04.16.2011 09:00 AM

KCCCC Day 22: Gloom and doom, this and that


“Captin! Captin! We’ve beamed up three strangely-gesturing men from the planet surface!”

121 Comments

  1. Mulletaur says:

    I’m surprised that any hard core NDP supporters are willing to cast their vote for any of Jack’s candidates after he refused to whip his vote against the Conservative attempt to scrap the long gun registry. Does Jack Layton really think it’s okay for people to have unregistered firearms ? Considering that women are often the targets of violence using long guns, I don’t understand why he wouldn’t force his Members to fall into line. It’s as if the École Polytechnique massacre never happened as far as Jack is concerned.

    • Ranger says:

      So, how would you like to tell us how many persons have been saved by the long arm registry ? One ? Five ? Don’t know ? Cancer is responsible for the deaths of more Canadians in a day than guns are in a year. I think that the numbers indicate that over a billion dollars spent on a useless registry [ you register your car, but that doesn’t stop people from driving like idiots ] should have been applied to Cancer research and better diagnostic equipment, where we can absolutely measure the results. It’s time we started looking at facts and not buying into anti-gun fiction.

  2. Dr.J says:

    Stevo is saying……..”All I ordered was a hamburger”!!

  3. Dr.J says:

    Last election Mr.Martin drew 100 people in Alberta…..100!!!! As far as JC is concerned well Iggy wasn’t even living here when he was PM!! So it is abandon ship ship already..how can I tell? The abortion,gay marriage,gun control and healthcare talking points are starting to surface already!!! This is the Liberal norm in the last week of an election….what happened to the Liberal vision, the Liberal plan that the leader was going to sell and the public was going to eat up?….now the Liberal position is all for one. Even Mark Holland’s supporters are telling people at the door to vote for him because he may take a run for leadership after the election…. This Jacko’s surge could lead to a Liberal blood bath as in they will be lucky to hold on to what they presently have.

  4. Tomas says:

    Why is Iggy wasting his time in Alberta? Why isn’t he in Ontario or Quebec? Desperation or confidence?

  5. smelter rat says:

    That’s exactly what Iggy said this am on The House.

  6. MontrealElite says:

    Pauline Marois has given Iggy & Co. ammo with these comments

    “We no longer have influence, we are no longer heard in Ottawa, and Quebec is hardly ever mentioned in the rest of Canada,” Ms. Marois said.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pq-leader-predicts-another-sovereignty-referendum/article1987765/

    If Iggy and the boys are smart, they’d use that as it fits right into their slogan for Qc.

    “Quebec has the power to change things”

    When Marois admits the Bloc is useless, that has to be seized upon.

  7. Nastyboy says:

    Iggy’s coming to Edmonton? I love it when big time Liberals come to Alberta and pretend they don’t hate us. Makes me feel all warm inside.

  8. Scott Tribe says:

    Interesting about this poll and the Ekos poll from yesterday (the 7.5 gap one). If you remove the Prairies/Alberta from the equation of both polls, because it skews so overwhelmingly COnservative there.. the rest of the country is 30-30 Lib – Con in Ekos, and 34-30 Con-Lib in today’s Nanos. (didnt look at the NDP #’s). Just saying there are still opportunities for the Liberals – particularly in Ontario – to win back CPC seats. So, it isnt all doom and gloom.

    • Scott Tribe says:

      The point, Gord, is that it doesn’t matter a whit if the Cons go up from 50% to 60% in Alberta or the Prairies. They can’t win those seats twice, just by greater margins. When that is factored in, it’s a much closer race nationally in key seat rich ridings, and still opportunities for seat gains in Ontario when the two parties are neck and neck or in a dead heat.

      The Cons have their current seat advantage in Ontario from winning here by about 5 points in 2008. If the two parties are in a dead heat or the Liberals pull slightly ahead, that would mean seat losses for the CPC, as the Ekos seat projections from yesterday shows.

    • Namesake says:

      “The majority of the LPCS vote lives in about 500 square miles of canada.”

      maybe so, but so what?

      80% of the Cndn. pop. lives in urban ridings, with a disproportionate amount of democratic rep., and to add insult to injury, you’re bitching about its concentration.

      just to ballpark that area: the total area of Hong Kong is 426 sq. miles, and they have 7 million people.

      So if the areas you’ve cited also have, say, 8 million b/w them — a quarter of the pop. — we’re supposed to see that as somehow less representative of the pop. if it’s dominated by Liberals than the 20% of the rural pop. that’s dominated by Conservatives? Screw off.

  9. Beary says:

    Warren, when did Ignatieff say that about healthcare? I’ve never once heard that and been following pretty closely. Help?

  10. jack says:

    The worst part of the ndp uptick is the vote splitting that will occur and give the cons the seat. If the election were today I think it would be pretty bad for the centrists. And very bad for Canada.

    Harper not changing tactics means his polling shows him that what he’s doing is working.

    The kind need to engage him. Health care is the issue. Someone needs to make bold statements about their VISION for health care in Canada 10 years from now.

    Does harper still want to tear up the Canada health act? Does he still want US type health insurance? He has said this in the recent past.

    Get the gloves off and start some good ole policy campaigning.

    • Vote splitting? I think in some ridings you are going to see Vote Replacing. Speaking to the ground I know the best, here in Vancouver Layton / the NDP here are doing a very good job at taking votes away from both Liberals and Conservatives.

  11. HarryB says:

    “And with that, goodbye abortion, equal marriage, gun control and health care as we’ve known it.”

    Come on Warren, you’re smarter than that. Making claims like that will only make people think otherwise of you.

