The first night of tracking since the plagiarism issue hit the campaign shows no initial significant impact on Conservative ballot support. The Tories still maintain a ten point margin over the Liberals. It may take a few days to understand the true impact, if any, of the plagiarism story and the effect it will have on the dynamic of this week’s leadership debates.
Of note, Harper’s trust advantage has eroded in the last two nights. For most of the campaign Harper has had a significant advantage over the other federal leaders on trust, competence and vision. Although, Harper has retained his advantage on competence and vision, perceptions related to trust have eroded and there is now a statistical tie between Harper, Layton and Dion on the daily CPAC-Nanos trust measure. Also of note, Layton’s daily leadership score dropped yesterday, likely a result of the focus on the Conservatives and the Liberals.
Tune in to an early edition of Prime Time Politics with Peter Van Dusen tonight at 6 pm (EST) on CPAC for a discussion of our latest polling results. For more detailed information on the methodology and the statistical results visit the Nanos Research website at Nanos Research or chat about our polls on Nik’s blog at Nik on the Numbers.
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 29, 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=1,065, MoE ± 3.0%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 36 (-1)
- Liberal Party 26 (NC)
- NDP 20 (NC)
- BQ 10% (NC)
- Green Party 9% (+1)
- Undecided 11% (-1)
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 35% (-1)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 18% (NC)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 15% (NC)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 5% (NC)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 5% (+1)
- None of them 8% (+1)
- Unsure 15% (-1)
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 (+3)
- Stephane Dion 53 (+10)
- Jack Layton 49 (-10)
- Gilles Duceppe 19 (+3)
- Elizabeth May 18 (-2)
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
I'm encouraged by fact Canadians did not fall for the newest Liberal hack,slash ... more
Regina Beach Boy (Saskatchewan) 01 Oct 14:22
I have not been making any comments since the start of the daily polls.,... more
Bernie (Ontario) 01 Oct 14:31
This sounds like a Western Canada love-in on this board. Are you saying Regina ... more
HoldenCaulfield (Ontario) 01 Oct 14:55
They never would have balanced the budget if Preston manning hadn't held their f... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 01 Oct 19:13
The Liberals would be most likely to get us into foreign wars, like they did in ... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 01 Oct 19:18
And Iraq. Remember - we had troops in Iraq before the 2006 election.... more
Lex Llewdor (British Columbia) 01 Oct 19:19
Comments
Regina Beach Boy
I'm encouraged by fact Canadians did not fall for the newest Liberal hack,slash and Gotchya job by the Bob Rae. I guess Canadians are above these gutter politics and would prefer to talk about the Issues, like the loomong financial nightmare next door, our economy, jobs, and the enviornment.
How novel is that!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:22:37 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 14:22
22 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
psiclone
Hey Nick! What I am fascinated by is how well the NDP are doing this election and if unlike last election where startegic voters went Libera : I have a question is it possible what with all the 3 way races, the strategic voters and if Jack does well during the debates then add a few more undecideds : could the NDP possibly become the official opposition?
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:23:42 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 14:23
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
Jack Layton took a hit on the leadership index. Wonder if that is the result of his big spending announcements just when the markets took a dive?
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:26:06 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 14:26
8 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I have not been making any comments since the start of the daily polls., since I am not interested in them. The Oct. !4 poll is the only real one.
And all I read here is partisan BS. and personal invective. Neither of which holds any interest to me.
I may watch the "debates" as they are called. Normally I don't but I want to see how Ms May conducts herself and the reaction of the other leaders to her.
It won't make any difference whom I vote for. My mind is made up as soon as the writ is dropped. I don't understand why anyone would be undecided.
I keep abreast of politics all along and so campaigns have no influence on my voting.
I could never vote for the destructive policies of the Harper government. I know how bad he is.
I don't see the policies on any of the other parties having any negative effect on us.
It's just that they don't do enough positive things to make this country what it could be.
Ms. May's voice needs to be heard in parliament so I will vote for her.
