Home › New Nanos Poll - Canadians moving away from all...
New Nanos Poll - Canadians moving away from all party leaders
The latest Nanos Poll indicates that politicians in general may be the first casualties of the Schreiber Affair. The ongoing Nanos Federal Leadership Report Card Tracking indicates that Canadians are moving away from all party leaders into the “none of the above” or “unsure”.
It is quite unprecedented to see movement away from all the leaders. With the Schreiber Affair in the news, it seems a growing number of Canadians, tar all politicians with the same brush.
On a positive note for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he still holds a major advantage over Stephane Dion on all leadership tracking measures. A look at the detailed tabulations also indicates that
Stephane Dion is performing noticeably worse at this time compared to Paul Martin the night prior to
his losing the 2006 federal election.
What do you think will be the fallout of the Schreiber Affair?
If you have a moment, check out the stat sheet in the support documents on the right. It details changes in perceptions on trust, vision and competence.
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
I for one am sick of listening to the non-stop frenzy from the Liberals and the ... more
pneilson (Ontario) 03 Dec 08:12
Ah, Nik, Canadian politics ! ! ! An election is like taking a bath, having a c... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 03 Dec 03:48
From past experience, considering the last two Canadian Prime Ministers, it look... more
kokinosplatanos (British Columbia) 03 Dec 02:37
Hi Blossom It's good to see you back. I see you are still as passionate about t... more
Bernie (Ontario) 07 Dec 08:57
Well, Bernie, we are worlds apart on the circumstantial evidence issue. Anythin... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 08 Dec 19:48
Just in case you missed the following by Nanos Research: The first annual Nan... more
hollinm (Saskatchewan) 10 Dec 13:12
Comments
kokinosplatanos
From past experience, considering the last two Canadian Prime Ministers, it looks like it's an advantage to start off unpopular, then build from there. Look at Chretien and Harper - both started off well behind in polls such as this one, then ended up with varying levels of success. Paul Martin, starting off higher up in the leadership polls, ended up with a slow and steady decline.
Perhaps we live in an era where Canadians must build trust in their leaders as opposed to having them explode right out of the gate?
Trying to view these numbers as unbiased as possible (plus taking history into account), it looks as though Dion has the advantage for a potential surge. The only way is up for him. Can it get any lower? You never know.
The fact that Dion's party has not been afflicted with similar numbers, and Harper's party isn't particularly soaring, shows that there is a strong potential for a numerical reversal of fortunes for Dion. If the Liberals were polling close-to or below NDP numbers, then that would perhaps be an insurmountable problem.
[updated Mon Dec 03 02:37:44 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 02:37
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Ah, Nik, Canadian politics ! ! ! An election is like taking a bath, having a clean change of clothes and smelling like violets. Could one say that is a "fresh start"? The only trouble is not keeping up the routine of regular bathing and changing into clean clothes on a daily basis thus the stinkier it gets and the odour is likely to linger. I bet the Schreiber affair has a lot more to reveal. Harper, who has loudly proclaimed the high road in all things political, is likely to find his courted embrace of Mulroney could be likened now to the kiss of death.
But, does Harper have to worry ? Here the electorate has to consider the political alternatives. That is not an exciting prospect so Harper really can hold his ground but I do not think he could gain ground. Now, if the Liberals were led by Ignatieff, I believe Harper would have real cause to worry.
In my riding, the local Liberal Association has remained in suspended animation or is still hiding in a hole since the last election.---Dead???---The local conservative MP is not inclined to accept or tolerate opinions that differ to his in this democratic process. Yes, I think I will move away from the traditional parties in the coming election and look for a better alternative that may honestly address the people's business. But, then, politics not being the most ethical of sports, I am likely in dreamland too ! ! !
[updated Mon Dec 03 03:48:29 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 03:48
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
Tom you are in a dreamland. Mr. Harper is the only game in town whether the Liberal friendly crowd likes it or not. With base support of 30% the Liberals have more chance to lose votes in the next election as they are attacked from 2 or 3 other left wing parties. Polls being produced today show that Dion is having trouble in about any leadership area measured. Watching him in his first election campaign will be like watching a train wreck about to happen. The other unknown is whether the Liberal party wants him to win the next election. Will they sit on their hands like their MPs have and will do twice more this week? Will the volunteers and/or party stalwarts sit it out. If they want Dion to lose it could easily happen. That's what happened in Outremont.
I predict Harper will take away the Schreiber/Mulroney affair by making a deal for Schreiber to remain in the country permanently provided he comes clean with whatever he knows to a prosecutor and the evidence is proven. Otherwise he is off to Germany with "bells on".
Tom wasting your vote on a party that has no chance to form government is a wasted voted. However, I guess you know that.
[updated Mon Dec 03 22:22:39 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 22:22
Tom Good
I agree Hollinm, the Liberal party / leadership is like the good ship Titanic heading for disaster under the current command. My point is that the "command" has to change or the ship will sink. Yes, there seem to be some backroom squabbles going on but the calibre of leadership----political savvy----that is the critical consideration. As I have said before, Dion is a decent person of integrity who is beyond his depth in the political ring. On the other hand, Harper has all the smarts for the political ring but he remains stalled in the eyes of the electorate-----perhaps his hearing is not too good. I agree with some of his initiatives and, with others, I wish he would listen to the electorate. So there we go----a not very effective leader of a party with fairly broard appeal to the electorate and a strong leader of a party with a narrower appeal to the electorate.