    • Jon Adams says:

      I would suggest this is the old “make the bastard deny it” strategy. Read about it “Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics.”

      p.s., I shilled our party host’s book pro bono, so…

    • Wayne says:

      Those tired, old liberal talking points have lost all of their impact. Time to find something else, guys.

  12. James says:

    Warren: the Liberals have been “stalled for days” too and now appear to be losing votes to the NDP. I believed this would happen as the campaign progressed. The debates are now over and there has been no new momentum for the Liberals.

    Canadian historian and professor Michael Bliss remarked on CTV on Thursday that Iggy’s problem ever since he entered politics is that he’s never given a reason to Canadians why they should elect him prime minister. Prof. Bliss has always had an accurate pulse on politics and I don’t think anyone can argue with him. He also characterized this particular election as “tedious” which works in favour of the Conservatives: it shows that Canadians feel the election was wholly unnecessary. So now the Liberals have to bring Chretien and Martin out of the storage room.

    So now the election is two weeks Monday and next week is a religious week (Easter, Passover); how the Liberals expect to turn things around is a mystery.

    • Nastyboy says:

      They’ll bring out the old “hidden agenda” boogyman. And the tried and true, bash Alberta to get quick easy votes in Quebec and Ontario. The usual LPC standbys.

    • JStanton says:

      Well, let’s take a step back.

      Nobody expected a Liberal majority to emerge from this election. It was and is arithmetically impossible.

      What IS possible however, is an increase in Liberal seats – at the expense of the Bloc, and perhaps Mr. Harper.

      An increase in Liberal seats provides the slim possibility of forming a minority government. Second prize is the ability to come to an arrangement with Mr. Layton to form a government that excludes the Bloc.

      Nobody, unfortunately, has the cajones to approach the perfectly reasonable concept of an arrangement with the Bloc, even if it means sentencing Canadians to another term in the alternate reality of Harperville, from which we may never return.

      .

      • James says:

        The Liberals will never form a minority government on their own so the only option is basically a…COALITION GOVERNMENT (or, rather, a coalition of “losers”).

        Playing footsie with the Bloc, especially with the prospect of the Parti Quebecois taking power in Quebec within two years, would provoke outrage across the country. Just WHY is it absolutely so important for the Liberals to form a government on any sort of dubious terms hasn’t been quite explained to the electorate. And Prof. Bliss is right about Iggy.

      • JStanton says:

        … right, that left wing “hidden agenda” that we must at all costs prevent: lower taxes for working people, safety nets for the vulnerable, safer communities, universal child care, post-secondary education for all who want it, better access to health care…

        .

        • Cam says:

          I have to say I would love to see the Liberals get a minority supported by the other parties just to get a look at the financial books. I suspect they might find the books have been cooked just like the last time when Flaherty was the Ontario Conservative Finance Minister.

      • Hoarfrost says:

        If that senario occurs, you will see a mass exodus of fiscally responsible MP’s leave the LPC’S in order to join the more centrist party. That demographic is now termed Blue Liberals and represented the Liberal Party of old that I once worked for directly and assiduously. Harper is not the demon that leftists portray.

        • Ron says:

          I know people here don’t want to hear this
          BUT
          what Tony Genco said has some weight to it (not because he defected or animosity)

          This is not the Liberal party of 20 years ago and it’s a shame
          Someone else mentions it here also in referencing John Manley and he must shake his head at what he sees

          Really wouldn’t you just love to get into WK’s head and see what he truly thinks of this current Liberal group?

  13. MontrealElite says:

    Harper: “Questions, questions. You guys, always with the questions!”

  14. Namesake says:

    I dunno. Inside baseball stuff aside, Chantal’s burned out and should go on a different beat for a while.

    Is the NDP up in QC from 2008? Yup. Will that translate into more seats there? Some say that’s doubtful, tho’ Frank Graves thinks they might get 6 altogether (up 5) — but not at the expense of the LPC, whom he predicts will stand pat at 14.

    http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/seat_projection_april_15_2011.pdf

    But has there been a ‘collapse’ in LPC vote? Well, a reduction, yes, acc. to the much smaller & landline-only sampled Nanos

    Quebec: Nanos post debate poll
    22.1% CPC / 17.4% LPC / 19.9% NDP / 3.1% Gr / 35.1% BQ
    n=248 decided; MOE +/- 6.3; field dates March 13-15

    http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110415-BallotE.pdf

    But not much change at all, by Ekos’ more robust numbers:

    Quebec: Ekos post debate poll
    17.6% CPC / 22.4% LPC / 23.7% NDP / 7.0% Gr / 29.0% BQ
    n=397 decided; MOE =/- 4.9; field dates March 13-14

    http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/15/quebec/
    http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2011/04/debates-hold-little-sway-on-voters-april-15-2011/

    Quebec: 2008 Federal Election
    21.7% CPC / 23.7% LPC / 12.1% NDP / 3.5% Gr / 38.1% BQ
    n=13,929,093 decided; MOE real small; field dates Oct 3-14

    http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html
    http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

    • The Doctor says:

      So I guess we can add Chantal Hebert to your ever-growing list of pundits, journos, polling firms, etc. that we should not/no longer listen to. It’s getting difficult to keep track of them all.

