Canadian Political Polls

[Vancouver King]

That shows you know about as much about America as I do about Canada. Bush is despised in mass media and academic circles, that's it. Carter and Nixon were despised Presidents; Bush II is not.

I always suspected Jimmy Carter was in the pockets of peanut farmers...

[jdobbin]

The Tories are preferred on leadership and major issues.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...14?hub=Politics

A new poll suggests Canadians prefer Conservatives over Liberals when it comes to leadership and most major issues -- even though that preference has not translated into popular support for the governing party.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests 43 per cent of Canadians think the Tories, with Stephen Harper at the helm, have the best leader to be prime minister.

Only 22 per cent of those polled picked the Liberals, led by Stephane Dion.

Harper remains vulnerable on the environment and poverty.

Dion is vulnerable because of his leadership.

Edited August 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

I don't know where I told you to take it on faith. I think I've indicated that you seem to have the confidence in your ideas and little confidence in the others in power right now. Each election people with little means or money run for federal office. Not all run under a party slate. It is difficult to win as an independent but we have seen a number of people over the last 30 years who have started their own parties from scratch and become a political force.

Dick Cheney has had so many heart surgeries that people have given up telling him that it is an obstacle. John McCain is no spring chicken either

You have dismissed it as academic. I say to you that it isn't. I did it and I have seen many others do it as well. Many of those people won office. Not because they had faith although that was a sort of strength for many but because they had confidence that they could do better.

And if I did win the nomination (considering that nominations are not open anymore, since Reform died, that would mean necessary political connections that I do not have) and I did win the riding, should I really want to spend my remaining years as a trained seal?

Why don't I spend the time beating myself on the head with a hammer instead?

[jdobbin]

And if I did win the nomination (considering that nominations are not open anymore, since Reform died, that would mean necessary political connections that I do not have) and I did win the riding, should I really want to spend my remaining years as a trained seal?

Why don't I spend the time beating myself on the head with a hammer instead?

It might beat complaining impotently about how no one in politics matches your ideals.

[jbg]

It might beat complaining impotently about how no one in politics matches your ideals.

Same with you.

[Wild Bill]

It might beat complaining impotently about how no one in politics matches your ideals.

There's no need to be insulting or to make personal attacks.

Perhaps I should lodge a complaint.

[jbg]

There's no need to be insulting or to make personal attacks.

Perhaps I should lodge a complaint.

He can't help himself. At least he didn't put you on "ignore" as he has me.

After I made one post, the original version of his response was to accuse me of being a Republican (ridiculous since I am to the left of Judy Rebick). Then, he changed the post to say that he was putting me on "ignore".

Sometimes I want to ask him "where's the beef"?

[jdobbin]

There's no need to be insulting or to make personal attacks.

Perhaps I should lodge a complaint.

I wasn't insulting you. I was making a statement in general. I apologize if you took it as insulting you.

My meaning is that many people express a dislike of politics or complain it is corrupt but when asked why they don't personally do something about it, they demur.

[Wild Bill]

I wasn't insulting you. I was making a statement in general. I apologize if you took it as insulting you.

My meaning is that many people express a dislike of politics or complain it is corrupt but when asked why they don't personally do something about it, they demur.

Understandable. It's just that you didn't answer any of the specific challenges to someone in my position. You just told me that guys like Dick Cheney could do it! You didn't seem to address any roadblock in a practical sense. If I did what you suggested I would end up with a divorce, kids who never went to college and most important, I would lose all sense of self-respect the first time I was forced to be a trained seal and toe the line with party solidarity on virtually all House votes.

If I was 26 instead of 56 your advice might have been more "real world". Your academic suggestions frankly made me feel like a man with no legs being badgered for not participating in a dance.

[jdobbin]

Understandable. It's just that you didn't answer any of the specific challenges to someone in my position. You just told me that guys like Dick Cheney could do it! You didn't seem to address any roadblock in a practical sense. If I did what you suggested I would end up with a divorce, kids who never went to college and most important, I would lose all sense of self-respect the first time I was forced to be a trained seal and toe the line with party solidarity on virtually all House votes.

I don't think you have to run with one of the mainline parties if party loyalty and solidarity is an issue.

