Feb 21/04 - Latest Opinion Poll

[maplesyrup]

Feb 21/04 Ipsos-Reid for globe & CTV

1,059 polled Feb 17-19

Cda

Bloc 11%

CPC 27%

Lib 36%

NDP 17%

green 4%

Other 5%

BC

CPC 33% up 1

Lib 26% down 1

NDP 26 down 1

AB

CPC 47 down 11

Lib 28 up 8

NDP 18 up 10

SK/MA

CPC 33 up 3

Lib 29

NDP 29 down 5

ON

CPC 29 up 3

Lib 46 up 5

NDP 18 down 3

QC

Bloc ?

CPC 10 unc

Lib 30 down 1

NDP 9 up 1

AT

CPC 36 up 4

Lib 39 down 8

NDP 18 up 6

Does anyone know Bloc % in Quebec?

[Goldie]

Quebec

bloq = 44

Lib = 30

CP =10

NDP = 9

[BigGunner]

What happened in Alberta? Why did the conservatives drop by 11 points? This is the home base of the conservatives and yet they lose ground to the NDP and Liberals?

[August1991]

First, thanks for the breakdown. I hadn't seen that before.

The poll shows the Liberals up 8 to 28 in Alberta and up 5 to 46 in Ontario. I think that's the tip off that this is the poll in 20 on the ++ of the +/- 3% side. (The provincial results work within margins much greater of course.)

Nevertheless, the flow seems to have been staunched. Hardcore Liberal support is likely around 30% or so. These are the die-hard Liberals in the Maritimes, die-hard federalists in Quebec and the Canadian Nationalists in Ontario. Admittedly, a big chunk of the country. They'll accept any Liberal shenanigans.

There are three key questions in my view: 1) Will some of the non die-hard Liberals migrate back in the next while? 2) Will some of the die hard Federalists in Quebec vote NDP or Tory? 3) Will the Canadian Nationalists leave the Liberals if they perceive it as no longer national?

Canadian politics (and Quebec politics) have been paralyzed for the past 30 years or so by the Quebec National Question. This scandal is a direct outgrowth of that paralysis. Something to watch in my opinion, is the way the Liberals in Quebec handle this.

Does anyone in western Canada know who Jean Lapierre is and what he is saying now?

[maplesyrup]

Don't know about what the West thinks about Lapierre but there is a story out today getting huge coverage about how all quebec ministers didn't want an inquiry. Have you seen it?

I believe this story is planted to try and make Martin look credible.

Andrew coyne www.andrewcoyne.com has a good article today in National Post

[Goldie]

BigGunner

I think what may have happened out in Alberta was Ralph Kleins travel habits and then he makes Paul Martin look like a champion of medicare and he supports Belinda. Whos side is he on? Is he drunk again?

[August1991]

Goldie, you are missing the point.

Maple Syrup, thanks for the reference to Coyne. I bought the National Post and read the column. (I stopped buying the NP a few months ago for obvious reasons.)

Andrew Coyne, like Mark Steyn, is a smart guy. Both are smarter than me. But...

I think this scandal is going to open federalist Quebec wide because of the way our PM PM has handled it. He should have stone-walled. It was the only way. (There's still time and his advisors might get the better of him.)

But. Jean Lapierre is now talking about getting to the truth. Hein? In the eyes of Andre Ouellet et al, Lapierre is a BQ/Bouchard federalist. Imagine that! The worst thing is for the Liberals to get into a finger pointing match about who's the real "Canadian/Quebecois".

Worse. There are no federalists in French Quebec as you know them in the west. In Quebec, there are the Trudeau intellectuals, the Charest genuines and the Chretien "I've made my bed and I don't care". And then there are the Levesque/Bouchard insurance policy types and their latest version Lapierre - "I'll rent a room with a bed just in case".

Jean Lapierre is a Brian Tobin. Watch if he's unleashed!

Back to PM PM. There is no way there can be an open enquiry. PM PM is ambitious, egotistical, not too smart, but he's no fool. This is Nixon promising the largest, widest FBI investigation in US history to get to the bottom of a third-rate burglary involving a handful of zealots with a screw loose or two. Right.

Within hours, Nixon called the dogs off. He survived an election and got sucked in on tapes and a ridiculous argument about executive privilege. His weakness was conniving inferiority.

The weakness of our PM PM? Ego. A Greek Drama!

[maplesyrup]

Another complication for PM Martin is Democracy Watch. They are making an ethics complaint concerning Martins ties to Earnscliffe.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

Rejecting Devine is also a plus for CPC.

