The latest CPAC-Nanos tracking poll shows a seven point margin for the Harper Conservatives over the Dion Liberals. The Liberals have held on to post debate gains in Quebec but Ontario remains a tie between the Tories and the Grits.
In the post English debate world, however, Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have regained some lost ground on their daily leadership index. The research at this point suggests that the French debate has buoyed the image of Stephane Dion as well as Liberal support in Quebec while the Conservative numbers have slipped in Quebec.
Tune in to Goldhawk Live with Dale Goldhawk tomorrow night at 7 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.
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 October 2, 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=1,008, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
- Conservative Party 35 (NC)
- Liberal Party 28 (-2)
- NDP 19 (+1)
- BQ 10% (NC)
- Green Party 8% (-1)
- Undecided 16% (NC)
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 32% (NC)
- NDP leader Jack Layton 19% (+2)
- Liberal leader Stephane Dion 17% (-1)
- Green Party leader Elizabeth May 4% (-1)
- Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe 4% (-1)
- None of them 8% (NC)
- Unsure 17% (NC)
Question: Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:
- The most trustworthy leader
- The most competent leader
- The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future
[Leadership Index Score - Daily roll-up of all three measures]
- Stephen Harper 89 (+10)
- Jack Layton 59 (+11)
- Stephane Dion 52 (-19)
- Elizabeth May 18 (+3)
- Gilles Duceppe 12 (+1)
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
It seems every time I read a newspaper lately, there are Liberal supporters and ... more
Reg (British Columbia) 04 Oct 14:12
The new 7 point spread of the Conservatives over the Liberals should widen over ... more
westerner (suspended) (Alberta) 04 Oct 14:33
I rest my case, the extreme changes yesterday have corrected themselves, the pr... more
Regina Beach Boy (Saskatchewan) 04 Oct 14:21
Ummmm larryl, the people who work in Fort McMurry also live in Fort McMurry. It... more
Craig (Alberta) 05 Oct 01:30
Well - not really 40. If they hit 39 percent with the current conditions it'll ... more
Foxer (British Columbia) 05 Oct 05:20
Well that is obvious. I live in Calgary and have a bunch of collegues in the ... more
Craig (Alberta) 05 Oct 11:38
Comments
Reg
It seems every time I read a newspaper lately, there are Liberal supporters and candidates complaining about the possibility of the Conservatives getting a majority when "60% of Canadians are opposed to the CPC".
One wonders where these people were when the Liberals under Chretien were getting majority governments when "60% of Canadians are opposed to the Liberal Party."
Any Liberals want to comment???
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:12:21 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:12
98 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Zab
Not sure that's correct- the conservatives are far more ideologically separated from the other parties that the Chretien liberals. The liberals were fiscally and socially between alliance and PC on the one side and the NDP on the other and between the centralist and the separatists in Quebec (although the NDP and Alliance/Reform views were hardly represented in the province because they were too hard-centralist). The Liberals consistently won by being in the centre and attracting votes from both sides that didn't want the other to win.
Now the CPC is on the right of the spectrum with every other party to its left and opposed to it. Nobody is moving to the conservatives to prevent another party benefiting. Although commentators are correct in that the centre-left and left vote is being split, I don't think the analogy with the Chretien era can be carried very far.
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:29:47 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:29
westerner (suspended)
I find it amusing that Dion would claim the Liberals are a centrist party and criticize Jack Layton as a socialist. Steve Dion is clearly a hard left socialist trying to hide the fact he has a leftist hidden agenda. He is politically appealing to ex NDPers such as Rae and Dosanjh. Scary if he ever got a majority government.
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:42:02 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:42
lol that would be scary the Liberal Hidden Agenda.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:25:38 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:25
HoldenCaulfield
Only you would refer to Dion as a Socialist, give me a break. I actually don't find the word Socialist offensive, but most of the members of the Liberal Party are the furthest thing from Socialist.
[updated Sun Oct 05 02:22:49 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 02:22
westerner (suspended)
Only you wouldn't recognize the political science professor as a socialist.
[updated Sun Oct 05 09:06:45 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 09:06
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
He's definitely not a socialist. Where have you heard Dion speak about confiscating assets for the good of the State which is what socialists do. Layton speaks about doing just that although he sometimes whispers those sentiments.
I have head and read about Harper thinking he will brainwash us in to being conservatives and following his planned hypnosis of the Country . Obviously your brain is wired that way.
[updated Sun Oct 05 09:14:39 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 09:14
westerner (suspended)
Wow!! According to you Harper is such a powerful and charismatic person he will brainwash us all " to being Conservatives" following his hypnosis of the Country".
[updated Sun Oct 05 09:22:26 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 09:22
MRM
The CPC is centre right, not far right. All of the others are opposed to them because they want to win seats. Just like they were opposed to the Martin govt and every other govt before them. The Grits used to be a left of centre party but the party has been taken over by the far left which is why so many of their senior members deserted the party and why they are now fighting it out with the NDP, greens and Bloc for the far left vote. It is the Liberals who have moved far left and encroached on the other leftist parties traditional bases not the other way around. In the process though they have left the center, left and right, to the Tories.
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:51:51 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:51
Zab
again, I reiterate- the LPC which was ideologically situated between other parties, the CPC isn't. It's on one side of the political spectrum- which the way things are stacked is the far-right. The centre, left and right are relative rather than absolute terms.
The point I was making was that the analogy does not stand- that is not to say their policies are as right wing as that of the far right in Europe or the US. Au contraire. All of Canadian politics is to the left of politics in the US and UK, closer to the politics of France and Germany and to the right of politics in Scandinavia.
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:04:28 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:04
Foxer
Nonsense. The liberals used to be more centrist but that certainly hasn't been true for a while.
They're proposing a spending increase and tax increase larger than the ndp's.
The analogy is quite precise. The liberals do not represent anything the right of center voters would care about - they are nohting like the bloc - and while they share more in common these days with the ndp they aren't appealing to ndp voters.
So it's exactly the same situation.
The fact is canada is governed by the party who can win the most seats not the most votes, and that's a reasonable way to do it. That's why sometimes 38 is enough to get a majority, sometimes it isn't. With so many regions and so many different cultures theres' no chance of regularly getting one party with over 50 percent of the vote with 5 parties out there.
This is one of the reasons federal gov'ts should be kept to their core duties and provinces (who are more reflective of their regional populations ) should have more powers to provide solutions appropriate to that region.
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:30:00 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:30
Zab
Again- the Liberal were centrists because they were in the centre. As far as I can tell they are still in the political centre. The conservatives are to the right of them and the Bloc, New Democrats and Greens (arguably) are to the left of them.
You seem to have some absolute notion of the political centre which you have allotted to the CPC. That may be all very well but right now on the Canadian political spectrum, they are ideologically situated to the right of everyone else- ergo they are right wing.
You are obviously misreading what I am saying- I'm not talking about specific policies.
Nothing I said has anything to do with whether a minority of voter support should or should not get the right to form a government.
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:45:19 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:45
westerner (suspended)
The Liberals under the non leadership of Dion are certainly not in the political centre.You may be so far left you think moderate left is the centre!
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:54:06 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:54
Zab
Political centre relative to whom? No I am not on the far left. But I do have a clue as to where the parties stand in relation to each other. And I do know that the political spectrum varies by country across the world and so there isn't an absolute centre or right or left.
