With their 15 point margin last week, the campaign was looking like a runaway freight train for the Harper Conservatives. However, a number of new factors have diminished the Conservative lead, which is still comfortable, to 9 points.
First, Harper’s culture comments renewed BQ support in Quebec. Combine the Richardson comments related to immigrants causing crime and Harper’s comments asserting Dion wanted the economy to perform poorly and the gap narrowed from 15 to 9 points. These two comments represent a tenuous lifeline to the Liberal campaign.
Tonight, Nik Nanos, President of Nanos Research and Official CPAC Pollster, joins Goldhawk Live host Dale Goldhawk at 7 pm ET / 4 pm PT to discuss the latest results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website at http://www.nanosresearch.com.
Methodology and Results
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters is interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking, a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of accuracy is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20 for 1,200 random interviews.
The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the previous Nanos Research Survey completed on September 26, 2008.
Question: If a FEDERAL election were held today, could you please rank your top two current local voting preferences? (First ranked reported)
Committed Voters - Canada (N=990, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 36 (-3)
- Liberal Party 27 (+2)
- NDP 19 (NC)
- Green Party 9% (NC)
- BQ 9% (+1)
- Undecided 18% (+2)
Question: Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister? [Rotate] (N=1,202,MoE ± 2.8%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper 36% (-1)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 18% (-1)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 12% (+1)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (NC)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 4% (NC)
- None of them 8% (NC)
- Unsure 17% (NC)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
- The most trustworthy leader
- The most competent leader
- The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
- Stephen Harper 92 (+7)
- Stephane Dion 53 (+11)
- Jack Layton 50 (-6)
- Gilles Duceppe 17 (+6)
- Elizabeth May 11 (-9)
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
Phew! But Harper still has a 9 point lead. Methinks he or his party would have... more
rsharp (Québec) 28 Sep 14:28
Does Canadian constitution allow formation of Green and Lib coalition government... more
shk (Ontario) 28 Sep 14:46
Things are tightening up again. Polls are like rollercoasters. Hold on and enj... more
fortescue (Ontario) 28 Sep 14:02
Wow. You're not the brightest bulb in the drawer, are you :) Nik's talented, ... more
Foxer (British Columbia) 28 Sep 21:09
I would have slept just fine with a nine point lead, much better than Stephane I... more
MRM (Manitoba) 28 Sep 21:22
rsharp 1. As a member nation we have obligations under both NATO and the UN.... more
HC in AB (Alberta) 28 Sep 21:28
Comments
fortescue
Things are tightening up again. Polls are like rollercoasters. Hold on and enjoy the ride. Quebec looks like they will determine whether its a majority or not?
[updated Sun Sep 28 14:02:03 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 14:02
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Phew! But Harper still has a 9 point lead. Methinks he or his party would have to do something monumentally stupid to blow it now. Or Bushco does, which spills across our once unguarded border.
The Liberals are going to be the official opposition. The only real question is whether or not we get a Tory majority. And what then?
Maybe we should draw up a "behavioural contract" for Harper. I'll do the first draft:
1. I promise not to get Canada into any more wars unless in self-defence, defence of an ally or as requested by the United Nations' Security Council to prevent genocide.
2. I promise to stop my rush to deregulate the private sector, whether competiton law, financial markets, environmental protection, labour standards or consumer protection.
3. I promise not to drag up resolved social issues, unless a specific campaign platform. These would include: a woman's right to choose, the death penalty, soft drugs, young offenders, the separation of church and state...
4. I promise to leave the wheat board, CBC, Canada Post and other Crown corporations alone.
5. I promise not to interfere with the legitimate duties of the the human rights, privacy access to information and official languages commissions.
6. I promise to stop muzzling government departments, so that they too can do their jobs.
You get my drift. Please feel free to add to the list.
[updated Sun Sep 28 14:28:12 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 14:28
116 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
shk
Does Canadian constitution allow formation of Green and Lib coalition government ?
