No Post Budget Bounce for Tories (Nanos Poll Completed March 12th 2010)

it would appear the Libs need to go after middle of the road NDP voters in order to grow their vote into majority territory. They have mantained their lead in Ontario and continue to grow in Quebec where the thinkers conference will be held. the Libs need to get the NDP back to around 10% something that is quite possible to do if they focus on it

Its very obvious the Tory government is clearly out of ideas and with some scandals brewing it will be a very uncomfortable spring and and an extremely hot summer for them.

The Lib strategy of not forcing an election immediately is now paying dividends as we watch the tories start to self destruct something that is very evident in minority governments trapped into doing what the opposition wants and not getting their own agenda out. Harper is no Pearson and has no Trudeau type successor to keep the flame alive. A morally and ethically bankrupt party is what we now have managing our Country.

The attack ads will be coming hot and heavy this spring.

[updated Tue Mar 16 04:28:01 -0400 2010]

Thats a pretty big house effect you have on the green party. I've been averaging Canadian polls (shameless plug: follow cdnpoll on twitter) and the other pollsters have the greens at 9-13%.

[updated Tue Mar 16 08:14:18 -0400 2010]

If someone tried to create a methodology which would produce this type of result, the method used here is that methodology. When I go to the Simon Fraser University site, I notice that there are no results by province - the undecided in this poll are astronomical. Who funded this poll? That would probably be a hint about bias here.

In most of the other recent polls, the Conservatives are beginning to rise and the Liberals are stuck at around 30 %. No margin of error is cited either.

The poll is about comitted voters only. As such, it may mean that both major parties tend to have the same number of diehard supporters. The big question in any poll is to find out where the undecided voters will go. When 160 out of 800 called had no preference, this poll has little value except to bolster the ranks of the ABC's. (anybody but the conservatives)

[updated Tue Mar 16 12:34:17 -0400 2010]

Ronald,

Headline CBC Headline; Now that Parliament's back, Michael, let's hit the road!

March 16, 2010 11:30 AM; By Andrew Davidson

And

Headline CBC; Ignatieff defends cross-country tour
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | 9:41 AM ET

...............

I still find this strange as I once again find myself referencing the CBC on the behaviour of Ignatieff and the Liberals, and I find myself asking that after all the noise that the Liberals made about prorogation and the impact on our democracy, the first thing they do, is not to vote - strange to say the least.

Now if Ignatieff is going to make a big deal about the "supremacy" of Parliament, one would think that it would be in the interest of Canadians to see him in the house and for him to attend Parliament once it is back in session???

Or was this a Liberal theme for January and February and was just an opportunistic partistan spin to make a well used Constitutional mechanism, prorogation, seem dictatorial?

The second thing that the Liberals and their leader do, well he is off on a four-week road trip, even though Parliament is now in session. So much for saving a democracy that he says is in danger because of the Conservative, when he cannot even go to the house that he wishes to lead.

"Don't you worry. We're minding the fort back in Ottawa," Ignatieff told reporters Monday.

Oh, we're not worried, sir, and neither are the Conservatives.

And judging by yesterday's question period -- the first QP of the first full week of the 40th parliamentary session, and the first opposition day, just so we're clear -- neither is Bob Rae.

(*Brutal.)

[updated Wed Mar 17 14:01:22 -0400 2010]

Ronald,

The Liberal party seems to be hell bent on shooting them selves in the foot, if not in the head as they continually paint themselves into one corner or the other with their talking points.

I like number three as the Conservatives can tie it to number one and then watch the Liberals argue against themselves as to what should be their talking points as they would have to argue against themselves that they are for cutting the 10% for the Conservatives but wish to keep the money for their 10% and the subsidy that the tax payer gives them.

Moreover, what happened the detainee issue and the gong show that they were running? with their questions about Jaffer and his wife - I wonder if it the reason why they stopped will show up in tomorrows polls.

1) " Later this afternoon, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, said that the “Conservative caucus supports eliminating out-of-riding 10-per-centers so long as this restriction applies to all parties.

2) However, we do not have a majority on the Board of Internal Economy, and will need the support of the other parties to achieve their elimination.”