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:31:52 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 14:31
21 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
HoldenCaulfield
This sounds like a Western Canada love-in on this board. Are you saying Regina Beach Boy that you find it acceptable for Stephen Harper to stand in the House of Commons and argue that the Nation ought to go to war in Iraq, using someone else's words? As Rae rightly pointed out when a leader is making such an argument it is incumbent upon him to find his own words or the words of his own Nation, not those of the Bush coalition.
Bob Rae and the Liberals were correct to point this out.
[updated Wed Oct 01 14:55:58 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 14:55
64 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
larryl
Holden. When caught with your hand in the cookie jar it is hard to deny guilt but when making a speech you can always blame a speech writer even if you wrote the words yourself. Steve was opposition leader at the time but he was a former speech writer who probably thought he could do it all himself. How many professional speech writers would resort to plagerism and risk losing all credibility and their lively hood at the same time? Not only did the Liberals point out what Harper did but also reminded us of Harper's belief that we should be in Iraq at the same time. The timing of this also shows the Liberals are better at campaigning than the CPC who are still rookies . Any possibility this subject might come up during the debates. Harper had better choose his words very carefully so they can't accuse him of doing this again.
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:15:11 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:15
Peggy
Speaking of hands in the cookie jar... I am still reeling about the fact that I donated money to the Liberals through my tax dollars in the Sponsorship scandel and didn't even get to claim it on my income tax form-nor have any say in it!!!!!!!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:33:41 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:33
oldmanrunning
You must be pissed about the money you donated to the conservatives through their in-and-out campaign financing scam too, I'll bet. I sure am.
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:41:39 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:41
Peggy
That was Consevative money and I did donate!!!!!!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:15:20 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:15
larryl
Peg. Are you sure you understood the In/Out scheme. Many people got receipts to use for tax deductions when they did not actually make the donations they were credited with. That means you paid less tax than you should have and the rest of us made contributions to your party without approving them. Some Conservatives refused to take part because they knew it was wrong. At least 69 candidates should have been charged by E.C. and still might be after this election.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:53:41 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:53
We are talking about $ 150,000 dollars and the matter is before the courts correct?
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:26:08 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:26
larryl
Informed. I believe it was closer to 1.3 million but does the amount matter . It was either illegal or at the very least unethical and people knew that since they refused to take part. Elections Canada was and might still be conducting an investigation. Charges could still be laid and I think they should be. The CPC claims E.C. is a Liberal biased organization and only doing this to them even tho they know the other parties were doing the same thing. The whole point of this and other issues is Harper ran and won promising a more open and honest government but soon fell in the trough with the rest of them. He was against Senate appointments but one of his first acts was to appoint Fortier to the senate and to cabinet. Nothing wrong there either I guess.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:40:27 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:40
westerner (suspended)
1.3 million is pocket change compared to the $40 million the RCMP is still trying to trace and recover. This was taxpayers money stolen by the Liberal Party and given to their friends to finance their election campaign.
Brown envelopes and phony invoices! Disgusting!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:51:16 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:51
larryl
Westerner . Do you not see anything wrong with spending 60 million on an inquiry and still need the RCMP to find where 40 million went? They don't want us to know they were Conservative and Liberal ad firms that have been stealing our money for decades . People on the right will deny to their dying day Chuck Guite was appointed by Mulroney and this was going on when he was in office.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:45:03 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:45
westerner (suspended)
Guite was a relatively low level civil servant. He was compicit but not the one who stole the money with false invoices. It was friends of the Liberal party who invoiced for work that wasn't done and funnelled money to the Liberal Party.
Name the Conservative and Liberal ad firms who were stealing our money for decades. The RCMP would be pleased to have your evidence going back for decades. Please help the investigation!
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:33:08 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 22:33
larryl
Westerner. How could Guite be a low level player and be only one of four tried and convicted . You have decided that it was only Liberals who were guilty but don't seem to know who the guilty convicted parties are. Group Action , Lafleur Communicatios and Gosselin Relations Publiques all received contracts . Group Action was started in 1982 and probably did business with the government for all those years regardless of who was in power. You have to be naive to think that only the Liberals used their influence when awarding contracts. Mulroney was probably the most corrupt P.M. we ever had as can be seen in Stevie Cameron's book which includes plenty of evidence. Your little jokes about helping the RCMP shows how petty you are. They don't need my help and already know who,when and how much was stolen. Jean Brault was granted immunity . Jean Lafleur ,Paul Coffin and others have been charged. If they want to get the money back they know where it went. Try reading the Gomery report as there is plenty of evidence.
