The federal Tories and Liberals continue their neck-and-neck race in the latest Nanos tracking poll completed April 9th, 2008.
Of note, NDP support is down five points nationally since February. Support in Ontario for the Liberals is up and support in Ontario for the NDP is down. Regardless of the Dion leadership perception problems, the past few weeks have seen the Grits win the Ontario by-elections, former Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae enter the House and the Lukiwski comments.
For more written analysis…select…read the full piece.
Video of analysis and stats
It’s important to remember, this poll was conducted at a time of media focus on the Lukiwski anti-gay comments made 17 years ago. It’s quite possible that some soft Ontario New Democrats have strategically parked with the Liberals to block the Tories.
Tory support is up in the West - no negative fallout from Lukiwski there. The increase in support may also be part of a post by-election halo effect in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Methodology
Polling between April 4th and April 9th, 2008. (Random Telephone Survey of 827 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). The Nanos Research Survey of 827 Canadians is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. The subset of committed voters is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed Voters Only - First Choice)
The numbers in parenthesis denotes the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed in February, 2008.
Canada (N=827, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 36% (+5)
- Liberal Party 36% (+3)
- NDP 14% (-5)
- BQ 8% (-2)
- Green Party 6% (-2)
Ontario (N=251, MoE ± 6.3%, 19 times out of 20)
- Liberal Party 50% (+7)
- Conservative Party 32% (+1)
- NDP 13% (-6)
- Green Party 6% (-1)
When one combines the Lukiwski comments, the addition of former Ontario NDP leader Bob Rae to the federal Liberal front bench, the focus on Afghanistan and the Ontario Flaherty-McGuinty flare up - do you think some NDP voters are strategically parking with the Grits to block the Harper Tories?
What do you think?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
What the polls say and what the electors do in the next election, I believe, is ... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 11 Apr 04:06
Frankly, I was surprised by these numbers. Some of the polls were showing Harpe... more
Bernie (Ontario) 11 Apr 08:17
This confirms my beliefs that the politics played by Harper and his gang of inco... more
parnel (Ontario) 11 Apr 01:54
"Jesus would be overturning tables.." I would have categorized you as an atheis... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 11 Apr 18:01
Dion is failing his party as a leader. If he ever becomes PM he will fail the co... more
MRM (Manitoba) 13 Apr 08:53
The "joke" is the once mighty Liberal Party that has now been reduced to a laugh... more
MRM (Manitoba) 13 Apr 11:12
Comments
parnel
This confirms my beliefs that the politics played by Harper and his gang of incompentents are not resonating with Canadians. Many of them are withholding support for Dion due to his negative press.
I also believe that Flaherty's attacks on the Ontario government have backfired in the polls based on the Liberal party growth there and the gains do come from disaffected NDP voters as suggested by Nick. The fact conservative voter intentions are stagnant is telling.
The Conservative "halo" effect out west,particularly in BC, is a result of the close by election in BC which is not reflective of how people will vote in another election when major issues are on the table. The Sask. riding could go either way in the next election.
All in all a good poll for the Liberals and must be disappointing for Harper who is probably preparing his next series of lies in his attack ads.
The green party may also be losing "parked" votes back to the Liberals. .
[updated Fri Apr 11 01:54:34 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 01:54
125 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
What the polls say and what the electors do in the next election, I believe, is still up for grabs. At the moment it does not bode well for a majority. I wonder if all these months of election fever will contribute to elector fatigue and low turn out.
This poll is reflecting the moves of the "swing" voter who will be the kingmaker in the next election. Harper has to try to appeal to the Liberal "swinger" and at the moment, the poll says he has not been too successful. On the other hand, Layton has to hold his "swingers" in the NDP fold and the poll says he has not been too successful either.
In Quebec, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are trusted to rule. Duceppe will profit from the division and the Bloc will continue to represent that province. It will be interesting to see if goodies flow to Quebec as they did last year when it appeared an election was imminent---something will likely happen to try to "break" that stagnation of voter numbers.
The West is an interesting prediction with the Conservatives showing strength but that also may be a weakness if the Conservatives are perceived as primarily as a party of western strength. The west is, more often than not, out of step with the rest of the country. The way Ontario goes, so goes the rest of the country.
The "losers" in this poll are the NDP and the Greens and we see the beginnings of strategic voting come the election. Given no loose lips or bad stumbles on either side, the election will be October 19, 2009
[updated Fri Apr 11 04:06:12 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 04:06
16 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
broughad
It seems the battle lines are being drawn. Atlantic Canada and Ontario are firmly with the Liberals, while the Conservatives keep a stranglehold on the West, and Quebec is up for grabs. Support for the NDP is evaporating everywhere and it looks like many voters have decided to end their flirtation with the Greens.
Flaherty's interference in Ontario's budget has driven voters in that province firmly behind its Liberal government, thus benefitting federal Liberals. The Lukiwski affair has caused Conservative support in the West to retrench, mainly due to the shrill and morally superior reaction of the opposition, particularly the NDP.
If there were an election now, with their superior machine, the Conservatives would probably eke out another minority. If the Conservatives have learned anything from this, it's that it doesn't pay to bash the biggest province in the country.