So you think Harper will cut a deal with Schreiber----I am not too sure about that at this stage. At the moment I believe he will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't ---a rather no win situation. I agree with you---this is political posturing with the Liberals trying to hang the Mulroney/Schreiber affair around Harper's neck just as Harper tried, rather successfully, to hang the Adscam affair around Martin's neck. It is the thrust and parry of political life unfortunately.
Locally, the Liberal riding Association has been dead for a couple of years but if an election was called they, as political parties do, will exhume some dead horse to run. The sitting Conservative----of the Reform stripe----is, in my opiniom, narrow and intolerant as is his riding association so where does one park their vote? I enjoyed working with the real Conservatives when Charet was running nationally but that was years ago. We will have to wait for an election to be called to see what is on offer----I am not holding my breath.
[updated Tue Dec 04 00:20:00 -0500 2007]
04 Dec 00:20
hollinm
Once again we agree with the exception that you suggest the broad electorate does not support Harper. However, I would point out that the polls are probably understated for the Conservatives as any national poll includes Ontario and because it supports all things liberal this depresses the poll results for the Conservatives. I suspect their numbers are higher. Anyway when an election comes all bets are off and it will be the party that has the best leader and campaign. This favours Harper at this point.
My view of who to support is to watch and listen to the platforms. Some stuff I will like, other stuff not so much. No party is perfect. I agree that Harper for whatever the reason seems to go off in no man's land for whatever the reason. The call for clemency for the Canadian sentenced in Montana to death is a case in point. Why did he have to do this and subject himself to the Liberal cries of wanting to reverse the death penalty in Canada? However, I think he feels that why should we bring these people back after they have been given due process in another democratic country. Why should Canadian taxpayers support him for the rest of his life?
The most serious issue was his reversal on income trusts. He has a lot of people damn mad. However, I have to believe that he made the decision based on the best info provided by the bureaucrats. He didn't get up one morning and simple say I think I will get rid of income trusts and piss off a pile of investors and seniors.
The one thing that concerns me about Dion and the Liberals is that he is pulling his party to the far left. He made a tactical mistake by suggesting he would reverse the GST if he got into power. However, if he keeps his promises and usually Liberals don't there is no choice but to raise taxes because the economy will not always be good. Think about it; Dion is going to solve poverty within five years, meet the Kyoto targets, reintroduce a national childcare program, reintroduce the Kelowna Accord, provide broad based personal and corporate income tax. Something will have to give.
Anyway the next election will be very interesting to say the least.
[updated Tue Dec 04 07:11:34 -0500 2007]
04 Dec 07:11
Tom Good
Morning Hollinm:------Personally, I agree with Harper's stance on mass murderers sentenced to death in a democratic jurisdiction where justice is fair and the conviction was NOt based upon circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is too often biased or has been manufactered as we have seen in some Canadian cases lately. To those who would object to that non-intervention stance, I would ask what their position would be IF the Bernardo / Homolka killings had been in the US, if the Clifford Olsen killings had been in the US and, currently, the Willy Picton killings had been in the US. I wrote to Harper about the circumstantial evidence aspect----he ignored it in his reply (that came this morning too)----I wrote to Dion about the Bernardo/Homolka, Olson and Piction cases had they been in the US and which he totally ignored in his reply.
I agree, the national platform is one thing and the local candidate is another----we have to see what is "offered" when the election is called.
When you talk about poverty, British Columbia, wealthy British Columbia has the highest child poverty rates in Canada and the provincial government seemingly does not give a good G- damn. Mixed up priorities in my opinion.
[updated Tue Dec 04 13:57:44 -0500 2007]
04 Dec 13:57
hollinm
The issue of poverty is of concern to me as well for the reasons stated by you. However, I would suggest that the reason people are in poverty has many origins some of which are lack of education, lack of desire to work, lack of jobs, single mothers with children abandoned by the partner etc. Tinkering with the tax system as suggested by Mr. Dion is a simplistic approach and will not be enough. Unfortunately without detail and costing taxpayers have no idea whether his 20/50 plane can work. After all we cannot just wave a magic wand and poverty will disappear. Do we ensure that all Canadians receive a minimum income? Who determines what that amount should be? Statistics Canada does not have a definition for the poverty line. If we do where is the incentive to work and not rely on the largesse of the taxpayer. How is it fair to provide one group and not address the group known as the working poor? My point is not to degrade your concern but while we can be ultruistic about this issue it is very complicated and there are no easy solutions.
While it maybe an issue that Canadians would like to see resolved Mr. Dion with his platitudes and without a plan needs to be challenged. Once elected there is no way to force him to meet his goal. A national daycare plan is a perfect example. I think it was promised for 15 years but never happened. Only in the death throws of defeat did Martin try to do something.