You need to understand that just even if you think that the CPC has politically reasonable policies, it still may not be at the Canadian political centre.
My questioning the appropriateness of the analogy between CPC and Chretien LPC still stands- the Chretien LPC got votes NOT ONLY because it divided the opposition BUT ALSO because it preyed on the competitive fears on both sides of the ideological spectrum resulting in people on both sides parking their votes with them.
NDP, Green and Liberal voters are not parking their votes with the CPC to stave off the other.
Try attacking the message instead of the person.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:20:46 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:20
Foxer
The center isn't a relational issue - if all the parties are left wing parties that doesn't mean the one that's LEAST left is somehow right wing.
THe center is defined by a moderate approach with a minor blend of right and left but everything in moderation.
An 80 billion dollar spending increase and billions in new taxes is not 'moderate' at all for example.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:32:39 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:32
Zab
Yes it is. Centre is a relative term. Maybe not to your core beliefs but when someone says a party is in the centre- they mean relative to other parties.
Everything in moderation is also relative- fortunately or unfortunately relative to other parties in the field.
A centre has to be the centre of something. What is that something? In this case it is the Canadian political environment.
Your idea of centre is related to ... an american view? a french view? a keynesian view? a monetarist view?
I'm talking about political parties and which one is occupying the political centre in the political debate today.
Foxer, you don't like the liberals- fine. You think they want to spend too much- fine. But you can't claim they are not in the centre. Maybe if they were a party to the right of the CPC, you could conceivably have made the claim. Just because you don't like liberals, doesn't mean they aren't occupying the political centre in the debate or the campaign.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:36:39 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:36
westerner (suspended)
The Liberals are NOT in the centre. The Dion policies are clearly left of centre and would be more so if he ever got a majority. Massive tax increases and additional billions in spending are trademarks of a move to the far left.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:46:17 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:46
Zab
get your absolutes and relatives sorted out.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:51:38 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:51
westerner (suspended)
Dion is absolutely left of centre.
[updated Sat Oct 04 18:12:07 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 18:12
Zab
absolutely
[updated Sat Oct 04 18:26:04 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 18:26
Foxer
I think as a rule when people talk about right wing left wing and center politics - those are pretty well established positions. That would be like saying 'right wing' and 'left wing' are relative - mussillini was not 'left wing' just because he wasn't as bad as hitler.
The ideas of left right and center have been around a very long time and are fairly well defined.
As to the model - the left and right are based on economic, social, and to a degree cultural models that have been around in europe and north america for a long time. The precise details may vary but the general concepts are pretty firm. Most people can describe them. Fiscally the far right is more free market based, the left more communistic or socialist. Socially the right is characterized by tradition and previously accepted social norms, the left by a vision of the norms they envision for a future society involving the acceptance of some groups and practices and the elimination of others. Culturally diffences include such things as the the right believing in self defense of person and country and the left believing in disarmament of both.
And even if you DID suggest that it's 'relative' - then we can compare it to relative canadian gov'ts in the past - or even relative to previous Liberal gov'ts. Ya think chretien would have introduced a 40 billion dollar tax?
There is no doubt that the liberals are not a center party any more. That has nothing to do with whether or not i like them. They moved to the left of the political spectrum and out of the center. Harper is moving from the right towards the center and now is what is often called center right. The libs used to be more or less center left.
It's crazy to suggest the established political spectrum is defined by the current party.
And if you DID - then the liberals would be right wing. Because there's three on the left of it and one on the right. I guess the bloc would be the center party :)
Seriously - how are you defining left and right if there's no definition of left and right?
[updated Sat Oct 04 21:04:56 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 21:04
Bernie
You are correct Zab.
The way I see it since the Trudeau era the Liberals have been somewhat to the right of centre. Under Dion they still are far enough off centre to the right that I did not vote for them.
The old PC parties were of course more right than the Liberals but never to far right like the Harper regime is or even farther right if they got a majority.
I have never known a Federal conservative as far right as Harper.
Layton has taken the NDP closer to the centre than they have ever been traditionally.
I like the NDP policies and I would have voted for them had he kept the party where it was.
The Greens can't be positioned right or left. They are all over the spectrum
depending on the specific issue.
I liked their policies best of all, so that's why I have already voted for them in the advanced poll. I'm confident nothing will happen between now and the Oct. 14 that would have changed my mind.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:42:17 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:42
Zab
Maybe you are right about the greens.
I though that as well but May's performance in the debates seemed very left-wing. That's what causes me to think in this electoral cycle, they're pretty far left.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:48:34 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:48
Foxer
I think the greens started out as a blend of right and left ideology, but i think they've kind of drifted to the left. Looking over their current policies they're fairly left oriented.
[updated Sat Oct 04 21:08:04 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 21:08
Bernie
Well! we'''ll have to disagree on this.
If we could use a numerical representation of the political spectrum
i.e. absolute left by 0 and absolute right by 100
I would put Harper's Conservatives at 70 at present and that would go to 90 if he got a majority
Dion's Liberals at 55 to 60. They would go to 65 to70 if they formed the government.
Layton`s NDPs are at 40 to 45, probably stay there if he won.
Elizabeth May`s Greens are all over the map. But so am I. So I voted for them. As did my whole family.
[updated Sun Oct 05 08:14:40 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 08:14
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Congrats on your votes for Harper. Whle I like the Greens Over 65% and possibly 70% of the population is against Harper and his idealogy and therefore this election should be about that issue.
[updated Sun Oct 05 08:39:09 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 08:39
Bernie
Pray tell! What kind of reasoning would suggest that my vote would help Harper?
[updated Sun Oct 05 09:46:51 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 09:46
westerner (suspended)
You need to understand that the CPC is not a centrist party and neither is the LPC as Dion claims. I do have a clue as to where the parties stand in relation to each other.
Try attacking the message instead of the person.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:44:37 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:44
Zab
definitely not attacking your beliefs , mister west of me.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:53:09 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:53
Foxer
I have to say westerner is right - the libs are no where near the center right now. Dion moved them pretty far to the left.
Harper is quickly gaining the center ground and will likely hold it. The libs are now fighting with the left wing gov'ts. You can't propose a 40 billion dollar tax and 80 billion in new spending and try to appeal to the right.
What they do in the future will depend on the leader. It's believed (tho not certain) that the leadership fight will be between rae and iggy. Rae is left wing and will tend to keep them there. Iggy is more right wing traditionally, and will probably move them back towards the center if he can.
Both stratagies have their problems now. The cpc has taken the center and will likely strengthen that considerably over the next term. The left is fractured, and difficult to hold. We'll see what happens.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:17:43 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:17
Zab
Are you seriously arguing that the liberal platform is more left-wing than the NDP's?
From what I've seen thus far in the campaign, that would be very unlikely.
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:48:20 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:48
Foxer
Many elements of it are definately more 'left wing'.
Consider for example that liberals have called the 'green shift' a 'wealth shift', claiming it's the greatest 'anti -poverty' plan in decades.
Or the attack on hunting and sporting firearms. (military firearms were banned years ago btw - the 'assault' guns he's talking about are civillian firearms). Yes - the libs have gone after guns before but it's on the far left side of their agenda usually.
Consider the taxation of businesses during a slow down. The green shift will cost ontario over a billion for their electrical generation, most of which is used by business.
Their resistance to stronger sentencing - also left wing. Especially in light of the reported increase in the most violent crimes in the last few years.