[updated Sun Sep 28 14:46:52 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 14:46
50 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
fortescue
they can do whatever they want. problem is not enough of them will get elected to for a government. Traditional the party with the largest seat total will for the government. But they can strike a coalition with anyone they like to stay in power or control the house of commons.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:01:59 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:01
Kelvin
Of course. Parties aren't even specified in the Canadian constitution: all that is required for a government to form is that it has the confidence of the House of Commons. When a single party has a majority, then it definitely has the confidence required to form a government. If it's a minority situation, then it's anyone's game, as long as a government can survive confidence measures, whether that be on a case-by-case basis or with a multi-party agreement. For example, the Ontario Liberal minority government of 1985 was supported for two years by the NDP, although neither party outnumbered the PCs in the legislature.
But a "coalition" government is usually meant for a situation with more than one party in Cabinet (a situation that has never occurred in Canada, though does take place in places like New Zealand and Ireland). With the Greens unlikely to take even a single seat, I'm not sure why this would even be of any concern to anyone.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:11:18 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:11
A coalition government between Liberals and Green (if it ever occurred) could lead to a situation where the BQ and the Conservatives might come together. That would be peculiar since they don't have the same ideology but they could make compromises benefitting each other.
The last time we had a coalition government was when the government needed support for conscription at the time of World War I.
I do not believe in the current climate (no pun intended) that a coalition government would be overly successful.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:17:21 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:17
MichaelFox
the party with the most seats gets the first shot at demonstrating confidence. The greens aren't going to win any, so it's a moot point.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:23:16 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:23
Kelvin
Technically not true. The incumbent government gets the first shot. In theory, Paul Martin could've tried to cobble together a government after 2006 and worked to make sure it had the confidence of the House. Thus he had to resign first for the GG to ask Harper to form a government: the GG couldn't arbitarily dismiss Martin and ask Harper to form a government immediately after the election.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:34:54 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:34
MichaelFox
You're right kelvin. I thought about editing my post to say "in this situation, harper would get the first option" but I'm young on my phone and it takes forever to go back sometimes. :)
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:09:12 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:09
MichaelFox
"typing" on my phone - sigh
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:09:56 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:09
Harper will form government as he secures his majority.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:47:35 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:47
I'm a Liberal living in Alberta who will be voting Conservative this year. I'll agree Harper will form the next government, I won't go as far to say they could form a majority. I think what will happen though is that Conservatives will retain a similar number of seats that they hold now, and the Liberals will find themselves giving up some of their seats to the NDP and maybe a couple to the green.
In 1-3 years time I wouldn't be surprised to see the Governor General (Per the Elections Act) in a situation where she might dissolve parliament and Canadians will want to vote for *A* party that could hold a majority.
I don't think the next government will be any more effective (or destructive) as the last. The Liberals will be in the situation though where the Conservatives may prove that they can rule the government and that Canadians may choose them to in the election after this one to form the Majority.
If the Liberals want to have any chance, they'll have to do what the Conservatives(Progressive) did after they were reduced to 4 seats - find themselves creating a new party platform that can coalesce the Greens, some of the NDP, and maybe the Conservatives sitting near center to join them to form a larger base to keep the Conservatives out of power.
I'm pro-Harper this time, but I'd vote Liberal again if they changed their platform to not alienate Western Canada.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:59:33 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:59
MichaelFox
I am one if those conservatives who are near the centre. I can see a party being able to put together a platform that would appeal to both people like me and Ndp voters. I'd see the opposite happening. If the ndp and liberals merged, a portion of the centrist liberal vote would move to the conservatives, leaving two fairly evenly matched parties fighting it out.
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:14:25 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:14
MichaelFox
That should say "can't see" above. I wish we could edit our posts.
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:15:32 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:15
I think some of the Liberals are scared because they are under the belief that the Conservatives are *ALL* reform/alliance and on the far end of the spectrum.