[updated Tue Dec 04 22:26:08 -0500 2007]
04 Dec 22:26
Tom Good
Hollinm----Your key word is WORKING----there are always some who would prefer to stay on the dole rather than work----easy dole I am opposed to. Now child poverty but first some stats from the Correctional Service of Canada on parolees or statutory release people. Their data indicates 80% have a history of substance abuse, 78% have no high school diploma and 52% have dysfunctional parents. It is my contention that a little money spent helping those parents and their children who WANT to climb out of the hole they find themselves in, is better than spending a lot of money later on the same children when they are adults. If opportunities are provided with financial support, a vicious cycle is likely to be broken ( for the willing).
Yes, poverty is a very complex issue but there are those who want to climb out of that pit they find themselves in and educationand skills training should be there. I would much rather see Canadians upgrade their citizens(expensive) rather than recruit skilled immigrants (minimal cost). Those on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder remain there----immigrants do not make it go away. I am not anti immigration but we have too much unrealized potential within our society that could do with some help.
In the penal system------I would much rather see young offenders who willingly upgrade their education and gain a saleable / employable skill be able to trade that for a short sentence otherwise do the time.
With youth our society can have a positive effect. We cannot correct all the ills of society but we can correct some ills especially with children and youth.
[updated Wed Dec 05 00:24:44 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 00:24
hollinm
I have no quarrel with your comments Tom. The key is helping people who want to help themselves. I do however object to providing a hand out to those who want to milk the system for all it is worth. My wife and I worked hard all our lives and got the breaks as a result of those efforts. We never looked for the government to do anything for us. I paid virtually 50% of my income while raising my family and got nothing from the government in return. I didn't expect anything but I don't want to support those who don't want to help themselves. Life is about choices and sometimes people make the wrong choices because that is the easier route to go.
[updated Wed Dec 05 01:07:21 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 01:07
Tom Good
Agreed, but I, and I suspect you, had a reasonably stable home as a child and my parents had a reasonable education for their day as did my grandparents-----that was a good catapault into life that other kids did not have----their clothes were damned and double damned (a depression phrase) and I am sure some were on a starvation diet. ( Not one fat kid in the schools in those days ) As a depression kid, it was easy to look around and see those less fortunate Given the economics of the time, I was born with the proverbial silver spoon. My father started his business in 1932 and, with very hard work, it grew. As kids, there were expectations, usually unspoken, but they were there nevertheless and that was a great advantage even if we did not agree at times as kids! ! !. I know, others succeed in spite of their background but they are usually few and far between.
[updated Wed Dec 05 02:52:44 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 02:52
hollinm
I agree.
[updated Wed Dec 05 02:58:53 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 02:58
Bernie
Hi Tom
My thinking is at variance with yours on some points that you mentioned in your post.
I think all human life is invioable. We have NOT the right to to take anyone's life (except in the two cases everyone knows and agrees to).
If you are right then we should immediately terminate Martin, Harper and anyone else responsible for the death of Afghan civilians. And some of our own citizens.
Circumstantial evidence can be the best form of evidence. Every lawyer and judge that I know will agree with that. I was one of twelve who convicted a person of murder on circumstantial evidence.
There are many different causes for poverty. Many we can alleviate, some we can't or at least not yet. There is one thing we can do. , that is, eliminate that caused by lack of money.
This is Camada, relatively speaking we are very rich. Who owns Canada? To whom does those riches belong? Does not every single Canadian, by virtue of being a Canadian, have title to a shared portion of those riches. Do we have the right to have a system that prohibits that portion from obtaining their fair portion?
If I were PM the first thing I would do is assign every Canadian a n assigned bank account, based on SIN or also another nunber for security sake. Every Friday I would have deposited an amount into said account. That amount would be equal to the cost of shelter, food, clothing and other basic necessities. I don't know that value probably somewhere between 18, 000 and 30,000 annually. That can easily be adjusted later.
There would still be some poverty, but greatly reduced, but of more importance no one could say that we have not provided them with enough money. Lack of money will be wiped out as a casue of poverty.
And the reality is.there will still be money left over for millionaires yes even billionaires. ( The Thompson family may have a reduction in their 25 billion but I think they would be relatively happy with 10 billion, say.)
Also the cost of government would go down substantially. We could eliminate EI, workman compensation, food banks, most welfare depts. etc. and the beaurocracies that go with them What a saving that would be!
It's the silliest thing in the world to say "we all want less taxes". I don't mind and I know many more who have no objection to raising taxes to see that those less fortunate than ourselves have the basics of life.
I worked hard too, on a single income providing for a family in a system designed for two incomes. (Sometimes I had to work two jobs.) In a very expensive city to live in.
I reiterate, lets give every Canadian enough money (their share) to have the necessities of life. Let them do what they will with it. I'm sure they will spend it all anyway and it will all go into forming the economy and a good portion back to government.
[updated Sat Dec 08 09:50:30 -0500 2007]
08 Dec 09:50
Tom Good
Well, Bernie, we are worlds apart on the circumstantial evidence issue. Anything that can be embellished, be with-held, be twisted is suspect as the Truscott and Marshall cases, for example, vividly illustrate. If our police and witnesses were beyond reproach, like our politicians HO HO, possibly you could place greater trust in "their word". I am not that gullible. At a different level, look at the double-speak going on with the Air India inquiry, look at the prevaricatory testimony of the last Commissioner of the RCMP regarding Arar, the CSIS inquiry regarding Air India and where the pension money evaporated. Look at the reports by police to the media / public on unfortunate arrest / apprehension scenes that are at variance with the filmed record of the incident. For the most part, the police are mighty good in this country but they are human beings demonstrating differing viewpoints, lapses in memory, with-holding the full story as is common within the population.