3) And the Tories have put up another challenge. “In addition to eliminating out-of-riding 10-per-centers, we renew our call on the Liberals and their coalition partners to save taxpayers approximately $25.5-million annually by ending the subsidy to political parties.”

4) “That would demonstrate a real commitment by opposition parties to saving money, instead of yesterday's political posturing,” Mr. Soudas said.

[updated Wed Mar 17 19:53:30 -0400 2010]

Thanks Allan!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I happen to really be that full of myself and presumptuous to reprise my list of future federal party leaders. In light of Allan Gregg agreeing with one of my choices on tonight's At Issue Panel on CBC -- why the hell not run through them again:

Conservative Party - Monte Solberg;

Liberal Party - Dalton McGuinty;

New Democratic Party - Paul Dewar;

Bloc Québécois - Pierre Paquette.

How Am I Doing???

[updated Wed Mar 17 23:01:39 -0400 2010]

Hey Zachary,

I'm rather disappointed. I was sure you would want to weigh in on the next leader for each of the federal parties. I find it strange that you've chosen not to contribute to the discourse. Surely, you can handicap the future CPC leadership race for us. I know I would be more than interested in seeing you lay odds on the various hopefuls.

Poor Prentice -- so close and yet so far!

[updated Thu Mar 18 11:46:39 -0400 2010]

Abortion: The Issue That Will Sting This Prime Minister.

Here we go again...the pattern continues with one significant step forward in favour of women's and children's health in the developing world immediately followed by a giant misstep of the highest order: first no, no, and no from three Conservatives on contraception in the third world only to be reversed by one of the naysayers along with the Prime Minister. Can you spell rapid backtracking??!!

Canada's development assistance should not be tied to any form of litmus test -- be it on contraception or abortion. These matters are not the business of the Government of Canada. The Harper government is holding fast on its refusal to permit funding related to the question of abortion.

This Prime Minister needs to do a serious rethink. Social conservatives are already in the bag but moderate mainstream Canadian women are hardly an assured Conservative constituency.

Talk about gifting to the Liberals! Michael Ignatieff should thank his lucky stars that this has fallen into his lap. Run with it, and don't look back. The best is yet to come thanks to the serious errors in judgment made by this Conservative government.

[updated Fri Mar 19 10:33:12 -0400 2010]

I am wondering when it will be, that Canadians come to understand that the actions of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc by trying to use their concept of the supremacy of parliament.

When will Canadians be made aware that the actions of the coalition is nothing less than an attempt to circumvent the election process in Canada and for these three parties to form a de facto coalition government without the benefit of having an election.

The coalition will be in effect, a Government sitting on the opposition benches contrary to all Canadian tradition and law and with no means to remove from power as they can continually refuse to declare non-confidence in the Government and can rule until Oct 14 2012 - unless they rule themselves supreme and refuse to hold elections.

An opposition that can call for money bills because they are supreme.

An opposition that can that can remove sitting members from parliament at their will and pleasure, because they are supreme.

An opposition that can by their right of supremacy stripe the individual of all their constitutional rights by using their parliamentary supremacy.

An opposition that can appoint Federal and SCoC Judges, why because they can just pass a bill to say that they can and because they are supreme.

An opposition that can appoint the future G.G. why because they can just pass a bill to say that they can and because they are supreme.

An opposition that cannot be called to account, why because they can just pass a bill to say that they can and because they are supreme.

In addition, Canadians want Government and not some secret coalition hiding behind closed doors.

Your party is playing a very dangerous game here and if your party wins at this sham - I wonder what Canada will look like in the coming years and I am sure that it will bear little resemble to the Canada of today.

[updated Fri Mar 19 19:45:18 -0400 2010]

Here's the best comment ever from the PMO...one that will live in infamy for next election ads by the libs:

"The PMO says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law."

Stupid stupid tories!!!

I wonder if Dimitri put it on facebook. !!!!!

[updated Fri Mar 19 21:52:04 -0400 2010]

I read three interesting pieces today.

1. leftist Tom Walkom in today's Toronto star
2. centrist Paul Wells in Macleans
3 rightist Andrew Coyne in Macleans

I was wondering if others had read them and if so what they thought of these articles.