  15. AmandaM says:

    How can we NOT believe it, Gord? I’d like you to tell me that all of those things are safe in the hands of Mr. Harper, including all tenets of the Canada Health Act. Seriously, tell me how he’s going to commit to what I consider to be sacred Canadian values, what separates us from the US. Tell me that he REALLY believes that we must continue to be a society FOR society, not every man for himself. Please, tell me.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      Mr. Tulk, if you dont think the fundamentalist Christian base that now controls the Conservative Party lock, stock, and barrel wont make radical changes to abortion laws and gay rights if they{{shudder}} achieve a majority, I have some swampland to sell you, real cheap…..
      Preston Manning said that Reformers should “be as silent as snakes”, in their plans to institute radical changes to govt…..that is really the only Reform tenent Mr. Harper has followed to the letter.
      Do you really think the fundamentalist Christian base wont come a callin’ for payback for all these years of undying support?…..
      Weve already seen what priority your party gives the environment, but why bother, when the second coming is just around the corner?
      I just pity Jason Kenney and John Baird when they try to run for the leadership, after we’ve held Mr. Harper to another minority…..

      And if you think Im talking through my hat, I USED to be a member of your party, secretary of the local Con EDA in fact, and as an out and proud Gay man, I rue the day that I had anything to do with the likes of you Reformers….

      • Patrick Hamilton says:

        Silent as snakes, Mr. Tulk, silent as snakes…..Perhaps you havent been to an EDA meeting where it was decided VanCity Credit Union was not to be used as our bank, because they “supported the Homosexual agenda“….I have. I have also seen long standing female Conservative Party members denied time and time again in their attempts to run as candidates or for national council.
        You can spin it any way you like, Mr. Tulk, but the Conservative Party of Canada is controlled fully and completely by the Fundamentalist Christian right….homophobic, misogynist, and anti-environment. Peter Mackay sold us a bill of goods, and I and many others fell for it.

    • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

      Man, I hope they’re not safe like my income trusts were. I’ll never need an abortion but I could sure use that $250K back.

      And Harper promised he wouldn’t tax income trusts. He only says that it is not his intention at this time to re-open the abortion and equal marriage laws.

      Someone help me out here. Is an intention better than a promise with Harper or worse?

    • Gord, I agree on your points about abortion, gay rights, health care, etc. All of us can get too far into the Partisan Bubble. Harper is not the Second Coming of Herman Hesse. I profoundly disagree with the Conservative policy platform, but I acknowledge that the vast majority of your conservative colleagues do not have green blood, huge fangs and a taste for human flesh. The above ‘moral’ issues will not change much under a Harper majority.

      The environment, however, will be another matter, ditto poverty and foreign policy.

    • Ranger says:

      Sacred Canadian values ? What, exactly are they ? Our so called “Charter” was written by the Libs and it does not even protect our right to own property !
      Amanda, we don’t need some fictitious “values” to be radically different from the Americans ….. We have Quebec, a province that thinks it’s a country. They have a federal party that is committed to the destruction of Confederation, and this treason is funded, wait for it, by taxes paid by the rest of Canada.
      Now that’s real Canadian values for you. Ignatief,= “Whole lot of feathers, not much chicken.”

  16. TimJS says:

    CAPTION: The Three Canadian Tenors. All of the volume, all of the posturing and all of the drama of Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras. None of the beauty.

  17. Wayne says:

    Monday can’t come soon enough, Gord.

  18. AmandaM says:

    I fear that Ignatieff peaked too early. I was worrying about that at the beginning, when the war room had him on the offense every day, controlling the message, and I was starting to feel positive, and then…the debate. It seems like Liberals were underwhelmed by their leader’s performance and lost their pep. Someone needs to go in there and slap them out of it (W – give Bob and Gord a good pep talk, will ya? Go to Ottawa and get them their favourite scotch or something and buck ’em up!)

    I wonder about having JC and PM on the trail – is it just a reminder of the darkness? Or is it actually a good thing? JC for sure – hell, I want him back as leader, but a visit will do. PM can return from whence he came; NOT an inspiring figure.

    Totally OT: Will someone with an iphone explain to me the virtues of mobileme? Thanks in advance. 🙂

    • pomo says:

      MobileMe is a rip. Everything they want you to pay 99 for is available elsewhere for free. Sometimes better. I scratched my head for a long time wondering WTF was so special about it..then I realized they had successfully tricked me into thinking that there MUST be a reason to pay for it and that if I thought about it hard enough I would manufacture one. Don’t do it!

      PS – I am an Apple gal. iPhone, macbook pro, apple TV, iMac… contemplating iPad. So this is not an anti-Apple thing.

  19. bruce the painter says:

    Concerning Outremont: Did i understand Hebert’s column right? Martin Cauchon is not even doing any door-knocking there? How the hell does he expect to unseat Mulcair who’s on TV every time they need a morally-outraged Dipper. Wow. Whoever convinced Iggy to overrule Coderre should be real happy with themselves. Isn’t Quebec the second most populous province? We need grassroots growth there bigtime. History shows us that Quebec loathes being dictated to by Ontario (and rightly so). We need Denny back onboard – bigtime. As for Cauchon, if he doesnt deliver Outremont after all this turmoil – maybe he should take a walk in the snow.

  20. The Green Party seems weaker this election. The only place where that party has any strength seems to be in British Columbia. Even then, it unlikely that the Green Party will win any seats including in Elizabeth May’s riding.

    • This Green Party weakness gives momentum to the NDP and a little to the Liberals.

      • Yes, Manning has added oh-so-much to the national debate on conservation. His stunning tour de force on rationalizing tar sands development, protecting water, and moving Alberta off the teat of petrochemical production is required reading in environmental studies classes the world over. David Suzuki is said to be so impressed with Manning’s green credentials that he’s planning on handing the reins of his show The Nature of Things to Preston. What wasn’t it Manning who consistently whipped his caucus into shape to ensure they supported environmental measures? Preston was after all the very first Canadian political leader to acknowledge global climate change as a real and present danger not just to Canada but to the planet. He really ought to get a Nobel price for something.

