Tories making inroads in Toronto: poll

[Keepitsimple]

Things are indeed looking up for the Tories:

More ominous for the opposition parties is the startling difference in the composition of the most

committed voters. Right now, Tory supporters outnumber the other parties in the “fully

committed” voter segment by a margin of more than three to one.

“What this means,” said EKOS President Frank Graves, “is that the significant advantage that

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives now have in public opinion may actually understate their potential

strength in an election.”

EKOS has created a “commitment index” to distinguish voters who are the most committed to

their parties and thus most likely to show up and vote for their choice. The index combines

intentions, attitudes, and past behaviour.

Link to full EKOS poll: http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/cbc-2009-09-23.pdf

Edited September 24, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[M.Dancer]

Pre-writ election numbers are meaningless. If they actually did mean something, Kim Campbell would have had a solid majority. You can't count your eggs until they're in the basket.

*cough*

When Campbell took over the Torys, the torys were at an all time low with Mulroney being extremely unpopular and policies such as the GST and Free Trade irking the electorate as well as being in the midst of a recesssion. The came the Somalia scandal. On top of that, just about all the big names in the party left the ship; Crosby, McDonald etc etc...She had a summer bounce hersel;f, but the party popularity still was in the dumpster.

She didn't stand a chance.

[fellowtraveller]

No they are going Conservative. The green party is one of the most anti union parties in the country. NDPers don't want to see Iggy get into power, he is more pro war then Harper and sense the founding of the Party there has been a large rift between those who are pro war and anit war. The anti war guys will do anything to prevent more blood shed including vote for Harper. That an there are many NDP members in the west who will switch the Conservatives to stop the Liberals from winning. The Liberal narrative has been "we are going to win" and there are people who don't want that. Believe me I know a few.

I don't believe that for a minute, that NDP are joining the Tories to spite the Liberals.

The NDP are at war for many of the same votes as the Liberals, and the NDP is not doing so well, though to be fair neither are the Liberals.

[punked]

I don't believe that for a minute, that NDP are joining the Tories to spite the Liberals.

The NDP are at war for many of the same votes as the Liberals, and the NDP is not doing so well, though to be fair neither are the Liberals.

It just isn't true outside of Ontario. The NDP compete with both parties and there are a lot more voters who vote for the Conservatives or NDP to beat the Liberal Candidate then you think.

[nicky10013]

No they are going Conservative. The green party is one of the most anti union parties in the country. NDPers don't want to see Iggy get into power, he is more pro war then Harper and sense the founding of the Party there has been a large rift between those who are pro war and anit war. The anti war guys will do anything to prevent more blood shed including vote for Harper. That an there are many NDP members in the west who will switch the Conservatives to stop the Liberals from winning. The Liberal narrative has been "we are going to win" and there are people who don't want that. Believe me I know a few.

And if Harper gets his majority, who honestly believes Harper will live up to his promise of pulling out in 2011? If Iggy gets in I see an extension of the mission in some shape or form but I doubt militarily. This really long ceased to be a military conflict. It's more about statebuilding and considering the US is pondering sending another 60,000 troops, 2500 Canadians aren't really going to be needed for security.

As for the rest, I agree. The Greens are far more right wing. However, how many passing NDP supporters know that? Almost no one does. For everyone that doesn't really pay attention to politics, the Greens are a one issue party: the environment. The Environment is by far the biggest dipper issue and could easily pull in a lot of less informed orange votes.

[nicky10013]

*cough*

When Campbell took over the Torys, the torys were at an all time low with Mulroney being extremely unpopular and policies such as the GST and Free Trade irking the electorate as well as being in the midst of a recesssion. The came the Somalia scandal. On top of that, just about all the big names in the party left the ship; Crosby, McDonald etc etc...She had a summer bounce hersel;f, but the party popularity still was in the dumpster.

She didn't stand a chance.

Polls said otherwise. The polls in support showed another Tory majority. The Liberal leader was largely unknown. The writ dropped and all those issues came out in the campaign which was my entire point.

AS for your nice list of things that trounced the Mulroney Conservatives, there's quite the list for the Harper Conservatives as well. Whether it turns out the same is anyone's guess as the situation is admittedly a bit different. However, the parallels are kind of telling.

