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.
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.
MRM
Harper' answer to the first question - No I am not like the Liberals. To the second question - We never stopped peacekeeping.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:10:59 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:10
rsharp1
MRM, if you had to pick which PM would be more likely to commit Canadian troops to America's wars, no matter their virtue, who would that be? Harper or Dion?
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:43:32 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:43
westerner (suspended)
Definitely Dion!
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:16:48 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:16
MRM
I would make my decision based on track record. The Liberals committed combat troops to Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo and ordered the air strikes against Serbia. They voted to send troops to the first Gulf War and to enforce the embargo on Iraq afterward. They said that they were not sending troops to the second Gulf war but lied and sent them anyway. And finally they sent troops to Afghanistan. All without a vote in Parliament.
Harper and the Tories have sent troops where again? Let me help you with that - NOWHERE so I guess I pick Dion as most likely to be a Liberal.
[updated Thu Oct 02 00:48:11 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 00:48
User1
You're wrong, wrong, wrong. Canada sent troops in support of the UN resolutions as part of a multinational force as peace keepers. The War in Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN. George Bush wanted to finish the war that his father started in 1991. That mission in Iraq was on Bush's Agenda even before he took office. The WMD was a made up story and the Liberals saw through that.
In Afghanistan Harper changed the mission from Peace Keeping to Combat. That is why there are 100 dead Canadians so far.
Canada was once the reasonable voice on the world stage. As part of Nato we do not need a huge Military budget.
[updated Thu Oct 02 11:32:04 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 11:32
MRM
User1 PART ONE
It is you who are wrong, wrong wrong and clearly have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Tell the soldiers of 2 PPCLI that they were on a peacekeeping mission during the battle of the Medoc Pocket in Bosnia that they were on a peacekeeping mission or tell the citizens of Serbia that the Canadian F 18s bombing them were on a peacekeeping mission.
The Afghan Mission was authorized by the UN as a peaceMAKING mission, NEVER a peacekeeping mission.. If it was a peacekeeping mission what the hell was I doing on the first rotation in there running around the mountains of Tora Bora on search and destroy missions? Harper never changed our mission, just our location from Kabul to Kandahar; you are listening to too much Liberal propaganda. Here are the UN resolutions. Google them and have a read.
Resolutions 1267 (1999) 1333 (2000) warned the Taliban to stop supporting and sponsoring worldwide terrorism.
Following the attacks on Sept 11 2001 the invasion was authorized and re-authorized under Resolutions 1368, 1471 and 1510. There is not now and never has been a UN sanctioned peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. On 20 March of this year they renewed the mandate.
BTW there are 97 dead, not 100. Three lives may not mean much to you but believe me it is a big deal to soldiers.
Under the terms of NATO we are required to maintain minimum force levels and spend a minimum of 3.5% GDP on defence. Two obligations Canada has never met. Canada is till a voice of reason around the world and the efforts of our soldiers are greatly admired by many around the world.
I don’t dispute anything that you said about Iraq and have never said anything to the contrary. I said that the Liberals lied when they said that we did not participate in the Iraq war. Here is how we did participate:
Canada: A Silent Partner in the Iraq War of 2003
Richard Sanders is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard Sanders
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! – Mark Twain
The Canadian government’s pretense that it did not support the latest Iraq war was repeated ad nauseum by the mainstream media. The ugly reality, however, is that Canada ranked third on the list of nations supporting the U.S. – just behind Britain and Australia. Many other governments, though contributing only a tiny fraction of what Canada did, were at least honest enough to admit their involvement. Canada’s government was silent about its role in aiding and abetting this illegal war. It was unwilling to be declared a member of the “Coalition of the Willing,”preferring – hypocritically – to act as if it had taken a principled stand against the war. Amazingly, the Liberal government’s public relations experts once again skillfully managed to maintain their party’s popular, but illusory, public image of a global peace-mongerer while simultaneously engaging in many blatant acts of complicity in this latest war:
On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”
Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”
Canada was the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:
SEE PART TWO
[updated Fri Oct 03 18:30:34 EDT 2008]
03 Oct 18:30
MRM
PART TWO
1. Leading the coalition Navy: Canadian Rear Admiral Roger Girouard was in charge of the war coalition’s fleet. Thirteen hundred Canadian sailors aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.