[updated Fri Apr 11 07:56:34 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 07:56
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
Frankly, I was surprised by these numbers. Some of the polls were showing Harper in the lead by 10%, even a point or two in Ontario The attacks on McGuinty obviously had an effect especially coming from Fraherty. He did such a bad job of handling Ontario's finances during the Harris regime. McGuinty may not have an endearing personality but he is fairly competent and is not too upsetting to Ontarians. So the attacks are unwarranted and they haven't forgotten Harris and Flaherty.
It's only during election time do un-affiliated voters get serious and then one important issue can make or break the close tie we have now.
Harper is still not being honest and transparent, his prime election promises. Trying to insert an immigration bill into the budget is a trick taken from the Republican playbook. Just look at how often the Republicans have unpassable bills rolled into larger one that do have greater chance of passing. IMO every bill should stand on its own and voted on separately.
Timing is everything. There are many "swingers" out there. And any given news item or story they can change their vote overnight.
Harper owes his election to Zaccardelli. This doesn't appear to resonate in the West but the people I know in Toronto are outraged by this. Police interference in the political process smacks of military interference in banana republics. It must not be tolerated. To release a report of charges re Goodale in the middle of a campaign and with not one shred or evidence. The first report had no names but Zaccardelli insisted and released it with Goodale's name. Martin's polls dropped 16 points overnight. That is what won the election for Harper. Personally I'm not blaming the Conservatives for this, the blame is entirely on Zaccardelli as far as I can determine. This has resonance on Ontario and may contribute to a rising Liberal vote.
Tom Good has an good take these polls and I can't say anything much different from what he has already said.
[updated Fri Apr 11 08:17:23 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 08:17
23 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
The gap in Ontario is really startling and shortchanging the province by ten federal ridings didn't help Mr. Harper's cause either. But, if Mr. Martin dropped 16 points, so can Mr. Dion. Especially given the "Joe Clark treatment" he's receiving in the MSM. There's a real wolf pack mentality that has set in, even among the most seasoned political pundits.
I didn't see the Quebec numbers. Can I get them on this site.
Also, the last poll I saw on whether Canadians actually wanted an election, fully 80% said no. So, whichever federal party is perceived as causing one had better have awfully good reasons.
[updated Fri Apr 11 11:34:03 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 11:34
hollinm
Apparently the Libs and Cons are tied in Quebec at 23%. However, I still suggest to you that this is not indicative of voting intentions in Quebec. Crop has the Cons at 41% in some of the regions and the Libs in 3rd or 4th place.
Canada (N=827, MoE ± 3.4%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal Party 36% (+3)
Conservative Party 36% (+5)
NDP 14% (-5)
BQ 8% (-2)
Green Party 6% (-2)
Ontario (N=251, MoE ± 6.3%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal Party 50% (+7)
Conservative Party 32% (+1)
NDP 13% (-6)
Green Party 6% (-1)
Quebec (N=202, MoE ± 7.0%, 19 times out of 20)
BQ 35%(-2)
Conservative Party 23% (NC)
Liberal Party 23% (+1)
NDP 13% (+1)
Green Party 6% (NC)
Dion is not forcing an election because he thinks he can win.
When the election is called the Cons will unleash their formidable election machine. As Don Martin said on the At Issue panel last night the Libs will come out with their 3 wheel wagon stumbling along.
On the same program Chantal Heberts said that the seriousness of the Liberals predicament has finally sunk in with the National Council in Toronto. They apparently don't think the problems are confined to Quebec.
For better or worse Dion has been defined by all the parties as weak and indecisive. Similarly the media has attached the same mantle to him. So I agree we could be seeing the Joe Clark effect taking place.
[updated Fri Apr 11 13:56:01 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 13:56
hollinm
I do agree with you that swing voters will be the key in the next election. The election will focus on leadership and regardless of what the polls say today Canadians will have a choice to make between two people only. That is a PM with experience and an inexperienced "leader" of the Opposition who cannot unite his own party and refuses to participate in voting on the various important issues of the day.
You may be right that the people of Ontario are upset with Jim Flaherty. How juvenile if this is the case. Two levels of government have a disagreement and the people of Ontario take it personal. Can you believe it the disagreement was about tax reductions. How the mighty Ontario has changed since I lived there. They were sellf confident. Now they show they have an inferiority complex.
Don't blame Harper for Zaccardelli's announcement about income trusts. You will recall it was between the NDP and the RCMP. Had nothing to do with the Conservatives. Yes the Conservatives benefited but through no fault of their own. Quit living in the past and finding excuses for the failure of the Liberal party to get re-elected. By itself this issue would have been a blip in the campaign. Combined with adscam and its revelations it was the final staw that broke the camel's back.\.
The immigration system in Canada is broken and who broke it...the Libs. They knew it was broke but did not have the guts to do anything about it. So they just put a halt to immigration by allowing the sytem to atrophy because changing the system would have caused problems in the immigrant community. How is it fair to the 900,000 immigrants and their families to wait 6-10 years to get considered? The Cons are pro immigration and have shown it through their actions since coming to government.