I agree with you, war is legalized state killing but it depends on which side of the river one is standing when one calls it justified or calls it terrorism.
Capital punishment------I have no problems executing cold blooded killers who were NOT convicted by circumstantial evidence. The moralists in our society are saying the killer HAS rights while the victims did not have as many rights to live. Completely unacceptable. Bernardo / Homolka, Clifford Olson and currently Willy Picton, have forfeit their rights.
Poverty----Other than mental illness and physical affirmity, there should be very stringent regulations who should be supported by the social safety net and for HOW LONG. I believe you maybe grossly overlooking human nature whereby, if something is free, we will take it for as long as the going is good. Working age able people should work-----with the aged it is another matter.
Taxes-----Basic taxes will always be there to run a LEAN EFFICIENT machine. Over taxation results in what politicians like to call "surpluses" which they are NOT when there is a national, provincial or civic debt. These mythical "surpluses" allow some administrations to indulge in projects that are tangential to the wishes of the majority of the electorate while ignoring some needs within their population. Ignoring child poverty in BC whild spending billions on the 2010 Olympics is a good example in this province. How about vote buying before an election ?----symtomatic of too many taxes but that is politics. Can you honestly say we receive good value for every dollar of taxes we have to pay to every level of government ? I bet if your local grocery store had similar habits, you would not deal there.
[updated Sat Dec 08 19:48:43 -0500 2007]
08 Dec 19:48
Bernie
Tom, I agree completely with your whole first paragraph. But that's not an argument against circumstantial evidence. That's against the system ,the police, the distortion or falsification of circumstancial evidence. For years I've been calling for the establishment of an independent agency, a body of independent investigators, to monitor the police and security agencies of the country and not made up of those who came from the RCMP or local police forces, or private investigators who came from there. They must be totally and completely independent.
There is a lot of corruption in the RCMP and large city police. Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver come to mind immediately. I suspect in most others.
I can't wait for the day when we have this kind of set up.
Circumstantial is different. It is evidence. Altered, changed, distorted "facts" are not evidence. Circumstantial evidence can and should lead one's thoughts to a correct conclusion and the right result. If we did not use circumstantial evidence to solve cases there would now be tens of thousands of criminals running free, still committing their crimes, instead of behind bars. Maybe we have a different concept of what circumstantial evidence is.
I don't know enough about the finer details of the Truscott and Marshall cases to say exactly what went wrong. I do recall that there was circumstantial evidence withheld either by the police or the crown. Had the jurors the benifit of that there may have been a different verdict. In the Marshall case I think Marshall was with and last seen with the victim. I suspect prejudice on part of the jurors was a large part responsible. In either case it was lazy, dishonest investigation and prosecution presente a false verdict And of course, it always easier to blame it on the weakest in our society The same standard is not applied to say, Conrad Black.
There was lots of circumstantial evidence to convict O J Simpson , something else prevented it.
I have been watching the Air India affair, the Arar case . I am thoroughly disgusted with the RCMP and CSIS
We are not perfect and our institutiuons are not perfect. There will always be slip-ups. We must always strive higher and we can only improve when we hold to account those responsible. It is bad when lower level or front-line individuals screw up. They should be reprimanded. The real serious issue arises when the hiogher-ups lie and coverup. Those are the ones who, when they do that, should be taken to strict account. They should lose their jobs immediately. It's the only way we can seek that higher level.
The other points I'll have to come back to at a later time.
[updated Sun Dec 09 09:27:18 -0500 2007]
09 Dec 09:27
Bernie
Tom , I'll try to finish replying to your comments of a couple of days ago.
I think you know by now that I have very little faith in our politicians and even less in our police and security agencies.
Regarding circumstantial evidence; it' what put that monster Picton behind bars.
"The moralists in our society are saying the killer HAS rights while the victims did not have as many rights to live." I don't know anyone who would say that.
(I don't believe in rights anyway, but that's another story.) I believe that when someone knowingly and willingly breaks the rules of society that person should be removed from said society and loses all rights for the time period during which he/she is removed.
"Bernardo / Homolka, Clifford Olson and currently Willy Picton, have forfeit their rights." Yes I agree. but that doesn't give us the right to kill them.
Poverty. " I believe you maybe grossly overlooking human nature ..."
With all due respect, Tom, I think I am as keen an observer and judge of human nature as you are. We do not look closely if all we see is the physical or the mental condition, tho the latter we hardly 'see'. There is also the emotional and'or spiritual, tho either or both maybe tied to the mental. The physical, mental, emotional and spiritua may be a complicated puzzle all in one to make the whole being. We cannot see or know that which goes on inside and we should not be too quick to diagnose or judge. For whatever reason that they have to not beibg able to look after themselvesit should not be too encumbersome on us to help them out.It doesn't take much more in tax increase to provide adequate care for them.