2. Providing war planners: At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war’s complicated logistics.
3. Commanding the war: In 2004, Canadian Brigadier General Walt Natynczyk commanded 10 brigades totalling 35,000 troops. He was Second-in-Command of the entire Iraq War for that year and was the first to enter baghdad.
4. Helping coordinate the war: Canadian military personnel working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US war fighters.
5. Providing airspace and refuelling: Countless US troop and equipment transport aircraft have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq War, and many refuelled in Gander, Newfoundland.
6. Providing air transport: At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by US military to supply coalition forces during the Iraq War.
Freeing up US troops: Canada’s major role in Afghan war has freed up thousands of US troops for deployment to Iraq.
7. Providing ground troops: At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under US command, in an “exchange” capacity on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq. Another 23 served with British forces.
8. Diplomatic support: Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien supported the “right” of the US to invade Iraq, although Kofi Annan said it was an illegal occupation. Chrétien criticized Canadian citizens who questioned the war, saying they provided comfort to Saddam Hussein.
9. Training Iraqi police: Canada has spent millions sending RCMP officers to Jordan to train tens of thousands of cadets for Iraq’s paramilitary police force.
10. Training Iraqi troops: High-level Canadian military personnel joined the “NATO Training Mission in Iraq” to “train the trainers” of Iraqi Security Forces who are on the leading edge of the US occupation. A Canadian colonel, under NATO command, was chief of staff at the Baghdad-based training mission. Canada was the leading donor to this centre, providing an initial $810 thousand.
11. Funding Iraq’s interior ministry: Canada provides advisors and financial support to this ministry, which has been caught running torture centres. Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone in the summer of 2006.
12. So the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
13. Providing Intelligence: Exclusive use of Canada’s Radarsat 1 satellite was given to US forces in Iraq. The satellite provided targeting information and surveillance of Iraqi movements. It was instrumental in capturing Saddam Hussein.
[updated Fri Oct 03 18:31:27 EDT 2008]
03 Oct 18:31
User1
You are still wrong, the war in Afghanistan is pointless, it is all for nought, it is costlty and after all is dead and done they will still have to seek peace with the Taliban. Too many innocent Afghan are dying needlessly. The war should have been concentrated at the Border of Agghanistan and Pakistan
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:31:13 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:31
If you read my sacrastic post earlier we are going to invade Iraq and Iran. We should add Cuba to our list of countries we should invade. We need a sunny vacation spot as Mexico has become unsafe lately.
I think we should fullfill out commitments made in the HOC to the UN and then deploy our forces to rebuild some of the reservations (to restor shelter and safe drinking water) on our soil instead of overseas.
[updated Wed Oct 01 18:37:54 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 18:37
Lex Llewdor
Peacekeeping has destroyed our military. We need to train our soliders for one thing - war fighting. That's their primary job.
We should no go fight whomever the Americans ask, though we can sometimes leverage our military to gain other benefits. We got the Auto-pact through miltary force.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:16:40 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:16
westerner (suspended)
The Liberals would be most likely to get us into foreign wars, like they did in Afghanistan.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:18:31 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:18
Lex Llewdor
And Iraq. Remember - we had troops in Iraq before the 2006 election.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:19:46 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:19
westerner (suspended)
You are right! I had forgotten that. I expect our Liberal friends forgot that as well.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:29:32 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:29
rsharp1
Sorry, boys, there's a new man in town. Dion would most definitively be less war-like than Harper. If you believe otherwise, you are perhaps in need of fresh air. Lots of it.
[updated Wed Oct 01 19:43:52 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 19:43
Lex Llewdor
Dion probably would. That doesn't change that Harper is not the guy who sent our troops into Iraq, so blaming Iraq on him is simply dishonest.
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:04:35 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:04
Based on the Liberal track record how can you support that statement?
Its clear the party that has been in power sending Canada to war.
Has Dion said previous Liberal governments were wrong in any article or speech?
So the users have pointed out the facts again of the Liberal track record of War.
Do you dispute the history of events over the last 20 years?
In so many of your posts you include in your arguments issues of previous Tory, provincial, American governments over a 20 year period.