The Immigration changes are not hidden. It is in the budget implementation bill for all to see. It was put there because it is part of the productivity agenda. We need skilled workers to fill the jobs in Canada's booming economy.
You are right it will pass because the Libs will support the budget implementation bill as it is a confidence matter. The Senate cannot deal with fiscal matters. Can you imagine what would happen if the Cons introduced it as separate legislation? Nothing would get done. It would be studied to death and then the Senate would study it to death. Nothing would happen and the immigration system would grind to a halt.
Mr. Harper wants to try to fix things that are broken. However, with 3 left wing parties in the House who want to prevent him from achieving results he needs to take extraordinary measures to get action. Instead of worrying about how he is doing it assess the legislation and determine if it is good for Canada.
[updated Fri Apr 11 13:08:23 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 13:08
vandaphil
It's incredible how Ontarians cling to the idea the Liberals both provincially and federally are the party that should govern. We have very short memories and as a result we the middle class in Ontario continue to get the short end. McGuinty tells a bold faced lie about not raising taxes and immediately introduces the health tax. That was 4 or 5 years ago right after he was elected. Despite the lie, he gets elected again and what does he want to do, impose more taxes by way of a tire tax of some sort. These taxes are aimed directly at the middleclass. The federal liberals are talking about imposing an emissions tax of some sort if they were elected. Of course its being hidden in some carbon tax plan to combat carbon emissions to meet Kyoto standards which are unattainable without severe economic consequences. Remember, Mr. Dion is the one who is prepared to impose Kyoto on us, while having no plan whatsoever to combat the economic fallout. Perhaps if the Ontario Liberal leaning media, re: CBC etc were more forthcoming, then maybe the Ontario voter would think twice about a party that only gives back a little to the middle class when it is time to buy votes. I believe Martin and the Liberal downfall in the last election had to do more with the advertising scandal in Quebec than Zaccardelli and the RCMP. The Federal Liberals continue to be arrogant thinking they have the sole right to power. It is clear Harper and his government are doing a good job otherwise the Liberals would have voted against them bringing on an election. Liberals continue to say one thing and completely act opposite to what they are saying. With Liberals its all about the power, not about what is good for Canadians.
[updated Sat Apr 19 09:54:46 EDT 2008]
19 Apr 09:54
Bernie
vandaphil, Yours is a thought-provoking post. At least it got me thinking about the issues you brought up. My thoughts are different from yours.
I often hear people say "that's is my reality; you have a different reality" Most often it's so-called educated people that I see on Tv or hear on radio.
Of course there is only one reality, the true, the actual, the thing that actually is. All else is perception. You have one perception. I have another. The fact that mine differs from yours is because of our past diffferent experiences or our present position. How close our perception approaches reality depends on experience, knowledge and our ability to judge.
I'll respond to your ideas in the order in which they were written.
"It's incredible how Ontarians cling to the idea the Liberals both provincially and federally are the party that should govern."
Federally first! I see most most Ontarians as being centralists and since the Liberals (except for Martin and the latter part of Chretien's reign) have generally been close to the centre they have garnered most of Ontarian votes.
And not only Ontarians, their long record of winning elections Federally shows that most Canadians are the same. Because the Federal Liberal Party has seen where most Canadians stand they gear their policies to reflect where most Canadians stand politically and so get most of the votes.
Provincially Ontario doesn't usually vote Liberal. In fact in the last 70 years the Liberals have only two Liberal premiers and just for 10 years. What I find strange is David Petersen was more to the right than either the previous Conservative governments of Bill Davis and John Robarts. And this present premier McGuinty is more right than I would like. But at least he seems socialist compared to Mike Harris. The elections of Liberal David Petersen and Conservative Mike Harris were an anomaly. They were both too far right for most Ontarians.
John Tory brought the Conservatives back toward a centralist position and would have won were it not for a single issue.
Ontarions for the most part are centralists, both urban and rural.
"McGuinty tells a bold faced lie "
All parties tell lies. I don't like McGuiny's lies either. I don't think politicians believe that people will believe them. They say what they believe may give themselves a chance to get into power. That's what all parties strive for. You seem to suggest that only the Liberals do that. Personally I believe the Liberal lies are generally less serious and fewer than the Conservatives and maybe it's because the NDP never have been in power (Federally) that we pay less attention to their lies.
"impose more taxes "
Taxes are good. I am in favour of raising taxes. They provide the means to provide the common needs of all of us. heaven help the unfortunate if it were not for taxes. The tax rates we have now are woefully inadequate in providing for the needs of many.
"..we the middle class... " Maybe this explains our different points of view.
You say you are middle class; I am from the poorer clss.You are on an endangered species list. The middle class has been decimated in the last 30 years. Today it's the rich and the poor More of the former but a lot more of the latter. The middleclass is not gone completely but is greatly reduced as a per cent of the total population and it is still being reduced.
If they were more heavily taxed it would mean a reduced government revenue. The burden of taxes should go to those who accumulate the monies and who reduced the middleclass; that is. the rich. They grab unto themselves a far greater share of the planet's goodies than they deserve.
"Mr. Dion is the one who is prepared to impose Kyoto on us
Do you really believe so?