I could go on - in fact the only thing that's 'left wing' in the ndp program that is more iconic of left ideology would be the direct business taxes and even that is off set by the green tax.
Even the terminology used by party supporters and members is on the extreme left - 'neo con'. "regressive" - not just applied appropriately but to anything they don't like. etc etc.
The libs are in the same sphere as the ndp these days and the greens - and of course that's creating a split. That would never have happened in the past.
We'll have to see what happens in the future, but for now the libs are a left wing party.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:29:17 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:29
Zab
What the liberals are proposing is definitely to the political right of the ndp- I think both the ndp and liberals will agree on that. I think the prime minister would probably agree to that.
Whether you think the liberals aren't different enough from the ndp is entirely another thing.
All the things you are talking with regard to left-wing seems to be compared to some objective standard you have- is this the Australian standard you are using, the American Standard, the German standard?
The libs might be too left-wing for you. That doesn't mean they don't occupy the political centre in Canada. Maybe, just Maybe- Canada is too left wing for you and you would like the whole country to be more right wing. That's fine. I can respect your opinion on that. But that's not what you are disputing with me.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:44:50 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:44
Foxer
Not by much - billions of new taxes and spending on an environmental platform and wealth shift? Low jail time for criminals? Major poverty reduction? Gun bans? etc etc? Not exactly traditional RIGHT wing policies
If the liberal plan is right of the ndp, it's by a hair. That's why the vote is so split on the left.
If the libs and ndp aren't different - then they're both pretty left: :) But i don't think they're the same.
And the 'standard' if nothing else is well established traditional canadian tradition.
The libs are not in the political center of canada. Sorry.
This has nothing to do with what i'd like, or dislike, the country to be.
Let me put it this way - if i walk up to a person on the street and say 'is raising taxes to pay for social programs a right wing or left wing agenda item?" - they're not going to need to know what other parties are proposing to know it's left wing. We have established ideas of right and left wing in this country - and the libs have moved to the left.
I don't know why this seems to upset you but the fact is the libs moved to the left under dion - next year who knows but that's the way it is. I'm not complaining, i'm not criticizing, heck some left wing ideas are not bad ideas. My problems with the libs aren't based on that. But it's still true.
[updated Sat Oct 04 21:20:17 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 21:20
Zab
IF the CPC had a party to the right of it AND if it had majority support, maybe I would accept your statements on what is the "well established Canadian political tradition" or the political centre of Canada. As things stand, and from what I heard in the debates, the CPC had four parties that disagreed with it and those parties were all to the left of them.
All this tells me the political centre of Canada is to to the left of the CPC position on things. Perhaps Dion moved the LPC towards the Canadian political centre ....
[updated Sun Oct 05 10:55:13 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 10:55
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Zab, not only four parties reject the Cons version of life in Canada but fully between 65 and 70% of the population does as well.
Its unfortunate there is no run off election in this country. Harper would score in the teens in that vote.
[updated Sun Oct 05 11:08:03 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 11:08
Foxer
Right now - about 75 - 80 percent reject the liberal ideas. What does that say about the liberals? :)
[updated Sun Oct 05 12:30:34 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 12:30
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
That's a typical weak answer because as you well know the left is pretty damn close in social platforms with only the Liberals offering a real balanced fiscal program. The NDP can afford to promise everything to everyone because they have no chance of being elected let alone become the opposition.
In fact also the reality is that base Liberal support is also at 30 to 35% and that is what really scares the cons.
Once the bloc dies a natural death by the next election the Liberals will once again be the overwhelming party of the people of Canada. Of course we owe existence of the bloc to the insane politics of Mulroney although that will also keep harper from winning this election.
My sources tell me harper could drop to as low as five or six seats now in La Belle Province.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:13:39 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:13
Foxer
If that were true - why are there almost as many ndp supporters as lib? And the libs have no chance of being elected to gov't this time around either. The ndp COULD form opposition, and lets face it the libs aren't much opposition even when they ARE in opposition.
And the 'reality' is the lib base support seems to be around 24 percent right now. Every pollster, every analyst, everyone out there agrees that there's pretty much no chance of the libs winning, or even winning what they had. Hell even duceppe alluded to it in the debates.
As to your 'sources' - if you take your medication like the doc suggested you won't hear them any more :)
It appears as tho the cpc will still pick up a couple of seats in quebec on top of what they have now. The problem is they were on track to pick up quite a few, not just a few. That may keep them from their majority. But they're not loosing any seats. Sorry.
The cpc will win the election, they will be close to a majority but probably not over the line. The libs are going to lose about 30 seats, and are going to be financially crippled. Dion is going to wind up getting kicked out, it's just a question of how hard he'll fight.
That's where we're at.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:40:25 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:40
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Dream on, the election is not until the 14th. Your expert noise was telling us two weeks ago that the cons would win right around the number of seats to win a majority. We see now how correct you were then. You are just a blow hard Tory trying to pretend you are smarter than guys like Nik. You didn't make the cut right from the get go.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:47:27 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:47
Foxer
True - there IS a chance the libs will slip further by that point i suppose. There's a real threat they'll bleed off to the ndp.
That's why dion is focusing on 'keeping the furniture' speeches in previously safe liberal ridings.
And the cpc will still win very close to the number of seats necessary to win a majority. They were RIGHT on the edge a few weeks ago, now it looks like they'll fall short by a few seats. They might still go over the top but the numbers suggest they'll be short by 5 or 10 seats depending if they do 'good or bad'.
And you're just a bitter little liberal dreamer who's been kicked off the board what - 4 times now? 5? Because you have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:51:47 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:51
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
It's also unfortunate there is only a first past the post system. With PR the right wing cons would never ever win another election. That would be real democracy.
[updated Sun Oct 05 11:09:46 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 11:09
MRM
parnel - It is also unfortuanate that you are still here despite Nik telling you that he and everyone else has enough of your nonsense.
[updated Sun Oct 05 11:39:00 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 11:39
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
I'm only here to continue and counter your insane views of the world. bugs you doesn't it that there are people who know, and challenge, how far off the bubble you really are with the lies and innuendo you try and pass off here as facts.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:15:54 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:15
Foxer
zab - that makes no sense in the slightest.
First off - if there are no established canadian definitions of 'right' and 'left' - then how do you know the other parties are 'left' of them? Right off the bat you've just demonstrated that there ARE in fact definitions that we can recognize.
And basic logic should tell you if there's an established concept of "right", and an established concept of "left" then there must be an established concept of 'center".
It's not like this is "My" idea - take any polysci course, read about it, whatever. There is an established right center and left in this country (and many others) and i can describe to you the principles of all of them.
The center is the center regardless of where the parties stand. That's pretty much been established since before canada even existed - the westminster system of gov't we use was largely based on that. It evolves over the generations but we can see and chart that evoloution quite easily.
You might as well be arguing that the sun rises in the west. It doesn't. These are well established terms in politics in canada.
Do a little reading. The liberal party is currently a left wing party. They are more traditionally a center center left party. Right now the cpc is a center right party - far closer to the center than any of the other parties and that's why they tend to be winning these elections.
If you agree with the idea that there IS such a thing as right wing and left wing, then it should be pretty obvious that there IS a center between them. Think about it.
The liberal party under dion is left wing. It's actually pretty close to on par with the greens and very close to the ndp. And that's why their numbers are so close - whereas the CPC is a more center party in its' policy right now.