[madmax]

*cough*

She didn't stand a chance.

She was also, open and honest and factual. I remember her saying some things that made me mad as hell. They were also proven to be true and her vision correct.

[madmax]

AS for your nice list of things that trounced the Mulroney Conservatives, there's quite the list for the Harper Conservatives as well.

Like what? The HST? Harpers position on Iraq? The Harper Conservatives position on Torture? The Harper Conservative position on Afghanistan? The Harper Conservative Position on Free Trade Agreements?

The problem is, that whatever the Harper government position, it is also the position of the Ignatieff Liberals. And regardless of how the Ignatieff Liberals campaign.... it is fully expected the LPC will not do anything differently.

Mind you none of the policy differences or similarities would change a thing in TO.

TO is the Maginot line of the LPC.

Edited September 24, 2009 by madmax

[nicky10013]

Like what? The HST? Harpers position on Iraq? The Harper Conservatives position on Torture? The Harper Conservative position on Afghanistan? The Harper Conservative Position on Free Trade Agreements?

The problem is, that whatever the Harper government position, it is also the position of the Ignatieff Liberals. And regardless of how the Ignatieff Liberals campaign.... it is fully expected the LPC will not do anything differently.

Mind you none of the policy differences or similarities would change a thing in TO.

TO is the Maginot line of the LPC.

Whatever the Liberals do, I'm sure it will be a LOT different than the Conservatives. 10 years ago you probably would've been right. However, there's a big difference between Reform/Alliance which is now in control of the CPC and the PCs of yesteryear. There's a gigantic difference.

As for your list, it must be nice to have a selective memory.

Denying there would be a recession

Denying there would be a deficit

Suspending Parliament

Stimulus

Isotopes

Berating Canadians with mindless attack ads etc.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If Iggy is smart that will be the card he plays if and when an election comes along.

[Wild Bill]

Whatever the Liberals do, I'm sure it will be a LOT different than the Conservatives. 10 years ago you probably would've been right. However, there's a big difference between Reform/Alliance which is now in control of the CPC and the PCs of yesteryear. There's a gigantic difference.

As for your list, it must be nice to have a selective memory.

Denying there would be a recession

Denying there would be a deficit

Suspending Parliament

Stimulus

Isotopes

Berating Canadians with mindless attack ads etc.

If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!!

I WAS a Reformer! I was a riding Director for a couple of terms and still have one of the very first membership cards issued to an Ontario member. I was in the thick of it right up until Day ruined everything.

I don't see how you can be right at all. You'll have to show me before I could ever believe your premise.

[Smallc]

Conservative isn't completely Reform. It has some of the same people, with the same fringe ideas, but it isn't Reform. If it was they wouldn't be in power, and I certainly would never have voted for them.

[jdobbin]

Will the Liberals follow that standard?

The standard that Tories don't follow?

[jdobbin]

You don't even know what term limits means, do you?

Why don't you explain it? As Harper said when he introduced the law, it would prevent the government from calling election when it suited them. You disagree? The constitutional term limit before an election date was five years but the government could call it anytime they wanted save for exceptional intervention on the part of the Governor General. The fixed term limit of four years rather than five for an election was legislated by Harper and the date of the next election was known barring a vote of no confidence. Prentice himself said that the government would stick to that term and would only fall on confidence.

Given Harper's actions, he has set the standard for calling elections earlier or even later than the four year legislated term limit. He can fall back on the Constitutional rule but then his four year term limit before the next election is meaningless. It always has been.

Edited September 25, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Politicians say a lot of things and a lot of the time do the opposite.

As Shady mentioned before, you seem to hold the other parties to a higher standard than the Liberals. You have a VERY VERY VERY well known history of this on this forum.

And he and you have very well known histories as well.

But back to the point, it was not the Liberals who called the last election in defiance of their own law. Try to remember that.

[jdobbin]

It sounds like he has absolutely no clue.

Tell us all about it. What do term fixed term elections mean to you? Was the last election call in defiance of it and why not?

Edited September 25, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I thought the Liberal Goal was to lead the country.