[updated Thu Oct 02 10:02:23 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 10:02
westerner (suspended)
Your the one who made the accusation that both Liberal and Conservative ad firms where "stealing our money for decades". This is very unfair to both Liberals and Conservatives if you don't have evidence of such criminality. If your evidence is just hearsay or what you "feel' you should not malign and slander Liberals and Conservatives in such an unfair manner.
[updated Thu Oct 02 13:34:36 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 13:34
larryl
Westerner. There is no such thing as a Liberal or Conservative ad firm. They work for which ever party is in power. Try dealing with the facts rather than ignoring them. I named three ad agencys that received government contracts who were Liberal friendly but the same companies were Tory friendly when Lyin Brian was in power. You can't possibly be as uninformed about how government works as make out to be. Corruption is built into the system and used by the ruling party. How hard is that to understand?
[updated Thu Oct 02 14:49:01 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 14:49
westerner (suspended)
I am sorry you see the world of politics in such a cynical way. However, if you have proof of what you assert, that there is corruption built into the system, you should provide the evidence that the system has been corrupt for "decades"; otherwise you are slandering Liberals and Conservatives unfairly. How hard is that to understand?
[updated Thu Oct 02 15:04:16 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 15:04
larryl
Westerner. You really are hopeless. How much more proof do you need. Have you ever heard of Stevie Cameron. How Peter C Newman. Maybe Mulroney's testimony he received $225,000 thousand in cash payments. How about Frank Moores , the former politician who was a paid lobbyist on the Airbus deal. Take a look at the ten in your wallet and look at the picture of the first P.M. who had to resign because of corruption. How many Senators are there in the Senate who were bagmen for their parties. Why did Harper run on a campaign to clean up parliament. Did he only imagine the things he wanted to clean up?That is what the reform party was supposed to do but they soon forgot that silly idea. I know there are few really dumb people in the west but why do I get the task of educating them all on this site?
[updated Thu Oct 02 16:07:35 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 16:07
westerner (suspended)
larrly:
You really are hopeless. How much time do I need to educate you about making ad company assertions based on what you read and not on what you can prove? If you have proof ( and remember a proof is a proof and when you have a proof it is proven) and not just hearsay, give it to the RCMP. They will be grateful. And remember--not so cynical!
I know there are a few really dumb people in the east and they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. But most understand you can not slander others with innuendo and accusations.
[updated Thu Oct 02 16:29:09 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 16:29
larryl
Westerner. Do you think they convicted Chuck Guite{42 month sentence} , Jean Brault{42 months} and Jean Lafleur {36 months} with no evidence. I don't think any of them were proven to be members of any political party . The thousands of people employed by the ad agencies probably belonged to all parties . Chuck Guite was a senior civil servant the auditor general held primarily responsible and he was appointed by Mulroney in 1984. Hearsay doesn't convict people but evidence does. Three rules of Conservatives found guilty. Deny. Deny. Deny.
[updated Thu Oct 02 16:41:26 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 16:41
I guess we are different because I believe innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and not in the media or public.
Too bad you have already made up your mind.
The matter is before the courts on an interpretation of the Elections Act. Im waiting for the results before I form my opinion.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:57:27 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:57
Lex Llewdor
It was a perfectly legal procedure. Underhanded, sure, but legal.
All the parties are governed by the same rules. The Bloc even did something similar in 1999 or so.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:47:17 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:47
larryl
Peg. You know as well as I do that the advertising firms who received that money were friendly to which ever party was in power. Chuck Guite the guy signing the cheques was appointed by Mulroney. They got caught with their hand in the jar and have paid dearly for it . To get our money back we need to sue whoever got it . We spent 60 million on an inquiry and still don't know where all the money went. If Harper had not called this election we might have got answers to another scandal that cost us less but would have proved corruption is not restricted to one party. How much did the Air bus deal put in the hands of Frank Moores and other lobbyists . Did we pay millions too much for those planes because of Conservative corruption during Mulroney's rieign. Adscam should never have happened but at least the Liberals spent some of it trying to keep our country from breaking up. What reason did the Conservatives have?. Just greed and personal gain.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:17:53 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:17
Okay so the CPC was wrong on Iraq. He fired the speechwriter.