But something I do agree with you about the fact we might move toward two parties fighting it out in a number of years. This would be a good thing since I personally believe it would be more likely for one of them to form a majority government.
Canada can't afford a bunch of Liberal or Conservative minority governments to put through crucial legislation to properly deal issues like the environment. And no - I do not believe the Liberal plan is good for Canada since it alienates provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta as long as the taxation remains revenue neutral. A compromise solution will have to be found that all provinces can live with.
I can only hope that the Liberals and Conservatives can work together in bipartisan fashion to move this country forward.
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:22:59 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:22
cklondon
Well actually, minority governments are much more representative of the will of the people. And many of the best pieces of legislature ever created in Canada came as a result of minority parliaments: health care, employment insurance to name two!
[updated Sun Sep 28 19:18:04 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 19:18
westerner (suspended)
Yes indeed. Good socialist legislation!
[updated Sun Sep 28 22:26:05 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 22:26
Lex Llewdor
Not really true. Minority parliaments make more popular decisions, but they're always popular in te short term.
[updated Sun Sep 28 23:31:43 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 23:31
Lex Llewdor
Sometimes unpopular decisions are good decisions.
That's the great thing about majority parliaments. they can make a decision that's unpopular now, but will prove to be a good idea in the long term. Then, four years later, the people can see what a good idea it was.
But at the time, they opposed it.
The people are not good at making smart decisions. The people don't understand economics.
[updated Mon Sep 29 12:51:58 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 12:51
gretag
mpetch, do you know that Harper has promised to implement cap and trade without any corresponding tax cuts and credits? He hasn't revealed the cost yet, and said he won't until after the election. However, government studies found that a carbon tax would actually affect the economy less than Harper's own previous estimates for his cap and trade. This is in line with the US Congressional Budget Office which finds that cap and trade is on average several times more costly than a carbon tax. Do you find this safer because you don't believe he will actually do what he says? Or some other reason?
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:17:53 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:17
My view is not based on the economic impact of the Liberal or Conservative agenda as long as Alberta's constitutional rights are served regarding natural resources AND that whatever plan is created doesn't shift Alberta's wealth to the East. Greenshift is bad as long as it remains revenue neutral, and Harper is right when he says it threatens national unity. The moment I see a shift of our wealth out of the province without a proportional return - I'll easily support separation. I'll never vote Liberal at the provincial level (like many I know) because we do need an NEP firewall.
I am not even really bothered by Harpers statement of controlling which countries might get our oil. We'll always have a market for it, but keep Alberta the master of its own destiny when it comes to how our money is spent.
Equalization payments work well enough at it is.
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:32:37 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:32
JR-Moncton,NB
To MPetch: Do you know that at one time Alberta was the poorest province in Canada. When oil was first discovered at Leduc, The cost of a barrell of oil from Alberta was $2.00 a barrell whereas oil from the middle east was 50 cents a barrell. Because Alberta was poor, the Federal Liberal government of the day mandated that from the Ontario-Quebec border west, oil from Alberta would be used. Oil from the middle east used in Eastern Canada was taxed and the money used to subsidize oil from Alberta which allowed Alberta to develop an oil industry which has made Alberta the richest province in Canada. Would it not be fair that today Alberta would help poorer proivnces.
[updated Sun Sep 28 21:19:53 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 21:19
Interesting how you left out the Liberal rape of Alberta coffers to reduce the cost of Gasoline in the east during the energy crisis. You do remember that little thing called the NEP. We pumped a lot of money into Quebec at that time.
Secondly, Alberta like all have provinces gives back through equalization payments.
Oil and Natural resources that are not off shore are the jurisdiction of the provinces. Oil in Alberta - is Alberta oil - not the federal governments oil. There is something you may remember called the Canadian Constitution that lays that out.
