are we underestimating Dion?

[Wild Bill]

There's no question that I'm influenced by my biases. In fact, I've never met a person whose biases didn't influence their judgment.

For the Liberals, nothing very dramatic needs to happen. All they need is a few percentage point shifts in the votes in traditional Liberal leaning electoral districts in Ontario and Quebec to put them over the top. It's the Conservatives who have high hurdles to overcome. And, where it matters most, Ontario and Quebec, they're not making the necessary gains. In fact, their recent "political base pandering" pronouncements about doctors, arts funding, etc. diminishes their hopes in those areas, in my view.

Ah, but if you want people to give credence to your predictions you need MORE than just your biases! You need well thought out REASONS why the Liberals would get that "a few percentage point shifts". All you have given is your very last sentence about those "pandering" pronouncements. Everything else is just your wishes.

If you want people to put their vote on YOUR choice you have to give them good reasons, or at least what SOUNDS like good reasons to them.

"And if my granny had wheels she wouldn't bump her ass when she hopped", to mix metaphors!

[madmax]

It's not difficult to figure out Harper. He's so eager for an election he's peeing his pants in anticipation despite his conveniently forgotten "fixed election dates."

Word is they are stinking up the joint in the by elections. Have no idea why, but unless there is some kind of campaign blitz, they are not going to any impact and are losing ground to the LPC in Ontario and Quebec.

Dion, if he's smart, will let the HoC reconvene and bring down the government when it is right for him, not right for Harper.

Yes, put the LPC before the country.

The country should see a little more of the Harper melt-down that will inevitably happen when thrown off script.

..... an imaginary Harper meltdown......

Dion likes Dogs.

Screw Kyoto.

[capricorn]

The Tories keep saying there won't be a debate prior to an election. There certainly won't be one while they have a minority. However, they were letting that private member's bill roll right along until this week that was a pretty strong indication that was going to raise the criminality of abortion.

The bill raised enough controversy that it was withdrawn. Any proposed legislation that could be misinterpreted regardless of its subject content should be pulled. This manner of proceeding is not exclusive to the bill in question.

Although Mr. Epp and the Tories had insisted that the bill would not affect abortion rights, doctors and Quebec women's groups called it a possible slippery slope to criminalizing abortion, and it became an issue in the two Quebec by-election campaigns.

Mr. Nicholson said the government would instead table a bill making a victim's pregnancy an aggravating factor in an assault case that would lead to a longer sentence.

"It'll be straightforward and the bill will not be open to misinterpretation," Mr. Nicholson said.

He added later, "The government and the Prime Minister [have] been very clear on this, that we are not reopening the debate on abortion."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Abortion is a bread and butter issue.

It certainly is a bread and butter issue for the pregnant woman who can't afford a child.

It is going to take more than Harper saying he won't re-open the debate on abortion.

What more will it take? The fact that the bill was withdrawn is an indication that the Conservatives are heeding the red flags raised by the bill's critics. I have had enough experience interpreting legislation to know about unintended consequences after the fact. The Justice Department lawyers don't always get it right.

[madmax]

If Dion was ready for an election he wouldn't have voted with the government every time to prevent one.

The Liberals are not only broke but their riding system of campaigners and volunteers is in tatters in many parts of the country, especially Quebec. Every day he can delay is another day that they can pass the bucket at more meetings and raise a little more money.

I think you underestimate the LPC brand and riding association strength. Where the LPC are strong, they can hold off a challenge from any party, no matter what nonsense comes from Dions campaign.

THis is not the case with the CPC in Ontario and Quebec.

Harpers loose lips cause him to lose elections and he hasn't grown up yet. Money cannot overcome this, unless Mr. Harper is prepared to hide throughout the campaign, the way he has candidates hide during one.

Dions going to get stabbed by his own, the party brass is still calling the shots.

[Stephen Best]

Ah, but if you want people to give credence to your predictions you need MORE than just your biases! You need well thought out REASONS why the Liberals would get that "a few percentage point shifts". All you have given is your very last sentence about those "pandering" pronouncements. Everything else is just your wishes.

If you want people to put their vote on YOUR choice you have to give them good reasons, or at least what SOUNDS like good reasons to them.

"And if my granny had wheels she wouldn't bump her ass when she hopped", to mix metaphors!

Wild Bill, a review of my posts will show that I have met or exceeded the level of scholarship generally exhibited on these fora. This includes the level of scholarship you offer. If you're interested in the "few percentage point shift" argument, review past election results available at Elections Canada, particularly drill down to the polling station results. To help you, the URL is Elections Canada Past Elections. As a political consultant and campaign strategist, this is what I do every election, and will be doing in the next federal election.

Are people voting on our predictions about the outcome of the next election?

Edited August 26, 2008 by Stephen Best

[jdobbin]

The bill raised enough controversy that it was withdrawn. Any proposed legislation that could be misinterpreted regardless of its subject content should be pulled. This manner of proceeding is not exclusive to the bill in question.

The only reason it is being withdrawn now is that an election is imminent. Before now, this was incremental Conservatism of assigning rights to the fetus and the beginning of criminalizing abortion.