Are the Liberals wrong for going to war in Afghanistan?
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:01:05 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:01
HoldenCaulfield
The Liberals did not steal another Prime Ministers speech to justify going to Afghanistan, the issue is theft of another's ideas.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:18:40 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:18
Non-issue for voting. Sorry.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:27:50 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:27
TPQ1
He didn't fire the speechwriter. That guy was asked to take one for the team and get the attention away from Harpercrite. My bet is he wrote it under orders from Harper and that will come out in due time. Harper is that sleazy.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:45:36 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:45
Again with the demeaning comments.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:28:36 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:28
HoldenCaulfield
I'm not counsel for TPQ1, but I fail to see what was inappropriate about his comments. There is a lot of right wing hyperbole on this site, his comments above don't come close, I read above I believe you or one of your conservative friends alleging that brown envelopes full of cash passed through Liberal hands, if you are looking for inappropriate remarks I suggest you re-read your own post.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:22:39 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:22
Go read more of his posts and the fog will lift. Other than that I can't possibly help you understand disrespectful behaviour, bias, misinformation, extremist views.
Look up his posts I dont care to copy as paste them.
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:06:39 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 22:06
westerner (suspended)
Starting up again with ridiculous conspiracy theories and bigoted comments. Get lost TPQ1, TPQ and BMAGS
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:53:55 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:53
rsharp1
westerner, in kind spirit, with what part of Harper's blind loyalty to Bush's insane war against Iraq do you agree?
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:00:41 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:00
Regina Beach Boy
""The timing of this also shows the Liberals are better at campaigning than the CPC who are still rookies ""
Thats code for Liberals are just slimier politicians and Conservatives are refusing to crawl along with them.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:04:52 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:04
larryl
RBB . Of course all politicians are slime balls aren't they? Conservatives have never crawled , they run like thieves in the night since they know they won't get elected very often and have to get it while they have their chance.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:43:37 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:43
Lex Llewdor
Owen Lippert is hardly a professional speechwriter. He's a policy wonk, just like Harper. He needed to write a speech that made specific points, and John Howard had just made a very similar speech, so he lifted sections of it.
Plagiarism? Yes. Evidence of a global conspiracy? No.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:46:11 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:46
fortescue
Someone not from Western Canada hear.
Shall we talk about Bob Raes record on the economy. (no please dont)
When Bob Rae was in opposition he wanted to govern in the worst way, when he was elected he did just what he wanted...Governed in the worst way.
Harpers record speaks for itself. he has governed effectively during his mandate. The Canadian Economy posted its strongest economic performance last month since 2004. WOW!! (look it up)
Dragging out a speech that occurred more than 3 elections ago is irrelevent. A speech writer not Harper used the text from Howards speech. this is clearly unacceptable, and the response has been appropriate. Speech writer resigns. Does Dion not have a speech writer, does Layton, does Dusceppe. Of course the do. Are any of them responsible to ensure ever speech is not plagerised, no they are not, nor shold they be. 1 Speech. Give it a rest Bob. Re iraq, it was 2003, everyone was pissed, two buildings had just fallen. Saddam was still not complying with UN resolutions passed many years earlier. He refused inspections, or at least did not co-operate when rewuired to do so. America wasnt willing to trust any longer, they had been burned. We stand behind the second greatest nation in the world. Good for Harper. Which side was Rae on? Was he with Saddam or was he with America! I notice they did not use IGGY, o yah, he agreed with Harper. They were lots of people who did. Get over it. Move on, Harper has governed and made the tough decisions, he deserves another mandate, this 5 year old speech just shows the desperation of the Liberals. they have no policys that the can sell (carbon tax) so the have to go negative. Nassty nasty stuff. Dions niceness was the only thing he had going for him. Now tahts gone=NDP official opposition.