[updated Sun Oct 05 12:29:10 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 12:29
Zab
Dude, you can't even spell c-e-n-t-r-e using the Canadian spelling and you're giving me a lecture on the Canadian Westminster-based system and its immutable political centre since confederation.
I'm surprised you don't recognize that the political spectrum in countries shifts constantly. The Eisenhower Republicans were quite different from the Bush Republicans. The US political environment moved to the right in the late seventies and is in the process of moving leftward now. The political centre in the US is moves in concert. The political centre in Australia has moved leftward over the last five years and the margin of Howard's defeat recently was in no small degree to his failure to track that movement in his positions. I cannot believe you think that there are absolutes when it comes to public policy and platforms.
The Canadian centre slowly moved rightward after Trudeau in the early eighties until the late nineties/early two thousands and has been moving leftward since then.
Although the present LPC may be left-wing by late nineties standards I think they are at the centre of the "emerging" political landscape with the NDP trying to get in on it by talking to their base about the corporate tax cut and talking to the centre about how they want balanced budgets.
Harper is smart enough to have recognize all this and has moved his positions accordingly. But the fact that he has four parties representing 60-65 percent of the vote diametrically opposed to him, indicates how much further he needs to go.
One indication of where the centre might be is in which parties share votes with with how many other parties and to what degree.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:04:16 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:04
Foxer
How petty is it to try to hinge your argument on whether center is spelled center or centre? Honestly - is that the BEST argument you can make?
And if you actually took the time to READ what i wrote - you'll notice i specifically said that it 'evolves' over time. But that it's quite documented and we can track the evolution and that we still have a right middle and left now.
That IS what i clearly said. So your rather sorry attempt to suggest that I claimed it was 'immutable' is just plain petulant. If your argument hinges on not being honest about what i said - then it's time for you to admit you don't really have an argument per se.
And the emerging trend is more a movement to center right than left. Sorry. Fiscally Canada is definitely still center or right of center. (or centre if you prefer). Socially it's still mostly center, possibly center left. The anti crime thing for example is being applauded pretty much everywhere outside of quebec - and that's more of a center or right policy. The green tax is not well liked.
The liberal party is left wing period. They're not HARD left but they're definitely on the left side of the spectrum, and that's just a simple truth. Dion is much more left wing than chretien was for example, and i'm sorry but political changes in the nature of perception of left and right within the country don't generally happen over the space of a couple of years. They're more generational changes.
And it is also rather silly to suggest that 60 - 65 percent are 'diametrically opposed' to him. In fact it shows a rather simplistic understanding of politics. Take the green vote for example - how much of that is simply because of their environmental focus? A person could agree with everything harper says but feel that MORE focus should be on the environment, and therefore support the greens to send that message.
Or the liberal voters - some may agree with what harper's proposing because they're pretty center ideas, but be worried that he has a 'secret agenda' that would involve far right ideas that haven't been presented, and want to contain him to a minority. In short they like what he's proposed, but they're concerned he may do things he hasn't proposed. That would mean they are NOT 'diametrically' opposed to him at all.
NDP voters may well not like the 'socialist' part of layton's agenda but believe the ndp will protect workers more and vote based on that. IN other words they're more single issue voters.
To suggest that anyone who doesn't vote for a party is diametrically opposed to that party is silly. A person could really like the green tax AND really like the idea of longer sentances for criminals - well NOW what do you do? Both parties offer something you care about, now it's a choice as to what's more important to you, and specifically more important right now.
Even more interesting is that people can be both left AND right AND center. They may be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and more center on the environmental portfolio. They are going to pick the party that they trust to address the MOST important issues to them - that's not to say the other issues are not important or that they're opposed to them.
And no - it is NO indication of where the center is just looking at voter intent. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided jack layton was the best choice going, the NDP would STILL be a left wing party. It would just mean that canadians were left wing in nature or that even if they were right wing jack had policies they felt were a priority right now.
This stuff really isn't complex - you seem to be hung up on WANTING the liberals to be a 'center' party, and they're just not. Sorry - they're left wing at the moment. I suspect that if Rae takes over they'll remain on the left, if iggy takes over they'll move closer to the center overall.
There's nothing 'wrong' with any of that - but at least be honest about it. The libs just aren't a center party any more.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:26:18 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:26
Zab
I actually do think your spelling is important. It betrays where your locus and focus are- either that or you are careless in your use of language- which I think isn't the case. Your spelling like your standards may be wholesale imports from another country.
And no, that wasn't the BEST argument- but I pointed to a telling characteristic.
And if you can't tell which party leaders in that debate were diametrically opposed to Harper, what shall I say? The support of the other parties that attacked the CPC actually went up after the debate. It doesn't make me think the CPC was representing any broad consensus. On fiscal issues, the LPC is to the right of the NDP, the Bloc (and surprisingly in the debate) and the Greens. On foreign policy the same. On social issues and the environment, certainly. Yes, single issue colour a campaign, but this is nothing like the same-sex debate or the meech lake debate. In fact this election has devoid of many wedge issues outside of arts funding and detention for minors. In any case when people vote, they weigh up many issues just like parties represent bundles of policy positions.
If as, you say Canadians may be left wing for electing Jack, then obviously the political centre would also be left wing. That wouldn't obviate the fact that there is a centre of a political spectrum. I agree Dion dragged the Liberals leftward and I think Jack dragged the NDP rightward. I actually anticipated this election to be the CPC and the Greens on one side and Liberals and NDP on the other. Strangely enough the polarization hasn't happened like that and four parties have stacked from the centre to the hard-left fighting for 60-65 percent of the vote, as opposed to 30-35 percent of the vote.
And no this stuff actually is interesting and often complex and you being condescending won't win you any debates. Pretending that all this comes easy isn't convincing. Lots of people can play that game ...
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:01:31 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 14:01
Foxer
Are you serious. You think my spelling represents where my focus is. Rather than, for example, where my spell checker was made?
My spelling without a spell checker is horrid. And that's not due to carelessness but rather just good old fashioned dyslexia. As a group, we're highly intelligent and analytical, but not so much good on the spelling :) So i use a spell checker built into the browser. And guess where it was made.
And lets face it - center is in common use in Canada as a spelling.
I think you need to listen to Freud's comment that 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'.
The party leaders may or may not be diametrically opposed to harper (tho i note things like Duceppe agreed with harper that the feds should stay out of provincial matters like health care, Layton agreed that a carbon tax is a bad idea and cap and trade is better, even May agreed with the PM on a point or two. ).
However - you weren't talking about them - you were talking about the VOTERS. And that's a whole different ball of wax.
And let me clue you in to a fairly basic fact in political elections - ALL the leaders are opposed to each other, ESPECIALLY to the incumbent. That's kind of the point. There will never be a time when we have the other parties saying "gee - i really think the guy we've got in power now has it right, he's doing great".
Devoid of wedge issues? The green tax is a huge wedge issue. Taxing businesses by 50 billion dollars is a huge wedge issue. Firearms are a big one too for many. The economy is a huge wedge issue. The crime bills are too, and culture 'cuts' as you mention.
This election is teeming with wedge issues.
And no - if canada were left wing the center would still be the center - and most Canadians would be left of it. That's how it works.
