, the books are being cooked with the greatest ingenuity that politicians somehow excell at doing ! ! ! Hey, Canada, we will need a little more of that Fed cash, too.

There is another Olympic question that parallels the "blacktop politics" that Nova Scotia was so famous for, as I understand it. Some may ask why the Olympics were so focused on the Greater Vancouver area to the exclusion of the guaranteed "snowy" areas of the province but I would never ask such a political question nor ask about contingency plans etc nor even ask about provincial government priorities to begin with ! ! ! Ho Ho. In BC we must be very proud that we have the highest child poverty incidences per capita in Canada and if this were an Olympic event, we would surely get the "Gold" for being the highest ------wouldn't we ??????

[updated Fri Feb 12 23:54:49 -0500 2010]

Prediction Time: Another Harper U-Turn Is Coming.

Because I'm one hell of a nice guy, I thought I would let you all in on what I'm expecting from this Conservative government in the fall -- that is, unless divine providence intervenes and provides us with a much needed election!

First the bug: you have to give Stephen Harper credit for continually trying to reinvent himself since he came into office in 2006. We've seen the sweater, the vest, the concert performer, the TV comedian and grant you, some of it wasn't half bad. But in the end, nothing they came up with seemed to do the trick.

You all know what the perception is: a man who crunches his opponents as aggressively as he does the numbers! A Prime Minister who can master policy at the drop of a stetson but who somehow can't quite get his government in tune with the desires of most Canadians. About the only thing the opposition hasn't done yet is ask him to change his middle name from Joseph to Controlling...

This show has entered its fifth year on the road and it still remains in search of majority mountain. Frankly, I don't quite understand why they even bother to keep looking but hey, whatever floats their boat. It's relatively common knowledge that some in the Harper government are looking favourably at the idea of not renewing the Governor General when her term expires in the fall. Another bonehead play in the making -- if it transpires.

Seriously, what would such a decision say about this government. Do the words negative reinforcement not mean anything to these people? Have they lost all their dictionaries and become incapable to looking up the words petty and mean-spirited?

Are they dumb enough to drive the final nail into their coffin themselves? I don't think so. Like many Canadians, I watched the Olympics' opening ceremonies last night. Jacques Rogge looked almost comatose next to the effervescent Michaëlle Jean. As usual, she did us proud. That woman throws her heart and soul into that job every day of the year.

Which brings us back to the PM. Is this government really willing to volunteer as a test subject for the law of ever diminishing returns? Time will tell. But mark my words. Any attempt at putting a blue bum in the vice-regal chair may not turn out exactly as planned.

Remember, hope springs eternal and is perhaps best exemplified in the bedroom when one partner turns to the other and says: "Was it good for you?" Sometimes, one comes to regret asking that question -- especially if it's meant for everyday Canadians.

[updated Sat Feb 13 09:18:25 -0500 2010]

Why Is The NDP Dropping?

You have to wonder whether a sea-change is in the offing when a party's numbers (Environics) start to head south in the troubling direction of 13%...remember, this is the party of late who has done more than anyone else to prop up the Harper government. Never thought that was in their long term interest, but I digress. It must have left most of their caucus perennially constipated but there you have it. (At least Comartin and Nash were on the right track from the get-go. They should have been listened to...)

Fast forward to the votes on the Throne Speech and the Budget. The conventional wisdom is that with Jack receiving cancer treatment that the NDP won't be up for a fight against this government regardless of what the budget contains. I'm not so sure.

With their numbers in basement territory, something will have to be done, sooner rather than later, to bounce back. With the Bloc already solidly on board (catering to Quebec in the budget is verboten as we speak) to send the Harper government into the history pages, it will take two more to tango.

Theoretically, if there's a will, there's a way. But the odds look rather long at the moment. Barring some unforeseen parliamentary accident, the political stalemate could likely continue for some time to come.

[updated Sat Feb 13 21:29:29 -0500 2010]

Tomorrow Is Valentine's Day.

It would be nice if cyber attacks at least took a holiday on the Day Of Love. That's my trouble...always an idealist! But I can dream, can't I?

[updated Sat Feb 13 22:47:42 -0500 2010]

Cyber Attacks.

I want to make this point crystal clear, to quote Nixon:

I'm against aggressive, over-the-top verbal assaults and have argued in the past that that is not the way to go during board debates.