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:21:48 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:21
HoldenCaulfield
He stood on the wrong side actually my friend, Harper stood with George W. Bush and we know that Bush was dead wrong. It wasn't just any debate it was a debate to join an illegal invasion of another Nation.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:03:56 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:03
Lex Llewdor
The invastion wasn''t illegal. It was supported by UN Resolutions dating back to 1991.
Plus, it wasn't Harper who sent troops there. The Liberals sent troops while at the same time they were condemning the invasion.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:08:44 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:08
HoldenCaulfield
I didn't say the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal, I said the invasion of Iraq was. The Liberals did not send troops to Iraq, they sent them to Afghanistan as part of a Nato Mission.
Harper in 2003, used the Australian Prime Minister's speech to argue that Canada should join the US Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq.
Even Americans now know that that invasion was a mistake. The issue here however is that the speech was not his to give but rather John Howard's.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:25:29 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:25
Lex Llewdor
Learn your history. The Liberals, even while they criticised Bush for invading Iraq, sent troops there. It was weird.
And, I was talking about UN resolutions from 1991. Why would they have been talking about Afghanistan then? It was Iraq, and the UN authorised the invasion years before it took place.
[updated Thu Oct 02 14:35:07 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 14:35
HoldenCaulfield
Also Fortescue, what does Rae's record on the economy have anything to do with him exposing Harper for Stealing a Speech? You are employing a logical fallacy in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:13:02 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:13
What is the real issue? The plagerism?
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:30:21 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:30
TPQ1
Bob Rae will not have an economic portfolio in the new Liberal government...Next!!!
NDP can't be official opposition...the cons want it badly!!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:11:36 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:11
Peggy
There were Liberals that were teetering on this decision too...Paul Martin??????
We didn't go. I find it acceptable that Stephen Harper stood in the house for anything unlike the Liberals who ran like rats 43 times to get rid of facing the electorate-wait for those ads to start anytime now!!!!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:30:15 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:30
HoldenCaulfield
Perhaps some Liberals did support the war Peggy, however none of them to my knowledge stole their support speech from the Australian Prime Minister.
You are attempting to divert attention from the real issue here, Harper and Company used someone else's speech to argue with ought to go to war.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:09:01 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:09
Peggy
And the Liberals used someone else's tax dollars to buoy up their bank account.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:17:54 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:17
HoldenCaulfield
Your current comment has nothing to do with using another person's speech. I could use an equally illogical argument such as I don't like Stephen Harper's policies because he wears a blue tie and I don't like blue ties.
My argument then would be as illogical as yours above.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:02:25 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:02
Foxer
Only if harper stole that blue tie from us :) The theft of taxpayer money is very real and the anger around it is quite logical and rational.
As to the speech. What a joke - this is the biggest issue libearls could dig up to distract people?
As a matter of fact - neither dion nor martin nor chretien wrote any of their own speeches - so ALL those speeches are written by someone else. Something to think about.
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:28:09 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:28
HoldenCaulfield
Foxer if you care so much about the Public Purse that what of the Tories In and Out Finance Scandal. Some believe they broke their own 4 year election law and called it after only 2 years because they wanted to avoid the investigation into this, messing with their re-election plans.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:27:58 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:27
Foxer
Well first off - the 'in and out' scheme did not involve the public purse. It involved the conservative's own cash - no public money was involved. That came from donations directly to the party and of course the party is directly answerable to it's party members.
So - not really the same thing.
Second - there was no effort to hide what was done - all the books were turned into elections canada and harper never denied anything, he was quite up front with what he did.
There appears to be a great deal of doubt as to whether or not it was against the rules or it wasn't. To get a clear answer harper is putting it before a judge, who's findings will be legally binding of course. If it turns out he was on the wrong side of the rules, the cpc will face a penalty.
That's entirely different - the liberal party stole far more than they returned, we KNOW there are liberals involved to were not held accountable, and it was public money. That'd be MY money they stole.
As to their election law, i'm sure you know they didn't break anything. The law expressly did not remove the right of the GG to kill a gov't when there is no faith in the parliament. The law was designed to eliminate the fact that ONLY a prime minister can call an election when there is a majority, because there is no chance of a 'confidence' issue. It wasn't designed to create a NEW problem where only opposition parties can call an election in a minority.