Can the liberals rebound in Quebec?

Other weblogs of interest:

paul wells at Mcleans: http://www.macleans.ca/paulwells

warren kinsella http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm

[August1991]

Thanks for the links. Paul Wells is the best of the lot.

This scandal is a Quebec federalist scandal. If Martin (Lapierre)goes into Ouellet and Pelletier, it will be a mess. Pelletier was mayor of Quebec - a straight guy (political but straight). He balanced the whole deal well. (Les deux sens de balancer...) Then, he went to Ottawa. English Canada has to deal with guys like him if Canada will exist as a country. He and Ouellet are federalists for gawdsakes.

If PM PM kisses these guys off, then he can kiss off the loyalty/support of X others. What's a political party? (Ask John Crosbie...)

Now then. Is Martin is trying to pull a Mulroney? That is: Does he want to get Quebec on side with honour. There are many federalists in Quebec who would accept such and in an ideal world, it would be possible. Unfortunately, few of them are Quebec Liberals and more unfortunately, as Mulroney learned, I don't think English-Canada will accept it - in 1965, maybe - but not now.

The country once again hangs in the balance - like all those compromises leading up to Lincoln.

[maplesyrup]

We live in interesting times. looks like Martin is going to publically diss Pelletier & Ouellet, maybe tomorrow.

I get the impression Martin wants a spring election before the new leader of CPC has a chance to gell.

[August1991]

Our PM PM is doing everything against Liberal principles. Does he have a death wish?

Spring election? Bad idea. (In a few months everyone will forget.)

Take on Copps? Lose-lose. (Italian or UN Ambassador?)

Let the A-G give a press conference? Dumb.

Spread this crisis out by making a big deal and then of course, a week later, firing a bunch of guys. What?

Is this guy Nixon? Will people have web sites in a few years about how his Quebec advisors were closet separatists who planned it all?

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the best thing for the Tories is to choose Harper and have Clement and Stronach run as candidates in Ontario.

(Harper should let them know in private they're in the cabinet - both are young, after all. In public, Harper should say - and they should say - we can get along. If there is a cabinet to be formed, our leader will do it with the people Canadians will elect. IOW, populist humble pie.)

[maplesyrup]

Probably good timing for Liberals to get scandal stuff out of the way during CPC leadersip race - they are preoccupied

[August1991]

Good timing? Get scandal stuff out of the way? CPC preoccupied?

I don't think you understand the gravity of this scandal. This is the 1976 Air Traffic Controller strike combined with tax payer money, Latin face and Quebec aspirations. IOW, this affects English Canada and French Canada.

This is TERRIBLE timing. PM PM chose a short-term cabinet in preparation of an election. He is now pedalling every which way to put it all back together because he can't keep his cabinet together until October. He HAS to call an election soon.

In naive, pre-renaissance Canada, we think (believe) the Liberals are like the CPSU or the Pope. They are perfectly competent and knowledgeable about everything. THEY'RE NOT. They are NOT infallible. The LPC are human and bungle. We are all watching this happen in real time. These guys have no plan! They are making this up as they go along.

Evidence? Apart from what you can see on your own, this scandal critically concerns the relations of French and English Canada. (I'm not French by origin, rather a Newf in fact, but Canada's history is, well, Canada-East and Canada-West. Westerner? Sorry, but kinda true.) How these relations are managed matters.

Today's "firings" are opening salvos. PM PM humiliated Ouellet but allowed full pay. (Martin is no franco. Trudeau would have fired the guy outright.)

End of story? Are these guys taking a dive? More likely, an opening salvo.

Gawd, whadda mess.

[udawg]

Good timing? Get scandal stuff out of the way? CPC preoccupied?

This is TERRIBLE timing.

Name a better time for this to come out, from the LPOC point of view. Other than soon after the election, which I'm arbitrarily removing as one of your choices because it's just too obvious.

Would it be better for them if this came out before Chretien resigned? Probably, Martin wouldn't have to answer the questions, and he'd come in looking like the knight in shining, non-corrupt armour.

Actually, I seem to have answered my own question. Nonetheless, this is still a better time for it to come out than, say, 2 weeks before the already-called election.

Another bad time would have been before the merger of the CA and the PCs. Why? Because this would have caused even more people to pay attention to the merger, looking for a viable alternative. Members of the new CPC would have looked long and hard at who they would choose as the new leader. Oh, wait. We still haven't done that.

Maybe this was pretty bad timing. For something that they didn't have much control over.

[August1991]

Name a better time for this to come out, from the LPOC point of view. Other than soon after the election, which I'm arbitrarily removing as one of your choices because it's just too obvious.