It certainly is a bread and butter issue for the pregnant woman who can't afford a child.

This is how the right wants to frame the debate? Is is a bread and butter issue for women to make sure they are not forced by law to carry a fetus to term.

What more will it take? The fact that the bill was withdrawn is an indication that the Conservatives are heeding the red flags raised by the bill's critics. I have had enough experience interpreting legislation to know about unintended consequences after the fact. The Justice Department lawyers don't always get it right.

Forgive me if I think the only reason the private members bill was withdrawn was because there is an election coming. They only heeded the red flags days before the election?

If they the Tories had a majority, they would not have pulled the bill and would have begun the process of criminalizing abortion.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill, a review of my posts will show that I have met or exceeded the level of scholarship generally exhibited on these fora. This includes the level of scholarship you offer. If you're interested in the "few percentage point shift" argument, review past election results available at Elections Canada, particularly drill down to the polling station results. To help you, the URL is Elections Canada Past Elections. As a political consultant and campaign strategist, this is what I do every election, and will be doing in the next federal election.

Are people voting on our predictions about the outcome of the next election?

Forgive me. I wasn't questioning your scholarship. Rather your partisanship!

Your arguments always strike me as trying to persuade more than just give an objective comment. You want the Liberals to win! That seems obvious to me in virtually every one of your posts.

You're entitled to those wishes, of course. I just take exception to that style of persuasion! A campaign manager might say "A few points is all that is needed!" I would rather hear someone tell me "Here is WHY a shift of a few percentage points is not only all that is needed but is also LIKELY TO HAPPEN!"

It's my fault, really. I've always been a bit contrary. Cheerleading has always bothered me. It has never inspired my loyalty but rather raised my suspicions. I was a salesman too long, I guess. I've walked away from many a deal because of too strong an odor of hype. Usually it proved to be the right move.

That's why I followed Manning. He appealed to my head rather than my heart. To me, appeals to the heart are usually the approach of a carnival barker, trying to separate me from my money.

So I'm not slamming you, just asking for deeper responses!

[Stephen Best]

Your arguments always strike me as trying to persuade more than just give an objective comment. You want the Liberals to win! That seems obvious to me in virtually every one of your posts.

Wild Bill, let me also apologize if my response seemed somewhat strident.

As for my partisanship, I'm not pro Liberal, although I would prefer that the Liberals win the next election rather than the Conservatives. What I am "pro" is sound environmental policies, progressive social policies, and responsible economic policies. The Conservatives do not represent a party that can deliver those policies. The only other party that might form the next government, the Liberals, may make some progress in the areas that concern me. They are the lesser of evils, so to speak.

[M.Dancer]

In answer to the question; are we underestimating Dion? My answer is, does he wear loafers or does someone tie his shoess for him?

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill, let me also apologize if my response seemed somewhat strident.

As for my partisanship, I'm not pro Liberal, although I would prefer that the Liberals win the next election rather than the Conservatives. What I am "pro" is sound environmental policies, progressive social policies, and responsible economic policies. The Conservatives do not represent a party that can deliver those policies. The only other party that might form the next government, the Liberals, may make some progress in the areas that concern me. They are the lesser of evils, so to speak.

Then we are more alike than we differ. We both hold our noses as we vote for lack of a strong choice!

I had high hopes for Reform but I think they got in too much of a hurry. To have made the progress they had in starting from nowhere and in less than a decade becoming the Official Opposition was extraordinary! Then they thought it would be a good idea to "unite the right" and merge with what was left of the old PC's. The PC's have wound up running the show by making the larger party into a clone of their own Mulroney party. I found it ironic indeed how there was so much talk of Harper getting advice from Mulroney when he first became PM of the new CPC. There seemed to be a lot of historical revisionism going on to make Mulroney look better in the history books. This seemed doubly ironic to me considering how Harper had done his best to demonize Mulroney when Reform was a competing party.

Then came the Schneider scandal! Harper found himself being tarred with Mulroney's Brush and couldn't dump the connection fast enough!

Looked good on him!

Oh well, maybe I'll get another good choice before I die...but it's definitely not Dion!

Edited August 26, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Stephen Best]

Then we are more alike than we differ. We both hold our noses as we vote for lack of a strong choice!

I had high hopes for Reform but I think they got in too much of a hurry. To have made the progress they had in starting from nowhere and in less than a decade becoming the Official Opposition was extraordinary!

While I didn't share Reform's view of "good policy", in my view Preston Manning should be counted as a truly great Canadian. If he hadn't pushed so hard for fiscal responsibility I doubt that the Liberals would have been so aggressive at dealing with the deficit and Canadian finances in general.

[peter_puck]

While I didn't share Reform's view of "good policy", in my view Preston Manning should be counted as a truly great Canadian. If he hadn't pushed so hard for fiscal responsibility I doubt that the Liberals would have been so aggressive at dealing with the deficit and Canadian finances in general.