If you don't want Alberta oil sent to the rest of Canada we can have you shut down the refineries (that create jobs) in Sarnia and we'll ship it right to the US. Alberta creates jobs in primary industries out east. Alberta's prosperity helps Canada. I'm sorry you don't see that.
If you wish to prosper from Alberta, our borders are open, we are looking for skilled people and you can put sweat equity into laying your claim to Alberta's riches. I welcome you with open arms.
[updated Sun Sep 28 21:37:52 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 21:37
JR-Moncton,NB
Oil and natural resources in the ground are the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, as soon as you extract them, they are a commercial product and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. Under the constitution as initially written, things that were fixed such as land, property, etc were the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, anything that moved between jurisdictions was under the jurisdiction of the national government ex: fisheries is a federal jurisdiction, monetary issues, etc. Alberta was allowed to keep revenues from a commercial product i.e. oil to help it get out of poverty. But it was an exception to the constitution.
[updated Mon Sep 29 09:41:56 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 09:41
westerner (suspended)
Alberta is contributing enormously to the equalization program and is helping the have not provinces.
[updated Sun Sep 28 22:27:38 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 22:27
Are you suggesting Alberta has not paid or has been paying their fair share in our confederation? In our confederation of provinces our Federal gov't have used policy and money to build a county. At times throughout our history a particular region or province has been given funds to help with National interests or policy.
The question is do you feel we should open Constitutional talks and secure taxes/royalties from any provinces as we see fit under any circumstances?
I am not from Western Canada, but admire the resilence of Canadians who do not live in large urban centres. They have realistic expectations in comparison to people who live in large urban centres that view entitlements and all encompassing social safety nets as a right.
I live in the LARGEST urban centre and see the effects of the costs and programs living in a large urban centre.
Let the provinces and cities tax local wants and needs through greater taxation. If you want daycare in Toronto or any large urban centre tax it locally because you wont find a daycare provider in a small town. If you want to secure more ARTS funding lower the taxes you collect at their location (Montreal,Toronto, Vancouver). Provide a provincial tax credits and relief if Arts Funding is critical to your region or province.
Why ask Canadians on fixed income barely staying above water to pay for more social programs that they will not benefit from?
Why ask Aboriginals who are living in third world conditions to keep waiting for improvements?
BC has implemented a carbon tax progam provincially, provinces don't need Ottawa to soley address the enviroment. Alberta and Sask are implementing policies to address the enviroment and the people who live in those provinces will let their leaders know if their policies dont reflect their needs.
We dont need or want Ottawa dictating in matters of provincial responsibilty.
[updated Mon Sep 29 08:47:06 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 08:47
Interesting feedback do you consider yourself a liberal voter going Tory or do you switch based on leader and platform? Looking for hard core liberals and what they are going to do this election.
[updated Sun Sep 28 16:25:40 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 16:25
I switch based on Leader and Platform. I am not a believer that the party I vote for necessarily has to have my exact ideological view. I try to find a party that represents the people in my region, my own view, and what is good for all of Canada. I try to choose provincially and federally in such a way to find some level of balance.
I am pro-choice
I am pro gay rights
I am pro universal healthcare
I am anti "private and public health care systems"
I believe in protecting the environment
I believe in the Canadian Constitution
I believe that part of my responsibility as a citizen of earth is to try to do things that promote humanity as a whole, even if I may have to give up some of my freedoms and liberties.
When it comes to Alberta natural resources you may say I border on "Neo-Con". But many Liberals in ALberta feel this way.
I vote Progressive Conservative in Alberta because Alberta's natural resources need to be protected from federalists, but we now need to marry that with environmental policies. The Liberal party of Alberta is not an option. I believe we need to create an "NEP" firewall in the event we find ourselves facing another Trudeau.
I have always voted Liberal in all Federal elections because I feel they bring balance on key social issues that are good for the whole of Canada, and are a beter representation of my social views.