If there is a majority the prime minister will not be able to call an election and neither will the opposition. In a minority both will be able to IF there is no confidence in the gov't. THat happens if the opposition votes down a confidence matter or if they say there is nothing left for them to work on with the gov't that there's any hope of any consensus.
Thus it's fair. Nobody has the 'upper hand'. Which is what the law was intended to do. The GG's powers were never stricken - quite the opposite they are expressly preserved in writing.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:51:09 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:51
Regina Beach Boy
Next time you feel like asking me a question you should do it under my comment so I will see it, I just happened on to your comment by accident.
You said:
""Are you saying Regina Beach Boy that you find it acceptable for Stephen Harper to stand in the House of Commons and argue that the Nation ought to go to war in Iraq, using someone else's words?""
No!!, but do all politicians on the planet use speech writers and run the risk of this happening??
Yes of course, and especially a politician who had been in parliament for a whopping 11 months or so, that would be Stephen Harper as the new leader of the opposition and the party. 11 months!!!!!!!!!, give him a break.
And that is exactly why I called Bob Rae, the Liberals and the accusation gutter politics.
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:44:47 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:44
HoldenCaulfield
Yes we will give Stephen Harper a break because we all know that he is the gentle, kind sort of person who gives others a break.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:20:34 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:20
Regina Beach Boy
I believe any member of Parliament in the house of commons for less than a year or so deserves to be cut a little slack, all parties.
[updated Wed Oct 01 16:40:06 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 16:40
HoldenCaulfield
You beleive in cutting new people some slack, yet your party the Conservatives have spent countless dollars buying up ads to slag the new Liberal Leader for more than 6 months prior to this election being called.
Come on!
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:03:55 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:03
Regina Beach Boy
Give me a break, Dion has been kicking around the house of Commons for what seems like decades. Don't try to make him look like some sort of parliamentry rookie.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:42:16 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:42
Foxer
In fact - he was minister responsible when kyoto went ballistic and emissions went up by 20 percent.
Now he's got a 'new' plan. I don't think so. He's hardly new - he's got a track record and it's not a good one.
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:29:07 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:29
rsharp1
Please. Mr. Harper would send us wo war again at thew drop odf a button. That would be uncle Sam dropping the button
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:14:06 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:14
HoldenCaulfield
Perhaps the next time Harper could steal one of Sarah Palin's speeches,that way none of us would understand what he was talking about anyway, it would be a good diversion.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:36:54 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:36
rsharp1
I see Obama in a cake walk and tomorrow's debate between Biden and her should seal the Repugs' fate. A strong Democratic president, Senate and House.
Hmmm. That leaves the Supreme Court. And us.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:19:03 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:19
Depends on the vote turnout. Alot of voters could not vote last time in key ridings. I think it will be very close in the US.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:32:36 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:32
HoldenCaulfield
Very close especially if the Republican Governors have anything to say about how the votes are counted.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:29:31 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:29
Both parties have a history of playing with the democracy.
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:08:05 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 22:08
Lex Llewdor
"Are you saying Regina Beach Boy that you find it acceptable for Stephen Harper to stand in the House of Commons and argue that the Nation ought to go to war in Iraq, using someone else's words?"
I certainly find it acceptable. If he wants to make a point, and those words make that point, who cares who wrote them?
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:26:22 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:26
hardripples
when you copy something from someone else it would be polite if nothing else to at least state so. Otherwise its a lie.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:25:57 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:25
HoldenCaulfield
Yes it would be a lie, kind of like Prime Minister Harper passing a law that said he would not call an election for 4 years and then calling one after 2 years, because his spin doctors told him that the tea leaves said it was the right time to call one.
Yes that would be another Lie.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:32:59 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:32
Lex Llewdor
Except, of course, Harper didn't have the authority to fix election dates. So he didn't lie. You were just a fool for believing that his legislation meant anything.
Learn the law. Read the constitution.
