BigGunner

SES Poll - released late today shows the numbers are far closer than we imagined... http://www.sesresearch.com/election/SES%20...022%202006E.pdf Seems that the liberals have some energy left, and the NDP is surging...could be one of the most exciting elections in a generation.

First of all, the NDP tally is not too high...they very well could score 42 seats or more - especially if they retain 20% of the popular support, just as they did in 1988 when Broadbent's NDP got 43 seats.

That was 125 for the tories from me..

My prediction... Conservative 125 Liberals 90 BQ 55 NDP 38

Does anyone know of any local or regional polling data? Polls that aren't national, but might give some insight to whats happening in local battles... Please post them here, provide links...etc

Toronto StarWhat can I say? Ralph Klein was right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HAHAHAHA Liberals at 43% in BC?! EKOS is a Liberal-friendly pollster. Their numbers are so skewed, it borders on propaganda.

Did you just try and dismiss unethical and possibly illegal fundrasing tactics of the Campbell Liberals?! - hounding cities and municipalities for political donations - taking donations from taxpayer owned public institutions like colleges and airports - the illegal acceptance of donations from registered charities? **** The Campbell Liberals made it illegal for charities to make donations to political donations...then they broke their own laws. As for 3rd party advertisers such as unions (pro-NDP/anti-Liberal), they have rules to follow too. Just as the pro-Liberal business groups that are also registered 3rd party advertisers...nothing new or illegal here. Think for a second...if this was the NDP government facing this scandal, you and your liberal apologist friends would be calling for the public excecutions of NDP officials. Turn about is fair play now..

the Campbell Liberals have been caught trying to shake down cities and towns for political donations to the BC liberal party in exchange for funding and capital projects. Today its revealed that they also have extended this kind of extortion to publically owned, taxpayer supported institutions such as schools, airports and the like. read the following article dollars-for-access affair

Spare me your argument over right vs. wrong. It is not up to the government to legislate morality anyway. If we open that door and let gov't send in the Republican Sex Police, we're no different than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Unless you had your head in the sand over this issue, the Liberal gov't went as far as exempting churches from performing same sex marriages...keeping in line with the notion of separation of church and state.

That doesn't look like overwhelming support to me, but i wouldn't be surprised if the poll was conducted in sin city. A city with a city run drug house where they are now looking at even buying the addicts their drugs with taxpayers money. If you would like to challenge the scientific accuracy of the Mustel Group polling, feel free. They are a well established polling company with a good reputation, and even though the company has a conservative slant on many issues, its numbers are generally accurate. But, for your curiosity, BC's 4 million people are broken into the following demographics.. - 2.5 million in all of greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley - 750 thousand on Vancouver Island - 750 thousand in the interior, north, cariboo, okanagan, etc. Any polling firm would be obligated to ask citizens based on the regional facts of BC. But since you brought up the downtown east sides drug problems and such, how many of them do you think have phones to answer a poll with? Oh, and I would consider a 17 point advantage VERY significant.

So, while Stephen Harper tries to score some political milage out of the same-sex marriage issue, back in BC (where the Conservatives have their single largest contingent of MP's from) the very issue of same sex marriage could actually hurt the conservatives. Mustel Group did a poll on the issue for BC and its numbers suggest that in every age group. overall...56% support, 39% oppose, 5% don't know... read the poll for yourself --> Mustel Group poll

Conservatives have more seats in BC than any other party. True indeed...this is of course without seeing the performance of Harper as a supposed "prime minister in waiting"....if an election was held today, I suspect the cons. would lose seats in BC.

That is just because BC has this hang up with the word conservative. The provincial liberals are right wing to repair the damage done by the NDP. But that is ok because they do not use the word conservative. With all that salt water scent acting like marijuana you can't set your exptations too high Wow...you just don't like outsiders don't you? Quebecers are bad, BC'ers are bad too now. But you are right about BC's aversion to 'conservative'. BC is not a conservative province. Polls show that our citizens are socially liberal on all counts. They support the legalization of marajuana, support same-sex marriage, oppose the "war" in Iraq.