I am voting against Liberals this time because I believe Dion is a weak leader, he is out of touch with Western Canada, he is out of touch with Quebec, his environmental policy threatens national unity, and I see Greenshift policy (revenue neutral) as indirect movement of Alberta's (And Saskatchewan's) wealth to provinces with lower pollution levels per capita, and I don't believe he can do any better than Harper on the economy.
The Liberal party this year is its own worst enemy.
[updated Sun Sep 28 17:03:50 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 17:03
I wrote: 'I am anti "private and public health care systems" '
Should have read "2 tiered healthcare"
[updated Sun Sep 28 19:29:53 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 19:29
We already have 2 tiered healthcare. If you have money you can jump the que and get medical services in another jurisdiction.
Again instead of spending billions more we need more efficient use of our tax dollars.
Provincial governments along with governing bodies need to get foreign doctors and skilled labour on a fast track and productive in our economy.
I do believe we should use incentives to push doctors to stay in GP and serve underserved communities.
We should reserve all our training spots for doctors who will remain in Canada for 25 years from graduation.
[updated Sun Sep 28 22:06:52 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 22:06
westerner (suspended)
You can get private health care in BC, Ontario and Quebec without going to a different jurisdiction. One tier is a myth.
[updated Sun Sep 28 22:36:52 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 22:36
westerner (suspended)
We have two tiers now. You can get private surgical services in BC, Ontario, and Quebec.One tier is a myth.
[updated Sun Sep 28 22:29:37 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 22:29
Not sure that statment makes sense ->I am anti "private and public health care systems"
I agree we need much more better protection for our environment. All parties talk alot but the special interest lobbyists apparently have the ear of our government(s).
I don't think the Liberal Party after signing Kyoto and having a majority for 11 of 13 years and producing CBC commericals should claim they are trustworthy in that area. The Tories need to enact their promises quickly and push for National standards in areas of consumer protection.
I do believe resource rich provincial governments must above all else protect its citizens from the problems (pollution, social problems etc) and use its revenue to diversify its economy for an eventual downturn. The resources belong to the provinces.
[updated Sun Sep 28 21:51:01 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 21:51
You may have missed it but I posted a followup to correct that very statement about healthcare.
[updated Sun Sep 28 21:57:06 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 21:57
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
You have the 'western cancer' too, I see. They have convinced you that your allegiance to the Liberals is no good for the west and you foolishly believe them !! OY, man, get your head screwed on straight. You may have to vote for a loser but YOU ARE A LOSER if you don't vote Liberal if you are one !!
[updated Mon Sep 29 00:45:14 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 00:45
I find this poster acting like a school yard bully, if you don't agree with their facts or idealogy they belittle you get labelled accordingly.
Funny thing is I can respect your opinion and your beliefs without insulting you or demeaning your party and leader is it too much to expect good manners and some civility in this forum or our daily lives?
I am all for a reasonable debate and enjoy hearing different ideas to our problems facing us, I only hope you can gain some maturity and accept other ideas with an open mind in the future.
Good luck MBAGS.
[updated Mon Sep 29 08:06:30 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 08:06
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Thanks - I'm plenty mature - I'm 64 years old and 'loaded for bear' against the craps and harper, believe me. I'm a Liberal through and through and any opinions from 'the dark side' don't belong in my province - Ontario, thank you.
[updated Mon Sep 29 09:28:24 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 09:28
I would disagree correlating age with maturity. You can be immature adult with bad manners, it is possible.
How you treat others or take criticism is a reflection of your upbringing and social skills.
I know alot of young children with maturity and good manners.
Again I wish you well and look forward to your issues without your personal bias and mud-slinging.