I would agree he was certainly a important figure, however, I think the reason the Liberals were able to fight the deficit was that they basically unopposed during their rule. They did not have to run around buying votes like the current government (or the Liberals once they started to fall) did.

[Stephen Best]

I would agree he was certainly a important figure, however, I think the reason the Liberals were able to fight the deficit was that they basically unopposed during their rule. They did not have to run around buying votes like the current government (or the Liberals once they started to fall) did.

I agree. It's interesting as well that Harper was able to form this government because the left of centre of parties are splitting the vote just as the right of center split the vote for Chretien.

[M.Dancer]

I agree. It's interesting as well that Harper was able to form this government because the left of centre of parties are splitting the vote just as the right of center split the vote for Chretien.

Exactly how many "left of centre"parties are there for them to split a vote?

[Stephen Best]

Exactly how many "left of centre"parties are there for them to split a vote?

Liberals, NDP, BQ, and Green are the major left of centre parties and they command about 65% of the vote between them.

[M.Dancer]

Liberals, NDP, BQ, and Green are the major left of centre parties and they command about 65% of the vote between them.

Wrong on 3 out of 4 counts.

The Liberals are a big tent centrist party, the BQ are nationalist first, centrist second and can win only Quebec where the NDP won zip....and the Greens are just highly irrelevant . Their 4.5% of the popular vote can hardly be used to claim they split the vote in any riding. Indeed.....their best showing had them trounced completely. The inclusion of the Greens is strictly for comic relief.

That leaves the NDP and yes, the are very left of centre.

[Wild Bill]

Wrong on 3 out of 4 counts.

The Liberals are a big tent centrist party, the BQ are nationalist first, centrist second and can win only Quebec where the NDP won zip....and the Greens are just highly irrelevant . Their 4.5% of the popular vote can hardly be used to claim they split the vote in any riding. Indeed.....their best showing had them trounced completely. The inclusion of the Greens is strictly for comic relief.

That leaves the NDP and yes, the are very left of centre.

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Do we have a standard definition of what's left, right and centre? Or is it whatever we feel like?

[M.Dancer]

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Do we have a standard definition of what's left, right and centre? Or is it whatever we feel like?

I doubt it but a yard stick could be:

Left

Believes the Government should be responsible for the happeness of the people

Right

Believes that individuals should be responible for their own happiness

Centrists

Believes that both government and the people are partners in the peoples happiness.

By that, the NDP think more government in everyones daily lives in every way will ensure that we are happy, even as we line up to collect food stamps which we are entitled too and especially if we are women of colour with gender identity problems....

The Tories believe that lower taxes empower people to take control over their lives and do wehat is best for themselves

The Liberals believe the next poll will give them guidence and what ever it is that the electorate want, they are 100% for it. The once elected, they will do what ever it os nthey wanted to do i the first place.

[blueblood]

You don't have problems with the commie payments for ethanol that Harper supports?

Not when the ethanol thing doesn't punish anybody like a carbon tax does.

[jdobbin]

Not when the ethanol thing doesn't punish anybody like a carbon tax does.

It punishes the taxpayer.

[blueblood]

It punishes the taxpayer.

That taxpayer would also benefit from the extra tax money collected from higher revenues and has an option of investing in ag companies who's stocks rise from higher ag revenues. I don't see a carbon tax benefiting many business's bottom lines...

[jdobbin]

That taxpayer would also benefit from the extra tax money collected from higher revenues and has an option of investing in ag companies who's stocks rise from higher ag revenues.

It is the socialism thing you are talking about again.

[blueblood]

It is the socialism thing you are talking about again.

No, the carbon tax is wealth distribution, the ethanol program is an investment in industry and one of the ways the americans are reducing foreign oil.

[Stephen Best]

Wrong on 3 out of 4 counts.

The Liberals are a big tent centrist party, the BQ are nationalist first, centrist second and can win only Quebec where the NDP won zip....and the Greens are just highly irrelevant . Their 4.5% of the popular vote can hardly be used to claim they split the vote in any riding. Indeed.....their best showing had them trounced completely. The inclusion of the Greens is strictly for comic relief.

That leaves the NDP and yes, the are very left of centre.

Is there some compelling rationale why your personal dictionary of political labels is the correct one, and the one generally accepted by most informed commentators and the political parties themselves is not?

The polices of the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green tend to more socially progressive (hence "left" of centre) than the Conservatives, for example, which would, I submit, be considered "right" of centre. Say what you will, but in the interest of not confusing others I'll stick with the generally understood positions on the political right to left range of our federal parties.

[Stephen Best]

No, the carbon tax is wealth distribution, the ethanol program is an investment in industry and one of the ways the americans are reducing foreign oil.

The carbon tax is a shift of taxation from income tax to a tax on carbon use. It will be good for ordinary people, because the average wage earner has few ways of reducing income tax, but they can conserve fuel and reduce a carbon tax.

The ethanol program is a farm subsidy program--a boondoggle really-- which is having catastrophic environmental consequences and was introduced as a "political bribe" to win the farm vote. It is not reducing foreign oil consumption because foreign oil is need to create ethanol.