I can't speak to someone's personal relationship and if a spouse will support it or not. I know other people have managed it and have not had to finance the entire campaign so their family suffered in the process.

If I was 26 instead of 56 your advice might have been more "real world". Your academic suggestions frankly made me feel like a man with no legs being badgered for not participating in a dance.

It is often people in their 50s who have the experience needed to provide good government.

Even if you don't run, what can you do personally to overcome having to vote for the least worst each election? Do you encourage others that you respect to run?

[Wild Bill]

I don't think you have to run with one of the mainline parties if party loyalty and solidarity is an issue.

I can't speak to someone's personal relationship and if a spouse will support it or not. I know other people have managed it and have not had to finance the entire campaign so their family suffered in the process.

It is often people in their 50s who have the experience needed to provide good government.

Even if you don't run, what can you do personally to overcome having to vote for the least worst each election? Do you encourage others that you respect to run?

Jdobbin, are you assuming I have no experience at all?

I held one of the first if not perhaps the very first Reform Party memberships issued in Ontario. I served several terms as a Riding Director. I raised money, knocked on doors and brought in a LOT of new memberships!

I feel I did more than the average citizen. That's why I feel I'm aware enough of the practical details to know that it's not a good fit for me at this time to try to be a candidate.

If I'm going to see any meaningful change a token effort with a fringe party would not be worthwhile to me. There's a difference in being able to run and being able to make more than a trivial difference.

I'm not trying to be offensive when I say that I don't place much value in platitudes and arguments stretched to the limits of being academic. Platitudes are what drove me away from the old Tory party. The troops were expected to do all the work but had no say at all in the party platform. Like the Liberals, there was a lot of "make work" committees, all carefully arranged to be absolutely non-binding on the party leadership.

Reform offered us a truer, more grass roots democratic party. I guess I've been spoiled. I could never again be happy with anything less. The present parties just don't command the same inspiration for me. They talk a good talk but their actions are simply elitist, IMHO.

Dion, Harper, May, Layton...same old, same old to me. So far, as I've said many times, I'll vote CPC out of default, not out of any sense of inspiration. It's my civic duty to vote so I vote.

As a wiser man than I once sang..."The Thrill is Gone!"

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, are you assuming I have no experience at all?

No, what I was saying was that at 56, you probably have more of the skills and life experience that a 26 year old doesn't have.

I held one of the first if not perhaps the very first Reform Party memberships issued in Ontario. I served several terms as a Riding Director. I raised money, knocked on doors and brought in a LOT of new memberships!

I'm not trying to be offensive when I say that I don't place much value in platitudes and arguments stretched to the limits of being academic. Platitudes are what drove me away from the old Tory party. The troops were expected to do all the work but had no say at all in the party platform. Like the Liberals, there was a lot of "make work" committees, all carefully arranged to be absolutely non-binding on the party leadership.

Reform offered us a truer, more grass roots democratic party. I guess I've been spoiled. I could never again be happy with anything less. The present parties just don't command the same inspiration for me. They talk a good talk but their actions are simply elitist, IMHO.

Dion, Harper, May, Layton...same old, same old to me. So far, as I've said many times, I'll vote CPC out of default, not out of any sense of inspiration. It's my civic duty to vote so I vote.

As a wiser man than I once sang..."The Thrill is Gone!"

Is there no one you respect that you would encourage to run and support?

Edited August 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

No, what I was saying was that at 56, you probably have more of the skills and life experience that a 26 year old doesn't have.

Is there no one you respect that you would encourage to run and support?

Not for any party that practices "party solidarity" in House votes.

I would not even do that to some enemies...

[jdobbin]

Not for any party that practices "party solidarity" in House votes.

Which is why perhaps being an independent is the ideal situation for someone like yourself. You can pick your issues and vote how you want to.

The only problem is that the system is set up is to support the party system ie Government and Opposition. We could have everyone as independents but we'd have to get used to quick turn overs in government and possibly frequent elections.

I would not even do that to some enemies...

Sadly, you get a government you don't respect if you don't encourage people you do respect to run.

[Wild Bill]

Which is why perhaps being an independent is the ideal situation for someone like yourself. You can pick your issues and vote how you want to.