[updated Sat Mar 20 18:35:24 -0400 2010]

Ronald,

Interesting piece in today's G&M - that might cause some issues for the Federal Liberals in Quebec and depending on how they respond it may well cause them concern in the ROC.

If the Liberals are too soft with dealing with the enlightened Provincial Liberals in Quebec, they will be seen by Canadians as being soft on human rights - a complaint that they bring forward against the Conservatives often.

To hard and they run into trouble in Quebec as not understanding the Quebec nation and that the Party is run from Toronto and that is why they do not understand.

Either way this should go into the ledgers as a plus for the Conservatives and a negative for the Liberals.

John Morstad for The Globe and Mail,

Headline; Quebec's view on niqab creates fault line Ussra Hussain and Nafeesa Salar in Montreal

1) Quebec's movement to expel the niqab from much of civic life struck some Canadians as pure intolerance – a hunt more common to the pitchfork-wielding redneck anxious to preserve his cultural domination.

2) But in Quebec, opposition to allowing the niqab in government services expands far beyond the ranks of the usual bigots. In fact, the viewpoint has become the broadest social and political consensus the province has seen in years.

3) Quebec intellectuals and politicians, federalists and nationalists, libertarians and human-rights activists mostly agreed with the expulsion of a niqab-wearing student, Naema Ahmed, from French class.

4) Staunch liberals were then stunned to see the position compared to a Taliban dress code by English-speaking Canada.

[updated Sat Mar 20 21:15:56 -0400 2010]

QCG has been making a number of posts that he hoped would show that Canadians have lost faith in the Conservatives and I have been responding that I do not believe that his posts are factually correct and have been providing counter points.

With poll after poll showing that the numbers do not support what he has written and that in fact the support for the Conservatives is rising and not lowering contrary to what has been implied and that the manufactured smears and scandals being made against the Conservatives the Liberals and their various supporters has not gained them ground.

Tonight's post is from Ipos reid, which I believe further supports what I had written once again.

Harper's Tories still lead Liberals: poll
Meagan Fitzpatrick, Canwest News Service Published: Saturday, March 20, 2010

1) Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have lost some support but would still emerge victorious if a federal election were held today, according to a poll conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National.

2)The Conservatives have the support of 34% of decided voters, down three percentage points from the last poll earlier this month, while the Liberals secured 28% of voters, down one percentage point.

3)The New Democratic Party was in third with 18% of the vote; 10% of Canadians would support the Green party.

[updated Sat Mar 20 22:04:49 -0400 2010]

Go, Nancy, Go!

3:30 P.M. (Eastern) is the magic hour. The first vote will be on health care itself. Then will come two budget votes (one of which will include the contentious issue of a deliberate lack of federal funding for abortion, which will pass.)

Kick ass Nancy. Yes, it's the thin edge of the wedge. No wonder Republicans are severely constipated. Get it done. 35 million Americans are counting on it and tired of waiting.

[updated Sun Mar 21 13:49:15 -0400 2010]

Here's more prostitution of the election financing rules by the Tories:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Cowtown+Tory+cash+flows+north/2708204/story.html

"Well-off Calgary Conservatives, determined to win a majority for Stephen Harper, are opening their chequebooks, activating phone banks and setting their sights on some opposition ridings across the country.

One of those targets is Edmonton-Strathcona, where the city's newest Conservative candidate, Ryan Hastman, is getting financial help from Calgary in his effort to oust the province's only opposition member, New Democrat MP Linda Duncan.

About a year ago, Hastman, 30, came directly from a job in the prime minister's office to win the Tory nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona, the seat lost by Conservative Rahim Jaff er in the 2008 election.

Hastman has been busy knocking on doors, raising funds and helping to hand out federal government stimulus cheques with various Conservative cabinet ministers, according to his Facebook page.

Edmonton-Strathcona is one of several dozen swing ridings selected for special attention by Calgary Conservatives determined to see a Tory majority government, says Andrew Constantinidis of the Calgary West constituency, held by Rob Anders.

They also want to see Alberta's 28 seats go Tory blue next time and they've got the cash to help defeat Duncan, the province's only opposition MP, he said.

