09.06.2021 03:34 PM

This week’s Sparky: if you don’t like the old policy, we’ll get you a new policy!

17 Comments

  1. Sean says:

    a lot of fuss over changing one line in O’Toole’s platform…. when we all know there is faint hope of anything in Justin’s platform even being possible.

  2. J.Ph. Brunet says:

    Meanwhile, almost every house in Switzerland has a machine gun in it. No probs. Not much progressivism either. Not a coincidence.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      JPB,

      Correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that the Swiss regulars and reserves are primarily made up of citizen-soldiers. Sort of a few pegs above a national guard.

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    EKOS: Conservatives +6

    Nanos: Liberals +2

    • Sean says:

      No one beats Nanos. If Nanos says it is so… it is so.

      • Phil in London says:

        Actually a lot of people beat nanos most noteworthy is ‘average’

        This is not a knock on Nick Nanos and company but on the impossibility of being 100% accurate. Last election they were not the most accurate pollster a few back it was like they knew the answers before the vote was counted.

        On average we see a minority government maybe not much different than last. Now that we’ve had our labour day chats let’s watch the debates and see where everyone’s numbers move.

        I’m most interested in the much bigger final poll that has already commenced with advance polling and will continue to be tallied into the wee hours of September 21.

        • Sean says:

          2019 Nanos = exactly correct
          2015 Nanos = exactly correct
          2011 Nanos = off by about 2%
          2008 Nanos = off by about 3%
          2006 Nanos = exactly correct

          • Sean,

            Léger and Nanos got the blue-ribbon last time.

          • Phil in London says:

            Not to make too fine a point but the last nanos poll of 2019 misjudged third place NDP support by 4.8% that’s well beyond margin of error and suggests a much higher placing seats wise probably at liberal expense.

            I’m not knocking Nanos -I’m saying one poll (any poll) won’t tell as much as many polls’ averages. On average the polls show a tight popular vote. Without a great bit of regional data we can sense another minority government.

            What we do see is some liberal weakness in the east coast, outside GTA and in BC suggesting the liberals will not add to their seat count.

            The polls 13 days left in 2019 were mixed but on a whole were pretty close to final results.

            It’s a matter of who gets out the vote, whether anyone stumbles and if the NDP can hold its support.

            After two debates and after measuring the family discussions type of weekend this past one really was will start to show up about Monday of next week.

            A slight shift in numbers can mean nothing or everything. I need to see more info

      • Phil in London says:

        Just an aside why are nanos numbers that were being reported before noon now come later in the day?

  4. Phil in London says:

    Unlike Warren I’m a right of centre voter without guns. I grew up in a rural area and still know tons of people with a “groundhog gun”. I have four incidents in my life involving guns that took four lives and damaged seriously another.

    Here’s my gun take – it matters to a small fraction of both sides of the debate. What should really be the focus is how are illegal guns being used to kill people? Key word ILLEGAL. This is happening – as I understand it most often (except Crimes of passion) gun crimes are committed with illegal guns.

    Is it a weak border? Is it poor enforcement? Is it a cultural shift with not only “our brothers the Taliban” gaining acceptance but also continued increased gun ownership by our southern neighbours? Most likely a bit of all but I’d like to see a focus on how we can combat the illegal ownership of guns.

    PLUS the incredible strain loss from pandemic that mental health will cause – a huge rise in both the crimes of passion but also street crime.

    The current pm has a mother who has publicly acknowledged her battles with an ailment that was present in all the gun Incidents I witnessed – mental health.

    I’m pretty sure everyone of my family incidents would have occurred with or without guns. I channel Bill Clinton’s economy plank when I say “it’s Mental health stupid”

    O’Toole was correct to backtrack but emphasis on comments to depoliticize the list is apropos.

    This spring I have 20 police cars on my street and a swat vehicle to deal with a gun owner clearly having mental health issues thankfully no one was hurt. Let’s get on with the real problem and stop the fear and rights bullshit. The silly arguments about abortion and whether your health cate provider is for profit or private and of course this gun issue we have a series of wedge issues that need to be dumped hard so we can look at obvious crisis heading right at us.

    • Doug says:

      Full agree with your take. I understand why O’Toole would take aim at C-71, which is a poor law that seemed crafted by Liberal interns would Googled “assault riffle” to complile a list of weapons that included Airsoft guns. That being said, O’Toole should be smart enough to know that the average citizen rarely examines policy depth and not gone there.

      The Conservative campaign should have the equivalent of a swear jar. Anytime someone in the party is caught using words like “abortion”, “guns” or “private healthcare”, they have to contribute $100.

  5. Steve T says:

    I think this was a good move by O’Toole. Refine the policy, to address the issue that is sidetracking the campaign. What is the alternative – ride the bomb all the way down to defeat?

    It’s not like JT has much to lean on, when it comes to policies, promises, or any effective governance of the country. If JT tries to raise this alleged “flip flop” in the next debate, it will be easy for O’Toole to shred him on a variety of topics.

  6. We all know what the elephant in the room is. To acknowledge it publicly would lead to even more race-based hatred and quite deliberate discrimination that those communities have endured for centuries.

    The political cost of doing something has long become unacceptable. It would take a joint United States and Canadian incredibly armed task force to break this and as a result, blood would flow in unending quantities straight into the fresh water. Translation: politics necessarily dictates the prevention of bloodbaths and so the problem will continue indefinitely.

  7. Peter Williams says:

    Liberals tell us to look at the data. Since Justin Trudeau took office, shootings in Toronto are way up.

    What has Justin done? Fly around 39a lot and go to Harrington Lake to use the eight boats he bought with tax payer money.

Leave a Reply

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


*