The only problem is that the system is set up is to support the party system ie Government and Opposition. We could have everyone as independents but we'd have to get used to quick turn overs in government and possibly frequent elections.

Sadly, you get a government you don't respect if you don't encourage people you do respect to run.

Independent? What good would that do? In the entire history of Canada we've had perhaps only ONE vote where an independent mattered! That would be the one with Chuck Cadman. I've no desire to simply wave a flag for an idea yet have no power in the real world to change anything.

As for free votes, I guess you never studied any of Manning's literature.

Are you aware that Canada is the ONLY parliamentary government in the world that practices such rigid party discipline with votes? Britain, Australia, the Americans with their republican system, New Zealand...ANYWHERE!

All these other countries restrict voting as a party block to those Bills that are deemed true confidence motions, which are mostly financial. Anything else is wide open.

Here in Canada it would seem that the party whips would demand solidarity on even a vote on where to buy the doughnuts and coffee!

Reform did highlight this situation enough to bring some embarrassment to the other parties. Now we see "token" free votes. These are where the party whip does a quick nose count to be sure that allowing a few dissenters will not affect anything. This allows the odd MP who has a serious conflict with the interests of his own riding to go against his party for the photo-op without any fear of changing the result of the vote. Afterwards the party can brag about allowing "freedom".

Still, there's some slim hope. The idea of more true representation is still out there. Sooner or later it may bubble up to the surface and become so much in demand that parties will be forced to cater to it.

My kids may live to see it.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Wild Bill

[jdobbin]

Independent? What good would that do? In the entire history of Canada we've had perhaps only ONE vote where an independent mattered! That would be the one with Chuck Cadman. I've no desire to simply wave a flag for an idea yet have no power in the real world to change anything.

As for free votes, I guess you never studied any of Manning's literature.

I have read what he said on free votes. His own party seemed to disown it over time.

Are you aware that Canada is the ONLY parliamentary government in the world that practices such rigid party discipline with votes? Britain, Australia, the Americans with their republican system, New Zealand...ANYWHERE!

All these other countries restrict voting as a party block to those Bills that are deemed true confidence motions, which are mostly financial. Anything else is wide open.

Harper has determined that everything is a confidence measure now. It pretty much invites party lines on votes.

Here in Canada it would seem that the party whips would demand solidarity on even a vote on where to buy the doughnuts and coffee!

Reform did highlight this situation enough to bring some embarrassment to the other parties. Now we see "token" free votes. These are where the party whip does a quick nose count to be sure that allowing a few dissenters will not affect anything. This allows the odd MP who has a serious conflict with the interests of his own riding to go against his party for the photo-op without any fear of changing the result of the vote. Afterwards the party can brag about allowing "freedom".

Still, there's some slim hope. The idea of more true representation is still out there. Sooner or later it may bubble up to the surface and become so much in demand that parties will be forced to cater to it.

Who is advocating for it? Certainly not the present parties.

My kids may live to see it.

They might have to live a very long time for it to ever happen. In the mean time, people will vote for default parties as you say.

[jbg]

Are you aware that Canada is the ONLY parliamentary government in the world that practices such rigid party discipline with votes? Britain, Australia, the Americans with their republican system, New Zealand...ANYWHERE!

All these other countries restrict voting as a party block to those Bills that are deemed true confidence motions, which are mostly financial. Anything else is wide open.

There has to be a happy medium. In the US where there is no whipping of votes, individual Senators or even Congressman can get corrupt and useless "member items" in order to extract their vote. Every bill winds up becoming a special interest "Christmas Tree" as a result.

[Wild Bill]

I have read what he said on free votes. His own party seemed to disown it over time.

Harper has determined that everything is a confidence measure now. It pretty much invites party lines on votes.

Who is advocating for it? Certainly not the present parties.

They might have to live a very long time for it to ever happen. In the mean time, people will vote for default parties as you say.

It would seem you now agree with me. I don't recall Manning's party(s) disowning the idea but certainly after the merger with the PCs the very smell of the idea was buried to be forgotten. And Harper indeed is no longer a champion of the idea, or pretty much all other Reform/Alliance ideas, for that matter.