        Yup, that Manning sure is Mr. Green.

        (Not to less with-it Conservatives, everything above is false. Manning, like Day and Harper who followed him, are not conservationalists unless conservation is narrowly defined as having an adequate supply of ducks, deer, and bears to shoot.)

      • Patrick Hamilton says:

        Yes indeed……I believe their motto is: “Earth first!, we can strip mine the other planets later!”

    • The Doctor says:

      Skinny Dipper’s right — the anemic performance and poll numbers of the Greens are now the most underreported story of this election. In some polls, they’re practically going Rhino.

  21. I hate to ask this but…..what do we think will happen post-election if these numbers hold…Suppose the Cons get their majority, the NDP holds on to what they have, and the Libs sink below 70 seats, will Ignatieff step down? And how long will this process take? The outcome that dares not speak its name….

    • Gord, I agree that Mulholland is just engaging in unfounded speculation in public, like me and others on this blog. ‘Piffle’ if you like, but what’s wrong with that? The only difference is she gets paid for her efforts. I agree with the ‘expert’ she quoted that Ignatieff is doing better than many Liberals expected. He seems less scripted, more passionate and less condescending to those mere mortals about him who do not have a publishing list as long as his arm. He still stumbles, doesn’t state his position clearly on some of the issues, backs the wrong horse occasionally and is still stuck on his “Harper is scary so vote for me” mantra. While I would like to hear more specifics on issues and less about the Scary Harperites, I have to confess he has exceeded my expectations for this campaign. My guess is that more Liberals will take the time to vote in this election. And I am fascinated by the potential impact of the youth vote, if it in fact materializes on Game Day.

  22. bell says:

    When Harper’s message is nothing more than “listen to these guys, they are always complaining about something, give me a majority and we can shut them up”, I am not sure the best response from Iggy is to complain more. Harper has been the PM for 5 years. Everybody on either side of the spectrum knows all about Harper, warts and all. Iggy pointing out the same stuff over and over again not only plays to Harper’s message about needing a majority but it also plays to his message about Iggy being detached and unconnected to Canada. I suspect alot of people are thinking “no shit sherlock..so what would you do if you were PM”.

  23. Namesake says:

    Investigated? By whom – you & your Blogging Whories thought police, who are all over that translated line?

    So what was the original quote? What did he actually say? (crickets)

    And FYI a reporter from QMI — which, let’s face it, IS “MSM” no matter how much you might want to pretend otherwise, since it’s got dozens of papers and 7 TV stations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebecor_Media

    DID promptly ask him about it, the day after the French debate, and, fine, he back-pedalled a bit & clarified that, w/o having international sanction to do so, we better have a damn good reason to declare war* (and, gee, I’m surprised you didn’t try to twist his words into, “Ignatieff announces we can’t send the army in to do disaster relief if we want to, unless we get explicit permission from the UN, first”)

    Which the rest of the media — being good, peace-loving, non-idiotic Canadians — presumably recognized as obviously true and obviously what he meant and would have said in the first place, if he’d been asked to clarify or there’d been a bit more time to articulate his position.

    So, yeah, of course, he’d count living up to existing NATO treaty obligations to defend South from North Korea, e.g., as “an extremely good case” for using force even w/o a Security Council resolution.

    ————-
    * Iggy wants UN approval for military missions, except when he can’t get it
    By Daniel Proussalidis, Parliamentary Bureau
    Last Updated: April 14, 2011 12:37pm
    http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/14/17991346.html

    “…he dialed back his debate rhetoric and admitted there could be exceptions.

    “Canada has always believed as a matter of international law, since the creation of the UN in 1945, that the use of force in international affairs should be authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations,” he said. “And when you can’t get authorization from the Security Council of the United Nations, you’d better have an extremely good case in which you can use force. There have been cases. Let’s be perfectly honest, in Kosovo, where international authorization for the use of force was not granted.””

    • Mike_02 says:

      With these Conservatives, everything is black or white. Nuance to them, is being caught in a rainstorm on a sunny day. Doh.

  24. Michael Behiels says:

    Francophone Quebecers want a coalition government led by Layton.

    Why? Because Layton and his party are in favour of a formal Quebec\Canada constitutional arrangement such as the one in Belgium. A bi-national Quebec/Canada loose confederation in which Quebec is completely unilingual French speaking and the ROC is completely unilingual English speaking.

    Harper also wants this Belgian model but urban, suburban middle class Francophone Quebecers can’t stand Harper’s Evangelical Christian nationalism or his fiscal conservatism.

    Liberals have no choice but to bomb the NDP’s playing fast and loose with national unity and the Canada as we know it. Canadians rejected Meech Lake and Charlottetown for a very good reason. They rejected this Belgian model of bi-national Quebec/Canadian federalism.

    If Chrétien was running the campaign he would be hammering the NDP and the CP on their dangerous Quebec policy. Harper keeps repeating that language is an exclusive provincial responsibility and that Quebec and the other provinces can legislate whatever language policies they want.

    Ignatieff is in an awkward position because it was he who weakened the Liberal party’s position by declaring that he would accept the recognition of Quebec (the Quebec state and not the Francophone community) as constitutional distinct. This approach lets the minority language communities to fend for themselves.

    Harper obliged by jumping on board and passing his dubious Resolution that has put all the federalist parties in Mr Parizeau’s Lobster Pot!