So on Jan. 23, Conservatives in Anders's riding held a fundraising breakfast for Hastman and raised $3,200 with tickets at $60 each. They also raised $8,000 for Manitoba Conservative MP Shelly Glover in an evening event, said Constantinidis, a former constituency president for Anders."
........................................

I sure as hell don't want these red necks ruling our country with their pocket books and I would assume the people of Edmonton Strathcona are wise to the plot. Edmontonians mostly dislike Calgarian business types so this may backfire very nicely.

Chretien made the new rules so that, in principle and hopefully in practice, party financing was to be an even playing field. In this scenario I would rather go back to allowing corporation donations. At least we would know who was doing what. In the current format rich businessmen in Calgary allow and urge their employees to make conservative party donations and pay them bonuses etc. for doing so. There is now more corruption of the law under the tories than we have ever seen before.

[updated Sun Mar 21 14:03:08 -0400 2010]

Duceppe is either getting desperate or he's seeing something in his polling that makes him think this language will work in his favour:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/duceppe-and-the-qubec-resistance-movement/article1507230/

"He said that he drew his inspiration from a text authored by the late intellectual and union activist Pierre Vadeboncoeur.

Nevertheless, he reaffirmed that sovereignty would only be possible with the work of the resistance, as was the case for the liberation of France in 1944.

“Québec sovereignty, no more than the Libération, is not possible, would not have been possible, without the work of the resistants"

[updated Sun Mar 21 14:11:41 -0400 2010]

Can A Deal Get Done On Afghan Detainees?

All political Ottawa is buzzing wondering if a deal can be done on the release of documents pertaining to alleged torture of detainees by Afghan security forces.

Some have argued that influential Canadians with a clear and credible background in national security could be added to the mix in some way to break the logjam.

Will we see some form of a new Manley-inspired working group which could dovetail the examination of documents undertaken by Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci?

If this gets traction, the Liberals and NDP will have to be onside: I can think of two obvious Liberal choices: John Manley and Senator Colin Kenny. On the NDP side, one immediately thinks of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent -- other possibles: former Saskatchewan premiers Roy Romanow or Alan Blakeney.

The genie doesn't often get put back in the bottle but this is Ottawa so anything is possible.

[updated Sun Mar 21 20:11:33 -0400 2010]

Ronald,

There is a piece in the G&M by Adam Radwanski, that might interest you as it will provide what I feel will be an excellent opportunity for the Federal Conservatives to garner support for their debate with the Liberals as to how the Federal deficit should be managed.

What will benefit the Conservatives is that as the Liberals in Ontario start to sell their pfrom March 25th sell their debt reduction program, the federal Conservatives can at the same time sell theirs and when the Federal Liberals complain. well all they have to do is point to Ontario.

As I read thought the piece, I could not help be struck by how similar the provincial Liberal plan was to the one that the Federal Conservatives had put forward and I just added one or two words in brackets to show my point.
...
1. How deep, and how long?

If governments have taught us anything over the past couple of years, it's to not put too much faith in the accuracy of their deficit projections.

The $24.7-billion ($53.3-billion) that Mr. Duncan (Mr. Flaherty) forecast last fall doesn't seem too far off, but it's unlikely to prove spot on.

The 2009-10 figure, though, is really the least of the government's worries. It was inflated by one-off bailout and stimulus expenditures, and by a sudden plunge in corporate revenues.

For Mr. Duncan, (Mr. Flaherty) getting the deficit down to a more respectable number will be the easy part.
Getting rid of it entirely will be much harder.

That's why observers will be trying to figure out just how big the structural deficit really is. And it's why Mr. Duncan, (Mr. Flaherty) who's not about to announce either tax increases or deep spending cuts, will forecast a very gradual return to balance.

2. Whose belts will be tightened?

The Liberals (Conservatives) want to show they take the deficit seriously. But like most governments, they don't believe the public is ready to make major sacrifices to get rid of it. The result will likely be a couple of showy nods toward restraint, mostly aimed at the public service, which will have mostly symbolic value.

The likeliest, given recent controversies at provincial (Federal) agencies, is some form of new regulations on personal expenditures. But the government could go further, along the lines of departmental spending freezes.