I agree with you the libs went left and the ndp went right - and really that's all this was a discussion about. The libs have moved from the center towards the left and the ndp are moving from hard left to slightly softer left.
the greens - i can see where you thought that, but they've moved farther to the left since may took over. Their policies are actually pretty much universally left wing although they didn't really start out that way as a party. But now? Soft on crime, raise carbon taxes AND the GST, ban guns, etc etc. They're a left wing party now.
As to being condescending - buddy, if you want respect bring something a little more real to the table than 'spelling issues'. It IS a complex topic, but elements of it are quite simple. The general principles of right and left are fairly well established and the center is what is in between them - it's not based on how parties or people vote or the like. Lets try to keep it real.
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:20:04 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 14:20
Zab
No, not everybody attacks the incumbent all the time. The gang-up on harper was far more comprehensive than the gang-up on martin. This is because the folks on the left -Bloc and NDP- attacked the folks on the right, Harper. In this gang-up most of the attacking was done by Layton Duceppe and May. Dion was attacking the incumbent but playing the centre.
Nothing in this election is anywhere close to wedge issues that were patriation, free trade, meech lake, Iraq war, same sex.
The centre of ANY country's political spectrum is based on how parties or people in that country vote. You're obviously living in some la-la land of platonic ideological forms.
Your condescension reflects badly on you not on me. But maybe that's your browser's fault too.
[updated Sun Oct 05 14:42:18 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 14:42
Foxer
the format allowed for that more this time. The attacks against martin were pretty vigorous last time as you'll recall - layton said 'lend us your votes' because the libs didn't deserve it.
There wasn't much support for paul amongst the opposition, was there :)
And no - viturtually every single political expert would agree that political spectrum is indpendent of the voting intent of the voters. Fine details may be argued as to what left and right represent but that's about it.
Go read a book. It'll do you some good.
And my condescension has more to do with your argument than anything else. It is ludicrous and contrary to every established use of the term to suggest that the center of the political spectrum is based on voter intent. How can anyone take you seriously when you're putting that kind of idea out there?
People talk about voters being on the left of right of the spectrum. They talk about voters being outside the spectrum or being 'multi-spectrum', setting aside the idea of someone being entirely left or right. There's interesting new models that expand the idea of left right and center. People argue slightly as to what the right and left viewpoints are, but nobody argues that they are determined by voter intent
NOBODY i've ever heard of talks about the spectrum being based on how people vote!
That is just the way it is. The definition of the term doesn't allow for what you're saying - the spectrum is a way of measuring parties and voter intent, voter intent is not a way of measuring the spectrum.
Seriously - I'm not contemptuous of you per se, but that idea really is the most insanely ridiculous thing i've heard in ages. And that's up against dion - so that's pretty impressive.
You're defending a rediculous idea.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:39:09 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:39
Zab
The political spectrum of ideas is generated by the policies that voters generate and then respond to. Just like the spectrum of philosophical ideas is generated from philosophical ideas that people generate and subscribe to. The acceptable bounds of that spectrum are also constantly redefined.
This is basic stuff. Are you actually claiming that a political spectrum of ideas is a priori to people's political ideas and actions? That, truly would be an indefensible idea.
Of course I should go read a book- that's what I do all the time. No problem there. I have no such soothing words for you. You're too busy seeing red.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:51:09 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:51
Foxer
No it is not. It is ideologically based and we measure the policies AND parties against it.
Philosophy is somewhat different - but the schools of philosophical thought are fairly determined and then ideas are measured against them often enough. One wouldn't say that existentialism ceases to be existentialism just because fewer people subscribe to it.
And you're confusing ideas with the measure of the ideas. This is a unit of measure for all intents and purposes describing whether an idea falls within one specrum or another - it has nothing to do with the creation of those ideas and who chooses to subscribe to them.
It's kind of like a speed limit - the fact the limit has been arbitrarily set at 'x' does not determine how fast your car is or is not going - but we can describe how fast your car is going in terms of whether or not it is above or below or at 'x'. If everybody is BELOW x - it does not change the value of x.
Let me try it another way - lets say the public decides it likes a new idea - we're going to have a new law that says people must carry a gun for personal protection in order to fight crime. The public loves it and we're all going to vote for it.
Now - the creation and support of that idea has nothing to do with 'left' or 'right' - but once created it can be expressed in terms of 'left or right' because we can apply the accepted definitions of what constitues the principles of left thinking or right thinking.
We can say 'left wing thinking tends to favour the idea of personal choice, and that suggests this law is to the right of the spectrum ideologically'. Or we might argue that it is left wing ideology to seek equality for all, and this tends to make all people equal, therefore it's actually somewhat left of the spectrum. ". We can haggle that back and forth. But at no time will we say 'It's right wing because everyone likes it' or 'it's leftwing because everyone likes it'.
How many people like it doesn't even come into the picture.
If what you say is true - we wouldn't be able to say if it were a right or left wing concept ideologically UNTIL we knew how many people liked it or disliked it.
Which alone proves what you say is simply not correct - if you accept we can say an idea is 'left or right' BEFORE we know what people's support would be - then you MUST accept that the spectrum is independent of the people's support.
[updated Sun Oct 05 17:08:29 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 17:08
Zab
An idea and its measure are essentially inseparable. Before the advent of that philosophy, the label 'Existentialism' wasn't a label wafting in the wind waiting to be applied to something. And there are philosophers who are called existentialists but truly, the 'schools' of philosophy are just empty labels of temporary classification for changing answers to linguistic or ethical questions. Schools of philosophy help classify philosophy when teaching, but they activity of philosophy is concentrated on the problem rather than the answer. Answers are obsolesced regularly enough.
Speed limits have changed with the nature of engine technology. They didn't just fall down from space. countries have lower and upper speed limits that change over time. In any case, the speed limit is an inapt analogy for the political dynamism we see in the political theatre of this country.
You would think an idea is left wing or right wing based on how it is expressed and who it serves.
You would know something is centrist to the degree that idea represents a compromise between say, a progressive and a conservative position, or more accurately between the extremes of ideas across a spectrum whatever they are. It doesn't matter what the specific of the idea are. It can be simply be centrist based on how it mediates across the extremes of ideas across the spectrum. A centrist position in Austria is VERY different form a centrist position in the UK, Japan, Canada or the USA. The centrist position is one of temperament and then relative position, never one of specific position.
The spectrum of political ideas is simply the boundaries of what are generally acceptable political ideas in a country. That entire spectrum expands and shrinks- the ambit of policies that fall within that space constantly added to it and change.
[updated Sun Oct 05 17:45:47 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 17:45
Foxer
That's simply not true. An idea exists whether it's measured or not. Or regardless of what 'scale' is used to do the measuring.
Ideas are completely independent of the measure. Whether you're going 50 km's an hour or 30 miles an hour you're still going the same speed. How people measure it means nothing to the fact of the matter.
Speed limits havne't changed much - minor variations on a theme. However - the UNIT of measure has stayed consistant. And that's the point.
You say you would think an idea is left or right wing based on how it is expressed and whom it serves.
Well - aside from some minor issues i have with how you're expressing that (heh!) you'll notice you do NOT claim that you'd judge it based on what percentage approves of it.
And no - the spectrum of political ideals is not the boundaries of acceptability. Hitler is still considered an example of extreme right wing fanaticism for the most part - but he's not considered socially acceptable. Same with stalin on the left.