    Canada is a pluralistic society with many sociological national communities, not two, not three, but many. To identify any single national community with the state, either federal or provincial, is to lay down the institutional structure for fueling a secessionist movement. This process will eventually lead to a possible secession if there is a convergence of economic and social crises as happened in the 1990s.

    The Liberals have to come out strong as the defenders and promoters of a united Canada. Given what is happening this week-end with Pauline Marois’ PQ as its moves toward greater radicalization on the language front and on immigration, it is imperative that the Liberals sound the alarm bells and take control of this matter.

    • Michael Behiels says:

      Harper jumped on the Belgian model in the lead up to 2006 election when his Quebec team, separate from Flanagan’s team, told him to support asymmetry and the binational Quebec/Canada Belgian model. It got Harper 10 seats. He then pushed and passed his Quebec as a distinct society Resolution.

      When these overtures failed to produced promised gains in the 2008 election and when Duceppe almost brought down his government after the 20-08 election by supporting the coalition of Libs and Dippers, Harper then turned his back on Quebec because he despised the secessionists and Duceppe. He still does. Harper returned to his hard-line position on Quebec. Its my way or the doorway. He has wrapped himself in the Canadian flag big time.

      Few Francophone Quebecers understood this shift back to his hard-line position. They do so now after Harper’s decision yesterday, in the aftermath of Pauline Marois renewed leadership of PQ and the radicalization of the PQ platform, to raise the secessionist threat and plead for a majority so he can really go to war against the secessionists.

      Ironically, Harper’s overtly aggressive approach will produce something worse that the hapless Belgian model. It will fuel outright secession and a majority vote in the next referendum if and when Marois becomes Premier in 2012.

      Why is this? Because Harper is considered to be a real outsider in Quebec, a foreign carpetbagger who can’t be trusted on any policy, economic, social, cultural, or political. In short, Harper is not and will never be one of them. He will then become Prime Minister of the Rest of Canada. That is, if the rest of Canada hangs together. It may just blow apart and the pieces will be absorbed into the United States, starting with Cascadia in Western Canada.

      While many Francophones disliked Trudeau’s hard-line position on the secessionists issue they respected him greatly because he made them proud of who they were and are. Harper cannot do this. This is why the secessionists in Quebec now believe that a Harper majority government will help their cause.

      The Clarity Act, which Harper backed but wanted to make even stronger, will do very little to restrain the National Assembly from voting for a UDI if the PQ wins the referendum by 50% plus 1 vote.

      In short, the Quebec question is now back on the national agenda big time.

  25. Namesake says:

    Well, if by “hardly moved” you mean “by no more than 5.4 points — which represents about 25% of their average value,” then I guess not.

    Nanos nightly tracking results for the 3-day rolling averages for the region of Quebec and the final days’ responses end date:

    Mar. 29: 19.7
    Mar. 30: 20.9
    April 01: 26.7
    April 02: 25.1
    April 03: 25.1
    April 04: 22.0
    April 05: 23.3
    April 06: 21.8
    April 07: 22.5
    April 08: 20.4
    April 09: 21.7
    April 10: 20.8
    April 11: 23.2
    April 12: 23.1
    April 13: 23.9
    April 14: 20.9
    April 15: 22.1

    • Namesake says:

      oops, I didn’t seen it on screen and used 25.1 for the high value for that calc. instead of 26.7; so strike the above quote, for:

      “by no more than 7 points — which represents 31% of their average value of 22.5”

  26. Steve T says:

    C’mon, Gord, don’t you know by now? Fearmongering about what the CPC “might do” is so ingrained in the subconscious of the left, they are barely even aware when they do it. Facts be damned!

    • Ron says:

      and seriously if he even touched any of those sacred Canadian values in any negative fashion the Conservatives would be sent to the curb in October of 2015.
      It would resemble what happened to the PC’s in 93 and they would never be forgiven for it at least not for a couple of decades

      • que sera sera says:

        Oh f*ck off already.

        Harper’s already ripped Canada another new ar$ehole and you guys are arguing about the color of the toilet paper?

        Jesus. Give it a rest already.

        A leopard don’t change its spots.

  27. Kasey says:

    Nanos is just stirring the POT….He is making Ignatieff jittery and thats what he wants…..he will fumble if he is jittery and they want Jack as opposition to get rid of liberals…..all those pollsters stick together except EKOS and they call him the cheat. In the morning MrHarpers’ approval rating is 118 and early afternoon it is 92….what bullcrap.

  28. wilson says:

    scot at 12:01 pm
    ‘Maybe the “rise up” meme will get traction.’

    Curiously Libloggers are not even mentioning it.
    See for yourself and decide:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7dD-cnNkA4&feature=player_embedded

  29. Joe Sixpack says:

    The problem is Ignatieff has zero credibility on pretty much any issue. He loses badly on the economy, the Layton is right to point out that he (Ig) supported the tax decreases and now he is flip flopping and saying he’ll raise them back up. He was the most absent of any party leader from the House – where was he? He has yet to remotely explain it.

    All he has is the same tired old lines Warren has trotted out – booga booga end healthcare, booga booga same sex marriage, booga booga abortion… it is a joke, and trolling out those tired old nuggets will turn off more voters than it will inspire. Ignatieff also loses credibility on his whole “failure to respect democracy” argument. When, exactly, did he run in a leadership convention for the LPC and win? He’s scared to stand for the leadership of his own party, yet tries to chastize others for rightly wanting fair election process?

    Is there anything Ignatieff can actually point to as his own leadership and policy?