The flashiest gesture - and the most significant in impact on provincial (Federal) coffers - would be a public asset sale. But while that remains a strong possibility, it won't be announced this week.

3. What about health care?

It's no secret that health costs, set to soon take up half of program spending, represent the government's biggest long-term challenge.

The Liberals (Conservatives) have only recently begun to talk seriously in public about it, floating ideas about changing the ways hospitals are funded.

But it's doubtful they'll want to do anything too controversial until after the next election.

The only immediate reforms Mr. Duncan (Mr. Flaherty) is likely to tout involve the pharmaceuticals industry. Still, there will be indicators of what else might lie ahead.

By their own law, the Liberals (Conservatives) are required to provide expenditure forecasts for three years.

The amount that projected growth is down from the 6 per cent that's become the annual standard should give some hint of the heavy lifting to come.

4. Spare some change?

Mr. Duncan (Mr. Flaherty) probably won't announce any major new expenditures we haven't already heard about.

But he'll need to elaborate on promises made in the Throne Speech - particularly on postsecondary education - which pledged 20,000 new college and university spots, more foreign students and a new online university.

The Liberals (Conservatives) don't intend to actually pay for most of those initiatives until their third term, if they get one. But they'll at least need to lay out ballpark figures for what they'll cost.

Meanwhile, the government will also have to answer a lingering question surrounding its early learning legacy project: Will it provide extra funding to avoid existing daycare centres being put out of business by full-day kindergarten?

5. What will Tim Hudak (Ignatieff) say?

This one isn't up to Mr. Duncan (Mr. Flaherty) to answer. But it will still be an important part of the story.

Under Mr. Hudak, ((Ignatieff) the Opposition has gotten much more disciplined - planning out strategy weeks or months in advance, and sticking to plan.

But the Conservative (Liberal Leader) leader also needs to show that he can think on his feet, providing smart critiques of new government policies, and this will be his best opportunity so far to do so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/questions-about-deficit-loom-large-over-thursdays-ontario-budget/article1507711/

[updated Mon Mar 22 11:29:33 -0400 2010]

Ronald,

Well it would appear that one of the Courts have spoken on process of prorogation and it does show that what the Coalition has presented to Canadians does not meet the test of the courts.

If you recall my point about the Conservatives being able to use that big stick on the Liberals and NDP after a court ruling that can be considered in their favour.

Now with courts having just giving Harper a club, to pound on the Liberals with and the Conservatives can now point to a number of Federal court rulings brought against them that have gone in their favour and by extension has gone against what the Liberals have presented in the house to Canadians.

The election Law, the in and out, on two occasions with the Military Police review and now this one and at the same time they will be able to show that each and every ruling that has gone against the Government it was a reversal of laws that the preceding Liberal Government put in place.

So I will add that I rather doubt that the Conservatives will stray from the path and that it will be the Liberals who will be doing the bending on this Documents and the Supremacy of Parliament issue or they may well find that they are broken.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc920/2009fc920.html
...

And I will quote Spector here and you can find the ruling at the link above.

"you’ll quickly see that the motion adopted by Parliament last week meets none of the tests for establishing a convention, notwithstanding Mr. Topp’s learned analysis."

"In other words, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be foolish to abuse again the process of prorogation as he did this year, nothing prevents him from requesting that Her Excellency prorogue Parliament for more than seven days without the approval of Parliament, as the NDP resolution would require."

"And nothing would stop him from proroguing as he did in 2008 to beat back what The Economist magazine at the time labelled an opposition “coup.”

[updated Mon Mar 22 12:09:10 -0400 2010]

I was just reading Don Martin over in the National Post and he has made a number of comments that would appear to show that the Montreal Convention may not be a big a success as have previous policy meetings.

...

1) But guess who's not invited to the high-profile think-tank in Montreal to envision the country's future? Incredibly, that would be Liberal MPs.

2) The entire caucus, except for leader Michael Ignatieff and chinwag co-chairman Mauril Belanger, have been told to stay in their ridings for this seminal party event, limiting their participation to Internet video linkages with the conference floor.