[updated Mon Sep 29 10:06:06 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 10:06
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
I'll NEVER stop slinging 'mud' at a party born of lies and deceit as the cpc was !! The fact that they even call themselves 'conservatives' is an insult. peter mckay destroyed the last vestments of the TRUE PC Party of Canada by joining with harper when he 'swore' he wouldn't. THAT sir, is a 'traitor' in my political books. There were countless people against what he did to the PC Party and he should have paid for it dearly. I know Ms. May is running against him and although he probably will win, I certainly hope she can 'upset' him, just for the sake of 'spite' which he showed to his PC members when he summarily 'divorced' them for the sake of political gain at the expense of the complete demise of The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Sir John A. would be 'turning in his grave' at such a 'spectacle'.
I say that, and I'm a TRUE Liberal !! mckay is a disgrace as is the entire cpc party and especailly harper. 'Nuff said.
[updated Mon Sep 29 10:56:29 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 10:56
As an "extremist" your opinion holds no value in this forum, try the Yahoo groups.
Goodluck to blind loyalty and your personal views.
Voters will decide thankfully.
[updated Mon Sep 29 11:11:17 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 11:11
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
YOUR posts are extreme. YOU take the voyage to the other sites. At 64, I've got seniority and know more about Canada and it's politics than you ever will.
[updated Mon Sep 29 11:17:53 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 11:17
About Nik’s Leaderboard
We don’t decide who the Opinion Leaders are, you do.
Our Opinion Leaders are the people whose comments and the views expressed in those comments have received the highest approval ratings from the people participating in our community conversation.
As you read Nik’s postings and the comments being posted by members of our community, you’ll notice that we provide you with the opportunity to comment and to agree or disagree with the comment.
We would encourage you to rate the comments of others - the individual comment ratings will be kept confidential. We are able to keep track of each comment rating and we use these ratings to identify our Opinion Leaders.
Nik's Leaderboard
Informed ↑
gfthompsonjr ↑
Van's World ↑
mpetch ↓
Hal ↓
robertmcclelland ↓
Leofff ↓
MichaelFox ↓
deejay ↓
tdot416
You sir are polluting this forum with "extremist" ideology. Every vote is important and all Canadians coast to coast will decide our election.
[updated Mon Sep 29 11:35:02 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 11:35
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
I really don't care about that !! It contains virtually ALL cpc supporters. I know I'm the 'villain' here because I don't support 'the dark side', meaning harper. The fact that almost none of my 'fellow Liberals' have 'reached' this site is sad. THEN there would be a more fair evaluation of the 'facts' and 'feelings' of the visitors to this site. That almost ALL support harper gives me NO 'foothold' or 'partners' to 'chime in' in a postitive way to my statements. Your post is 'slanted' as such and means NOTHING !! That's the truth. ONLY 'fair' debates, where each side has equal members in it is relevant. However, I shall NOT back down from the likes of all of you. I've got the 'high road' and your 'attacks' on me are fully 'repetetive and as a group', with no consideration for fairnesss. I can handle THAT, but you all keep 'running' at me because you KNOW I have NO 'backers' at present and that is simply because my Liberal 'friends' simply haven't found this forum. Come back when the 'debate' is fair and watch the 'fur' fly from our side !!
[updated Mon Sep 29 11:46:08 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 11:46
You don't introduce facts, just your bias.
You don't accept responsibility for your choice of words.
You claim this a Tory forum now, I guess the facts just get in the way.
Again I wish Dion goodluck in the debate and hope all the leaders present their ideas to Canadians for us to decide.
Canadians will decide our next government and I will support what my fellow citizens say, I just wish you would do the same.
[updated Mon Sep 29 12:16:42 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 12:16
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
I introduced 'Ottawa Valley Borden Line' and you cpcers went nuts. I've gotten almost 300 'hit's and you have NO compunction to agree with my point that Ontario paid dearly for 12 years for that to Alberta - GRATIS !! Not ONE of you will at least admit to the truth that Ontario helped Alberta and you've got ALL kinds of unproven excuses to debunk it.
'Nuff said.
[updated Mon Sep 29 12:57:52 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 12:57
Try another forum
[updated Mon Sep 29 14:39:58 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 14:39
dgbeaulne
You sir, have stepped over the line. Your vile disposition towards others with differing opinions has no place in this forum.