Well, exactly. Professionals would have waited. Nixon did.

Would it be better for them if this came out before Chretien resigned? Probably, Martin wouldn't have to answer the questions, and he'd come in looking like the knight in shining, non-corrupt armour.

Duh. Why didn't Martin wait? Well, Chretien wanted a February hand off but Martin wanted something earlier. Martin won and the Fraser press conference happened once Chretien was a has-been... Why? Martin couldn't wait.

Now, this matters if you believe in the way the rules work...

Another bad time would have been before the merger of the CA and the PCs.

Do you believe the LPC cares about what the CA/PC do (does)?

Well, they might soon but it will be a strange experience for them.

[August1991]

Maybe this was pretty bad timing. For something that they didn't have much control over.

On second thought, your last comment is critically wise. How did this all start? Did the Liberals have no control over what the A-G did or said? In their mind, they had complete control over the A-G. (Think: This is Liberal Ottawa.)

Nevertheless, you have a point.

I have a suspicion that PM PM has such an ego that he told the A-G "Tell the truth." But in his mind, he thought, "I'm so good, I'm better than all the others. l'll manage even when the truth is told."

Result? Ego. Greek Tragedy.

[Galahad]

Our PM PM is doing everything against Liberal principles.  Does he have a death wish?

He's going against the Liberals' principles? But I (and many others I'm sure) thought that Chretien killed all of them.

You know, I trust that PM PM is doing everything correctly now.

Why else would so many of the brilliant talking heads today believe that while the Liberal Party is heading down in the polls, Paul Martin is heading up, and up, and up?

And isn't that the only way the Liberals can comfortably survive this time around.....if we start believing that there is a new sheriff in town?

We've got an honest guy for once, THAT'S for sure. And I'm comfortable with his abilities also, although I wouldn't mind double checking on that one with Presto or Super Mario, just to be 100% sure.

[August1991]

He's going against the Liberals' principles? But I (and many others I'm sure) thought that Chretien killed all of them.

Chretien kill the principles? Chretien was the epitome of Liberal principles. He would have stayed in power forever. In private, Chretien accurately said "I'm at 60 in the polls. I must be doing something right. I don't care what the complainers say."

If you're a Liberal, let me show you this same idea a different way. One of Trudeau's son was recently quoted as saying that his father told him not to get into politics because of all the distasteful things that a politician must do.

IOW, a cursory examination of Canadian history (post 1896) will show that the federal Liberal Party exists for one sole purpose: to have power.

And isn't that the only way the Liberals can comfortably survive this time around.....if we start believing that there is a new sheriff in town?

We've got an honest guy for once, THAT'S for sure.

Are you on drugs? Do you really believe PM PM is honest and sincere?

(He wants to be King of the Castle. Full Stop.)

But here's the question: If he wants to be King, why is he doing what he's doing? That is, why is he shooting himself in the foot? Is he a Nixon? "I gave them a sword..." or "I fouled up in the one thing I was supposed to be really good at: politics."

Well, to be honest, I don't think PM PM is as interesting as Nixon. For starters, the stakes are not as high. But in addition, the case of PM PM can easily be explained with one word: hubris.

[August1991]

I hate to add a post to my own post but can you imagine the number of Liberal Party backbenchers who now realize they made a BIG mistake supporting PM PM? They could have had Chretien, won re-election and had Bob as an Uncle.

Instead, they've got THIS. As Dave Barry would say, they are in SHOCK.

[Galahad]

He's going against the Liberals' principles? But I (and many others I'm sure) thought that Chretien killed all of them.

Chretien kill the principles? Chretien was the epitome of Liberal principles. He would have stayed in power forever. In private, Chretien accurately said "I'm at 60 in the polls. I must be doing something right. I don't care what the complainers say."

If you're a Liberal, let me show you this same idea a different way. One of Trudeau's son was recently quoted as saying that his father told him not to get into politics because of all the distasteful things that a politician must do.

IOW, a cursory examination of Canadian history (post 1896) will show that the federal Liberal Party exists for one sole purpose: to have power.

And isn't that the only way the Liberals can comfortably survive this time around.....if we start believing that there is a new sheriff in town?

We've got an honest guy for once, THAT'S for sure.

Are you on drugs? Do you really believe PM PM is honest and sincere?

(He wants to be King of the Castle. Full Stop.)

But here's the question: If he wants to be King, why is he doing what he's doing? That is, why is he shooting himself in the foot? Is he a Nixon? "I gave them a sword..." or "I fouled up in the one thing I was supposed to be really good at: politics."