You are confusing 'right and left and center' with 'populist'. You seem to feel the two are synonymous and of course they are no such thing.
You are mixing and matching terms you do not seem to understand fully.
The liberals are on the left wing of the political spectrum. That is simply the truth. It doesn't matter if they win lose or draw. They are on the left just the same.
The cpc is moving towards the center. The fact that nobody currently occupys a far right wing position in canada changes nothing.
I tell you what - you post me a few of the books you've read that expressly say that the idea of left wing and right wing is fluid based on popularity, and not on ideology.
[updated Sun Oct 05 18:07:49 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 18:07
Zab
Hitler was considered socially acceptable in his country. So was Stalin. Yes their ideas are considered unacceptable in this country now and are therefore not part of the spectrum of political beliefs in this country here.
In the UK and UK and parts of Canada there was definitely sympathy for some of Hitler's policies in the 30s. So arguably those ideas were part of the political spectrum at one time.
So .... wait for it ... the Canadian political spectrum and its centre have .... moved .... to the left.
That is to say that the centrists of today are ... more left-wing than ... the centrists of then.
See where I am going with this?
and ....
I'm glad you dropped discussion of philosophy.
oh you are right, the CPC has tried to get to the centre- only problem is the centre is shifting. I don't mind if Stephen H does get to the centre or if he doesn't.
Chasing the moving target that is the political centre is the constant activity of political parties in democracy, more so in prop. rep systems than in first-past-the-post systems, your schoolboy cheat-sheet of good v. bad thoughts notwithstanding.
[updated Sun Oct 05 18:45:05 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 18:45
Foxer
Perhaps in his country at the time - but not now but he's still considered an extreme example of right wing thinking by our standards today. Which doesn't find him acceptable.
So - gee how is That possible?
Same with stalin.
It is just plain dumb to suggest that because some people may have had sympathy with hitler in the 30's, therefore the 'center' has changed. first off - there's still white supremists who have sympathy with him today. Second - Popularity isn't where the center is.
God - how is it possible this is so hard for you to understand? Popularity isn't what defines political spectrum! It never has been, it never will be. It's just that simple!
I see where you're going - or trying to go - I've understood you from the beginning! It's just that you're completely and utterly wrong!
I'll say it more slowly for you .. You... Are... confusing.. the ... populist.. vote... with ... the ... center. .. of the .. political.. spectrum.
The two have nothing to do with each other.
The centrists of today are exactly the same as they were then for the most part. Right and left ideology underwent some changes in the 60's - 70's, but not radical changes.
The center is not a moving target.
Look - seriously - you are just coming across at this point as an uneducated buffoon. You clearly don't know what the words your using mean.
Show me a book - show me a reference to the idea that the definitions of the political spectrum undergo significant shifts based on popularity of the population. Seriously - lets start with just one.
I can show you dozens which say it doesn't - that it's based on some pretty solid ideological principles. Principles that may change but very slowly over long times and not based on 'popularity'. But what the hell - lets see your references.
Populations shift within the spectrum. THat is the 'popular vote'. The spectrum doesn't shift around populations. Sorry.
[updated Sun Oct 05 18:55:10 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 18:55
Zab
blah blah blah
buddy- pissing in the wind.
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:04:20 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 19:04
Foxer
I see - so when asked to come up with even one credible source for your suggestion you come back with that.
Just figured out you were wrong did you. Well you'd have saved us a bunch of time if you'd just done a bit of research and figured that out 20 posts ago :)
People move within the spectrum, the spectrum doesn't move around the people. The libs have moved to the left.
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:06:02 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 19:06
Zab
keep typing.
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:18:42 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 19:18
Foxer
ahh - another intelligent response. Still no luck finding anything eh? Too bad.
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:32:19 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 19:32
Zab
more! faster! :)
[updated Sun Oct 05 19:35:56 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 19:35
Foxer
Less! Slower! (should appeal to the libs out there :) )
hey - don't get mad at me, next time do your homework :)
[updated Sun Oct 05 21:45:47 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 21:45
Zab
wow
[updated Sun Oct 05 21:58:14 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 21:58
Agreed Confederation/Federalism is a clear in the division of powers.
If we keep out of Provincial Jurisdiction the federal gov't could reduce their budget by billions and significantly increase their federal debt repayment.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0736-e.htm#historical
[updated Sat Oct 04 20:44:31 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 20:44
Foxer
Well true - but i think more importantly it keeps confederation from breaking up.
When ottawa tries to enforce 'one size fits all' solutions, it creates a lot of friction and bad blood. Most parts of the country just wind up resenting it. When ottawa focuses on things that really are national issues, then people generally see it as having value.
If confederation is going to survive - the provinces need the freedom to apply solutions that work regionally. Quebec likes gun control. That's nice - but whenever the feds talk about it guys out this way buy more guns and enough pvc piping to bury a small arsenal. And then we get 'seperation' talk out west. And when ottawa wants to get involved directly in the medical system, quebec freaks.
Big is not always strong. We need a tight, focused federal gov't to keep confederation strong.
[updated Sat Oct 04 21:29:42 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 21:29
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
yea and the provinces would raise taxes even more. Brilliant analysis.
The fact the feds have traditionally spread money to provinces in areas where one is lacking over another means nothing to you wall builders.
[updated Sun Oct 05 11:11:24 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 11:11
Foxer
And what exactly would the problem be if the feds raised less tax and the provinces raised more tax? We still pay the same tax. So that would be terrible - why?
But it's actually more efficient to raise and spend taxes locally than federally. There are several reasons for that. You tend to get more bang for your buck.
Your premise that somehow having the feds stick to their areas of responsibility would result in a change to the transfer payments is baffling in the extreme. There is nothing to say that equalization couldn't still happen - but the gov't doesn't tell the provinces what to do with that money. It gives the money for the provinces to provide services, and it's up to the provinces to determine how they will do that. That would be the correct division of power.
You're just horrified at the thought that federal liberals wouldn't be able to syphon off money nearly as easily if they're not the ones handing out massive federal gov't contracts anymore.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:32:22 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:32
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Not so the idea of federal spending is to equalize standards across the Country and we well know Harper wants walls around the west as a way supposedly equalizing the population differences. In that regard he totally forgets the fact that Canada is a federation whose goals have always been to help each other across the regions. He'd like to kill that, and, his right wing diatribes when he was with the NCC are proof positive of that.
There is nothing wrong with national standards. Even Faltulence wants a national securities instead of a whole bunch of individual ones. That forms a basis of a national standard.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:39:29 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:39
Foxer
Well don't be so silly - the idea of federal spending is to provide services that have been vested by the provinces as federal responsibilities. Like the military, or international diplomatic issues and trade, etc etc. THAT is what the feds raise money for.
One of those vested interests is to manage the equalization program, where wealthy provinces give a portion of their money to less wealthy based on a complex formula to help ensure all provinces can provide similar levels of provincial service. And that's got nothing to do with 'taxation' specifically - it's done with the agreement of the provinces and they could easily choose to 'opt out'.
Harper wants walls around EVERY province - to prevent the kind of tyrannical gov't stupidity we've seen from past liberal gov'ts that almost tore our country apart.
He wants the feds to be responsible for what they're SUPPOSED to be responsible for, and the provinces to be responsible for what THEY are responsible for. As laid out in the constitution.
and only a moron couldn't see that DOES help each other across the regions.