[updated Thu Oct 02 14:36:08 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 14:36
Are you kidding me Holden??? Like a true Liberal you are, always going back in time to see if it will score political points for your weak leader and his minions who dont care about Canada, but only for typical Liberal in-power rights to govern only attitudes. Give me a break. Why not blame Sir John A McDonald for this global slowdown, if will get your party elected. That speech does not fall in the catagory of illegal plagerism, just an overzelous speech writer on the pinch for a speech in a short amount of time, all parties and major figures the world over still to this day use other quotes and partial speeches to get their points across to their respected people, but if the PM does it because its an election campaign, its plagerism at its fullest. Give your head a shake and vote Blue, you will feel better in the morning. Take care.
[updated Thu Oct 02 13:44:10 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 13:44
fortescue
I must have missed an interesting night on the blog!!
MBAGS=Banned
Rsharp=Banned
TPQ=Banned
Do they still get to vote!!
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:28:26 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:28
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
HoldenCaulfield
Although I am not a polling expert please allow me to add my very unscientific musings to this thread. I would not give up on the Liberal brand in this election and this is why.
Although the Liberals are hovering around 26 percent, the Conservatives seem to be stuck in the high 30’s. I predict that the Conservatives National numbers are artificially inflated because of their adoring fans in the oil patch. Their dumber than dumb comments last week about culture, combined with their get tough on Youth Crime tripe works well out in oil country but it has cost them dearly in Quebec, where they had hoped to make gains.
The conservatives ongoing gaffes will cost them in Quebec and the Bloc will benefit.
If they cannot contain their members or if anyone cares to use their memory and remember who makes up the new Conservative Party, then they may lose some votes in urban Ontario on issues of intolerance towards minorities.
In Eastern Canada, the Liberals are doing better, I’m sure helped by Premier Danny Williams and his Progressive Conservative Cabinet who have declared war on the Federal (Reform) Conservatives.
My guess is that the Conservatives will not win a Majority. I think they will win another Minority but no Majority. I also predict that as we get closer to October 14th and it becomes clearer that they will not win a Majority that Harper will have more and more trouble containing the vocal and large redneck fringe in this party that has gotten him into hot water in the past.
Before this election is over, someone just may remember that Stephen Harper was the guy who said that Alberta ought to build firewalls around itself to protect it from the rest of Canada, which he described as content to be a “second tier socialistic-country”
Holden
[updated Wed Oct 01 15:30:55 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 15:30
48 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Listen to this. It's a hoot.
http://www.236.com/blog/w/lee_camp/mccains_voice_mail_to_palin_le_8644.php
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:17:18 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:17
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
And this.
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:19:02 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:19
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Van Centre
"he first night of tracking since the plagiarism issue hit the campaign shows no initial significant impact on Conservative ballot support."
I'm curious why, every day, you attempt to causally relate some minor campaign issue with movements in the tracking poll. How many Canadians actually follow the campaign that closely? Very few, I expect.
Polls aren't going up and down because Stephane Dion went to Prince George and not Prince Rupert; because Jack wore a green tie instead of an orange one. In fact, the polls are barely moving at all.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:22:44 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:22
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Far as I can tell I was suspended for this:
Informed1, good advice. I confess to periodic lapses but I keep trying to stay civil. Criticize what is said, not the person saying it. And, when it comes to name-calling, there is a big difference between our fellow bloggers and public figures.
Mr. Harper is mean, vindictive, untrustworthy, small-minded, ideologically crazed, snide, uncaring, obnoxious, arbitrary, all-controlling, incompetent, managerially-challenged, pro-American (no matter), anti-Muslim, pro-business, anti-government, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-labour, anti-women......
"But I have no doubt he's a good father. There, I just crossed the line. His private life is his business but, when it comes to Harper's public record, including his record as head of the extreme RW National Citizens Coalition and plaigarized speeches he made years ago supporting Bush's insane Iraq war, all bets are off. I will express my opinions and that includes categorizing/labelling, aka name-calling."
This is called sarcasm. What is disagreeable about that? Even if it is, what is not true? Even if it's not true, in light of my posts (go see), does it warrant a suspension? The humiliation is too much.
k. I can take that. What offends me is the censorship.
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:34:50 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:34
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp1
Debating points:
Mr. Harper will you get us into war against faraway countries with the Americans whenever they decide it's time?
Or will you return Canada to its 50-year tradition of peacekeeping.?