I am proud of the Reform movement that Preston created. In 1993 the slogan was "the west wants in." The Reform party never intended on being as successful as it was. When they formed official opposition the party needed to change form a regional party to an opposition party. The alienation of the west and the discontent with the old parties was a very real thing out west and for good reason. Just look at the corruption around such issues as the sponsorship scandal today. The party that you see today is the coming together of the old coalitions that made up the PC's before 88. The big difference is that they have the advantage of taking on some very positive aspects of the Reform policy (that Harper developed as Manning strategist). - improve accountability of MPs - be fiscally responsible (would the Liberals have moved on the debt if not for the Reform party) - grass roots democracy Many of the posters on here are not exactly what I would call swing voters eh biggunner. The NDPers must really hate, the fact that we have 100 seats. The regionalist nature of the Reform party became its self inflicted wound...one that it cannot seem to shake, even now. No one in the east, or 'liberal' urban areas would trust the party, even with its "conservative party" paint job it gave itself. Funny you speak of MP accountability...it was the Reform party that pushed hard for the deal to allow their members back into the gold-plated MP pension plan that they had so self-righteously opposed in 1993. Thanks to that deal with the devil, an MP is automatically enrolled in the pension plan even if he or she wanted to opt out. Speaking of being fiscally responsible, It was also the Reform party that advocated not only to keep the GST, but expand it in a 15% "blended sales tax" similiar to what the maritime provinces have now. Oh, and congratulations on having a 100 seat party. A signigicant gain by ending the supposed vote-splitting of the two right-ish parties. See that it still wasnt enough to win an election? The popular vote for the "Conservative Party" was almost exactly as it was under the Alliance banner. And all the anti-gay rhetoric since has not helped the party, it has driven the more socially progressive members and supporters away from the party...in the west, they drifted to the NDP, in the east, they're drifting to the Liberals. In my own westcoast seat, one that the reform party and alliance had held with 45% or more of the vote, the NDP stomped the conservatives in 2004 and actually had more popular support in terms of raw numbers than the liberals or con's. on vancouver island. You'd think that with all the resources available to the conservatives, a floundering Liberal gov't, that Harpers party would be doing far better in the polls...if that election was held today, they'd LOSE seats.

Since 1968 the PM has come from Quebec except for 9 months of Clark and a couple of months for Kim Campbell. It is that old political correctness. You are not allowed to tell the truth. After 35 years of having a Quebec PM is it unreasonable to have a PM from somewhere other then Quebec. There are 9 other provinces to choose from.... It is not like we had a PM from Quebec for 3 years and the reform said ok it is time for another province to have its turn. You forgot about the short term of Vancouver MP John Turner. Also a non-Quebecois. The 1993 campaign slogan of Reform was as wrong headed...would a overtly bigotted headline be any better? I mean, imagine if some party leader used "no more Jews in the public service!"...oh wait, that was done already...Adolf Hitler used that one. So are you suggesting we use a quota system for choosing prime ministers? And what happened to the demographic realities that you seem to ignore? Quebec has 7 million people - just about as much as all of the western provinces and territories of western canada combined. Is it any wonder why Quebec has a powerful poltical influence? I mean, there are more voters in Montreal than ALL of BC. I mean, the Reform party and its ilk since have resorted to emotional or social wedge issues when the rest of their platform is illogical. We see this political stunt being pulled at this very moment with "same sex marriage". In America, the Repugs did a wonderful job to use that wedge issue as a trojan horse so they could use a legislative crowbar to remove FDR's New Deal. Unfortunately for Canadian Conservatives, same-sex marriage is politically sellable in Canada, thanks to our nation being FAR more open minded. The conservatives, and Reformers beforehand just didnt have the issues and policies that could get them elected. Quebec leaders or not. But - thanks to the Reform party painting all of Quebec as the villian, Quebec will never trust a western based conservative ever again. Especially one that is specifically linked to the Reform and Alliance party. What were reformers thinking? they were in the game to form a majority government...how can you do this when you attack your own citizens? Is it wrong to have a leader of a party from a certain area of the country? What if the party you are considering voting for has a Quebec leader? Or Newfoundland? or Sask...get the picture? Why should it matter where the leader is from? The leader could be from Yellowknife for all that matters, but if the party platform is something that I like and want in office, I'll vote for it...and I will not withold my vote because of the ethnic/cultural background of the leader...and it shouldnt matter to the enlightened, educated person. But i can see how it might sway the thinking of a racist.