I disagree with Martin as I believe that the Liberals need to go out side of their party for any chance of renewal and that is where the future lays.

...

3) For Conservative zinger writers, this is a wonderful gift providing them with attack lines such as: Liberal Deep Thinkers Wanted (MPs need not apply). I can already see Prime Minister Stephen Harper's grin as he throws barbs across the Commons aisle at MPs deemed not worthy of joining their leader in this maximus cerebrius exercise.

I on the other hand see Ignatieff throwing back at Harper own words at him in the house about the need to consult Canadians.

...

4) Some Liberal MPs confide they are vexed by their exclusion, even though it saves them the stiff $700 registration fee to attend the three-day brainstorming session.

5) Perhaps the missing MPs explains the disquieting lack of buzz for a conference the party desperately needs to succeed if it hopes to reinvent itself for the next election. After all, these cerebral group hugs have always included MPs and both early editions have been a Big Deal for the Liberal party. The 1991 conference in Alymer, Que., became the defining moment for Jean Chretien, propelling the Liberals back to power armed with a Red Book of positions crafted by a balanced representation of members, MPs and invited guests.

My understanding was that this was to think and get out side the box and I am of the view that they can take what comes from this conference and then go to a conference with a short list and have a balanced debate with representation of members, MPs and invited guests.

...

5) The 1960 Liberal conference in Kingston produced ideas such as universal health care, pension reform and a new flag that became the springboard back under prime minister Lester Pearson. After each reinvigoration of the Liberal brand, the party was back in power within two years. But signs of a threepeat are not encouraging.

Fact not fiction and the current Liberals should learn from those lessons.

...

6) Whispers suggest that organizers are having trouble filling the 350 slots they need to make the conference a success financially and there's talk of some star participants as no-shows. Leaving MPs in their ridings may boost local participation, but it has dramatically reduced the event's star power and media interest. The format seems odd, as well. There will be a series of topical panels featuring a number of provocative speakers and then ... what?

I would be putting policy before dollars as it has been said that you need to spend a dollar to make a dollar, in this case these dollars can be votes.

...

7) Delegates have not received policy papers as a starting point for discussion and it's a mystery how the result of lectures and audience questions will be wrapped into some sort of coherent platform to carry the party through the next two or three elections.

Doing it this way, keeps it fresh and when people come they will be coming with a clean mind and not set positions that they have all ready set.

...

8) Still, it's important. The Liberals remain the natural government-in-waiting party and this could be a discussion that finally expands the party's vision beyond the next election. The challenges being put to the thinkers are the obvious choices -- jobs, pensions, energy and environment, the new economy and Canada's place in the world.

The Conservatives have all ready staked out these position and what the Liberal need to do is find the issue that defines them as Liberals and not just a version of Conservatives that they now represent to Canadians.

[updated Mon Mar 22 13:15:10 -0400 2010]

With Goggle moving out of China, Our government must restrict and remove any investments by China in Canada, especially the Oil Sands! We have something they do not have in China to date, we have all grades of Copper. We must increase the price to China by double.

Take note: I m a Anti - China Conservative - Reformer known a Pistol Pete named by Ronald ODowd

[updated Mon Mar 22 16:10:47 -0400 2010]

Le club des ex sur RDI.

I watch this every noon hour on weekdays -- you should have seen the sparks fly today regarding Gilles Duceppe's remarks! Fortunately, you haven't missed it. They plan to go at it again tomorrow.

[updated Mon Mar 22 16:16:16 -0400 2010]

Today's Helpful Hint!

Get real and make the deal.

[updated Mon Mar 22 19:23:02 -0400 2010]

Extraordinary Caucus Meeting.

Something tells me we aren't moving toward a deal...

[updated Tue Mar 23 14:09:17 -0400 2010]

Michael Ignatieff just signed his death wish to be Prime Minister of Canada in Saskatchewan, Majority of Western Canadians are totally against "Bilingualism" and "Multiculturalism" so if your looking for Votes Liberals do not come past the Manitoba- Ontario border.

As one newspaper has already stated let the "Cultural Wars" begin because we are ready to defeat you!

[updated Sun Apr 25 15:52:26 -0400 2010]