Kyoto! It doesn't go half far enough. The idea that we will suffer economically is nonsense. Tho, a reduction in our consumption of the earth's resource would be positive. This comes directly from the propaganda of the vested interests. The fossil fuel industry spend multi-millions promote that falsehood. Anything to make sure there money making machinery is not shut down. There are many who protitute themselves to promote those who fill their wallets.
The scientists, the economists and the farsighted entrepreneurs that I read have no feasr of a downturn. In fact many of them say they can provide two or three jobs for every one that's lost through a downsizing of the fossil fuel industry. . All the rhetoric I hear about the loss of jobs and lower living standards, I dismiss. It's a lie.
There is only one solution. That is, the continuous reduction of the amount of green house gas that goes into the air. (also all the damaging particulates)
Reduce every industry, every year, maybe every month. until we reach the point where there is no more uncontrollable damage is done to the planet.
(to be continued) (5000 word limit)
[updated Tue Apr 22 08:19:04 EDT 2008]
22 Apr 08:19
Bernie
(continuation)
"the Ontario Liberal leaning media, re: CBC etc"
The media is conservative. There is no Liberal leaning media Nor do they lean to Conservatives or NDP. The private media is conservative. they are owned by corporations and so by necessity are conservative. They are in business and therefore tied to business issues. However they do criticize any government in power when they deserve it, which is often. It doesn't matter what party it is. The one in power cries 'media-bias" or media support to the other parties. Of course , this does not stand up to reality. I've seen both opposition to and support for policies whether they are Liberal, Conservative or NDP. It's the policy that determines their take, not the party. However , I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the close relationship between Mr. Harper and the Aspers. Harper gets good publicity when he shows bias towards Isreal in their papers..
Some individual columnists do show a plitical bias, but it's easy to check the veracity of what they write. Quite often that provides me with a great deal of amusement. When they do too far I don't read them any more. I rely on those who stick to the truth. They are not spokespersons for the media that they work for.
"when it is time to buy votes."
All parties try to buy votes. I guess those with the most money buy the most votes. But I don't think that's successful. I have more faith than that in Canadians. Most are insulted by such actions and diliberately vote against that. There are relatively few who fall for such low class.
"the Liberal downfall in the last election had to do more with the advertising scandal in Quebec than Zaccardelli and the RCMP."
The Inquiry showed that Chretien and Martin had nothing to do with that, nor any elected Liberal politician. This was no worse than what happens in all parties. It's just that the opposition parties took advantage and where able to create a mountain out of a mole hill. The lies of the other parties was far greater than the Liberals at that time.
I'm not condoning the actions of bureaucrats, or lower level minions of the party. I certainly didn't vote Liberal. I would never vote for Martin but not for the reasons you might think. Martin showed fortitude and Martin called the inquiry, tried to reveal what realy happened, something our present government refuses to do. It didn,t damage the Liberal party standing all that much. It hardly made a dent the polls. That happened when Zaccardelli caused the Liberals to drop 16 points in one day. So judge for yourself what had the greatest negative impact.
Are the Liberals arrogant? Yes, they are arrogant (but not Dion the most humble leader of any party for a long time. and maybe he has reason to be humble) I would suggest you sample Canadians as to which present party is most arrogant. Harper IMO is the most arrogant leader we have had in years. If he were less so his party would have a better chance of gaining a majority (just listen carefully to him talk)
". Liberals continue to say one thing and completely act opposite to what they are saying. With Liberals its all about the power, not about what is good for Canadians. " This is exactly what people say about Harper and his conservatives and with more justification.
To reiterate, our perceptions are different. I will leave it to independent judgements as to which more closely approaches reality.
But I must point out that your observations show a bias for one, I have the freedom of being indepentent and not choosing one over the other. So the bias on my part is much reduced.
Go Greens Go
[updated Tue Apr 22 08:48:49 EDT 2008]
22 Apr 08:48
MRM
Hi Bernie,
For someone who claims to be unbiased you sure tend to lean left with statements like:
“Dion, the most humble leader of any party for a long time.” And: “Harper IMO is the most arrogant leader we have had in years.” Since of course these are subjective comments they are by definition biased. And of course this one which is right out of the Grits playbook – “The Inquiry showed that Chrétien and Martin had nothing to do with that, nor any elected Liberal politician.” Of course that is not at all accurate. Here is an extract from a CBC article on the ongoing civil suit that Chrétien has filed against Justice Gomery regarding the Gomery Report:
Gomery Report lays blame on former PM
“Justice John Gomery says former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien shares the blame for one of the worst political scandals in Canadian history, part of which involved illegal cash kickbacks to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. Gomery made clear he believed Chuck Guite, the"untouchable" high-ranking official who ran the $250-million program, when he said he got political direction from the office of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, as well as Alfonso Gagliano, public works minister at the time, on which sponsorships to promote and what amounts to disperse to which advertising agencies.”