If you are correct that our kids will have to wait a very long time, you should not be surprised if the voter turnout continues to decline. People tend not to get enthusiastic about a process where they feel less and less personal influence. Manning gave people a sense of participation and personal involvement. Sadly, that's totally gone today.

[jdobbin]

It would seem you now agree with me. I don't recall Manning's party(s) disowning the idea but certainly after the merger with the PCs the very smell of the idea was buried to be forgotten. And Harper indeed is no longer a champion of the idea, or pretty much all other Reform/Alliance ideas, for that matter.

I think it is safe to say that Harper and Manning are not on the same page when it comes to free votes. It is not a priority for Harper who considers politics as war. Step out of line and face the consequences.

If you are correct that our kids will have to wait a very long time, you should not be surprised if the voter turnout continues to decline. People tend not to get enthusiastic about a process where they feel less and less personal influence. Manning gave people a sense of participation and personal involvement. Sadly, that's totally gone today.

I don't even know that in a free vote that people would turn out. Look at the countries that you mentioned and what their voter turn out is.

Edited August 19, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

I think it is safe to say that Harper and Manning are not on the same page when it comes to free votes. It is not a priority for Harper who considers politics as war. Step out of line and face the consequences.

I don't even know that in a free vote that people would turn. Look at the countries that you mentioned and what their voter turn out is.

The problem is that "free votes" are never truly free where the party leader might not sign nomination papers for the MP candidate. In the US the party leadership has absolutely nothing to say about who runs. Only in an extreme case will a President disavow his own party candidate such as David Duke in Louisiana, who was a white supremacist KKK leader.

[normanchateau]

"Canadians unhappy with Tories: Poll

Don Butler , Canwest News Service

Published: Wednesday, August 20, 2008

OTTAWA - As prospects for a fall election grow, a new survey indicates public satisfaction with the Harper government has deteriorated since last fall.

The extensive survey, conducted for the Privy Council Office, found Canadians are split in their judgment of the government's performance, with 34 per cent positive and 35 per cent negative. The rest are neutral.

The results offer scant encouragement to a Conservative government that nonetheless seems eager to trigger an election this fall. In nearly every policy area, the public mood is noticeably more sour than it was late last year.

The government gets some of its worst marks for accountability, a supposed priority area, with just 28 per cent positive and 42 per cent negative. Only on climate change is its performance more harshly judged.

Ominously for the Conservatives, the survey found that satisfaction ratings have declined across the board since December, even in areas where the government's marks are still positive.

The less-than-favourable findings raise questions about why Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been so vigorously rattling election sabres in recent days.

"The simplest answer to that is that they might do better now than they would a year from now," said Barry Kay, a political scientist and polling expert at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont."

Full story:

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix...dd-1529e35083fa

Dion would be wise not to trigger an election but simply wait for the continuation of the Conservative implosion.

[jdobbin]

Dion would be wise not to trigger an election but simply wait for the continuation of the Conservative implosion.

Think Harper might be worried that it will only get worse and go to the polls himself.

Edited August 21, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Think Harper might be worried that it will only get worse and go the polls himself.

'Round and 'round and 'round we go. Whenever you are reminded that he cannot call an election, you keep on saying he could simply go to the GG and say that Parliament has lost confidence in him. You know this is disingenuous; he would lose too much support from such a flagrant breach of promise.

[Vancouver King]

There is a whiff of Tory blood in the air. Now reduced to a mugs game of how bad will it get, the Tory brain trust has made the decision to roll the dice sooner than later.

Who can blame them? The 300 pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the PMO is the unfolding economic dislocation - a direct result of America's housing and credit collapse. There is a developing consensus that the worst is yet to come stateside - perhaps 3 million more homes in foreclosure and another major bank near insolvency - with huge and delayed implications for the Canadian economy.

Trampling their own fixed election date law is eminently more attractive than braving the hustings in the middle of a 2009 recession of uncertain depth. The country will have a new govt by Christmas.

[jdobbin]

Trampling their own fixed election date law is eminently more attractive than braving the hustings in the middle of a 2009 recession of uncertain depth. The country will have a new govt by Christmas.

Harper is certainly talking about pulling the plug himself rather than waiting for a vote or the fixed election date. Just anoher broken promise on his part and one he never meant to keep in the first place.