[updated Wed Oct 01 17:59:05 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 17:59
30 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
hardripples
I'm watching the french debate and find harper's French to be every bit as bad as Dion's english.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:17:41 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:17
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
rsharp 2
Sorry to interrupt the debate. But Nik needs to learn about freedom of speech, methinks. Here is my reply to him on why I got busted:
Well, I feel like I've shamed myself. Apparently because I stated that people who pray to idols are freaks. Sorry. Let me repeat it. People who pray to idols who don't talk back are freaks. Ban me again Nik.
Religious freaks in the States have just about ruined this world. There are centuries of ruination before Bush and his evangelical nuts. What do you need, Nik? A road map?
I admire your polling acumen big-time. But don''t tell me what to say.
My goodness, these same people have no qualms about killing people (when making unjust/immoral wars, the death penalty, etc.), I have no problems with Quakers and their like. These people are rteal Christians.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:24:36 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:24
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Reg
I have been lurking and reading the various comments since Nik started this board. I guess it is time to add the odd comment.
Just so you know, I am a CPC supporter.
In addition to the other boards that various people have pointed to you might also want to check out the election stock market run by the the Sauder School of Business at UBC (esm.ubc.ca). UBC has run this market on a number of elections now and it is quite accurate. Investors are putting up real money (although a maximum of $1,000 so nobody is buying the market and twisting the results) and it has been quite accurate over the years.
[updated Thu Oct 02 11:29:08 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 11:29
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Foxer
Well, the consensus out there seems to be that Harper won the debate, but mostly by default. I doubt the debate shifted a lot of people one way or another, but we'll see. Unfortunately with the debate taking place in the evening we probably will have to wait till tomorrow's polling to see if it had much effect one way or another (and another to see about tonite's debate) but overall i think it's probably going to have minimal effect.
[updated Thu Oct 02 11:40:01 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 11:40
6 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
English Debate Will the Liberal Media air the pre-recorded Dion winning debate newsclips before debate ends?
(Okay just kidding we all know the media is controlled by George Bush and the Hidden Right Wing Agenda.)
Food for thought about the Food Safety in Canada.
Liberal cuts and shift to industry -source (http://www.notaleader.ca/realitycheck/?p=77)
“Ottawa wants to cut the fat from Canada’s food inspection system, Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale said... Agriculture Canada is looking at ways to shift responsibilities to the industry which could in turn lead to privatization of certain inspection procedures, he said… Millions of dollars could be saved under a self-regulatory system, said Goodale.” (“Grits want to pare food-inspection costs,” Times Colonist, Jul 14, 1994)
Budget 1995 “Program Review” resulted in a 21.5 per cent or $445 million baseline cut to the Agriculture budget, which included the Food Production and Inspection Branch. (Budget 1995, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/fact/FACT_6e.html)
Dr. Art Olson, Assistant Deputy Minister: “The Food Production and Inspection Branch’s operating budget will be reduced by approximately $70 million over the next three years…This means an overall funding reduction of 1,283 full-time equivalent positions.” (Testimony, Standing Committee on Agriculture, May 16, 1995) http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees351/agfo/evidence/59_95-05-16/agfo59_blk101.html
Budget 1995 also undertook “opportunities for privatization” and states: “The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food will share responsibilities and streamline arrangements with industry for inspection and regulation activities.” (Budget 1995, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/fact/FACT_9e.html)
Budget 1996 deepened “Program Review” cuts to a 30.1 per cent or $625 million baseline cut to the Agriculture budget, which included food safety. (Budget 1996, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/bp/bp96e.pdf)
Finance Minister Paul Martin: “Surely we can all agree that it is simply silly for a food processing plant to have a federal meat inspector, a federal health inspector, a federal fish inspector, not to mention a provincial health inspector and a provincial food inspector tripping over themselves on the same day, in the same plant, doing essentially the same thing.” (Budget Speech, Mar 6, 1996, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget96/speech/speeche.txt)
Budget 2005 “Expenditure Review” further cut $180 million from the Agriculture Department and cut $69 million from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Budget 2005, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/booklets/bkexpe.htm)
Anyone care to refute those articles or comments from Goodale,Olson,Martin?
[updated Thu Oct 02 12:29:32 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 12:29
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.