So make up your mind CPC track record of 2.5 years or the entire hidden RIGHT WING NEO-CON platform for 20 years?
You are spinning again and not being honest with us about history of events.
It frightens me when you can deny history as facts for your personal viewpoint.
People who don't acknowledge the truth in history or allow for a change in their views are fanatical and extremist in my opinion. Don't you agree?
[updated Thu Oct 02 08:53:27 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 08:53
Lex Llewdor
See? Even we believe the Liberals' own spin sometimes.
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:07:12 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:07
fortescue
okay research assignment. canada 's war, who got us into them
korea
WW2
WW1
afganistan
who was in power when we went. 5 points for each correct answer. first answer wins. bonus points for any other major wars canada entered (1812 doesnt count)
banned bloggers can play too....go
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:23:48 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:23
fortescue
Louis St. Laurent
Liberal
Got us into Korea
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:41:13 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:41
fortescue
Jean Chrétien
(Liberal)
Got us into Aphganastan
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:43:57 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:43
fortescue
William Lyon Mackenzie King
(Liberal)
got us in to ww2
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:46:51 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:46
fortescue
not that i am appossed to cut how do conservatives get the reputation as war mongers when its been liberals getting us into all these wars , :)
Maybe if you want our troops out we should all vote conservative!
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:49:14 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:49
Foxer
Ahh fortescue - chretien may have sent us to afghanistan, but wasn't it martin who sent us to kandahar, our first combat deployment? Or are my dates off there, i'm just going by memory?
Anyway - ww 1 was definately Borden. He was the founder of the liberal coalition union - a neo-lib of his day. Felt the conservatives were too 'right wing'. And he brought in the "Temporary" income tax to deal with the war. I'm sure he's going to cancel that whole income tax thing any day now.
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:53:12 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:53
fortescue
lol
yes the infamous temporary war measures tax act....
does that make it 4 for 4 for the liberals???
those war mungers (tongue firmly implanted in cheek)
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:56:12 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:56
Foxer
It was a democrat who nuked japan :)
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:58:15 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:58
fortescue
ROFLOL
[updated Wed Oct 01 20:59:35 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 20:59
HC in AB
With respect to all, as we evaluate all four situations on a historical basis, we must come to the answer if they were "good" wars or "bad" wars. In the first three cases, I think that the answer is on the "good" side.
With regard to Aphganistan, the answer may still be in doubt. However, the desciption I heard in our publicly funded media that described it as "an internationally sanctioned action being carried out under the NATO alliance to ensure that no further training of terrorists take place in the country and to prevent the regressive Taliban regime from returning to power". If that is the goal and the result we are carrying out our responsibilities to our allies and to the the world.
Who may or may not have been in government when the decisions were made is not relevent to this forum.
[updated Wed Oct 01 21:16:29 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 21:16
fortescue
Liberals war = good
conservative wars=non existent
liberals = peacenics
conservatives=capitalist warmongers (sarc)
History will be written by the victor as in all wars. Time will judge or efforts in Afganastan and time will treat as well. Canadians always fight just wars. I am just trying to make the point that conservatives do not deserve to be called warmongers
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:23:25 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 22:23
HC in AB
The only one that is worthy of any consideration now is the current one. I do, however agree with your comments, I will be voting CPC (as usual),but for a lot of other reasons. The thing that I did not mention is that the paraphrased quote that I used was in 2005. In mid 2006 the I heard the same person ask "why is Stephen Harper fighting George Bush's war?"
[updated Wed Oct 01 22:41:24 EDT 2008]
01 Oct 22:41
I find that offensive, as an ex-military person myself, we go where we are needed, no matter the task, and if you honestly feel that it is a good idea not to be where we are today, and would love to see women and children (especially young girls) murdered, butchered and put on display like a candy store sign, then yes we should only be there to hold hands, pat them on the head and say, "Sorry were only peacekeepers". So what is the point of having a Military if all we do is sit ideally by and watch the innocents get slaughtered, because it offends people like you who think, it should be other countries problems and not ours. Wow, give it a rest man, join a monestary, bury your head in the sands of ignorance and just lay off the Military, because obviously you have no idea what it is and what it is about.
[updated Thu Oct 02 14:00:24 EDT 2008]
02 Oct 14:00
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.