And sure - there's nothing wrong with national standards - but that is something the provinces should agree on when it's a provincial responsibility and the feds should deal with when it's federal. It's that simple. Provinces agree on standards all the time. And the feds can impose standards where it's a federal matter of responsibility.
That's called respecting the boundries of authority. And it's a GOOD thing.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:48:47 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:48
Anger management issues again.
Ask Quebec what they think about intrusions of their powers. But you know better again.
Education, Healthcare are provincial responsibilites as are cities.
Try reading the the division of powers and the power of the federal gov't.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:27:54 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:27
HoldenCaulfield
Yes sometimes it is possible to get a majority with 38%, but it is nearly impossible for Conservatives to pull that off. The Conservative percentages are too concentrated in areas like the West that aren't seat rich. Because the Tories win Ridings in Alberta with huge majorities in distorts the percentages.
The Tories would need well over 40% to form a majority.
[updated Sun Oct 05 02:25:26 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 02:25
Foxer
Well - not really 40. If they hit 39 percent with the current conditions it'll be a comfortable majority with the current splits. . I just don't think they're going to. I think we'll see maybe 37- 38 - slightly better than they did last time. 38 would put them right on the edge, but likely not over the top.
The percentages take into account the population of the provinces - the sample size is adjusted appropriately. So while the big popularity in alberta is a minor factor, it's not as big as you'd think in the numbers presented.
[updated Sun Oct 05 05:20:17 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 05:20
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Have you declared you bias and the fact you are wet dreaming again? The propaganda is out on the street with all the candidates.
[updated Sun Oct 05 07:15:01 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 07:15
Foxer
Aww gohabs - are your feelings hurt again? Poor little guy - i'm sorry your party isn't going to win this particular election, but when you grow up you'll learn that isn't a good reason to be a rude obnoxious jerk about it.
I take it by your complete lack of anything resembling a point or counter point that you either did the math yourself and found out i'm right, or you believe i'm right - and decided to post because you just can't handle the truth.
You're going to wind up getting banned again. You're rather an embarrassment to your party.
[updated Sun Oct 05 12:17:49 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 12:17
HC in AB
92 seats in the west right now to 103 in Ontario and more will come to the west with redistribution. The CPC will likely take more of the 92 (75 to 80) than the LPC will win across the country. The concentrated vote delivers seats to the CPC here, the NDP in some specific regions and to the Bloc in Quebec. It tends to be a very efficient vote in our electoral system. The only real concentration of votes that the LPC seems to have left is in the GTA.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:20:59 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:20
I agree how sad is that Montreal and Toronto claim to represent Canada.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:29:58 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:29
MRM
And I reiterate- The LPC is dominated and controlled by leftists. If they were not how do you explain the fact that they are now out their going head to head with the NDP, Bloc and Greens for seats? And how you explain the mass exodus of the LPC brain trust after the leadership convention and where are they all now. They have had Sheila Copps out, a well known and self professed Liberal leftist and they just managed to get Martin out and dust him off but where are the likes of Manley, Rock, Anne McLellan or the dozen or so other big guns of the party? I will tell you, they refuse to support what the party has become which is a just another version of the NDP.
[updated Sat Oct 04 16:42:03 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 16:42
Liberals are the NDP-lite
[updated Sat Oct 04 22:16:31 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 22:16
HC in AB
The Liberal have always had a tendency to run on the left and govern on the right. Hence their financial woes as they shot themsleves in the foot when they gave up corporate financial support in lieu of public financing.
Martin certianly was to the right in terms of fiscal policy as finance minister, as soon as he became the Prime Minister he began campaigining from the left.
I appears to me that the left is already splintering with the rise of the Greens and the increased core support to the NDP with Layton after their flirtation with the ladies from the Atlantic as leader.
[updated Sat Oct 04 15:06:30 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 15:06
Agreed slicing up the socialist pie makes for some thin slices.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:26:26 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:26
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
The CPC is only center right for this election campaign in order to try and blackmail votes into there minority camp. The real facts are otherwise. They are just like the Chinese or Russian education camps were in preaching their ideology but singing a different tune publicly.
[updated Sun Oct 05 09:18:15 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 09:18
Its the fear and smear in the last two weeks trying to get the NDP and Green votes to keep Liberal jobs.
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:23:24 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:23
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
It only takes two intense weeks to catch up to the dirty tricks playbook of the Harpercrites
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:57:49 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:57
Okay Disney Playbook Flea flicker?
Strategic Vote? Seen it, beat it
Pull the fire alarm in school? Seen it, beat it
Call for a 30 day Economic Plan? Seen it, still laughing about that one.
Army in our cities? Seen it, should have done it!
Hmm okay let all Canadians know that George Bush is running Canada again I wish you well.
It's the economy stupid!
The Carbon Tax election brought to you by the brain trust in the Big "L". Now becoming the smaller "L".
[updated Sat Oct 04 18:25:05 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 18:25
Craig
Going back to the original comment, whenever the Liberal supporters state something like this I just have to shake my head.
The last time I checked my election ballot did not say "who do you not want to win".
It's frustrating because the Liberal supporters actually believe this and they cannot even think of the flip side of the comment.
Currently the polling is like:
CPC - 35% and LPC - 25%
Thus, it seems logical that if that many people are opposed to a CPC government, even more people are opposed to a LPC government.
[updated Sat Oct 04 19:43:05 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 19:43
Did you suggest we use logic in debating point here?
[updated Sat Oct 04 20:46:42 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 20:46
Craig
I guess it is too much to ask these days. :)
It's much easier for me to declare that Dion hates babies and Canada. More people will listen. :)
[updated Sat Oct 04 20:51:59 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 20:51
lol you meanie!
I wonder how many Americans who vote republican see Liberals/NDP/Bloc/Green leaders trashing their choice of government.
Could you imagine if the American leaders trashed our National leaders and used them as props in their own election.
The Anti-American sentiment is now their standard campaign practice.
[updated Sat Oct 04 22:25:49 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 22:25
Craig
I know what you mean, it is a shame that the left feels it okay to disrespect a whole other country to get their message across.
As much as I want John McCain to win the presidency, I am somewhat interested in seeing what would happen if Obama wins. Then we can see how well Harper and Obama would get along. I'm sure they'll disagree on every subject but at least there would be mutal respect.
But then what will the left say......Harper, he's just an Obama clone...I mean, he's Obama's buddy...I mean I hate Obama ooops, but I loved him before...etc. It would be hilarious.
[updated Sun Oct 05 01:12:05 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 01:12
It's sad but I am confident Bob Rae does not support the ads.
attacking George Bush, he understands the reality of working with our allies.
I suspect if a reporter asked the question to every candidate if the ads were offiensive or "Fair Game".
[updated Sun Oct 05 07:47:46 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 07:47
larryl
Craig. People are opposed to Dion,not the LPC .Of course with two and a half years of attack ads why would they not be. The public is so easily controlled and that is why the party with the most money usually comes out ahead.This will be even more apparent if there is another election in the near future and the LPC has no money to campaign.
[updated Sat Oct 04 23:18:03 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 23:18
Craig
So were people opposed to Paul Martin as well? The 2006 election ended at CPC 36% and LPC at 30%. It looks like the majority didn't want a Liberal government then either.
It is disappointing that you're so cynical about the voting public, but I suppose there is a hint of truth there. In the 90s the Liberals had a vast war chest given the amount of corporate donations they received.