That certainly won't happen if they are over 10% in the polls according the the pollsters. You disagree?

[jdobbin]

Apparently not. Apparently their new goal is to lower support for the NDP, while at the same time, still losing the national elections.

It's funny to hear the things Dobbin comes up with in order to manufacture an excuse.

The Liberals will not win government with the level of support of the NDP where it is.

The only way to break the logjam was to stop being seen to support the government at every turn. At the moment the NDP support is going down. The Liberals will now have to start gaining the growing undecided vote that we are seeing in a lot of these polls now.

[Topaz]

The Liberals will not win government with the level of support of the NDP where it is.

The only way to break the logjam was to stop being seen to support the government at every turn. At the moment the NDP support is going down. The Liberals will now have to start gaining the growing undecided vote that we are seeing in a lot of these polls now.

I don't know if its true, but I've heard that the NDP is need of more money for an election. I thought they had as much money as the Tories.

[fellowtraveller]

I don't know if its true, but I've heard that the NDP is need of more money for an election. I thought they had as much money as the Tories.

They are rumoured to have drained the tank in support of the NDP in Nova Scotia.

That in itself should not stop them from arranging a line of credit in expectation of the govt gravy cheque in January 2010.

Maybe the banks are paying attention and have decided they are a poor risk, or maybe the banks think that with a majority the Tories will act immediately to end the political subsidy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The way forward for the Tories is to eliminate the handle of good administrators that the Liberals have taken hold of. That means public safety and crime prevention as well as foreign policy.

I don't speak for anyone but myself but I can honestly say that I would prefer a domestic focus for this next election.

[punked]

They are rumoured to have drained the tank in support of the NDP in Nova Scotia.

That in itself should not stop them from arranging a line of credit in expectation of the govt gravy cheque in January 2010.

Maybe the banks are paying attention and have decided they are a poor risk, or maybe the banks think that with a majority the Tories will act immediately to end the political subsidy.

They already have a loan guaranteed for 5-8 million. They do own a building worth 6 million eh?

[wulf42]

The Conservatives continue to gain...............things are looking up

maybe there is hope for Canada yet!!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/23/ekos-poll.html

[nicky10013]

If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!!

I WAS a Reformer! I was a riding Director for a couple of terms and still have one of the very first membership cards issued to an Ontario member. I was in the thick of it right up until Day ruined everything.

I don't see how you can be right at all. You'll have to show me before I could ever believe your premise.

Senate Reform; Gay Rights; Immigration.

Most of the people in the top jobs in Ottawa right now are all ex-reformers with the exception of Baird, Flaherty, Clement all because they were apart of the Harris PCs (which was far more Conservative than the federal PC party) and obviously Peter McKay. Firstly, you can't just deny the fact that about 80% of the seats folded into the party were from the Canadian Alliance (I think the PCs had about 12). What happened was essentially a hostile takeover, and you just don't hand the keys of policy over to the guys you absorbed into your own party. Secondly, you don't just dump your entire platform for a Liberal platform for no reason. They wanted power so they ran on what they knew would win. A Liberal platform. The shift happened in what...about a year? How can a guy like Stephen Harper can give up on his ideals in such a short period of time? It's clear, and books by old policy hogs close to Harper confirm this (I WANT to say Flanagan but I'm not sure.). The plan was move to the centre to win a majority and then move back to the far right.

Once you look at the mechanics of what brought Harper to power, it's not hard to understand what exactly has happened. If Harper really did see the light and became a more humane, moderate politician (which, if we've heard anything in the last year, IS NOT TRUE) then can we trust a guy with such lack of ideology that he can shift himself to any side of the spectrum willy nilly to win and actually mean what he's saying? I say no, but then again people actually believe this guy is a moderate.

Edited September 25, 2009 by nicky10013

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Unfortunately most politicians in this country follow the direction of the political wind. To them it, (politics) is about power and control. It isn't about the public good, it isn't about doing a public service it is about them, not us. Many good people have gone into politics thinking that they would make a difference, but somewhere along the way they find a nicely trimmed trough to belly up to and the rot sinks in. Not all politicians are so afflicted but far too many are. The partisan system that robs them of their own and their constituents voices plays heavily into that problem.