Should we punish the children of parents who can't support them properly themselves? The social caused by these children not being looked after properly will far out weigh any amount we spend on them now.
Right now there is no more than say ten percent whoi maybe in that position I am sure that number would drop to no more than two or three percent if we saw thhat everyone had a basic income.
Taxes, surely you don't think I believe our taxes are used wisely. I have already made clear that the first monies that come into governments' coffer go directly in basic income for evreyone. Then we distribute the rest to common needs . Needs that are best done by econonies of scale. WE don't have surpluse. If we have monies more than budgeted for that must go against the debt. Only when we are debt free can we have surpluses.
I hope you get a more accurate understanding of where I stand on these issues.
[updated Thu Dec 13 09:14:27 -0500 2007]
13 Dec 09:14
Tom Good
Bernie, you are as entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. When I took urban geography somewhere in the 40s or 50s, there were families in Vancouver into the third generation living on welfare------no way would I ever agree that they deserved a basic income. In the 1960s I returned to the country and wanted a summer job----I got one behind a road paving machine---hot work and reasonable pay for the times. There was a co-worker who had a wife and five kids at home who said he could get more money staying at home and drawing welfare with no sweat-----he did exactly that and I think that is as wrong as hell and no way would I agree to support him with a basic income. If one is able to work, one should make every attempt to do so and I excluded the mentally ill and those with a physical affliction. Who said life was easy----you work and then you die and some do better than others and pay more income tax than I do but they still seem to die.
Circumstantial evidence-----DNA is hard fact and not circumstantial. Opinion is more circumstantial and think the damage that supposed child pathologist did in Ontario when he gave faulty professional opinion to too many juries-----think the guy's name was Smith---now living in Vancouver. Turcott and Marshall cases involved circumstantial evidence.
Death penalty-----life is sacred for the victims too and I support the death penalty for the likes of Bernardo / Homolka, Clifford Olson and Willy Picton. They have forfeit all rights, in my opinion, however, I understand others have warmer feelings toward mass murderers and I doubt in that group, too many would like to sit down to dinner with any in the group above
[updated Thu Dec 13 14:53:50 -0500 2007]
13 Dec 14:53
Bernie
Hi Tom, Yes, we all have different opinions and it's a good thing. It would be very boring otherwise.
"Bernie, you are as entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine".That's the way it should be. Actually my opinions coincide with yours on many things. However there are a few where we differ. Sometimes I state mine when I see the difference. Besides stating the opinion I find it desirable to explain why I have that opinion. Occasionally it is necessary to say why the reasons others give for their opinion does not create the same opinion in me.. That in no way implies that the others reasons for his/her opinion does not justify that persons opinion. I'm hoping I'm making myself understandable. I did not have the formal education that mnay others have.
Sometimes another sees things differently from what I do but thinking that I see them the same way he does, thinks that I am forming my opinion on what he sees.
I also find it necessary sometimes to point out that the way some else sees thing things is not how I see them and that's why my opinion is different.
For example, you saw a man with a wife and five kids leave a job and go live on welfare and that no way would you support him. That's fine; I would feel the say way if I had to support him. However I would see it in a different light. I would not personalize it. I would not say "I" had to support him but "we" may have to support him and since there are only a few of "hims" and many of "us" it would not take much from each of us. Since it would take a tiny piece of my paycheck I would accept that tho at first I may feel a little discomfort about it. My thinking does not stop with regard to the money involved. I think about the kids. No where in our country does welfare come close to giving a family a decent life. You sometimes here "they are living on welfare but better off than me". That's absolute nonsense Try living on welfare with five kids for ten or more years. Those five kids when they grow up will likely live on welfare too, or worse will create social problems for themselves and society that will cost us far more than it will to provide them with a decent loiving now. So I am willing to pay now than pay a lot more later or have my children pay more later. There are no gaurantees but the chances of them growing up to be useful citizens are far greater if they receive the help that they need now.
And another thought will come to mind. I haven't walked in that man's shoes. Tho he may look healthy I can't see inside him. Although I may appear not as strong or have the energy. I cannot make that judgement on him And of course his mental state I would have no idea about. The problems of his situation, I have no idea about or the demons he may be suffering.
Say, I live in a community of a hundred workers. They may be 5 who any numbers of reasons cannot or will not work. Since there is no way we can understand all the myriad reasons that they don't work I find it easier that we each give 5% of our income to see that these 5 have some decent standard of living. Especially if they have children. So what's possible for 100 is posible for 1000 or 1,000000 or the 15 milion or so workers in Canada.
These thoughts and more that would be too long to go into explain the reasons why believe we should have a guarenteed basic income for everyone.
I am not implying that others should look at it the same way. I may be naive or totally wrong for other reasons.
[updated Fri Dec 14 09:47:56 -0500 2007]
14 Dec 09:47
Bernie
Tom, you may be right, but I look at it differently. I don't think the Liberal party is headed for disaster. I think they have reached bottom and are about to rise.
Dion appears to be a clean, decent, honest, intelligence man. If it can be shown that way then the Liberals will rise again. They don't have far to go. They are already in a dead heat. Harper has been in for two years and has the resources of being the incumbent and still cannot elevate his party. Dion has only one year and disadvantage of being in opposition and still has not lost party support.