Well, to be honest, I don't think PM PM is as interesting as Nixon. For starters, the stakes are not as high. But in addition, the case of PM PM can easily be explained with one word: hubris.

Yes the Liberal Party exists for one reason only...to be in power. Does there exist a political party that does NOT want to be in power? They just set themselves up to be second banana?

And yes Paul wants to be King. By definition every politician wants to be King of something. For some their limitation is being King of their riding...for others its King of the country.

I prefer wealthy politicians like Martin. I know they won't be sticking their noses in the trough. The only thing that would compel a man in his position to want to be PM is to leave a legacy. They thus try their best & are honest. Bush falls into this category also.

And I'm not a die hard Liberal....I swing with whichever party leader impresses me with their vision and/or honesty. I voted Alliance the last few elections (Manning is a political god)...but since Mr Sleaze-Harper took over I've crossed over. Paul's my man now.

As to your question:

"Do you really believe PM PM is honest and sincere?"

YES I DO! And so do Paul Wells, Mark Steyn, Gordon Gibson, David Frum, to mention but a few.

Don't YOU???

[August1991]

The whole point!

I have no objection to people who want to be winners. Heck, nothing would ever happen if some people were not ambitious. I don't criticise Liberals for wanting to govern.

My question is:

WHY IS PAUL MARTIN BEING A COMPLETE DORK AND THROWING AWAY THE POWER HE COULD HAVE HAD?

Is that clear enough?

[Galahad]

My question is:

WHY IS PAUL MARTIN BEING A COMPLETE DORK AND THROWING AWAY THE POWER HE COULD HAVE HAD?

Is that clear enough?

Clear as a bell.

However, I will not answer your question until you answer mine. REMEMBER? I asked you whether YOU believe, as do Paul Wells, Mark Steyn, Gordon Gibson, David Frum, to mention but a few, that our PM PM is a very honest and sincere man?

Is that clear enough?

[August1991]

I don't know whether the people you quote believe that PM PM is honest and sincere. Take Mark Steyn for example... He seems so fed up with current Canada that the Devil knows what he believes.

As for what I believe (does it really matter)?

Was PM PM prepared to lie to become PM? I have no doubt, yes.

Is he sincere? Not always in what he says.

Is he honest (in the sense of not stealing money)? Here, I'd say that he is honest. Paul Desmarais has ensured that he and his children will not have to worry. PM PM will not steal from the public trough for his personal expenses. (You made the same point.)

"Accept" money for party expenses? Yes, he would. (Tory John A famously sent a telegram requesting more money. Chretien may have put an end to this, with no help from pre-PM, PM.)

IOW, are you asking me whether PM PM is an honest, sincere, good Canadian? Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (and National Security is the first basis of a brief).

[Goldie]

on where his ships are flagged:

    "The overwhelming majority of its ships carry the Canadian flag, and it pays taxes in Canada…. Let me be very clear, this is a Canadian company, pays its taxes in Canada, and the bulk of its operations are right here in Canada."

Paul Martin, CBC, February 4th

~ Clear enough: 17 of its ships fly the Canadian flag, 19 fly the flags of other countries

STEYNONLINE February 21st 2004

So sorry Galahad, seems Steyn would believe the opposite of what you claim. I'm pretty sure Frum would be horrified that you included him and Steyn in this axis of paultry punditry.

Paul Wells has admitted to not knowing anything about politicians and how Ottawa works so I would imagine he does believe Paul Martin, if only because he needs to keep the door open to Liberal brass as his paycheck depends upon it.

[Galahad]

on where his ships are flagged:

    "The overwhelming majority of its ships carry the Canadian flag, and it pays taxes in Canada…. Let me be very clear, this is a Canadian company, pays its taxes in Canada, and the bulk of its operations are right here in Canada."

Paul Martin, CBC, February 4th

~ Clear enough: 17 of its ships fly the Canadian flag, 19 fly the flags of other countries

STEYNONLINE February 21st 2004

So sorry Galahad, seems Steyn would believe the opposite of what you claim.

Oh yeah? So where did Steyn prove that Mr. Martin was dishonest in that statement? 17 ships flying Canadian flag IS an overwhelming majority compared to the 19 that fly the flags of 9 or 19 other countries. No?

Given enough encouragement, Steyn will try to prove Jesus Christ a liar.

Remember the time Steyn thought of renaming his butt in honor of Chretien and how he could already hear his more intelligent fans remarking ... "Mark's talking out of his Chretien again" at times?

Well, Goldie, the above is one of those times. Sorry you didn't catch it.