    • Wayne says:

      Careful Joe. Reasoned and enlightened comments such as yours are likely to make the heads of shameless hacks like namesake and smelter rat explode.

    • Nice talking points Joe, did you get paid the standard #CPC per diem for those?

      Like it or not, Liberals should acknowledge that they voted along with the government because for a long period of time they were simply not strong enough to consider fighting an election. Its the truth and Canadians can understand that. Who wouldn’t understand that the party needed to get its house in better order after the Dion Debacle? Acknowledging the truth takes Layton’s ammo away from him. Frankly I don’t believe that Canadians who pay attention need to be told this simple truth; only the more rabid partisans of the NDP and Conservatives actually give credence to these talking points.

      On the Economy:

      If any leader has zero credibility on the economy it is Stephen “no deficit (election 2008)” Harper. He made that claim during election 08 even though Canada already had a structural deficit of proportions not seen in decades. It only got worse. In short, he lied. Flaherty lied. Harper also said he saw no recession for Canada. Wrong again. No economic credentials there at all.

      Of course the deficit was huge, historic, and growing, and the recession deepening even as he claimed there’d be none.

      Spending on stimulus wasn’t a brilliant idea of Harper’s; it was the default policy action of governments the world over. So Stevie followed along, with a Cheshire cat smile on his face for three reasons:

      1 – spending huge would later result in a big hole to dig out of
      2 – spending also brings along thousands of pretty signs to advertise his “greatness” to Canadians, in advance of another election
      3 – a big deficit and bigger debt hole gives him reason to justify cuts in the future. Wait for it… they are coming.

      All of the above work to his plan to dramatically cut the size, scope, and power of the Federal government. Some view that as a good thing. I happen to believe there are useful roles for the Federal government in supporting all provinces, all regions, of our country. Some of these roles require funding. Harper is ensuring that any future federal leader will have his or her hands tied.

      This future Canada will look different under Harper. Perhaps what Ignatieff and Layton should be asking of Canadians is for them to imagine that Harper was leading the country back in the time of Tommy Douglas. Would we have a national free and accessible health care system today if he were in power then? No, we would not.

      Harper may not be able to fully rewind the clock, but he will try to do what he can. If you liked Canada more as it was in 1867, you’ll like Harper’s vision of Canada. Or Harper’s vision of 10 little Canada’s plus three (territories).

      • Wayne says:

        The “Dion Debacle” as you say but all you lefties were only too happy to install him as PM in the failed coalition attempt.

        Hypocrisy much?

        • Nice try.

          Wayne, baby, just to be clear, I’m not a Liberal. I’m not a member of the NDP either. Am I lefty? I’m a former card carrying Conservative, but it’s been a while now. I was once involved in organizing. Once had a campaign office stored in my garage. I didn’t just pay my $10 a year, I was *involved*, and was involved pre-merger too. While I’d been backing away from the party for a while leading up to the 2006 election, I left the party behind for good on Feb 6, 2006 because the party made it abundantly clear on that day that it had left me.

          Am I a lefty? You wield that term around like a club, so probably I am in your eyes, but I sincerely doubt your idea of “lefty” has any fulsome meaning to it. The word is just a club to you.

    • Namesake says:

      well, since my name got dragged into this, I suppose I should reply in kind:

      speaking of zero credibility on the economy, perhaps you’d be good enough to explain, oh, conbots, how the Minister of Finance of all people could go nearly half a billion dollars over budget in his annual Ministerial budget which was supposed to be capped at under two-and-a-half million: i.e., why he went 17.7% over-budget.

      Flaherty overspends own budget
      By ALTHIA RAJ, Sun Media Parliamentary Bureau
      Last Updated: December 7, 2010

      http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/12/06/16450811.html

      Small wonder they’ve been increasing the size of gov’t by 6% a year and snowballing the size of the public debt even apart from the stimulus spending, and why they’ll never balance the budget unless they make the draconian cuts they’re pretending they wouldn’t and won’t have to do.

      And the Libs of course only approved of the corporate tax decreases when the country was still in surplus and it looked like we could afford to experiment with whether it might create more investment and jobs. That is no longer the case, and there is also more evidence that the experiment has already been a failure, so it would be counter-productive to continue it. (They’re not creating jobs with the extra profits, they’re just paying more executive bonuses and hoarding the rest.)

      As for the attendance record, he wasn’t sloughing off, he was out working at a different part of his job, as a new leader: at building his profile, and consulting with stakeholders to develop policies, and raising money for the party, all to be in a better position to fight the election. And ultimately that’s more important than the reluctant votes in favour of the bills that were going to pass anyway or the insufficient number of nays against the ones that one of the other parties were caving on or going along with.

      And let’s not forget — as you’re only too conveniently doing — that “Prime Minister Stephen Harper has missed almost half the votes in Parliament since 2008”

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-leaders-miss-votes-and-how-the-parties-stack-up/article1932360/

      So, shall we disqualify him as a goldbricker too, then?

      Does the “EverReady, Aye, Ready” Jack Layton hereby get your endorsement for PM by default, then, oh Mr. Sixpack? Or have your arguments gone, er, a little flat?

  30. Helen says:

    OMG… the Adscam and Shawinigate duos.

  31. Cam says:

    Good Day:

    I’m not so down and out on this. Just some long-shot and dreamer comments. Some rookie and naïve thoughts.

    Seems to me that if the Bloc is bleeding off voters to NDP, than does that mean in some cases the Liberal candidate can come up the middle in some Montreal area ridings?

