Bryan

I think it's one guy's opinion. Nanos, Angus-Reid, and Ipsos have the best rack record in the past few years as far as their polls actually reflecting the real vote, so I put more weight behind them than I do the other guys. Nanos especially so. New Nanos comes out on wednesday.

Interesting. That makes Abacus as the only polling firm not showing CPC moving up. Their M/E is 3.3% though...

That's actually an improvement for the CPC, and a drop for the LPC from the last HD poll (CPC 34%, LPC 28% NDP-17%, BQ-10%, GRN 9%) http://www.harrisdecima.ca/news/releases/201103/1075-conservatives-hold-six-point-lead-liberals It's at least consistently showing that the CPC are on an upward trajectory by anyone's measure.

Then there's that really confusing group: those who would vote NDP or Conservative, but never Liberal. That's most Manitoba voters (Federal and Provincial), and it's confusing as all heck. I wonder how Coalition talk affects them?

To counter Martin's claim that he did not have the confidence of the house.

In case some lefties are still not getting it:

It wasn't an A-OK idea then, that's why no such thing ever happened. Geez. The 2004 press conference is being played over and over again on CPAC (it's on right now in fact). Go watch it, and watch how all three of them strongly emphasize that there is no coalition.

It's John Moore, James is a different guy. Yes, his articles are decidedly left-of-centre.

You'll note that the Governor General did not dissolve parliament, and did not grant Martin his election. You never conceived it, yet you believed the coalition blather without actually checking the original source?

Our fiscal position, including our debt, is the best in the G7. Our banks did not get any bailouts, that was the U.S.

Indeed. This is Paul Martin we are talking about. It's exactly the absurdidty of Martin's plan that prompted the opposition to advise the GG that the PM was prevaricating about not having the confidence of the house.

If you watch both the press conference, and Harper's answers today, it's very clear. Martin wanted the GG to dissolve parliament just a couple of months after an election under the premise that he did not have confidence of the house. The letter, and the press conference, was to advise the GG that the opposition parties were perfectly fine with Martin to remain as PM, and that they were willing to work with him.

Something is funny, that's for sure. Nothing that was released is really all that damning, and some of it is just not true. One of the leaks claimed that Castro banned "Sicko" in Cuba, which is laughable because it's been in theatres, on TV and is streamed on the official govt website there.

The entire September 2004 press conference is playing on CPAC right now. Right there at the table, Gilles Duceppe is emphatically insisting that there is no coalition whatsoever, and that none was discussed.

The difference for her wasn't so much that her support went down, rather that the DNC were selective about which votes to count.

Moonbox is correct. Expenditures on contract employees went up specifically to reduce the overall costs by using less unionized employees (and all the benefit expenses that come along with them). I don't think we will ever see a Wisconson type of scenario here (where the public sector unions are essentially KTFO), but I do see the cost of the public sector especially with regards to unions being a bigger issue in the future. Taxpayers are really tired of paying for other people to get more than they can afford for the themselves, and union leaders just seem oblivious to it.

I've always been surprised at how openly candidates of all stripes are able to rattle of outright falsehoods with impunity. It's hardly a new thing either. Why is it when a candidate outright lies that there are no consequences for that? Politically or legally?

83%

No one believes Iggy on coalition issue http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/28/17776696.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tory+support+stays+high+ethics+falling+flat+Poll/4514126/story.html Conducted over the weekend (Mar 26/27) : 2095 respondents, margin of error = +/- 2.2 per cent, 19 times out of 20. CPC - 41 LPC - 24 NDP - 19 BQ - 10 Seat projection: CPC - 162 (+19) LPC - 61 (-17) BQ - 51 (+7) NDP - 34 (-2)

Layton's own words in 2004 on whether the letter had anything to do with a coalition: (warning, jack has a potty mouth) http://twaud.io/qMn0

Not only that, but the NDP government in Manitoba has also been cutting corporate taxes. Down to zero in many cases. Those pesky right-wing NDP!

Duceppe is funny. Even when he's accusing other people of lying, he's often doing it with a wink. Within the same speech he'll provide the evidence that he's the one that lying. This latest accusation of a coalition agreement is no exception: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Gilles+Duceppe+calls+Stephen+Harper+liar/4509580/story.html

Ignatieff signed it too. He also very specifically said on his coronation day; "I'm prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government".

Ignatieff has repeatedly said he is in favour of a coalition, and he signed the formal agreement. Since then, he's changed his mind back and forth several times. Harper, on the other hand, has never said anything other than "no" to a coalition. So yes, I question what Igatieff is saying now.