Dion would have to make a major mistake or Harper would get lucky with some issue that would resonate with the public. Having not done so in two years leaves me with the feeling there is little chance of that.
He is a known liar and his honesty and integrity will always be questioned by the majority of voters.
Old style politics was about gamesmanship, one-up-manship and image. People are more educated now, especially the young. They will not go for such nonsense.
[updated Wed Dec 05 08:49:35 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 08:49
Zena
I agree Bernie.
As for Steven Harper being "the most trusted Leader", what about his election promise to "never, ever tax Income Trusts"? Surely someone with Mr. Harper's background in economics realized that his promise would result in more Income Trusts being offered and more people investing more of their retirement savings in them. Then, to tax at 31.5%? As for his GST cut which disproportionately benefits the more well to do, does no one realize that he covered the cost of the cut by increasing the tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket and by reducing the basic exemption? Now he is saying that he'll make a further GST cut. How will that be recovered?
[updated Wed Dec 05 10:38:56 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 10:38
westerner (suspended)
Zena: What about the Liberal election promise to cut the GST to 0%. What about a national daycare program promised by the Liberals, etc, etc. All politicans make promises and all politicians break promises--don't be so gullible!
[updated Wed Dec 05 14:26:54 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 14:26
Bernie
I agree Zena, When I see Harper answer questions during Question Period sometimes it's absolutely false what he says. Another thing that angers me is when goes to an international conference and he is talking about the environment or Afghanistan and he says " Canada belives this or Canadians do that.. when it's only him or his governement. Most Canadians do not believe in what he is saying. He should not be saying those things until or unless he knows he has the majority of Canadians on his side. He is giving other peoples of the world the wrong impression of Canadians. This annoys me to no end.
[updated Sat Dec 15 08:13:22 -0500 2007]
15 Dec 08:13
westerner (suspended)
Mr. Dion is a socialist, academic university professor and a one trick pony on the environment where he has no credibility. He didn't get it done, not even close.
[updated Wed Dec 05 14:23:05 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 14:23
Bernie
Hi Tom
"The only trouble is not keeping up the routine of regular bathing and changing into clean clothes on a daily basis ..."
So you are saying politicians are like diapers; They should be changed often and for the same reason.
"Now, if the Liberals were led by Ignatieff, I believe Harper would have real cause to worry."
I don't know if Harper would be worried. I would and the rest of Canada should be too. Ignatieff is does not have the integrity or good judgement required of a PM
I, too. am in dreamland. I expect and demand my politicians to be moral and ethical.
[updated Wed Dec 05 08:06:20 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 08:06
Tom Good
Hello Bernie and Zena:----There are many perceptions about where the Liberals and Conservatives maybe headed in the next election and why they maybe headed that way. The centre of the road approach, Liberalism, is the greater majority of the electorate----I am talking about people and NOT party affiliation-----the alternatives are left of centre and right of centre-----again I am talking about people, the way they feel or see the country going. For the left of centre thinking or right of centre thinking to come into proninance, the larger centre leadership has to screw up, which it did. The Right and Left political parties HAVE TO HAVE a large portion of that centre group to sustain themselves thus the "swing" vote. What the Right and the Left tend to forget is that they have to hold and "grow" that centre vote----the core Right and the core Left will always be there. Today, the big question is does the centre-right have enough smarts to capture more of that centre vote ???? The centre-right has strong leadership but are their policies too far right? The traditional centre has weak leadership and largely undisclosed policies.
Do not rule out the matinee idol appeal of the leader----Schwartznegger would likely be President of the United States if he had been born on US soil.
You say the young are too smart to go for such nonsense---Hell, man, the young do not even get out to vote and the under 35s are almost unheard of in the "Voting Place". I have been a voting official for countless elections ! ! !
The income trust baby being thrown about all over the place is ridiculous but it makes good political hay. It was thought to be a better concept initially than it turned out to be but when the big corporations jumped aboard it became a disaster. If something is too good to be true, it is likely to be so ! !! Had the Liberals remained in power, they would have to have done exactly what the Conservatives did OR raise new taxes to generate funds to cover income losses OR go bankrupt. Governments are stupid sometimes but not that stupid. The Conservatives made an adjustment that HAD to be made no matter who was in power but it does make for political theatre now.
The analogy of the clean clothes-----In my opinion, politicians, once elected, lose their hearing acuity for the electorate and, if they lose that, then they become willing victims of "cumulative error"-----they develop that odour. The MPs begin to listen to themselves chatter or caucus direction rather than listening carefully to the MAJORITY of their particular electorate and I do not mean just their party faithful in that riding---an MP represents the WHOLE riding----our local guy has forgotten. They promise to listen at election time or pretend to listen at election time but, once elected, the majority of MPs appear to move to and live in another world. In this fast communication information age, MPs have to listen on a daily basis and use their ruddy heads.
Liberal leadership-----you think Dion will grow---you maybe right (and I put my money--literally---on him in the leadership race) but he had former government ministerial experience and a year as leader. He had enought time in my opinion,----we are talking about the Government of Canada and not some social function. Ignatieff has publically recanted his support for Bush going into Iraq---rather refreshing. Of the leader hopefuls who are known, I would put my money on Ignatieff but maybe there are others in the woodwork.