    Not so sure that the UofG polling issue in Guelph will not adversely effect the four ridings in the area which are in contention – Guelph, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener-Waterloo and Brant. 3 of the 4 are Conservative now, with 2 of these being relatively close votes. The local TV Station and papers all reported the Guelph Conservative Campaign Communications Director tried to make off with the ballot box at UofG. Will be interesting to see what happens with these. I suspect we will see 2 Conservative loses in Kitchener Centre and Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph staying in the Liberal column.

    What about Helena Guergis in Simcoe-Gray? Emotional issue and previously Progressive Conservative – another loss for the Conservatives?

    John Baird is not necessarily a given in Ottawa West-Nepean. Lots of Civil Servants in the neighbourhood. When the Conservatives start talking savings, this usually means job cuts. Anything but Harper and strategic voting may cause an upset here.

    And just to toss another into the mix, if anything but Harper takes hold, what happens if NDP and Liberal voters in the Saanich-Gulf Islands do some of this vote switching with Green voters in other ridings. Given the reports of increasing support for the Greens in this riding, does it all mean Elizabeth May can squeak through and pull off an upset – another Conservative loss.

    • Hoarfrost says:

      As I understand it the parties were not advised. Such that proper scrutineers were not assigned. The Conservative representative was checking the security numbers on the seals of the voting boxes. It has been reported that there were 2 different numbers. One on the top and a different one on the bottom which could leave thempression and possibility of tampering.

      • Namesake says:

        Uh-huh.

        And as I understand it, “special ballots” aren’t like regular OR advance polls… and don’t actually require scrutineers at the place where the ballots — which are all individually sealed in envelopes, just as they would be if they were being mailed, which is also allowed, and which this whole exercise is just a proxy for — are placed into the box; only at the place where & when they’re counted.

        Just as scrutineers aren’t required in front of all the post office boxes and in each postal station throughout the land to track the progress of the ballots mailed in to Elections Canada.

        And as the SPECIAL BALLOT COORDINATOR’S MANUAL (EC 78690) explains, there are two different types of seals to be affixed to each ballot box, and the ones coordinating the special ballot must:

        “make sure that at least two witnesses are present at the opening of special ballot voting, in addition to you and the RO (or the ARO or the AARO). In full view of the witnesses, you must:
        * open a ballot box (EC 50250), and confirm that there are no ballot papers or other materials in it
        * seal the ballot box, using two long numbered seals (EC 50200) for the front of the box [one at the top, one at the bottom] and four short unnumbered seals (EC 50190) for the sides
        * record the serial numbers of the two long seals in the appropriate box on the Record of Special Ballots Issued to Electors Voting in Their Electoral District (EC 78720).”

        … and there’s a little diagram (on p. 12 of this manual:
        http://www.elections.ca/res/pub/ecdocs/EC78690_e.pdf

        And since the serial number of BOTH the long ones has to be recorded, in front of witnesses, that kinda suggests that, gee, they will probably BE different numbers.

        So, in the CPC lawyer’s letter, when it complains that,

        “two seals were affixed to this ballot box, the top seal bearing #1030701 and the bottom seal bearing #1030702”

        http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011/4/15/4795937.html

        … well, gee, that sounds like it’s just like what one should expect, if, one, um, actually knew the rules, instead of barging in half cocked, making kinds all of allegations and having no authorization to do so whatsoever.

      • Namesake says:

        It has not. More misinformation.

        Only the mass Special Ballots that weren’t pre-authorized by EC, and were being arranged on the Returning Officers’ own initiative, have been put on hiatus.

        But the ok’d by HQ ones still are, and atill will be.

        And that’s a good thing, since their intent is to “accommodate the infirm, inmates or other voters who can’t go to a regular polling station” … a group which includes people in nursing homes, and soldiers serving overseas.

        Or do you think it’s a good thing that only the people that can get into the local polling station under their own steam should be allowed to vote?

        And all the individually initiated special ballots are still permitted. Which is also a good thing, since people may be traveling or working too long or otherwise engaged during the relevant periods.

        “If you believe that election day will not be a convenient time for you to vote, you can vote early:
        …by mail or in person at any local Elections Canada office by special ballot anytime before election day (you need to be registered before 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26); to find the location of your local Elections Canada office, check our Web site or call 1-800-463-6868

        http://urlm.in/hnrq

      • Cam says:

        Only a win for voter suppression. Part of the Harper Government pattern.

        • The Doctor says:

          I wonder how you’d feel if certain people started setting up a bunch of those special polls at gun clubs all across rural Canada. You know, to make sure those gun enthusiasts spread about rural Canada don’t have to drive so far in their pickup trucks to the polls.

        • Cam says:

          If they are voting in accordance with the Election Canada rules, all the power to them. For me, this whole election is about democracy and the power of the people as represented by their duly elected Members of Parliment in the House of Commons – the commoners house – my house. The Harper Regime has abused the commoners house. Thus me standing up and starting to speak out.

  32. Bell says:

    Does it not strike anyone in Iggy’s camp that claiming someone is anti-democratic while that person is contesting you in an actual election campaign is not going to have much legs?

    • Namesake says:

      well, no, considering that

      – he’s only doing that because he was forced to — because of the Contempt he had shown Parliament;

      – he starts every stump speech complaining about that — having to fight an election instead of being allowed to remain in power — and about how there’s been so many of them lately, and then works his way up to urging people to give him a majority so there won’t be any more for a long time;

      http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/975917–are-we-growing-tired-of-democracy?bn=1

      – and there’s such a litany of items in his ‘democratic deficit’; just some of them are listed here:

      http://nupge.ca/issues/harpers-democratic-deficit

      So it not only has legs, it stands up and barks.