“Gomery points a firm finger of blame at Chrétien, Jean Pelletier, his chief of staff at the time, Gagliano and Guite, the public works minister's point man on the sponsorship scandal, as well as a handful of Quebec Liberal political operatives and advertising bosses.” The judge cannot assign criminal or civil responsibility. Gomery's report is a no-holds-barred account of how the sponsorship program, designed to raise the federal presence in Quebec after the federalists' near loss in the 1995 referendum, became a cash cow for a handful of Liberal-friendly advertising executives, and, in turn, a financial helpline for Liberal party in Quebec.”
"Since Mr. Chrétien chose to run the program from his own office, and to have his own exempt staff take charge of its direction, he is accountable for the defective manner in which sponsorship program and initiatives were implemented," Gomery wrote. "Mr. Pelletier failed to take the most elementary precautions against mismanagement - and Mr. Chrétien was responsible for him." (Article ends).
Martin was exonerated from any direct involvement but as Min of Finance it is hard to believe that he did not question where 40 million tax dollars were going so at the very least he chose to look the other way. Of course Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano was definitely an elected politician and directly implicated when he both directed and personally profited from the scheme. Further, to assert that this had no effect in the polls is also just not factual. The scandal devastated them in the polls, most notably in Quebec but certainly in Ontario. The RCMP announcement was a side show in comparison.
From Reuters – Oct 31, 2005
“Gomery Report To Sway Voters: Poll
OTTAWA (Reuters) – A long awaited report into the Sponsorship Scandal will have a big impact on the next federal election and unfavourable revelations could bring down the Liberals according to a poll released on Monday. Judge John Gomery who has been probing how $100 million was funnelled to Liberal friendly firms will release an initial report at 10 A.M. on Tuesday. The November 1 Gomery Report and the reaction to it will be a critical factor in the outcome of the next election A poll by SES showed that fully 19 % of voters will wait for Gomery’s conclusions before deciding how they will vote.”
_________________________________________________
In closing I, like you, am biased. The difference of course is that I freely admit it.
[updated Tue Apr 22 13:49:40 EDT 2008]
22 Apr 13:49
vandaphil
Bernie:
It is a well known fact the CBC is a Liberal leaning media. It's the only way in which they have managed to keep their publicly funded status all of these years. It sure hasn't been because of their high viewership. Of course the Liberals would have us believe that it served as a vehicle for Canadiana. What crap. Multiculturalism has taken care of any Canadian identity we may have had. Oh right, wasn't multiculturalism Trudeau's pet peeve.
I would agree all parties buy votes. I don't share your belief in the astuteness of the general Canadian voter. Eliminating the GST was Chretien's promise to the electorate four elections ago and guess what? The Progressive Conservatives of the day found themselves with only 2 seats. So don't tell me Canadians can't be duped into being bought. They were bought hook, line and sinker. The only reaon Chretien and Liberals held on to power over the next several years was because there was no viable opposition until he Alliance and Conservatives joined forces.
As for Chretien and Martin not knowing what was going on with the sponsorship program, do you really think they didn't know what was happening to millions of our tax dollars? If you believe this, then I know where you can buy some swamp land real cheap. The inquiry didn't prove Chretien and Martin were directly involved, but I believe they both chose, while in power to turn the other cheek as it were. I have no doubt whatsoever that they both had some knowledge of what was going on. If you believe absolutely that they did not have any knowledge whatsoever, then we had some very poor leadership.
As for Dion and his humility, please. That's all I have to say about that.
And yes, I would agree with MRM, your being unbiased is like me being pro Liberal. NOT
[updated Wed Apr 23 13:07:53 EDT 2008]
23 Apr 13:07
Vandaphil, I am struggling to understand your logic, or lack thereof. It is clear as day to most of us that we in North America are dominated by extreme right wing media, both print and electronic. Heck, Murdoch, Black, Asper and crew simply buy them up, fire independent thinkers and then spew their pro-American/Israeli/war/business agenda. And anti-peace/government/environment/labour/consumer.... you get the idea.
I watch and listen to the CBC all the time. For you to characterize them as pro-Liberal is simply not credible. It's like calling the New York Times a liberal newspaper, when it cheer led the Iraq war from the get-go.
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own them. The CBC is publicly-owned and it is by far the best source of unbiased news except, maybe, the Toronto Star. lol
[updated Wed Apr 23 15:20:54 EDT 2008]
23 Apr 15:20
Bernie
Vandaphil
Re CBC that is not a fact. I'll grant you it's the conventional wisdom. When people says something loud enough and often enough it's considered fact. It's how the Big Lie was and is created. It's just perception and a false one at that. There is no evidence to support it.
The CBC does not rely on any party to keep it in existance. No matter what party is in power it will fund the CBC. The public demand it. And It's at arm's lenght.
If I had my way I'd triple the funding, remove advertizing and ensure independence by (not arms lenght) a miles lenght by watchdog mechanism.
I resent your condescending attitude re your swampland remark. I watched the enquiry on CPAC. I read Gomery's report and I can assure you I am as cpable as you in interpreting the report. I come to a different conclusion.
BTW I didn't say I was unbiased. I am afraid you don't have much respect for my thought processes if you think I said that. We are all biased. I as much as anyone.
I'm biased in favour of good over bad, truth over lies, honesty over deciet etc etc.