[updated Wed Dec 05 16:35:36 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 16:35
hollinm
Hi Tom:
I think we have seen all there is to see in the Schreiber mess. Canadians have already grown tired of the shenanigans. The only thing that can hurt Harper is any attachment to the Conservative brand in the public's mind. That hasn't worked to date even with the Liberals resorting to having the CBC write their questions. It is time to move on but the Liberals will continue with the hearings hoping something will come up to hurt the Harper government. I suspect that Johnston will suggest a minor investigation i.e. taking $75,000. while still an MP. Airbus has been investigated to death and so that is a dead end. Taking cash is not illegal otherwise there would be many Liberals in jail today (adscam). So we will see what Johnston has to say.
Watching Dion in his year end interviews will convince most Canadians that he is not prime minister material. His arrogance and his lack of English skills will convince most Canadians that he is not fit for the job. Although the kool-aid drinking crowd in Toronto will continue to vote Liberal. However, Quebec has written him off and the West sure won't vote for him.
[updated Thu Dec 27 14:24:41 -0500 2007]
27 Dec 14:24
Tom Good
Hey Hollinm: It is just the political game of trying to discredit your opponent at the expense of the public's bottomless purse. Schreiber---I guess there was some fallout with the Quebec voters perception as I have said on my just posted comment on Nik's next topic----at least that is the way I see it from this end of the country. In my opinion, policy and the absence of controversial policy, will be the core issue in the coming election if "leadership" can be kept in the background-----mighty hard for the Conservatives and Liberals at the moment.
[updated Thu Dec 27 17:47:45 -0500 2007]
27 Dec 17:47
pneilson
I for one am sick of listening to the non-stop frenzy from the Liberals and the fifth estate over something that may have transpired some 14 years ago between private citizen Karlheinz Schreiber and private citizen Brian Mulroney. No taxpayer dollars were involved and the amount ($300,000) is relatively piddling. This should be one paragraph at the bottom of page 14 of most papers, apart from a tabloid-like fascination with famous people in certain quarters. I can't believe that Parliament is wasting one second on it. With a deficient medicare system, crumbling infrastructure, manufacturing jobs fleeing central Canada for offshore, and a problem with violence, gangs and drugs in our cities, surely we have more important things on which to focus. Nobody that I have met in the past two weeks has raised this as a topic of interest on their own.
If the chattering class must focus on gross failures in leadership, perhaps the media could shift its attention to the millions of actual taxpayer dollars that were misappropriated under the watch of a recent sitting Liberal prime minister and his cast of characters, and focus on recovering all of it on behalf of the taxpayers who were cheated.
[updated Mon Dec 03 08:12:55 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 08:12
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hollinm
The Schreiber affair is turning into a farce with the Liberals only intent to try and stick scandal to Mr. Harper. Schreiber clearly said he had no contact with Harper or his office. Now the attack is focused on any person, alive or dead, who may have known, worked for and been within 50 feet of Brian Mulroney. It is disgusting and it shows the degree to which politics has continued to decline in its relevency to the Canadian population.
As someone has already said this "scandal" happened 5 prime ministers ago and it is about a private matter between two inidividuals. There will be no real evidence that will clear this thing up in the parliamentary committee because they are not interested in what really happened but to score political points. which may help in the polls. I suspect that the public inquiry will be very narrow in its focus i.e. when did the arrangement for the $300.00 take place and is there anything new in respect to the Liberal government's payment of $2.1 million to cover Mulroney's legal fees.
As for the poll by Nanos I would point out to my Liberal friends that Mr. Harper is still miles ahead of the weak Liberal leader with this polling having been the consistent theme since Dion was elected leader. The Liberals have not been ahead in the polls for two years. That should give Dion and his cadre pause for concern. However, anybody who listens to Dion with his over the top rhetoric knows he is bluffing and really does not have control of the party nor is the party ready for an election. The party knows they are stuck with this turkey until after the next election.
I will acknowlege that the Conservatives are having trouble breaking through in Ontario because they love their socialists programs whether they are effective or not. Because Ontario is the largest province they form the largest segment of any poll and therefore the Conservative numbers are held down. However, Ontario and the Maritimes will not give the Liberals even a minority government.
The vote splits will see 3 or 4 left wing parties vying for the same voters which may allow the Conservatives to come up the middle (even in Ontario). The other issue is leadership. While my Liberal friends keep pointing to the fact that with a slow start Dion will get stronger as time goes by. I am afraid they are misguided. Mr. Dion is not a politician but a professor who thinks like a professor. He lectures but cannot execute. Any politician who thinks he can achieve results by writing letters to anybody and everybody simply does not understand politics. He will need to sell his policies and vision verbally. Without the ability to communicate effectively in the language of the majority he will fail in this regard and Harper will be more convincing.