      • Wayne says:

        I guess someone forgot to tell the electorate. You know, the ones that rate Iggy a distant 3rd in leadership.

        Nice try Namesake.

        • Namesake says:

          That’s hardly counter-evidence.

          The three components of that leadership index are:

          Most Trustworthy, Most Competent, and Best Vision for Canada’s Future

          …all of which are compatible with being anti-democratic.

          In fact, outright Dictators are typically strong leaders, too…. kinda goes with the territory.

        • Wayne:

          Playing the game hard to win DOES NOT EQUAL democracy.

          Please repeat in your head until you understand.

          To be fair, it isn’t just your side of the game that fails to understand this.

  33. R says:

    I do not think this is
    matter of choose between Ignatieff or Harper
    or any pesonal pull among them

    this is matter
    where or not
    people are happy with today and future plan of Conservative party or not?

    if their answer is NO
    what is other option they can seek for

    now if they seek for second options
    then mater along the road later
    people has chance to change any problems

    big big issue must be clear on table

    this is not you get the vote
    they leader lie and change story

    fix Canada is team work

    I think big problems of Canada
    is he is lack of team work to work and United Canada

    change ceo and Pm is able
    but chang and fix big mistake is sometimes is impossible or costly for all Canadian and timly too

    intention and heart is important not play with word but empty goals

  34. Nastyboy says:

    “The Liberal ad uses some of the dirtiest tricks in the book — including twisting words out of context and deliberately altering dates to make old words appear recent,” Tory campaign manager Jenni Byrne wrote to party supporters in reaction to the new attack ad.”

    Wow…..pot, meet kettle.

  35. Ron says:

    “The Liberal ad uses some of the dirtiest tricks in the book — including twisting words out of context and deliberately altering dates to make old words appear recent,” Tory campaign manager Jenni Byrne wrote to party supporters in reaction to the new attack ad. ”

    Now there is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black

  36. Cam says:

    Hey Gord.

    Although I don’t agree with what you have to say, I do appreciate your comments on here. Nice to have a discussion. Thanks.

    • Ron says:

      way to go Cam
      I agree also…he at least goes into the lion’s den and puts stuff out there for discussion
      there is no need to trash each other
      it’s about debating and discussion

  37. Bruce from Etobicoke says:

    This is dead easy for the Cons to defend.

    Just have Harper announce specifically what he and Flaherty plan to cut instead of Health Care to close the obvious $11 billion hole in their budget.

    You know. We’ll get the jets for 25% of what the US will, or we’re building the prisons for free now.

    If it ain’t health care – what is it?

    • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

      Forgive me if I come across as the old cynical bastard here, but if they’ve had five years to find the efficiencies, and know where they can be had, then why have they been wasting my tax dollars for years instead of actually – you know – taking action on them?

      That is a wanker response at best.

  38. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Truth hurts, eh Mr. Tulk?…..I dont trust Mr. Harper on healthcare anymore than I do on the environment, Senate reform, or keeping govt pork-barrel spending under control……I dont trust this man as far as I can spit…..My time in the merged Conservative Party(aka Reform) convinced me of that. Mr. Harper and his ilk wont be happy until we resemble our neighbour to the South……
    I look forward to election day when we can thrice deny Mr. Harper his much sought after majority……

  39. reformatory says:

    “hell hath no fury like Coderre scorned” :o)

  40. reformatory says:

    There is a “silent” ground war going on in Quebec right now. 3 Camps (Coderre / Trudeau / Cauchon). Until one of them wins the battle for the right to be the next francophone DUCE. Quebec will stall for the GRITS. It’s sad.. but a reality typical in ground wars that occur in all competitive political parties.

  41. reformatory says:

    Chantel Hebert is alluding to that battle in her column, but she can’t obviously be as specific as she wants to be. She’s got the pulse on the ground in Quebec. I do hope she’s wrong though. I hope we end up with a GRIT MINORITY, supported by a decnt showing in Quebec. The GRITS will then be able to show the CONS how it’s done. They can prove how successfully they can emulate Pearson and deliver a very productive minority gov’t for Canadians. I also hope for all 3 (Coderre / Trudeau / Cauchon) to win and be prominent cabinet ministers for IGGY. Then after 4 years of a minority, and then 4 more in majority.. the 3 of them can duke it out and try to be the next leader. By that time… it will be .. you know.. a francaphone’s turn 🙂

  42. Middleclassfamily says:

    If you believe Michael Sona should be fired for his actions at the University of Guelph on Wednesday please sign this petition

    http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/firemichaelsona

  43. Namesake says:

    Sure, sure, the abortion issue is well and truly dead under the CPC…

    because it’s not like they’ve got an explicitly-anti-abortion MP chairing a secretive parliamentary anti-abortion caucus,

    http://christian-wire.info/christian-press-release/christian-press-release-rod-bruinooge/

    who’s introduced a private members’ bill of his own partially on the topic, already (Bill C-510, a redundant measure to add coercing abortion to the Criminal Code)

    http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/rod-bruinooge/

    …or that they don’t also have a new CPC candidate, also from Manitoba (where, hmm, a certain Ms. Hoeppner who introduced another divisive, base-riling private member’s bill, on the long gun registry, also hails from),

    who’s just condemned President Obama for signing a landmark heath-care reform bill — aimed at extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans — which encompasses funding abortions.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-abortion-tory-candidate-called-obama-worst-us-president-biggest-liar/article1988307/

    Nope, nothing to see, here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*