I did not dismiss French. I stated a fact, it is the fifth or sixth language spoken in western Canada. Harper speaking French and working hard to gain a foothold in Quebec is not dismissive. To be a national party that represents all regions, French Canadians need to be part of the party. I look forward to seeing the growth of the party in all areas of the country. IMO, Federal money spent on Chinese in Vancouver would be a greater expression on the resident’s needs where I live than the guarantee of service and resources delivered in French. The question as I pointed out early knn, is your tolerance wide enough to accept people like me. I am happy to have a government that protects the rights and freedoms of gay/lesbians, ethnic backgrounds, and religious beliefs. I look forward to a pluralistic culture of tolerance and not a secular culture of exclusion. What about you, can Muslims, Jews and Christians hold devout beliefs or should they just keep them to themselves? The Conservatives need to rebuke their past - knowing full well the current incarnation of the conservative politcal entity embraces its Reform and Alliance predecessors. Do conservative party supporters like yourself reject the 1993 campaign slogan of the Reform party "No More Prime Ministers From Quebec!", or do you reject the Reform proposal to scrap the multicultural spending programs the federal government established? The apparently successful painting of the conservatives as intolerant is successful because it is true. Within the last decade, elected MP's and party insiders have opened their yap-trap and spewed intolerant tripe. How can Canadians possibly vote for a party that would see to it that not all Canadians are equal?

Some of us are cheering on people like Stephen Harper. The more that Harper spews tripe like that in public, the more people will be turned off from his party. Canadians already overhelmingly oppose his support of the Iraq war and realise that if he was the Prime Minister, it could have been Canadian soldiers getting beheaded on TV instead...or perhaps a subway system in a large Canadian city could have been bombed by a sympathetic islamist group...the possibilities are endless. But to the issues that Stephen Harper attacked the Liberals on... ..I wonder how the conservative opposition voted in the 1930's and 40's when the Liberal's interned the Japanese - or blocked Jews from coming to Canada. It seems that it was the CCF, NOT the conservatives that stood against racism - even when it was popular.

Certainly the breakthrough province for any party that wishes to govern is indeed Quebec. Reasons for the NDP's increase - Layton's unwavering opposition to "Starwars II", the war in Iraq. I wonder how Quebec voters will respond to Harper's milking the veterans-flag flap issue.

As a westerner, I accept the fact that since Ontario has over 10 million people, it has 106 seats...more than all of western Canada. What I cannot accept is the radical decrepencies between the population-per-seat ratio in other provinces. BC is the most oppressed province in that department. It takes 108,548 citizens to define a seat in BC, but it takes 72,950 to define a seat in New Brunswick. If all provinces had one ratio (pick the lowest one so that no province loses any seats) then there is at least some equality to the process. If BC had the same ratio as NB, then we'd gain 18 federal seats...and would complain a lot less. In America, a federal congressional district is approximately 500,000 people - and they seldom deviate from line.

Yeah people on the left don't know anything about taking comments out of context and then showing a view not originally intended . I think that the fact is that Paul Martin and Jack Layton have always been able to find some type of loophole in these child porn laws, if artists want to create something about children getting sexually "liberated" as they call it, then it should be illegal. I'd have to agree with you on that one, however does'nt the NDP consider that a pro-american, and bigoted view. If I had it my way I would have people that rape, molest children, and murder police officers executed. Hey dumbass, didn't you read a previous poster suggesting that it is tasteless to politicise this topic?

one does not need to join the conservatives to express outrage at kiddie porn or paedophelia, that is not exlusive to the conservative party. I'd go a step further though...If I wrote the laws, I'd have convicted paedophiles excecuted...its a crime far worse than murder

I think that some of the most hardline conservative apologists are a little spooked when they see the NDP within 7 points of the conservatives in the SES poll. If the election were held and those numbers held up, the NDP could take 50 or more seats....given that Broadbent's NDP in 1988 took 43 with 20% of the vote.

Tories fall again... New installment of the SES poll Liberals 34% Tories 29% NDP 22% BQ 10% Green 5%

Is that the best you can do? Personal insults and such?

This also speaks to another issue as well.. In BC, the Alliance party won almost 50% of the vote in 2000...combined with the PC's, it would have been 57%.. SES puts the Cons. share at 35% in BC - whopping 15 point drop, the Liberals score 27% (unch. from 2000) and the NDP at 25% (a 14 point increase over 2000)... So, regional disparities mean that even though the cons are tied with the liberals at the federal level, it could mean absolutely nothing...