[updated Mon Dec 03 11:00:39 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 11:00
57 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
Many people are sick and tired of Shreiber already and we have only experienced one Ethics Committee meeting! There will be several weeks of this followed by very long sessions in the formal inquiry. The electorate wiill be so weary of this entire farce that people will be looking for a political party to hang with it. Chasing a very old story about $300,000 exchanged between two private citizens will wear very thin indeed. Hold on to your wallet, it is going to cost millions.
[updated Mon Dec 03 18:40:13 -0500 2007]
03 Dec 18:40
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
The trick for Harper is to convert his personal ranking into party ratings which he hasn't been able to accomplish thus far.
Dion on the other hand appears to spinning his wheels in then the mud. His many years as a professor and being an academic most of his life is not doing him any favours and may even be a factor in his lack of popularity and leadership perceptions. He will be replaced if the Liberals do not win the next election which doesn't appear likely thus far.
The electorate seems to be satisfied with a minority government and the Conservatives have manged to retain power in a minority situation longer then most previous minority governments because of a very weak and fractured opposition who don't seem to even agree on the time of day. Harper may be able to continue if the parties remain split as they have been. The Liberals are saying they will bring down the government likely in February but they can not do it without the hep of the other opposition parties.
[updated Wed Dec 05 04:42:52 -0500 2007]
05 Dec 04:42
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
blossom
Hello Nik.
I have a somewhat different perspective on this one.
Mr. Schreiber is no fool. He has been someone's patsy, and is using all he can to stay in this Country, rather than being deported to Germany to stand trial. He has opened a can of worms, and because political parties thought they would score points, thought that they would benefit from this. I don't think so. I think that some are digging their own hole! Mr. Schreiber is a Judge, in his own right. If the ranking MP's cannot understand fully what he is acknowledging, then they can perhaps get him an interpretter? Mr. Schreiber knows full well what he is about. Perhaps, he just doesn't want to go too far? Perhaps he is trying to be a little discriminating as to whom he really wants to bring down with him? Who knows?
Furthermore, please correct me if I am wrong, but isen't there a law that states that one cannot be tried for the same offence twice?
Let's not be too naive. Everybody knew he was an arms dealer, and how do we imagine business is conducted in any Country. Deals are made, and some get richer!
It all started because, perhaps, the medias could not get their 'election', so they focussed on a possible scandal. The Press should certainly know more about this recount, because they followed this closely at the time Mr. Mulroney went before the Commission. What I still do not understand is why this gov/t was so quick to step back from associating with this person, who has been advising them?
The vitrial that exists in our Parliament House is extremely damaging to all parties, and does not ensure voter appreciation, and participation; soon we may all want to tune-out!
Need I mention the meaness expressed by some NDP party member to one of it's opposing party members, just yesterday. Since when do we accuse before even entertaining and confronting with a proper discussion? We are becoming so righteous that the presumption of innocence is often forgotten.
Why aren't questions being answered daily in the House? Haven't we got the right to those answers in the House, rather than raking personal attacks on all.
The Journal de Mtl's headline yesterday was abominable...Not even worth repeating, but most discrediting to a man whom I have always perceived as honest, and trustworthy . We seem to be thriving on scandals. Do they really sell? And to whom?
Answsers as to why M. Masse was fired would be far more revealing about our present government. That the Accountability Act was remediated would be another point of approval for voters.
That M. Dion, honourable as always, who deemed that the Schreiber/Mulroney affair, was not, as he proudly stated in the medias, "a gift to his party", or for anybody, for that matter, does not get as much attention. Of course one cannot perceive M. Dion as a scandalmonger; but does that make him less interesting? Less intelligent?
M. Dion was more than short-changed since he has been Opposition Leader, because he has been attacked on all fronts, and personally, on minor, and very low key issues, that seem to have kept audiences distracted from the real issues that we should be really concerned about, and about the answers to which we have a right to know, but are not getting from this present government.
When are we Canadians going to lift our ideals above condemnation, to aspirations for the betterment of all Canadians and their lot. I guess we do not have any serious problems, because we seem to want to waster our time cherry-picking, and creating scandals, that we might be stuck to pay for. In the meantime, the real issues will stay on the back-burner!
What about what is happening in Afghanistan?
Hope that we wisen up for our own good, and the good of this Country. Hope that we at least give decent people a chance to show us their mettle! Not to do so, could put us at a great disadvantage.
As for S. Harper, I would think that he must have benefitted from the millions that he poured into ad scams against M. Dion; Shouldn't those dollars have been better spent repairing our infrastructures, pot holes, health-care, Education, etc...etc...etc...?
Cheers Nik, and congratulations with your new poll! Keep-up the good work.
blos
[updated Thu Dec 06 21:32:03 -0500 2007]
06 Dec 21:32
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
degres
It is a fact that if you sling mud, you will get mud on you.
The most interesting thing about this poll is the other parties are taking the biggest hit.
[updated Thu Dec 13 02:54:14 -0500 2007]
13 Dec 02:54
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
It is of no surprise to me that the party leaders are all losing support. There isn't one of them that is a "Stand Up" guy. The past decade has seen the quality of those leading this country to continue to diminish. We need leaders who stand up for a belief and not just for looking out for their political survival or the well being of special interests and to make their decisions for the right reasons.
Regards,
[updated Fri Jan 04 16:15:20 -0500 2008]
04 Jan 16:15
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.