When I spoke about assholes, I was quite deliberately talking about those people who choose to attack our internet connections and e-mail services as a means to put us, and our right to comment on this board OUT OF BUSINESS.

Hope the above clears up any confusion. Again, to everyone, keep commenting. Don't let the slime win!

[updated Sun Feb 14 10:08:09 -0500 2010]

Just picking up on the theme of Liberals saying one thing and doing another and not having the media pick up on it and report the misdirection being brought forward by the Liberals.

This one in fact predates the other two recent disgressions by the Liberals and does speak to how Liberals are fond of saying one thing before the cameras and doing something total different when the doors are closed and the Camera`s are off.

Once again penned from Spector, Tuesday, February 9, 2010 9:36 AM EST

Headline; Charest’s been blowing smoke on tailpipe emissions.

1) Remember that tiff last week between Jean Charest and Jim Prentice, after the federal environment minister dared to criticize Quebec for going it alone on tailpipe emission standards?

2) In today’s Journal de Quebec — under the headline “Quebec is giving preferential treatment to obtain SUV’s,” Michel Hébert reports:

3) “Since January 14, Quebec has been applying tail pipe emission standards in regard to SUV’s that are tougher than California’s.

4) A few days after the regulations came into effect, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen and Nissan met with officials of the environment ministry and further meetings are planned.

5) In a letter sent to the ministry, the manufacturers say they are “delighted with your offer to review ways” of quickly adjusting the major elements of Quebec’s regulations that differ from “those of California.”

6) Without knowing it, some 2010 models were not available in Quebec but were sold in Ontario. So, after GM refused to sell large 4 WD vehicles to Hydro Quebec because of the Quebec standards, a quiet agreement was made to exempt the Yukon, Escalade and Savana models from the regulations.

7) Quebec intended to align its regulations with California’s, but the Schwarzenegger administration accepted the more flexible regulations that apply across the United States.”

[updated Sun Feb 14 18:54:18 -0500 2010]

Just picking up on the theme of Liberals saying one thing and doing another and not having the media pick up on it and report the misdirection being brought forward by the Liberals.

This once again predates the other three recent digressions by the Liberals and does speak once again that the Liberals are fond of saying one thing before the cameras and doing something total different when the doors are closed and the Camera's are off and how the media does assist this.

Once again from the pen of Spector, Wednesday, February 3, 2010 2:37 PM

1) For years, the opposition parties and Mr. Charest have been making something nearing an existential crisis of Canada not meeting its Kyoto targets.

2) So let’s not overlook an announcement on Monday that you won’t find reported in English today, has yet to be reported by Le Devoir and is buried in La Presse:

“Without any fanfare, the Charest government announced late Monday that Québec’s carbon emissions increased by 3.7% from 2006 to 2007 — meaning that emissions are now 5.6% higher than in 1990. …

André Bélisle, president of the Québec association against climate change, says that it’s now clear Quebec will not meet the Kyoto target — a 6% reduction compared to 1990 levels — which was to have been met in 2008 and maintained at that level every year until 2012.”

3)You’ll have to stay tuned another couple of years, then, to gauge the full quantum of Quebec’s hypocrisy.

[updated Sun Feb 14 19:01:29 -0500 2010]

Hollinm,

My dad directed me to this piece and as it relates to a debate that you were having with one of the liberals, I thought I would forward it to you and it from what I have been able to pick up - if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc push the issue it may not turn out as well as they hope and when / if the SCoC rules in favor of the Conservatives, that would be a nice piece of fact to hammer the coalition with.

Once again from the pen of Spector - Friday, December 11, 2009 4:10 PM EST

1) However, before they (Liberals, NDP Bloc) insist that the Canada Evidence Act and the Privacy Act do not apply to them, they would be wise to heed a warning in today’s Globe:

2) “Ned Franks, a constitutional expert and professor emeritus at Queen's University, warned that Parliament might lose out if the dispute ever reaches the courts because judges could rule that MPs have to respect secrecy laws.

3) He said he'd like to see ‘one side or the other back down’ instead of the Tories being forced into a corner.

4) ‘My guess is the government will say no and then you get into something that the House of Commons has really tried to avoid for many, many years – that somebody might want to refer this to the courts,’ Prof. Franks said.

5) ‘And then courts would be ruling on parliamentary privilege.’”

[updated Sun Feb 14 19:22:50 -0500 2010]