I am biased against individuals too. There are 4 or 5 who post here whom I generally won't respnd to. When I was a kid my mother told me if I continue to argue with a fool I'm endanger of becoming one. I found it wise to heed my mothers admonitions. I have bias against Harper, and bias against certain policies.
What we were talking about previously was political parties, especially re Liberals and Concervatives. I don't have bias re parties. I would have equal support for any of them if they have policies I agree with. If a party had a set of policies I wouildn't care if it was Green, NDP, Liberal, or Conservative my agreement or disagreement would be the same regardless of which party it was. The context of what I was writing would easily show what I was referring to.
I HAVE NO BIAS AS TO THE PARTY NAME
It's very disengenuous to try make it seem like something else.
[updated Thu Apr 24 08:51:45 EDT 2008]
24 Apr 08:51
MRM
You don't respond because you cannot defend your arguments. No other reason than that so you can drop the holier than thou act anytime, No one is buying it.
[updated Thu Apr 24 22:10:34 EDT 2008]
24 Apr 22:10
I buy it, and I think I'm on Bernie's list. lol
[updated Fri Apr 25 12:40:57 EDT 2008]
25 Apr 12:40
vandaphil
Bernie, we could argue about CBC ad infinitum, but to say the public at large demand we keep the CBC as it is currently structured is anything but the truth. There is very little on the CBC that the public at large watch and I believe just about the only money making programming the CBC has is Hockey Night in Canada. The reason the CBC needs the enormous funding it gets from the government is because it could not stand up against the independants who have to rely on selling corporate ads to survive. And do you really think that when a corporation such as the CBC receives the kind of government handout it gets, that their programmng isn't influenced in some way to agree with government policy? In addition, appointments to government run or funded agencies are almost always given to party faithful. I'm sure you're aware of patronage, which I personally feel should be totally eliminated.
I apoligize for the swampland remark, but while the Gomery report was able to reveal some of the inappropriate actions of the middlemen in the sponsorship fiasco, I believe there were a number of people at a much higher level in the government of the day, that is the Chretien Liberals who knew about what was going on or at least had some idea. The inquiry did not, in my opinion go far enough because there are still millions unaccounted for. Yes I have a very low opinion of the Liberals, but I would have the same opinion of any party or government that allows tax dollars to be wasted vis a vis the sponsorship program.
You say you don't have biases against any particular party, only biases against policies you don't agree with. Well I guess when we're talking politics its rather difficult to leave party names out of it. I don't necessarily agree with every policy put forward by the Conservatives and I know there isn't a political party out there that I would agree with 100%. If you have a political party you agree with 100% well let me know.
[updated Fri Apr 25 10:17:36 EDT 2008]
25 Apr 10:17
Bernie
vandaphil Re biases: Of course I don't have a party I agree with 100%. There are many and some who post here who do or appear to. In fact there is no party I agree with 50%.
There are some who when they look at policy the first thing they do is look at which party proposes it. If it is "their" party they praise it. If it's from another party they oppose it. If it's not "their" party they are opposed to it even if it's the same policy.That's what I call that bias. I don't do that. If I see a policy I agree with I don't care if it comes from the communist or the rhinocerous or anywhere. I don't have party bias. I evaluate policy on it's own merit not on a particular party's endorsement. I see good policies in all parties and I see bad in all. I don't say it's good just because it's my party. I hope I have made my position clear this time.
BTW! I've stated several times before. I vote negatively; that is, I don't vote for either one. I cast a vote for the lesser of three or four evils. In the present case , the Greens.
I certainly agree with you re government waste. Yes, the Liberals wasted a lot, but no more than Mulroney and no more than the present Conservatives taken into consideration the porportional amount of time in power.
Who knows maybe the NDP or the Greens would even waste more.
All wastage is to be avoided no matter who it is.
I would love nothing more than to see a fully public inquiry into the wastage ot both the Mulroney and Chretien years with precise auditing, even of their income taxes. I wonder why the Conservatives don't like public enquiries. :-)
Yes I agree with you; re the CBC or our argument about it. We we get something in our heads we stick to it no matter how much opposing evidence comes our. I guess we can chaulk it up to cognitive dissonance. It's so prevalent in all of us I believe there must be biological basis for it.
Nearly all my acquaintances and 90% of those I communicate on the internet support the CBC. I recently saw a poll done by I can't remember now if it was a radio station or local paper in eastern Canada that show 86% were supporters in their area of the CBC. So I can only surmise that you are in contact with different people than I.
The CBC is not a corporation, in the real sense. Corporation are entities established to make money, the more profit the more successful the corporation. The CBC is a public institution. (sometimes wrongfully called corp.) It's mandate is not to make money but to serve the public. They should never try to make money.
Only recently did they allow advertizing, which they should never have done.
For the last 20 or more years the government PC and LIberal have used every excuse they can to cut the funding to them. It's down around 700 million now. I would like to see it go up to at least 2 billion. They can provide a great service to Canadians, however in recent years they are failing their mandate and it's getting worse.
I'm not much of a TV watcher. I can't recall watching anything on the American networks, except 60 Minutes and ocassionally Sunday morning, "Meet the Press', or "Washington Week" or whatever the names of those political or press programs are, and oh yes, PBS.