[updated Mon Sep 29 08:29:03 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 08:29
Who are you to referring to? "You sir, have stepped over the line. Your vile disposition towards others with differing opinions has no place in this forum. "
[updated Mon Sep 29 14:40:45 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 14:40
dgbeaulne
MBAGS.
[updated Mon Sep 29 15:37:14 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 15:37
Agreed, I dont care what idealogy you adhere too but civility in this forum for the most part makes for a healthy debate.
[updated Mon Sep 29 16:02:46 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 16:02
The governor general is a symbolic head of state, she would not interfere with the votes and allow other parties through a coalition to form a government.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:50:36 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:50
Lex Llewdor
Lord Byng did.
[updated Mon Sep 29 12:56:43 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 12:56
The role of the GG has been redefined as a result by McKenzie-King. The GG are a representative of the Queen/King and no longer the British Government.
Agreed?
[updated Mon Sep 29 14:54:17 EDT 2008]
29 Sep 14:54
Kelvin
Not surprising result: three-point Tory jump on Sept. 24 was clearly an outlier and has passed through the sample. NDP's stalled at 19% though.
[updated Sun Sep 28 15:02:28 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 15:02
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Looks more like there was a sudden jump in the undecided - possibly people saying undecided instead of cpc - but it's very very odd that this is the second weekend in a row where there's a 'sudden and improbable' reversal.
The cpc dropping 2 points would be a little unusual - there's no indication of a sudden drop last night anywhere else. But more importantly, there's no reason for the libs to go way up while the ndp doesn't.
And that's the second weekend in a row that kind of thing has happened - sudden overnight drop for the cpc, sudden unexpected rise for the libs. And there's just no indication in any other poll that there was a reversal of that nature - in fact most would say the ndp has been gaining strength not the libs.
I dunno - we'll have to wait and see if it holds for a few days, if it 'suddenly' goes back up like we saw last week then i'm afraid we'll have to conclude there's a problem with nicks methods.
[updated Sun Sep 28 19:07:23 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 19:07
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MBAGS (suspended for inappropriate comments)
Hello boys and girls - MBAGS here !! Oh the shame of my posters to the 'Ottawa Valley Borden Line' blog that got over 200 'hits' so far. They are cryin' in their beer about now !! Geez, ONLY 9 points instead of 15 - OY VAY, what will they do !! No sleep tonight - late for work tomorrow !! LOL - NO majority !! Maybe worse !! One would hope this side of the 'Mason-Dixon' errr... Manitoba border !!
36% A SOLID weak minority and if it holds or gets worse, harper is D-E-D, dead !! LOL.
I CAN dream, but with the numbers taking a 'dive' I can't help but taking my turn to 'gloat' a little.
ALL the 'write-offs' and BANG, a 'Liberal surge'(I invented that one). It's a small one, but obviously at the cost to the cpc and harper's goonies. If we get another one like in '06 for the Libs, wow, we got a 'horse race'. Sorry to those whom I offend, but I've gotten my brains beat out about the 'Ottawa Valley Borden Line' from 1961-1973 and they're scattering for the hills out west after just long enough to take a 'poke' at me for daring to bring up the fact that Ontario saved their butts for 12 years !! LOL Cheers - MBAGS !!
BTW - If you want to 'Google' 'Ottawa valley Borden Line' (fourth one down), you Can read the truth about how many years Ontario supported Alberta's oil production at a huge cost - GRATIS !! Diefenbaker legislated it !! (PM for PCs - majority 1958-1963). I was almost 18 when the NOP took hold. I remember !! The Libs under Pearson and Trudeau let it go for Alberta until 1973 and it was cancelled, but Ontario payed, oh did we pay !!
[updated Sun Sep 28 20:30:44 EDT 2008]
28 Sep 20:30
54 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.