Now the roles are reversed and the Conservatives are swimming in donated cash. However, this time it is illegal for a political party to receive so many corporate donations (limit of $1200). Hence, the Conservatives have raised all of their money from private individual supporters. Thus, judging by their individual financial support, the Conservatives again win out in supporters.
The Liberals, who are pretty much bankrupt, obviously do not have the support of the majority of Canadians.
[updated Sun Oct 05 01:18:02 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 01:18
Again treating fellow Canadians as "sheep" or dumb.
It's the economy stupid. Canadians are not going to the ballots to "not" vote.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:32:32 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:32
HoldenCaulfield
Wow that is logical Craig! The Conservative vote used to be split up amongst right wing parties, now there is only one party on the right.
The progressive vote in Canada is split up amongst three parties (four in Quebec). It does not take a Rocket Scientist to figure this out and it certainly does not mean that 75% of the population is anti-Liberal. The Liberals became the natural governing party in Canada because they are moderate and centrist. Canadians tend to favour centrist parties, because by and large they are reasonable and decent people.
People continue to worry about the Conservatives Hidden agenda because they have seen it so many times with members of the Conservative party making racist, homophobic, sexist and intolerant comments. They are nervous that Harper and the Conservatives have a bunch of young earth Creationist Evangelical Christians running around Parliament advising and giving advise. People are nervous because Stockwell Day admits that he believes the earth is only 3,000 years old (young earth creationist). People know damn well that if this crew gets a majority we can kiss all of the things that have made Canada a Just Society good bye. Harper and the Conservatives are just treading water waiting for the majority so that they can unleash their social experiment.
Harper and the Reform Conservatives despise the Just Society, they despise everything that Trudeau and Pearson left behind.
If Canadians elect a Majority Conservative Government they will not recognize the place in 4 years.
[updated Sun Oct 05 02:32:32 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 02:32
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
Holden these guys seem to forget that Harper is not going to get a majority because between 65 and 70% of Canadians are very far from his idealogical leanings. There are tories who will hold their noses and still vote tory just like there are in the other parties. Haprer has not been able to win over voters at all and my prediction is he will come in just under 30% in the final roll call. The bloc is cleaning his clock and in Ontario the undecideds are still quite high and definitely won't vote for the Tories as they will tend to vote strategically. This momentum shift is starting to happen as it already has in Quebec. Why do you think Harper and the others were in the Maritimes yesterday. Harper now desperately needs another 40 seats and won't get them and the others want to hold onto their maritime seats. His numbers in Quebec are up somewhat but he will actually lose seats there. Dion's numbers are strengthening in Que. at the expense of the NDP who have now gone past their best before date there.
Ontario is now the battlefield and it will swing Liberal as the green will encourage their voters in Ontario to vote strategically. You heard that here first.
[updated Sun Oct 05 07:28:13 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 07:28
2.5 years in majority thanks to a Liberal opposition that failed.
but again blame Dion and not the party. Its a shame you eat your leaders without looking at the real reason your extreme left party has lost the confidence of Canadians and poll less than the CPC. your left with Toronto and Montreal kind of pathetic after all to claim to a national party from 20 years ago.
The other parties exist and don't belong to you regardless about your claim.
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:36:31 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:36
gohabs1 (Suspended for inappropriate post)
The big difference was that the fight was all on the left of the political spectrum. The fact that a party which represents well under a third of the population can get majority and change Canada in ways the vast majority does not like.
Proportional representation and or convergence of the left is the answer to that issue.
[updated Sun Oct 05 13:34:13 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 13:34
You don't own a spectrum, your party went socialist left this election.
Your party decided to shift their policies to a Fairer, Greener Socialist Agenda.
Your outspending the NDP in new spending promises!!!!
Now you get the results on October 14, 2008.
As Dion says- "Don't worry be happy"
[updated Sun Oct 05 16:39:43 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 16:39
Regina Beach Boy
I rest my case, the extreme changes yesterday have corrected themselves, the previous wild shift in Dion's leadership numbers have dropped by 19 points, close where he was prior to glitch.
Either way, it will be intresting to see where the voting preference numbers move in the next few days, this will reveal where the numbers will stabilize until election day, of course barring any major gaffes by the parties.
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:21:16 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:21
16 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
westerner (suspended)
The new 7 point spread of the Conservatives over the Liberals should widen over the next 2 or 3 days as the rollling average fully recognizes the positive responses from the english debate. Dion is not doing well in the Leadership Index.
Watch for more Liberal dirty tricks as they get more desperate as the campaign comes to a close.
[updated Sat Oct 04 14:33:23 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 14:33
50 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Pop! The Balloon called Liberal hope is gone!
[updated Sat Oct 04 17:22:17 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 17:22
31 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Reg
There is less than a month until a great election, an election that will decide the next Prime Minister of Canada. The person elected will be the Prime Minister of all Canadians, not just the Liberals, PC's or the NDP. To show our solidarity as Canadians let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we all came together. If you support the policies and character of Stephen Harper, please drive with your headlights on during the day. If you support Stephane Dion or that other guy, please drive with your headlights off at night. Thank you and drive carefully
[updated Sat Oct 04 19:23:19 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 19:23
11 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
What leader(s) of Federal Parties are exhibiting anti-american sentiment in this campaign?
a) Dion
b) Layton
c) May
d) Duceppe
e) Harper
Bonus question what party is claimed if the CPC were elected The Canadian Army could be deployed in our streets?
[updated Sat Oct 04 22:30:11 EDT 2008]
04 Oct 22:30
14 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
HoldenCaulfield
I have been a member of several discussion boards in the past and I have to admit that I have never been on one where so many right wingers hang out. The number of Western right wingers on here is unusual. I'm left wondering why.
[updated Sun Oct 05 02:36:40 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 02:36
24 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Anti-american sentiment by party leaders continue
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081002/canada/canada_us_politics_canada_col_1
Opposition leaders -- who regularly accuse Harper of harboring an extremist agenda and of taking his orders from Bush -- blamed the prime minister for Canada's sluggish economic growth and said he should do more to help people who had lost their jobs.
"Mr Harper is a fan of the laissez-faire approach to the economy, like Mr Bush, and we can see the disaster unfolding now in the United States," said Gilles Duceppe, leader of the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
The value of Canadian workers' pensions has dropped by C$90 billion ($90 billion) in two days -- it's unbelievable. And you say that everything is going well," said Jack Layton, leader of the left-leaning New Democrats.
"The policies that you are suggesting today are the same ones used by George Bush ... Where is the action plan to protect people?"
http://technology.canoe.ca/2008/10/01/6945021-cp.html
Nelson Wiseman, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said he's not surprised the Liberals have turned to negative ads.
"They probably regret they didn't start right out with it," Wiseman said. "They made the big error of running on something rather than running against something."
"Towards the end of the campaign, if you feel you're going to lose or even if you're leading but you perceive a serious threat, you go negative on the other side. The more negative you get at the end of the campaign, the more it reflects the dire straits you are in."
Dunne said such ads are aimed primarily at party faithful - or at least sympathizers - which makes it a form of preaching to the choir.
"The people they are trying to get behind this are their own supporters," he said.
"You probably won't change an awful lot of minds with this."
[updated Sun Oct 05 08:47:21 EDT 2008]
05 Oct 08:47
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.