In Canada most of my viewing in on CPAC, and on TVO, the" Agenda" and "Big Ideas". CBC newsworld, and if I'm sitting around the house with nothing to do I'll infrequently watch a sports program on CBC. or TSN
[updated Sat Apr 26 08:12:18 EDT 2008]
26 Apr 08:12
MRM
vandaphil, I am going to intentionally be insulting here so if Nik admonishes me for it I will take my lumps but pass along the following to the immature Bernie:
I don't care that you do not want a discourse with me and whoever else is on your” list" but to continue to insult people by calling us fools and making backhanded comments when you haven't got the personal courage to defend your comments face to face is a low life approach to blogging.
You can also tell him that from this point on he is on my "list". Anyone else want to be on it?
[updated Sat Apr 26 08:44:11 EDT 2008]
26 Apr 08:44
vandaphil
MRM: You should forgive Bernie because he seems a little confused. He claims to have no party afiliation or favors no particular political party except at the moment for the Greens. That's only because he doesn't wish to debate policy he does not agree with, only policy that he favors. That's why he likes the Greens at the present time, because they are a one issue party i.e. environment. The rediculous thing about this is that every party even the Bloc is in favor of improving the environment. Where we differ is how we go about getting the improvement. If Bernie continues approaching his arguments the way he does, well he'll soon be blogging with himself.
[updated Sun Apr 27 22:48:32 EDT 2008]
27 Apr 22:48
MRM and vandaphil, your repeated name-calling defines you.
[updated Sun Apr 27 23:00:22 EDT 2008]
27 Apr 23:00
MRM
rsharp- Like I said earlier, people in glass houses should not throw stones. As I recall it is you that get repeatedly admonshed for name calling isn't it? There are plenty examples on this site where you engage in name calling on a much nastier level than I ever have or would. So I guess that defines you as well? I will leave it to you to determine how? I won't repeat some the things you have said but you can scan through your posts. The worst ones of course are the ones that have been deleted out.
vandaphil - Very well put. Thanks for the support.
[updated Mon Apr 28 08:23:17 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 08:23
Bernie
hi vandaphil
By what authority have you the right to diagnoze my mental state? Do you normally go around telling people that there's something wromg with them?
"He claims to have no party afiliation"; are you calling me aliar. I didn't claim. I stated uncathoglorically that none of those three largest parties have the kind of policies that I can ascribe to. Therefore I will not support either one of them. I will use the only I have and do what I can to reduce the number of votes they get. If I don't vote I am not registering my objection to their policies and I have no right to complain when the wrong one is in power.
I will give the Greens an opportunity to show what other policies they may have.
Environment is not the only issue but the most important; it involves the sustainability of the planet. The three main parties just say they are doing something and the things they say they will do ( politicians always do as they say :-)) are useless. Talk but no action.
At least the NDP and the Liberals recognize the severity of the issue. The Conservatives are only following what they think the people may believe will be acceptable to get votes now.
I don't believe in arguiment but discussion. I don't believe in dealing in personality but in policy. I don't believe in replying for the sake of replying.
If I say "My party says two plus two equals four".
A reply says " No , my party says two plus two equals five and I support my party."
And I reply repeating what I first said and the response again is as above. Then do you think it's sensible for me to keep answering?
I think not and many more think not.
We like to think we are more grown up and mature.
[updated Mon Apr 28 08:15:49 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 08:15
Bernie
hi vandaphil
By what authority have you the right to diagnoze my mental state? Do you normally go around telling people that there's something wromg with them?
"He claims to have no party afiliation"; are you calling me aliar. I didn't claim. I stated uncathoglorically that none of those three largest parties have the kind of policies that I can ascribe to. Therefore I will not support either one of them. I will use the only I have and do what I can to reduce the number of votes they get. If I don't vote I am not registering my objection to their policies and I have no right to complain when the wrong one is in power.
I will give the Greens an opportunity to show what other policies they may have.
Environment is not the only issue but the most important; it involves the sustainability of the planet. The three main parties just say they are doing something and the things they say they will do ( politicians always do as they say :-)) are useless. Talk but no action.
At least the NDP and the Liberals recognize the severity of the issue. The Conservatives are only following what they think the people may believe will be acceptable to get votes now.
I don't believe in arguiment but discussion. I don't believe in dealing in personality but in policy. I don't believe in replying for the sake of replying.
If I say "My party says two plus two equals four".
A reply says " No , my party says two plus two equals five and I support my party."
And I reply repeating what I first said and the response again is as above. Then do you think it's sensible for me to keep answering?
I think not and many more think not.
We like to think we are more grown up and mature.
[updated Mon Apr 28 08:18:16 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 08:18
vandaphil
The authority I have to question your mental state comes from this blog. It is my opinion and you can do with it what you want Bernie. The fact of the matter is that politicians will say what they think the majority wants to hear and they will set policy to try and satisfy the majority in an effort to gain power. Nik's blog gives us the opportunity to debate the issues and yes, express our opinions. Even you express opinions and they don't necessarily agree with everyone elses. So Bernie if you are unable to accept opinions which may hurt your sensibilities this may not be the venue for you.
