Newfoundlander

Did they?

Well it will be up to those women and to men to decide the policy according to Smith.

So the party's view is automatically Danielle Smith's? Members of her party decided they would decide moral issues through referendums, it doesn't make her a liar.

Exactly. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they have the exact same views on the matter. I believe polls have shown that while a majority are pro-choice, most say they would never have an abortion. Some people agree that abortions should be covered by the government, while others feel it should be paid for by the person having the abortion. I don't see how that view makes someone a pro-lifer.

I'll try again? Why don't you try and give some facts to back up your conspiracies?

We need income splitting before this should be considered.

Strange they haven't gotten rid of them yet then.

All right-wingers are anti-union are they?

Who would "those" be?

Not everyone considers abortions to be a part of Medicare. I'm not opposed to government funding abortions but I can understand why people are. Governments don't fund cosmetic surgery and many people feel having an abortion is your own choice.

Someone can be pro-choice and still not agree with the government paying for abortions.

It doesn't matter how good a polling firm is if they allow the company that hires them to decide the phrasing of the questions being asked and what order they are being asked in. I've done courses on public opinion and the phrasing of questions and when they are asked have a huge impact on the outcome.

Smith has stated before she won the leadership of the Wildrose that she is pro-choice and a supporter of same-sex marriage, there is even an article in the Globe and Mail about it today. You're making up stuff about the woman because you don't like her party but you have absolutely no facts to support what you're saying.

Exactly but it doesn't necessarily mean those not voting are unhappy with the government.

Do you have proof of that? I'm not totally against taxing the "rich", whatever that means, but I don't know what the actual benefits are. If high income earners are taxed more my initial thought is they won't be spending as much money. Their houses won't be as expensive, so their communities are losing out on property taxes, they won't eat out as often or buy clothing or what not, which is not great for people working in the service industry. The government will also being collecting less in sales taxes. Of course many "rich" people may be spending money outside Canada, which is not great for us. So I'm not totally opposed to the idea but I'm not sure what exactly the benefits are.

So if we tax the rich more they'll have less disposable income to spend, is that a good thing?

Just because people didn't vote last time don't mean they were dissatisfied with the government, and if they do turn out this time it doesn't necessarily mean it's because they want the PC Party gone. The Progressive Conservatives dominated the polls in 2008 and were set to win a majority government. rightly or wrongly this makes people feel like their vote doesn't count and that the results are in the bag, but it doesn't mean those not voting disagree with the government. Danny Williams and his government's approval ratings were in the 80s going in to the 2007 election and the party had as much as a 60 point lead on the Liberals going into the election, yet we had the worst turnout rate in our history.

In one of the polls it mentioned they were tied with the Liberals in Quebec. They did have 48% after Bob Rae's win in Ontario so that alone would account for a large national number.

Seems like it happened a bit. After Bob Rae's victory in 1990 they led in a poll and the article says the last time they led was in September 1987. They hit 40% in June 1987. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/472308171.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+24%2C+1990&author=&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=NDP+surges+into+lead+with+38%25+in+new+poll&pqatl=google http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/472830961.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+26%2C+1987&author=(CP)&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=NDP+grabs+the+lead+with+40%25+poll+finds&pqatl=google

I looked at some archives and only see the one poll that mentions the NDP with 40% and leading, which is the only one I had ever heard of. However, this bit of an article mentions a Gallup poll that showed them just behind the Liberals and mentions that two polls in recent weeks had them tied with the Liberals for first place. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/472788121.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+10%2C+1987&author=Joe+O'Donnell+Toronto+Star&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Popularity+of+NDP+highest+ever+Gallup+says&pqatl=google

That's what I thought and then I saw or heard something recently about leading for so many months, maybe it was just his personal numbers or something.

Broadbent led Mulroney in the polls.

Smith openly says she's pro-choice and she has managed to create a party with a large social conservative faction. As well Harper is pro-life and has won a majority government. If he can be pro-life and win over voters I don't see why Smith couldn't admit to being pro-life if she was.

Well that'd be pretty dumb seeing there is still a number of prolifers around.

Then why does she says she's pro-choice?