Its easy for parties like the NDP and Greens to oppose anything and everything that a party in power does because they can't realistically hope to gain power. They know their only support comes from the fringe groups who oppose the governing parties. So don't try and tell me that the only people with solutions to the environment are the Greens and the NDP. All they do is muddy the issue even more and twist the truth because of course they do not have to answer to the vast majority of voters. So Bernie keep on spoiling your vote or voting for the one issue party because clearly the main parties will never satisfy you.
[updated Mon Apr 28 23:35:11 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 23:35
MRM
vandaphil- I do forgive him and I have forgotten him already. I suggest that you not waste your time with this guy. He doesn't want to debate. He just wants a soapbox to express his holier than thou view that he is somehow better than the rest of us (left and right) and above any sort of partisan comments.
[updated Mon Apr 28 22:44:49 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 22:44
LEDA
Depends upon what question is asked on a certain day combined with MSM sky is falling daily news reports. No one would get a positive response to a question if you feel the gov is doing a good job is all you've heard for months is how we are all going to die any moment now. It's amazing how a lot of the sky is falling crap goes away when a Liberal or Demorcrat is in power and thus the polling results thus change.
Sorry Nik, but good polling is based on accurate information transmitted to a receptive and informed public, we have none of that, so your polling results are nothing more than the results of questions to an misinformed public who don't really have a clue or care about the answer and then you go onto the source of misinformation to give your results. They love you.
[updated Mon Apr 28 23:36:41 EDT 2008]
28 Apr 23:36
hollinm
It sure looks like the Libs are benefiting from a decline in the NDP support in Ontario. Not surprising given the Libs are the only ones that can stop the Conservatives and short of an election the NDP supporters have no risk in a poll saying they support the Libs.
While national polls are great I believe the next election will be decided on a riding by riding basis.
Lib support continues to be strong in the GTA and the Martimes. However, outside these two areas their support is soft.
To demonstrate my point. In previous polls the Libs are showing support at 20% in Quebec. However, when you leave Montreal and move into the regions their support is 3rd or 4th. That accounts for 50 of the 75 seats in Quebec.
There is little support for the Dion Libs in the Prairies. There probably is support for the Libs in Vancouver but in the rest of B.C. it's primarily a battle between the Cons and the NDP.
So the Libs can take some consoliation that there vote is not collapsing under the Dion leadership but what it does is clearly demonstrate the Lib brand is still strong in the GTA and Maritimes.
However, in the next election there will only be two choices for PM of Canada. Canadians will need to make a decision as to who they want to lead this country in the future. Do they want a leader who has proven he can keep campaign promises, is decisive and makes decisions on behalf of the country.
Or, do they want an untested leader of the Official Opposition who has not demonstrated he has the requisite leadership abilities. A leader and party who has abstained or flip flopped on the important issues of the day and who people in his own party question his ability to lead.
Obviously if the Cons are to retain government let alone get a majority there will need to be movement in Quebec and Ontario. The former is possible but the latter is still a big question mark.
[updated Fri Apr 11 10:18:18 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 10:18
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
These numbers point to another minority government which will likely be Conservative as long as Dion is leader of the Liberals. If Conservative they wil be in power for at least 2 to 3 years as the opposition would be unlikely to trigger another election before then.
Why do we see very wide differences in polling results from companies that consider themselves professionall polling organizations? Who do we believe? Ten and twelve percent differences are hard to explain.
[updated Fri Apr 11 10:52:36 EDT 2008]
11 Apr 10:52
57 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Suggestion. Let's talk about the next election. When. Why. And who will win!
[updated Sun Apr 13 17:31:05 EDT 2008]
13 Apr 17:31
59 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
I think another poll this coming week would do further damage to the secrecy prone Tories. The Afghan torture story is going to get sme play and will mostcertainly make the Tories look like liars once again on their "accountability" promises and the fact it does appear that the government has possibly covered up another scandal.
There are also rumours that the so called Finance minister may back off his changes to the Income trust fiasco. it will be too little too late for that major mistake and lie to get corrected.
[updated Sun Apr 13 22:55:42 EDT 2008]
13 Apr 22:55
82 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Non-aligned in Toronto
With the recently resurfaced In and Out scandal dogging the Conservatives and new charges against Liberals from activities around Adscam, one would think that both major parties would be hurting somewhat. Mind you both of these hit the headlines after the polling period so perhaps we'll see the fallout of these next iteration. It is also highly possible that the electorate is still in a state of disconnect. I watch and wonder.
[updated Wed Apr 23 11:48:40 EDT 2008]
23 Apr 11:48
75 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
Here's some more good news that seems to follow Nick's poll of two weeks ago.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/418966
Gloomy outlook hurting Tories: Poll
Apr 27, 2008 03:33 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA–A new poll suggests economic fears and a lack of optimism are problems for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.
Fifty-six per cent of respondents to The Canadian Press-Harris-Decima survey said they were worried about a recession, and 55 per cent said they didn't feel Harper offered much optimism or inspiration.
continues.......................
[updated Sun Apr 27 17:58:08 EDT 2008]
27 Apr 17:58
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.